Submission to the DDA review via phone

1. How should disability be defined in the Disability Discrimination Act?

The Criminal Code – Application 12A has some information to consider for changes to the definition of ‘disability’.

The DDA could include where your body moves in a way that is not natural or other people would not understand such as stimming, including rocking back and forth, flapping, eye movements, tics, strange noises, hand movements, pain, numbness, where you have limited mobility or use of limbs, twirling. Singing / making music with a Major body part i.e. chest), repeated sentences or sayings / noises, Echolalia, Autistic meltdowns, and Autistic Burnout and Autistic shutdowns.

I did not know I was autistic and the way I come across in my language, such as speech, could be potentially included, as the expression of speech is different for a person with autism. This could also apply for a person with cognitive disability.

I’m now being denied medical or surgery appointments in some cases. When referred for a surgery, I am denied due to BMI, even with Multiple GP doctor support/ referral for the surgery proceeding. (Breast reduction and abdominoplasty etc), Medical obesity is a disability or must be considered within the DDA in some instances because a person may be unable to lose weight due to their DNA or cultural background. BMI should not be used when a person has a known / clear or identified and recognised disability that has been identified and disclosed by their (GP) and should be accepted as a valid disability and should be allowed surgery to proceed. To use BMI because of internal Policy guidelines is discriminatory and harmful to the individual, especially when the same surgery would happen or occur if there was a car accident or cancer happened, in which case a breast replacement for breast cancer removal should also be permitted when financial hardship is present, especially when the loss cause could further mental and emotional harm to the PWD.

2. What factors should be considered in developing a new definition of disability?

Recognised and permanent Impairments, that cannot be alleviated or corrected with surgery or pharmaceuticals, and is stabilised with their medical team that has diagnosed the condition and treated it to its maximum with no further or significant improvement thing that are out of the scope for a person to naturally or medically corrected / improved

BMI should not be allowed to use to discriminate (as a person with specific cultural background or other DNA profile) especially from previous medical interventions, can no longer reduce their BMI (which is an Outdated calculation)

Hidden disabilities program (sunflower) should be endorsed and promoted throughout Australia’s states and territories to make people more aware of hidden disabilities and signages should also be promoted on MLAK signs and other disabled amenities

3. Would the Disability Discrimination Act be strengthened by expressly allowing claims to be brought for multiple or combined protected attributes?

Yes. It should not be based on one disability. I have more than one disability.

In relation to government programs, the definition of disability must consider more than a person’s primary disability, such as under the NDIS, only the primary disability is considered. PWD should not be further distressed by having to qualify each singular or multiples other complex impairments / disabilities to have it/ them recognised.

It is important to include victimisation under criminal liability sections in legislation and increase the ability for binding decisions in discrimination law and human rights law. There are enforcement issues in federal, state and territory tribunals and commissions. They must be able to apply penalties from the DDA including penalty units listed under state and territory acts. Jail should also be considered for some offences related to harassment, discrimination and victimisation. There must be funding and support to get justice and decisions should be binding and conciliation should be compulsory at the AHRC and EOC’s and Tribunals. Both Commissions and State Tribunals should be able to apply Penalty units and Jail where evidence has been provided that a breach has happened and occurred

4. Could any other changes be made to the Disability Discrimination Act to recognise and provide protection for people with disability who have intersecting identities, or addressing compounding discrimination?

I only know and understand singular identities (and have no opinion to offer in this as I do not associate with or know anyone with this type of intersecting identity, but I do believe that compounding discrimination should be recognised and addressed. Removal of the right to use Internal guideline’s and or Policies as a reason to deny and or discriminate

5. What test should be used to ensure that the definition of direct discrimination is easy to understand and implement for both duty holders and people with disability, and why?

I prefer the comparator test.

Based on my medical experience, there is a test for detriment, where a person is asked questions on the spot and then denied services that would provide a benefit in a discriminatory way. It can be difficult to ask someone to accept proof. It can be extremely difficult for a person with a cognitive issue / disability to assert their rights and stand up to a person or organisation that directly discriminates and uses their “power “/ authority to threaten and intimidate / shame / confuse and lie to a person with a disability and refuse / deny them. And take advantage of them especially when the person with a disability is unable to retain knowledge of their legal rights and cannot find anyone to help fight and advocate for them without that advocate seeking monetary recompense at the financial loss to the PWD

6. How should the burden of proof be addressed in the Disability Discrimination Act?

Other option.

All of these should be considered closely. The UN CRPD must also be considered when changing the burden of proof.

7. How should the definition of indirect discrimination be amended to ensure that it is easy to understand and implement?

Breaking it down into sections so it is understood. In the definition, it should have a clarification note. When using the DDA, often people refer to the indirect discrimination definition which is more vast. Breaking it down to explain how it can be understood would help like the Plain English or Easy Read versions. This would help people using the DDA by themselves to advocate for themselves.

8. Should the reasonableness element in the definition of indirect discrimination be:

It should be retained and supplemented with a list of factors to consider. (option to remove any discovered loop holes that the discriminator may use / find or their legal practitioner use to further cause injury or harm for standing up for their rights and the discriminator and their legal agent should be penalised accordingly. To be amended if it is discovered that this is what is occurring

There are loopholes that people will use to circumvent justice and retain the right to discriminate. Where there are risks to other people, such as communicable diseases, where it is reasonably necessary to protect public health in the DDA, discrimination may be reasonable. However, for example the use of wearing a mask can be discriminatory where there are no exceptions given or recognised by a GP or medical practise and internal policies must be in line with the DDA and state equal opportunities Acts.

9. Should the language of ‘does not or would not comply, or is not able or would not be able to comply’ be removed from the definition of indirect discrimination?

No, it should be kept.

Many companies do not understand indirect discrimination until this point is highlighted to the companies.

10. Should the Disabilities Convention be included in the objects provision of the Disability Discrimination Act?

Yes.

Please refer to sections 8, 9, 10 and 11, 15 (except (6)) and 16 from the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 Victoria. Please see here: https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/in-force/acts/equal-opportunity-act-2010/030.

It is important to include victimisation under criminal liability sections in legislation and increase the ability for binding decisions in discrimination law and human rights law. There are enforcement issues in federal, state and territory tribunals and commissions. They must be able to apply penalties from the DDA including penalty units listed under state and territory acts. Jail should also be considered for some offences related to harassment, discrimination and victimisation. There must be funding and support to get justice and decisions should be binding and conciliation should be compulsory at the AHRC and EOC’s and Tribunals. Both Commissions and State Tribunals should be able to apply Penalty units and Jail where evidence has been provided that a breach has happened and occurred

11. Should the Disability Discrimination Act be expressly required to be interpreted in a way that is beneficial to people with disability, in line with human rights treaties?

Yes.

This would be beneficial.

12. If there was a positive duty in the Disability Discrimination Act, who should it apply to?

Everybody. All companies’ internal policies MUST comply with the DDA. Community organisations often believe they are exempt from requirements, including training. All organisations must understand their obligations. They MUST train every single staff/ volunteer member to understand their obligations. They may try to cherry-pick what they follow and it is not currently enforced. Their obligations are mandatory. Any type of educational institutions, community organisations and businesses should be included in the positive duty.

13. Are there lessons from the operation of the positive duty in the Sex Discrimination Act that could be incorporated into a positive duty in the Disability Discrimination Act?

There is no positive duty in the DDA. It needs to be added … It could only be of benefit. Jail time or harsh penalties will make ripple-out changes. (eventually 30 plus years or more) and slowly but surely change will happen once word gets out that a person went to jail for disability discrimination or penalised greatly … it may become (hidden) as in like what happens with WorkSafe practise where employers use threats to make their staff quiet about it to hide it which gets discovered when an employee / contractor is killed / injured from the employer cutting corners. but the general word is generally out in safe work practise. and this is what the DDA should hope to attain where harsh penalties and jail time is a strong deterrent from committing disability discrimination or human rights breaches

14. What costs and other impacts would duty holders experience in meeting a positive duty under the Disability Discrimination Act?

They would need to provide full and compulsory training and understand what their obligations are to comply with the positive duty. All businesses and community organisations need to be compliant. And familiar with the DDA, they should all be provided with a copy to have in their offices to refer to that is sent out yearly with any or updates and complete training and auditing to be sure they are still knowledgeable about it and enforcing it as well as with new business ownership / transfers etc

15. Should there be exceptions or limits to the application of a positive duty?

They need to apply for an exemption where applicable. Small businesses where they are constrained by their resources could be impacted but this could also become an unnecessary loophole.

A positive duty would help businesses to expand their customer base. Everyone eventually requires assistance or acquires disability. It has benefits to the business too.

It should be mandatory as eliminating discrimination will help everyone by being proactive on discrimination. There should be exemptions granted by application only.

16. Would the creation of a stand-alone duty to provide adjustments better assist people with disability and

duty holders to understand their rights and obligations?

Yes. With full training mandated and mandatory

17. Should the scope of the duty to provide adjustments apply only to the existing areas of public life covered

by the Disability Discrimination Act, or extend to other contexts?

The duty should extend to other contexts as well as the areas currently covered by the DDA. For example, technology and lifestyle changes (in the whole wide world) can create new areas which should when they arise and become normalised (everyday) be covered, and the duty should cover future applications. It could be another 33 years before we update the Act again. The Act should be regularly amended (slightly) in line with these “changes “rather than a complete overhaul and update in 30 plus years’ time or if a PWD disabilities has suffered an extreme loss or life as a result of an undiscovered / discovered loop hole, this needs to be addressed immediately to prevent another person suffering the same fate /detriment

18. Would removing the word ‘reasonable’ from the term ‘reasonable adjustments’ to align the language with

the legal effect create any unintended consequences?

No.

People often ask ‘what is reasonable’ but even where a person with disability meets the cost of the adjustment, a duty holder may try to use reasonableness to justify denying or refusing to consider the adjustment. This can include where a person with disability provides the budget for their carer (at no cost to the discriminator) and their carer and the back up support person (parent) is still refused access. This may also include the way people with disability are treated when exhibiting different behaviours. Accessing a companion card or the national assistance card is very difficult in order to gain access to reasonable adjustments relating to carers. There may be different approaches in different organisations with little education on agreed adjustments.

Having a carer needs to be clarified that there can be 1:1 or 1:2 or 1:3 as in one carer can take care of 3 people etc ( again depending on the care needs of all 3 people we would not expect that the carer would be caring by themselves for high needs clients without back up support ) it is important to have the penalty and or jail terms provided for discriminators who decide to override / overlook the DDA and assume their companies internal guidelines and policies override a Federal Act and the PWD has literally no leg or power to stand on with the commission or tribunals .. these things are necessary to get justice for PWD’s and their carers / loved ones

19. What is your preferred approach to achieving greater fairness and transparency in claims of unjustifiable

hardship? The options are:

• The Disability Royal Commission amendment as proposed as well as the ACCC on Consumer Vulnerability chrome- extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/consumer- vulnerability.pdf with Penalties applied for non-compliance and or jail terms.

20. What are your views on amending the Disability Discrimination Act to consider the nature and extent of any adjustments made and encourage consultation between prospective or current employers and prospective or current employees before making employment decisions?

Employers need to consider the specific requests for reasonable adjustments. The Equal Opportunity 2010 (Vic) is broken down in examples to help people to understand the law, such as in section 13. The factors considered in section 21A of the DDA should also include the factors in the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 s15(6) except (d). The Equal Opportunity Act 2010 sections 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 22A, 23 and 24 should be used in the DDA. Section 24 should be included in the DDA in case someone is not fit to care for children. There should also be references to the ACCC regarding consumer vulnerability

21. Are there other amendments to the Disability Discrimination Act that could support engagement between prospective or current employers and prospective or current employees to better understand the inherent requirements of a role?

The DDA could provide that a person is required to give someone a chance to try doing a job before deciding not to give them the job due to inherent requirements. (there should be a period of training if lack of experience is evident and following the training before denial and clear evidence of how and why (without bias) or deliberate sabotage to prevent a person from actually completing / qualifying for a job role. With an independent assessor to ensure that the training / trial was conducted fairly with notes / assessment taken … in the event it needs to go before a commission or tribunal

22. Should any other amendments be made to the definition of inherent requirements, including factors that should be considered when deciding whether a person could carry out the inherent requirements of a job?

No.

The DDA should align with the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) in its employment sections it should also include The Fair Work Act. and the ACCC under consumer vulnerability.

23. Should the concepts of exclusion and exclusionary discipline be defined in the Disability Discrimination Act?

The DDA should define both exclusion and exclusionary discipline. The Equal Opportunity Act 2010 sections 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 and 43 should be considered when making changes to the DDA for exclusion and exclusionary discipline. This should also include The Fair Work Act and the ACCC’s Consumer Vulnerability.

24. Should there be exceptions or limits on when exclusion is unlawful?

Exclusion and discrimination should only be allowed in a way that aligns with the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 sections on education and discrimination. This includes with the Fair Work Act and the ACCC’s Consumer Vulnerability.

25. Should any of the state and territory provisions relating to exclusionary discipline be adopted in the Disability Discrimination Act?

Yes. The Equal Opportunity Act 2010 provisions should be included as much as possible. This includes the Fair Work Act and ACCC’s Consumer Vulnerability.

26. Would a different approach to exclusionary discipline be more appropriate in the higher education and vocational education and training sectors?

Yes.

A different approach should be taken. Disability education needs to be properly taught at higher education level. Exclusionary disciple needs to be tailored to each level. There must be adjustments for people in different sectors. Bullying must be addressed. Schools are not making adjustments and relying on exclusionary discipline for children. There is only voluntary conciliation, so these issues are not being resolved in a tailored way. There must be compulsory conciliation at the AHRC and if necessary and unresolved at that level dealt with at a state/ territory tribunal level with severe penalties (60 penalty units for a natural person and up to 300 penalty units for a company / school / Organisations employer, education institution or body corporate and or jail terms given to the discriminators.)

27. How could the Disability Discrimination Act be amended to protect people with disability from offensive behaviour and/or harassment?

The DDA should be changed to protect people with disability. State / Territory tribunals should be able to impose jail or penalties, including 6-month or 12-month penalties. People would be forced to stop discrimination / Human Right Breaches or make adjustments. The DDA should align with the penalty units in the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) of up to 60 penalty units for a natural person and up to 300 units for a corporation, organisation, employer, education institution or body corporate. Or jail terms given to the discriminators. (3 months for a repeat offense, then 6 months than 12 months) these could send a strong message and deterrent for too long there has been no justice for any person discriminated against, and Human right Breaches and people are often referred to the Federal Court of Australia, many people with disabilities cannot afford to go to Federal court or FIND a Pro Bono Lawyer to represent them, due to severe financial hardship or are dismissed from community organisations who point blank do not offer up any type of representation, or organisations such as the Disability Discrimination legal services refuses to take on their case based on the preferential treatment of specific clients (i.e. LGTBQ or Indigenous ONLY clients ) there should be penalties for refusing to aid and assist a PWD with any type of case to make a claim before any Commission / tribunal or court leaving them upset, and unable to get any help or justice for their case ……. those that are neither without any type of help or representation and or they dismiss their cases by alleging they have no case or they are at capacity to deliberately harm and frustrate them or if they do, they decide to only pick and or target one part of the complaint instead of the whole situation or multiples attacks on the PWD who has been discriminated against, again denying them justice of any kind or they use tactics to deliberately throw the PWD under the bus in making sure they lose their case. This type of discrimination should not be allowed. And where this happens, this is why AHRC needs to be compulsory conciliation conferences that can administer a penalty unit or a jail sentence against discriminators and if more severe or multiples issues them. A state / Territory Tribunal should also be able to apply Penalty Units or a Jail term against Discriminators. Including legal services refusing to take on a pro bono case aid offer up aid and assistance to PWD with and in financial hardship

28. If the Disability Discrimination Act were to prohibit offensive behaviour and/or harassment, how should these terms be defined?

I have experienced harassment and discrimination.

Offensive behaviour includes suggesting someone requires a carer and insulting someone. It is offensive to say someone is ‘not the right fit’. Or using the excerpt of the relevant part of The DDA Act shown to them to interpret the Act completely opposite and then create and or make / cite Internal Policies (that don’t exist) and refusal to provide them upon request to justify discrimination / exclusion and abuse. Disability Discrimination and Human Rights abuse should not exist nor be allowed under any circumstances; there can be no legitimate excuse to exclude or not make fair and reasonable adjustments and provide full disability amenities and protect those amenities from being misused inappropriately.

Offensive behaviour is also forcing a Person or group of people to comply with a religion when a service like a food bank service is being provided and using tactics to name and shame and harass the PWD into submission by using what is known as the BITE method in an effort to make a person convert their religion to suit the narrative of the religious body providing a food bank service. This should not be allowed where forced prayer into that religious body is made before any PWD is allowed to received a product / service like foodbank services, penalty units need to be applied and or jail term for any religious body that coerces or demands a PWD undertake that religious institutions prayers against the PWD own choice of religious body.

Harassment should include repeat calling, invasive questions, requests for information that are used to discriminate against someone, using and or gaining access to personal information to discriminate against someone. Using their position to commit discrimination or harassment. Taking advantage of the PWD vulnerability as per the ACCC’s Consumer Vulnerability. Harassment should not include asking someone to limit their complaint to a specific insult rather than the circumstances or evidence of behaviour.

29. Should there be exemptions for any behaviour, similar to the Racial Discrimination Act?

Yes. Derogatory terms (or non-Politically correct terms) can (in some cases not all cases), be funny and appropriate.

SOME (not all) Comedians should have an exemption (i.e. Kevin “Bloody “Wilson or Rodney Rude, Nick Giannopoulos. Joe Avati, Jimeoin etc), in a legitimate professional joking capacity and given a clear permit after assessment this can also be by a number of their followers who are asked or questioned about some of their past works and their known uses of certain terminology. (video evidence of their audiences, no former complaints etc.) There should be a disclaimer on the content about the language being used. If people are offended by certain terminology, you should choose not to attend rather than attending and being offended. Warnings should be broadly worded and given visually and verbally just prior to the show as well. if they choose to attend and then become offended and then claim to have not seen/ heard the warnings or aware of the content or not understood the content this person should be removed or remove themselves and their complaints invalidated by whomever they lodge their complaints with and or only conciliated with someone who has evidence of the comedians work and or permit that include specific terminology and proof and evidence of appropriate signage and warnings. People should be familiar with the Comedians prior or upcoming works … however anyone promoting making fun of the Abuse/neglect of PWD / children / adults or fascism or Neo-Nazi, communism, religious cults, under the guise of comedy, should be refused / denied. this needs to be made very clear and specific. If it turns out that a non-comedian has mislead assessors to gain a permit that is the opposite of comedic that promotes/ recruits hate or severe abuse/ discrimination or fascism or neo-Nazi, communism, religious cults etc then harsher jail terms / penalties should be mandatory.

Also of significant note when there has been documented evidence and proof of concerning behaviours, with a diagnosis, there usual behaviours should be noted, / documented including the not so usual, in the event of an unexpected incident, that can be readily provided to Authorities when dealing with a possible situation that may cause harm to public health and or safety to either aid and assist in diffusing the situation, when there are behaviours of concern, this information should be released and provided to legal authorities with an image to be uploaded onto the leap system some of those with an ID, Autism Spectrum Disorder or ADHD or Tics, may not be able to control certain behavioural impulses ( excluding justification for sexual assault / abuse)

30. Given the recent legislative developments, are there any further gaps in the legislative framework that could be addressed by amendments to the Disability Discrimination Act to protect people with disability from vilification?

A person sprouting a Political agenda should not be able to use words such as ‘bigot’ bigoted, and ‘aggressive’ and other derogatory terms towards people with different opinions. Person with a Political agenda / cause or affiliation / religious body should not be targeting or approaching a PWD to achieve their KPI’s in recruitment or forced conversion to a specific religion, including the distribution of printed religious material in letterboxes or other public places like bus shelters or on public transportation to be found or handed out, as a form of harassment, and should face harsh penalties and or jail terms if persistent or they use evasive strategies or the term, “God’s will” to avoid prosecution.

31. How could the Disability Discrimination Act be amended to ensure that it covers policing?

The DDA should be amended to ensure that it covers policing. People with disability are not supported enough by Disability Liaison Police Officers and police to report crimes. Police do not provide automatic adjustments. If a person with disability is charged with a crime, they should be given a chance to use a Disability Liaison Officer. Police should consider disability when engaging with Power of Attorney offences being reported. Police are a little more helpful once a person with disability has a point of contact. These should be requirements under the DDA. Once Police have the full documentation proof of a persona diagnosed disability, they need to provide a DLO to aid and assist them to prevent abuse in Police, too many Police officers turn away or frustrate those with a disability and deliberately turn it into a civil matter which is more harmful mentally and emotionally to a PWD leaving them again with no justice as Police refuse to investigate.

Vulnerable people should be considered during policing. Please see these guidelines: Victoria-Police-Reporting-Guidelines–v12-2_7Mar16_gvr.pdf.

Disability Liaison Officers in Public settings like Tribunals and hospital etc should be able to attend a hearing and intervene in communication where a PWD may be trying to get justice ( like in a Human rights Tribunal ) and the Member is yelling / screaming / threatening them as if they have no disability, and the DLO should be able to intervene to remind the member about the PWD disability needs and to call a rest period if the PWD needs it and is not able to find other support agencies or advocate to support them in bring a case to tribunal the DLO should not just be paper pushers and do nothing else and must be on hand at all times.

32. Are there any specific circumstances or situations relating to policing or justice that should be excluded from the application of the Disability Discrimination Act?

I am not sure. People with disability should not be treated the same as people without disability. There should be a full investigation for people with disability who are accused of crimes to ensure claims are real. It needs to be beyond reasonable doubt. Police should not be trying to make everything a civil matter to deter a PWD from making a complaint about a crime or discrimination abuse the Police need to have a DLO at every Police station available … not just at set times.

33. Could any of the permanent exemptions be narrowed or updated, while balancing other policy considerations?

Yes.

34. Should the Australian Human Rights Commission be given the power to grant special measures certificates?

Yes. It should be given the power to grant special measures. It should also hold compulsory conciliation meetings that carry penalties and or jail terms it is not right that complainants have to qualify for the AHRC to accept or take on their complaint and that they are non-binding and no justice available for a PWD / complainant. they need to be legally binding. Especially is a complainant having evidence to prove their case. Nothing should be forced into a federal court of law when financial hardship is huge for those with a DSP or no other support system in place to get justice or can’t find a legal body to aid or assist them.

35. Should a definition for special measures be added to the Disability Discrimination Act?

Yes.

36. Should a definition for temporary exemptions be added to the Disability Discrimination Act?

Yes.

37. Would you recommend any changes to the legislative process of granting temporary exemptions?

Yes. I recommend it should be changed.

38. How could the protections for assistance animals be clarified for both people with disability and duty holders, including in relation to evidence of training, evidence or standards of hygiene and behaviour that are appropriate for a public place?

The Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) has requirements for people with assistance animals. The DDA should align with the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) requirements. But it should also not give a company the right to auto refuse once clear evidence of the above has been provided / supplied

39. Would legislative amendments or guidance materials be helpful to balance flexibility and certainty, or a mixiture of both?

A mixture of both.

40. Should specific training organisations be prescribed under the Disability Discrimination Regulations?

Yes. It should be accredited under a statutory authority that companies can recognise and look up.

41. Should there be minimum requirements for action plans (such as through guidelines) and what should the minimum requirements cover?

There should be minimum requirements. A disability action plan could be really short otherwise. It would reduce backlogs in the Australian Human Rights Commission and or State / Territory tribunals.

42. Should the Australian Human Rights Commission be able to reject action plans that fail to meet these requirements?

Yes.

43. Should there be a set period of time for which an action plan is valid?

Yes. Things change all the time. They should be up to date at all times. Not just a continuance that is signed off without checking and confirming there is compliance and in force by test drills before a new action plan is provided.

44. Are there any other changes to the action plan process that you would recommend?

Disability action plans should be more similar to each other. There should be no advantages to some agencies over others and they should learn from each other. Also, not just a continuance that is signed off without checking and confirming there is compliance and in force by test drills before a new action plan is provided

45. How could compliance with and enforcement of the Disability Standards be improved?

The Disability Standards should be consistent. All pedestrian walking crossings should be disability compliant. Requirements should be mandatory and enforced. Councils should be asked to contribute to compliance with and enforcement of the Disability Standards. Any old scout buildings need to be updated with Council backed funding to aid the cost and or replacement of anything that needs to be disability standards compliance. Parking with accessibility permits should be free for all councils and private parking spaces across all states / territories and especially in and around hospitals. Including venues and other public spaces. Tradies and trucks taking up and parking in these spaces without legal authority should be appropriately penalised. Parking for those with a Disability parking permit should be free even by the company offering up private parking (inside of a hospital or other private owned / public owned space) that is not covered by local councils. There should be much more disability parking available than there is currently instead of just one or two spaces. There should be heavy penalties for Councils and or businesses in refusing to provide adequate disability parking outside of schools or other places and that are not free.

46. Should the Disability Discrimination Act be amended to encourage relevant duty holders to self-report on

their compliance with the Disability Standard(s) in disability action plans?

Yes. They should be required to self-report. It should also be subject to auditing. Auditors should confirm with people with disability that their reports or evidence is correct and not subject to duress. This is to stop false self-reports from being false and misleading or claim to be abiding when they may not be to avoid compliance. Everything needs to be checked and audited by an independent company and then a second auditor independent of the 1^st company to check that the 1^st Auditors reports are correct and not a case of cash under the table or mates’ rates / benefits. this is how you stamp out discrimination. Nothing worse when someone finds a discrepancy (Public PWD disabilities) calls it out and company flashes their certificate and the breach gets swept under the rug.

47. Could the Australian Human Rights Commission provide additional guidance to duty holders regarding

 how to self-report on the Disability Standards in disability action plans?

Yes. It could provide additional guidance.

48. Are there examples of legislative provisions in Commonwealth or state and territory anti-discrimination

   law that could be drawn on to modernise or strengthen the Disability Discrimination Act?

The Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) should be considered. As well as Fair Work ACL on Vulnerable persons, and as stated previously

The DDA should be changed to protect people with disability. State / Territory tribunals should be able to impose jail or penalties, including 6-month or 12-month penalties. People would be forced to stop discrimination / Human Right Breaches or make adjustments. The DDA should align with the penalty units in the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) of up to 60 penalty units for a natural person and up to 300 units for a corporation, organisation, employer, education institution or body corporate. Or jail terms given to the discriminators. (3 months for a repeat offense, then 6 months than 12 months) these could send a strong message and deterrent for too long there has been no justice for any person discriminated against, and Human right Breaches and people are often referred to the Federal Court of Australia, many people with disabilities cannot afford to go to Federal court or FIND a Pro Bono Lawyer to represent them, due to severe financial hardship or are dismissed from community organisations who point blank do not offer up any type of representation, or organisations such as the Disability Discrimination legal services refuses to take on their case based on the preferential treatment of specific clients (i.e. LGTBQ or Indigenous ONLY clients ) there should be penalties for refusing to aid and assist a PWD with any type of case to make a claim before any Commission / tribunal or court leaving them upset, and unable to get any help or justice for their case ……. those that are neither without any type of help or representation and or they dismiss their cases by alleging they have no case or they are at capacity to deliberately harm and frustrate them or if they do, they decide to only pick and or target one part of the complaint instead of the whole situation or multiples attacks on the PWD who has been discriminated against, again denying them justice of any kind or they use tactics to deliberately throw the PWD under the bus in making sure they lose their case. This type of discrimination should not be allowed. And where this happens, this is why AHRC needs to be compulsory conciliation conferences that can administer a penalty unit or a jail sentence against discriminators and if more severe or multiples issues them. A state / Territory Tribunal should also be able to apply Penalty Units or a Jail term against Discriminators. Including legal services refusing to take on a pro bono case aid offer up aid and assistance to PWD with and in financial hardship

49. What additional guidance materials should be provided to the community, including duty holders, about

the operation of the Disability Discrimination Act or specific amendments proposed in this paper?

It needs to be highly advertised that it has changed. Service providers should be given a copy of the DDA. They should be given a contact in relation to the changes. Every school should have a copy and be given training. Community organisations must do mandatory training including for their disability inclusion officers. Leaders of community organisations should be offered training. People organising events need to be notified that it has changed.

50. How can we ensure the Disability Discrimination Act remains fit-for-purpose into the future?

The DDA is 33 years old. We should be considering where there has been a systematic failure. We should consider where people have been denied by the Australian Human Rights Commission, VCAT and the Federal Court. The information on changes should be compiled for 12-months and look for consistency where there are failures. A mild amendment to the DDA then could happen.

When we can see people actively able to get the justice they need and seek from the commission from legally binding conciliation hearings and or local state and territory tribunals in human rights breaches and hearing that also have compulsory hearings and are legally binding but we need to have penalties and jail terms imposed for any breaches of the ACT to truly see it come to fruition and actively stop disability discrimination. That with training will make a huge impact.

By testing the waters with all the above, we can see if it remains fit for purpose and is / isn’t working or if its being abused by discriminators looking for loopholes to allow them to illegally discriminate, and then if this continues to happen, then we should look to amend the act every 5 – 10 years instead of 33 years amendments should be for where the loops holes are and a full amendment after a significant amount of time

Following up on every complaint issued of if the changes have worked for or against them and collecting this date from commissions and or tribunals will also determine if it remains fit for purpose.

51. Are there any other issues with the Disability Discrimination Act that should be considered as part of this

review?

Legislation should cover all amusement providers and flight services. Additional adjustments for carers should be considered. Coercive control should be a crime against people with disabilities. Shaming of a PWD or vulnerability should be criminalised Abuse and discrimination of a PWD or vulnerable should be criminalised Recreational / amusement / theme parks all need to have a disability price (significantly less than a normal price) allow companion cards (no cost) and fast passes / jump the queue’s wrist bands at no further cost or limitation and should alter and amend their rides to allow those with a medical obesity to fit in their seat on their rides (disability standard) Luna Parks Scenic Ride the entry way makes it very hard to get inside the ride with a larger frame and has an extra small opening .. the only human way a person with a larger frame can get in is by climbing over and Luna park does not provide a step stool is one perfect example of making the door more disability compliant / accessible All flight service providers (small and large) should allow the companion card for either a free ticket for the carer or 75% off the ticket for the price of the carer and 50% off the price of the ticket for the PWD. This should also be for overseas companies providing flight services. as well as provisions for those with a medical condition in obesity … either a business class seat is provided either through registration of the PWD so that the questions are asked so that the company can plan ahead to make fair and reasonable adjustments to make the persons flight a little less daunting and helpful to the carers ( if they need / Require a carer ), they should not be force to pay for a second seat because of their larger frames and or be shamed by staff or other passengers. Especially if the airplane has put in smaller than normal seating to cram in as many people… this also would aid the carer in carrying out their caring roles to aid the person in using / accessing a toilet / bathroom if necessary. If flight service does not have larger seats in economy, then the upgrade to business class should happen at no further delay or issue or cost to the PWD or their carer. Failure to do so breached the ACL and DDA and they should be penalised and or jailed for not making those fair and reasonable requests. It is not right to unfairly penalise those on a DSP or whom have disabilities by making them pay out MORE than they already have for a flight. All flight and travel centres should have a dedicated Disability specialist or phone number they can call ahead to make then request and make the upcoming changes in advance of the person flight or through customs to make the carers role a little less stressful as well as the PWD (if they don’t have a carer).

Any organisations that organise outdoor activities such as camping, / events etc must include on their template’s disability hire amenities and or larger spaces to allow for any accommodations to be altered and changed / added like sensory tents. Carers tents, they also need to have provisions for recognition of a paid support worker.

MLAK keys also need to be Mandated across the state in every business and building to prevent unauthorised use by those with a non-disability

Public transport operators failing to provide sufficient transportations and leaving disabled / vulnerable persons at the bus stop because there is “ no room “ on the bus should be penalised and or jailed… these people might have needs top go to a medical appointment or other specialised place or collect their child due to ill health or other and have made the plans according to suit their needs in transportation and to have a bus company cram pack the bus so there is zero opportunity for any wheelchair or mobility scooter or walking frame or other type disability to be left on the side of the road and have to wait possibly more than an hour till an empty bus turns up is inexcusable !!

Same for Road works company just coming out and setting up their signs and blocking access to a special needs school … some of the kids / teenagers cannot cope with a sudden change in direction and without adequate warnings or signage in place of a pending road closure… this has not given the parents enough time to plan ahead and let their children know or prevent their bus from collecting / letting them off the bus … parents do not need to suffer kids having meltdowns because of changes made without prior warning .. these road companies need to alert the school 1 week in advance so that emails can be sent out to parents and kids same as with special school’s bus routes in blocking off the road that prevents the kids being picked up from their regular collection / drop off spot. Clear notification must be given

More products in aged care and disability sector including portable mobility scooters should be bariatric based

No Interest Loan providers ( Good Shepard services) to not discriminate on the type of disability / condition affecting na disabled person / vulnerable person by picking and choosing the items to be purchased with the NILS loan especially if previous loans have been proven to be allowed / provided and successfully paid and only enhance the persons daily living abilities. Cannot alter and change the terms and conditions contrary to what is on their webpage.