National Disability Research Partnership

National Disability Research

Partnership Submission:

Disability Discrimination Act Review

November 2025

National Disability Research Partnership

Authorised by:

Mary Sayers, (she/her), Chief Executive Officer

Contact details:

National Disability Research Partnership (NDRP)

• Mary Sayers, Chief Executive Officer, redacted, m. redacted
• redacted, Head of Evidence to Action, redacted, p. redacted
• redacted, Commissioned Research Project Manager, redacted, redacted

Acknowledgements:

National Disability Research Partnership (NDRP) acknowledges the traditional custodians of Country throughout Australia. The peoples on whose land we live and work, have lived on and cared for Country for thousands of generations, and this land has never been ceded. We pay our respects to them and their cultures, and to Elders past and present.

Table of contents

• Review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)

  • Background

  • What is needed

• Updating the definition of discrimination

  • a. Alignment with CRPD and Australia’s Disability Strategy

  • b. Recognition of systemic and institutional barriers

  • c. Research exclusion as discrimination

• Positive duty to eliminate discrimination

• Duty to make reasonable adjustments

• Additional amendments to strengthen the DDA

• Conclusion

Appendix 1 Obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with

• Disabilities (CRPD)

Page 1 of 8

Review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)

Background

The National Disability Research Partnership (NDRP) is an independent not-for-profit organisation. Our Board, committees and staff, are majority people with disability. We work in partnership with people with disability and their organisations, researchers, advocates and government. Our role is to support strong, inclusive research that can drive real change in policy and practice.

The NDRP’s vision is policy and practice in Australia are transformed by disability-led research. We do this by funding research done by and with people with disability, strengthening disability research capacity and mobilising evidence for action.

Our guiding principles are:

• Advancing high-quality research that informs disability policy and practice in Australia

• Valuing the knowledge of people with disability in research

• Strengthening disability research capacity

• Sharing research findings widely in useful and accessible ways

The NDRP welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth).

Our submission focuses on the importance of a Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) that

• recognises systemic discrimination,

• embeds a positive duty to eliminate discrimination, and

• addresses the barriers people with disability face in shaping and accessing research and evidence and becoming researchers.

The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) outlines several research-related obligations for state parties. These include ensuring that research is conducted ethically, with meaningful participation of persons with disabilities, and that research findings are disseminated and used to improve their lives and promote their rights. (see Appendix 1). The DDA doesn’t currently recognise research exclusion as a form of discrimination. Failing to offer accessible research participation methods excludes people with disability and is a form of discrimination.

Page 2 of 8

Discrimination in research is widespread but invisible in the current Act. People with disability are often:

• excluded from participating in research,

• denied opportunities to lead or co-produce research, and face inaccessible systems for ethics, funding, authorship, and employment.

• have poorly understood access and inclusion adjustments to enable disability led research and share power, it’s not just physical access or ramps and websites.

• denying funding for support workers or flexible timelines as researchers

• dismissed for their contributions as co- researchers due to ableist assumptions about academic “rigour”.

Students and early career researchers often face multiple barriers to pursuing research careers. Our recent consultation with past, current and future PhD and Masters by Research students found:

• Need for flexibility: Universities and funding systems need to provide more flexibility for part-time study, different approaches and flexible uses of professional development funding.

• Financial barriers: Students with disability face additional costs and limited scholarship options, especially when studying part-time. These financial barriers can have a significant impact on students’ abilities to continue their studies and move into a research career.

• Connection and community: Students with disability sometimes feel alone or disconnected. Peer networks and communities of practice provide important opportunities for connections and information sharing.

• Information: Information about research degrees, support and careers can be difficult to find and are not discussed regularly. Students with disability want access to, plain-language guidance and support on research processes, supports, and career pathways.

• Supervisors: Supportive, informed supervisors play a central role in accessibility and student success. There is a need for more training and resources for supervisors who have less experience in supporting a research student with disability.

• Disability support services: University disability offices need to develop specific expertise around how best to provide supports to research students.

Page 3 of 8

What is needed

The DDA has been in place for over three decades, yet its individual complaints-based framework has failed to address the structural and systemic discrimination that pervades the lives of people with disability. Exclusion is often quiet, procedural, and systemic, but no less harmful.

A modernised DDA must:

a. align with Australia’s commitments under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and Australia’s Disability Strategy,

b. recognise indirect and systemic discrimination,

c. recognise exclusion from research and knowledge production as discrimination, given its profound impact on policy and decision-making, and

d. recognise the direct and indirect discrimination and exclusion of students with disability in undergraduate and post graduate studies.

e. set proactive duties for inclusion rather than waiting for complaints.

Updating the definition of discrimination

a. Alignment with CRPD and Australia’s Disability Strategy

The definition of discrimination should reflect that if a person with disability is unable to have their human rights upheld as defined by the CRPD, that is discrimination. This requires:

• explicit recognition of intersectional discrimination.

• recognition of the right to shape and access research and data (CRPD Article 31).

• recognition of the right to inclusive education at all levels.

b. Recognition of systemic and institutional barriers

The Act’s current focus on interpersonal discrimination overlooks systemic exclusion. Examples from disability research highlight how institutions, not individuals, perpetuate discrimination:

• ethics committees rejecting inclusive protocols as “too complex”,

• research funding bodies without mechanisms to fund access needs,

Page 4 of 8

• academic publishing standards that devalue plain language and accessible formats,

• universities requiring inaccessible processes for onboarding co-researchers with disability.

Unless systemic barriers are expressly recognised as discrimination, these harms will remain unchecked.

Other NDRP recommendations include:

• Updated definition of disability - Definitions must capture fluctuating, episodic, and complex disability and reflect the social model of disability. Disability is not static, nor reducible to diagnostic categories.

• Intersectionality - Discrimination is compounded for people who are disabled and also First Nations, culturally and linguistically diverse, gender diverse, or from other marginalised groups. Intersectional discrimination must be explicitly named in both definitions and protections.

c. Research exclusion as discrimination

The DDA must recognise that exclusion from research, whether as participants, co- researchers, or leaders, is a form of discrimination. Barriers include:

• lack of accessible participation methods,

• denial of adjustments such as flexible timelines, support workers, or accessible authorship processes, and

• ableist assumptions about academic “rigour” that dismiss contributions of co- researchers with disability.

If people with disability are excluded from generating knowledge, they are excluded from influencing the policies that shape their lives.

Positive duty to eliminate discrimination

A strengthened DDA must embed a positive duty requiring duty holders to proactively identify and remove barriers to participation. This would shift the burden from individuals to institutions.

In research and higher education, this would mean:

Page 5 of 8

• universities and funding bodies anticipating access requirements in application and employment processes,

• ethics committees adopting inclusive approaches by default, and

• boards and senior governance structures monitoring compliance with anti- discrimination obligations, just as they currently do for sexual harassment or workplace safety.

Without a positive duty, systemic discrimination remains invisible and unaddressed.

Duty to make reasonable adjustments

The duty to make adjustments must be clarified to ensure it is proactive, consistent, and enforceable. Current practice too often forces individuals to negotiate adjustments at great financial, professional, and personal cost.

Research demonstrates that denial of adjustments for disabled PhD candidates impacts both their academic progression and their sense of belonging. A clear statutory duty would require institutions to embed adjustments into standard practice, not as exceptions.

Additional amendments to strengthen the DDA

• Complaints and enforcement mechanisms should be strengthened to provide systemic remedies, not just individual outcomes.

• Public accountability mechanisms, such as regular reporting and data collection, should be mandated.

• Alignment with other discrimination laws (e.g., workplace sexual harassment reforms) to ensure consistent governance, reporting, and oversight.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the right to participate in public life must include the right to shape the knowledge and evidence that informs it. Modernising the DDA to recognise systemic discrimination, embed positive duties, and ensure inclusion in research will create a legal framework that not only protects individuals but transforms institutions.

The NDRP strongly supports amendments that:

• update the definitions of discrimination and disability,

Page 6 of 8

• introduce a positive duty to eliminate discrimination,

• clarify the proactive duty to make adjustments, and

• ensure systemic, institutional, and research exclusion are recognised as discrimination.

Only then will the Disability Discrimination Act be fit-for-purpose and aligned with Australia’s human rights commitments.

Page 7 of 8

Appendix 1 Obligations under the UN Convention on the

Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)

The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), ratified by Australia in 2008, establishes several obligations for State Parties to ensure that research, data collection, and evidence generation uphold the rights, dignity and participation of persons with disability.

Key CRPD articles relevant to research, data and participation

Article	Focus	Key obligations and relevance
Article 4(3) – General Obligations	Participation of persons with disability	States Parties must “closely consult with and actively involve persons with disabilities, including children with disabilities, through their representative organisations” in decision-making processes concerning legislation, policies and programs. This extends to setting research agendas, designing and conducting research, and ensuring the meaningful participation of people with disability across all stages of the research process.
Article 31 – Statistics and Data Collection	Ethical and inclusive data and research	States Parties are required to “collect appropriate information, including statistical and research data, to enable them to formulate and implement policies to give effect to the Convention.” Data collection must: (a) respect human rights and ethical standards; (b) be disaggregated to identify barriers and promote equality; and (c) be disseminated and used to improve the lives of persons with disability.
Article 33(3) – National Implementation and Monitoring	Evidence for accountability	States Parties must establish frameworks to “promote, protect and monitor the implementation of the Convention.” This includes engaging persons with disability and their representative organisations in monitoring and evaluation processes—requiring systematic use of research and data to inform continuous improvement and accountability.

Page 8 of 8