Submission to the Review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)
Submitted by:
Date: 04 August 2025
Introduction
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the Review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA). I write from both a professional and personal perspective – as a strategic workforce inclusion practitioner within the Queensland public sector, and as a neurodivergent person in a neurodivergent family.
My work focuses on systemic reform, capability uplift, and creating inclusive workplaces across complex government settings. I welcome the governments response on the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability and support the proposed reforms to ensure the Act is fit for purpose, aligned with human rights standards, and responsive to the lived experiences of people with disability.
This submission reflects my own observations and recommendations – informed by both practice and lived experience – and highlights critical implementation and cultural considerations, particularly within the context of public sector employment and neurodivergent inclusion.
1. The need for reform – shifting the frame
The Royal Commission’s Final Report found the DDA is “not fit for purpose” and fails to adequately protect people with disability from discrimination. I strongly support the government’s position that reform is essential. The focus must now be on how to legislate more clearly, implement more effectively, and embed inclusion as a shared societal responsibility.
My comments below are not intended to restate the Commission’s recommendations but to offer further reflections – particularly from within the workforce policy environment – on how these reforms might be strengthened and implemented.
2. Updating definitions of discrimination
The Royal Commission’s recommendations 4.23 and 4.24 call for an update to the definitions of direct and indirect discrimination. I support this direction and offer the following reflections based on experience supporting inclusion in large systems and navigating these frameworks personally as a neurodivergent person.
- Modernise the definitions to account for cumulative harm and structural exclusion – including policies or practices that appear neutral but produce discriminatory impacts.
- Remove the requirement for comparator groups in assessing indirect discrimination, as this creates unnecessary barriers and often renders unique or intersectional discrimination invisible.
- Explicitly embed intersectionality into the Act. Experiences of discrimination are often compounded for people who are also Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, LGBTQ+, gender diverse, or culturally and linguistically diverse. The legislation should name and respond to this explicitly.
- Introducing a positive duty to eliminate discrimination The Royal Commissions recommendation 4.27 proposes introducing a positive duty on duty holders to actively eliminate discrimination. I strongly support this shift in emphasis, as it reflects what is already evident in the inclusion field: reactive, complaints-based models do not work for those already experiencing disadvantage.
- Introduce a clear and enforceable positive duty for duty holders (e.g. employers, service providers, education institutions) to take reasonable and proportionate steps to prevent discrimination before it occurs.
- Draw on lessons from Respect@Work and the ACT’s Discrimination Act reform to guide implementation and enforcement mechanisms.
- Include expectations for regular self-assessment, action planning, and transparency – supported by practical tools that can be adapted to different sectors.
- Provide tailored capability support for duty holders, especially small businesses and schools, through free, co-designed implementation resources.
Personal reflection:
A positive duty reframes inclusion as a matter of responsibility, not reaction. It prevents harm and embeds expectation that access and equity should be proactively created – not requested after harm has been done. 4. Clarifying the duty to provide reasonable adjustments The Royal Commission’s recommendation 4.26 identified that the duty to provide reasonable adjustments is inconsistently understood and applied. My experience in workforce policy strongly reflects this – particularly around flexible work, where requests for adjustments are still often treated as discretionary rather than rights-based.
- Clarify when the duty to provide adjustments arises, what is requires, and who bears the burden of proof (which should rest with the duty holder, not the person requesting the adjustment).
- Codify key principles from case law to provide clarity and predictability – including that adjustments can be anticipatory and need not be ‘requested’ before being offered.
- Recognise flexible work (including remote work, modified hours, sensory adaptations, and communication preferences) as valid and essential forms of adjustment – particularly for neurodivergent people.
- Invest in manager capability. Line managers are often the practical gatekeepers to adjustments and need training, tools, and cultural reinforcement to apply this duty respectfully and consistently.
Personal reflection:
My family experiences – across school, work and healthcare – show how easily support is denied or delayed simply because systems are uncertain or defensive. Adjustments should be a built- in part of how workplaces and services operate, not a high-stakes negotiation. 5. Addressing systemic discrimination The Commission identified the need for the DDA to more effectively address systemic discrimination (see volume 4, p. 45). I strongly support this and urge the review to enable more proactive oversight and structural reform.
- Enable investigations into systemic discrimination without requiring an individual complaint.
- Fund systemic reviews of policy and program areas (e.g. education, justice, transport, digital services) to identify embedded barriers and exclusion.
- Require inclusive design and co-design processes for any public system or program funded with government dollars – not just for disability-specific services.
- Align with the National Disability Strategy and CRPD, ensuring obligations are harmonised across law, policy, and practice.
- Implementation support and resourcing The Commission (rec 4.25 and 4.28) clearly noted the legislative change alone is not enough – implementation matters. I echo this and highlight that support must be practical, visible, and tailored.
- Provide publicly available, co-designed tools for duty holders to understand and meet their obligations – including policy templates, inclusive language guides, and checklists.
- Develop training and guidance materials that are trauma-informed, accessible, and offered in multiple formats – including video, Easy Read, and translated versions.
- Embed expectations in existing public sector frameworks, such as capability development, workforce planning, and procurement standards.
- Recognise that ongoing reform requires funding, monitoring, and community engagement – not just law reform on paper.
7. Reflections from lived experience
As a neurodivergent person raising neurodivergent children, I have seen how deeply exclusion is embedded in our systems. At school, in healthcare, in community life, and in employment, we encounter environments that were not built with us in mind – where the default settings simply don’t account for difference.
What we need is not special treatment, but systems that recognise the full spectrum of human diversity. I don’t want my children to spend their lives fighting to be understood or accommodated. I want them to grow up in a society where dignity is expected, and where inclusion is the norm.
Conclusion
The Disability Royal Commission made it clear that reform is not just overdue – it is essential. I strongly support the government’s commitment to act on the Commission’s recommendations and welcome this opportunity to contribute.
The reflections in this submission draw from both professional experience and lived reality. I urge the review team to be ambitious, principles, and clear-eyed in shaping a Disability Discrimination Act that truly protects rights, prevents harm, and builds a more inclusive Australia.
Thank you for your leadership and for creating space for voices like mine to be part of this process.