Submission to the

Review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)

“Building a future where inclusion is lived, not promised.”

Submitted by:

Australian Council of State School Organisations (ACSSO) ABN: 51 319 893 516

Date: October 2025

Acknowledgement of Country

ACSSO acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of Country throughout Australia and recognises their continuing connection to land, waters and community. We pay our respects to Elders past and present and extend this respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

Contact:

Dianne Giblin — Chief Executive Officer
Email: redacted: s47F - Personal privacy
Website: www.acsso.org.au

Confidentiality:

This submission is not confidential.

Submission to the Review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)

Submitted by: Australian Council of State School Organisations (ACSSO) October 2025

Executive Summary

The Australian Council of State School Organisations (ACSSO) strongly supports the Australian Government’s Review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to strengthen the rights of people with disability, particularly children and young people in education, and to align the Act with modern understandings of inclusion and equality.

Drawing on the lived experience of families across Australia, this submission identifies the urgent need for a proactive, clearly enforceable framework that transforms the DDA from a reactive law of redress into a positive driver of inclusion. Families should not have to fight for the rights the law already guarantees; the system itself should be designed to uphold them.

ACSSO’s recommendations are grounded in the principles of fairness, partnership and accountability. They call for legislative, structural and cultural reforms that make inclusion a lived reality, not a promise deferred.

Key Priorities

• A stand-alone duty for reasonable adjustments: Schools and systems must be legally obliged to make timely, effective adjustments, in consultation with families.
• A positive duty to eliminate discrimination: Duty holders must proactively identify and remove barriers before harm occurs.
• Protection against exclusion: It should be unlawful to suspend, exclude or refuse enrolment on the basis of disability.
• A clear, fair standard for “unjustifiable hardship”: The defence must require evidence of genuine efforts to provide support.
• Recognition of intersectionality: The law must reflect the diverse experiences of Aboriginal, CALD, regional and other communities.
• National implementation and accountability: Reform must include a coordinated national framework, resourcing for schools, and transparent reporting on progress.
• Family engagement at the heart of reform: Families must be treated as co-designers of inclusion, with structured mechanisms for consultation and oversight.

Our Core Message

Reform of the DDA is not simply about compliance; it is about fairness, dignity, and belonging. It is about creating systems that see every child’s potential before they see their diagnosis, and that listen to families as partners, not petitioners.

The DDA Review offers Australia the opportunity to align law with lived experience to turn the principles of equality into the everyday practice of inclusion. ACSSO stands ready to work with government and the education sector to make that promise real.

This submission outlines ACSSO’s key recommendations and the practical steps needed to realise the intent of the Review.

1. Introduction

The Australian Council of State School Organisations (ACSSO) welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the Australian Government’s Review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth).

For more than 75 years, ACSSO has worked nationally alongside families, carers and communities engaged with public education to ensure their perspectives shape the systems that serve them.

Our purpose is simple and enduring: to make every child’s potential a reality by partnering with families and communities to shape public education systems that are inclusive, equitable, and future-focused. We believe that every child, regardless of background, ability or location, deserves the opportunity to learn, participate, and belong in an education system that recognises and nurtures their full potential.

The Disability Discrimination Act was a landmark in its time, setting a legal foundation for fairness and access. Yet three decades later, families continue to report that the promise of equality under the Act is unevenly realised in practice. Across schools and systems, too many children with disability still face barriers to learning not because of their capacity to achieve, but because systems remain inconsistent, under-resourced, or unclear in their obligations.

ACSSO approaches this Review through the same lens that has guided our advocacy since 1947: that inclusion is not optional, it is a right, and that families are essential partners in ensuring that right is realised.

Our submission responds directly to the DDA Review Issues Paper (September 2025) and to the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. We see this Review as a pivotal opportunity to modernise the Act to move from a reactive framework that responds to complaints after harm occurs, to one that prevents harm through clarity, accountability and shared responsibility.

Reforming the DDA is not simply a matter of legal precision; it is a moral and practical investment in the kind of country we want to be, one where every child is welcomed at their local school, where families are heard, and where the law gives shape to compassion as well as compliance.

2. Background and Rationale for Reform

The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) has, for more than three decades, provided a critical foundation for protecting the rights of Australians with disability. Its intent was visionary for its time to ensure that no person is unfairly treated or excluded because of disability. Yet the lived reality for too many families, students and educators reveals that while the law opened the door to inclusion, the pathway through remains uneven, fragmented, and, at times, inaccessible.

Across Australia, families continue to share stories of children being denied full participation at school, whether through subtle forms of exclusion, lack of adjustments, or disciplinary practices that push them out rather than draw them in. These experiences are not isolated incidents; they point to systemic shortcomings in how our laws translate into everyday practice. Despite the goodwill of many teachers and school leaders, the frameworks designed to support them are often ambiguous, under-resourced, or inconsistently applied across jurisdictions.

The Disability Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability laid bare the consequences of this disconnect. Its findings confirmed what many families

have long known that exclusion and discrimination are not only acts of individual prejudice but often the result of structural barriers and outdated interpretations of the law. The Royal Commission called for stronger, clearer, and more proactive obligations on those who hold power and responsibility, such as schools, systems, employers, and service providers, to ensure equity is not left to chance or complaint.

When the Australian Government accepted in principle 15 of the Commission’s recommendations related to the DDA, it signalled an important shift: from relying on reactive complaints processes to creating a legal framework that drives positive, systemic change. This review is therefore not merely a legal update; it is an opportunity to modernise Australia’s understanding of equality and to embed inclusion as a lived experience, not an aspiration.

For ACSSO, this moment holds particular significance. Families and carers are often the first to identify when the system isn’t working. They see the daily impact of inaccessible buildings, inadequate supports, or rigid policies that fail to see the child behind the diagnosis. They are also the strongest advocates for solutions that work in flexible learning environments, for collaboration between teachers and families, and for practical resourcing that enables meaningful inclusion.

In the 30 years since the DDA was enacted, our education landscape has changed dramatically. We know more about inclusive teaching, about the role of early intervention, and about the importance of school culture in shaping belonging. Yet our legal framework has not kept pace. The DDA must now evolve to reflect contemporary understandings of disability and to uphold the rights guaranteed under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), to which Australia is a signatory.

This Review presents a rare opportunity to align law with lived experience, moving from a system that waits for harm to occur to one that prevents it through clarity, accountability, and partnership. For the families and children ACSSO represents, reform of the DDA is not just a matter of legal precision; it is about justice, dignity, and the shared belief that every child deserves to be seen, supported, and included in their local school and community.

3. Key Themes and ACSSO Positions

This Review asks an important question: how can the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 truly serve its purpose in today’s Australia?

From ACSSO’s perspective, the answer lies not in small technical fixes but in re-centring the Act around fairness, accountability, and the lived experience of people with disability and their families.

Families tell us that discrimination in education rarely arrives with a headline or a court case; it often appears quietly: when a child’s support plan stalls because “there’s no funding available,” when adjustments are offered late in the term, or when a student is informally sent home because staff “don’t have the resources today.” These moments, repeated thousands of times across the country, collectively erode trust and opportunity. They are the practical reasons why the DDA must move from being a reactive instrument to a proactive, guiding framework for inclusion.

3.1 Strengthening the Duty to Provide Reasonable Adjustments

Why this matters

The right to reasonable adjustment sits at the heart of inclusive education; it is the mechanism that turns principle into practice. Yet too often, the effectiveness of this right depends on how well a school understands its legal obligations or whether it can access timely support. The Sklavos v Australian College of Dermatologists decision narrowed the interpretation of this duty, leaving families with less protection than the Act originally intended.

ACSSO’s view

For families, a “reasonable adjustment” isn’t an abstract concept; it’s the extra time a student needs in a test, the sensory space that makes a classroom manageable, the technology that allows a child to access the curriculum, or the quiet reassurance that they belong.

A clearer, stand-alone legislative duty would remove ambiguity and shift the focus from argument to action. It would give educators clarity, families confidence, and students the support they deserve.

Our position

• The Act should create an explicit and proactive obligation for education providers to make reasonable adjustments.
• Adjustments should be developed in partnership with students and their families, recognising families as experts in their child’s needs.
• Implementation must be timely, well-documented, and reviewable, with a consistent national expectation rather than jurisdictional variability.
• Oversight mechanisms should ensure transparency, with guidance and professional learning provided to help schools meet their obligations.

The outcome we seek: a culture where reasonable adjustment is the default, not the exception, embedded in planning, budgeting, and everyday classroom practice.

3.2 Introducing a Positive Duty to Eliminate Discrimination

Why this matters

At present, too much of Australia’s discrimination law depends on someone lodging a complaint after harm has occurred. For families already navigating complex systems, that process can be daunting and emotionally draining. A positive duty would shift responsibility where it belongs to institutions with the power and resources to prevent discrimination before it happens.

ACSSO’s view

Schools and education systems should not need to be prompted by a complaint to remove barriers. They should be supported and required to identify those barriers themselves. A positive duty recognises that inclusion is not just compliance; it is leadership, foresight, and care.

Our position

• The DDA should impose a clear positive duty on all duty holders, including education authorities, to take reasonable and proportionate steps to eliminate discrimination.
• The Australian Human Rights Commission should be empowered to guide and monitor compliance, supporting improvement rather than merely policing breaches.
• Public reporting should encourage transparency, accountability, and continuous improvement in inclusive practices.

The outcome we seek: a shift from reactive case management to a culture of prevention, where systems are measured by how well they include, not how rarely they are sued.

3.3 Making It Unlawful to Suspend or Exclude a Student on the Basis of Disability

Why this matters

Few experiences devastate families more than seeing their child sent home, excluded, or refused enrolment because of their disability. Each incident communicates a message of “you don’t belong here.” The Disability Royal Commission made it clear: exclusionary discipline is a form of discrimination that undermines both learning and wellbeing.

ACSSO’s view

While safety and order in schools are vital, these principles must never justify discrimination. Schools need consistent support and resourcing to manage complex needs inclusively, not permission to remove the problem by removing the child.

When families are told that “mainstream schooling isn’t the right fit,” what they hear is that the system cannot or will not adapt. That is the very barrier the DDA was designed to dismantle.

Our position

• Amend the DDA to explicitly prohibit suspension, exclusion, or refusal to enrol on the basis of disability.
• Require that before any exclusion is considered, all reasonable adjustments and support strategies have been explored, implemented, and documented.
• Introduce national monitoring and data collection on disciplinary actions involving students with disability to identify patterns and drive accountability.
• Provide targeted funding and professional learning so teachers and school leaders can implement inclusive behaviour support approaches confidently and safely.

The outcome we seek: an education system where no child’s learning journey is interrupted because of who they are or what supports they need.

3.4 Clarifying “Unjustifiable Hardship”

Why this matters

The phrase “unjustifiable hardship” was meant to balance fairness with practicality, but in practice, it has often become a shield against inclusion. Families hear it invoked when schools say they “can’t accommodate” a child, even when reasonable alternatives exist.

ACSSO’s view

This defence must not be used to excuse systemic under-resourcing or inflexible policy. If a school lacks capacity, that should signal a need for government support, not the exclusion of a student. Transparency and accountability in how hardship is assessed are essential to rebuilding family trust.

Our position

• The Act should narrow the definition of unjustifiable hardship and require evidence of genuine, documented attempts to provide adjustments before the defence can be raised.
• Families must be notified in writing when a hardship claim is made and given the opportunity to respond.
• The assessment of hardship must consider the broader capacity of the education system, not only the individual school’s resources.

The outcome we seek: a fair test that protects both equity and practicality, ensuring hardship is the exception, not a loophole.

3.5 Recognising Intersectionality and Cultural Context

Why this matters

Discrimination is rarely one-dimensional. A student with disability who is also Aboriginal, from a culturally and linguistically diverse background, or living in a remote community may face overlapping barriers. Recognising this intersectionality is essential if reform is to deliver real inclusion.

ACSSO’s view

A child’s experience of disability cannot be separated from the context in which they live and learn. Policies that ignore culture, language, or geography risk entrenching inequity.

For families from marginalised communities, navigating multiple systems can feel overwhelming, compounded when processes are not culturally safe or available in plain language.

Our position

• Embed intersectionality and cultural safety as guiding principles in the DDA’s interpretation clauses.
• Resource community-led education and awareness programs that help families understand and exercise their rights.
• Ensure complaints and review processes are accessible, trauma-informed, and language-inclusive.

The outcome we seek: a disability discrimination framework that sees the whole person, shaped by identity, culture, and circumstance, and provides protection that is meaningful in every community.

3.6 Implementation and Systemic Support

Why this matters

Legislative change without practical implementation leaves families no better off. Schools, particularly in regional and remote areas, often want to do better but lack access to expertise, allied health services, or infrastructure support.

ACSSO’s view

Every reform must be matched by resourcing, professional learning, and mechanisms for accountability. Families should not carry the responsibility for enforcing rights that systems are funded to uphold.

Our position

• Develop a National Inclusive Education Implementation Framework aligned with the reformed DDA and the Australian Disability Strategy 2021-2031.
• Ensure all teachers and school leaders have access to ongoing professional development on disability inclusion and family engagement.
• Establish public reporting and system-level monitoring so progress can be measured transparently.
• Strengthen partnerships between education and allied health sectors to deliver the adjustments the law will require.

The outcome we seek: a legal framework that is lived and felt, one that translates into classrooms, corridors, and communities where inclusion is normal practice, not a special project.

4. Implementation and Systemic Reform

Legislation, no matter how well-intentioned, achieves little unless it is lived and felt in the daily experiences of students, families, and educators. The Disability Discrimination Act has long served as a statement of principle, a declaration that Australia values fairness and inclusion, yet the evidence shows that translating those principles into consistent practice remains a persistent challenge.

Across the nation, the level of inclusion a student experiences still depends far too often on where they live, which school they attend, or how effectively their family can advocate. This is not the

hallmark of a fair system. It is a sign that reform cannot stop at the words of the Act; it must reach into the structures, cultures, and funding frameworks that give the law its practical force.

4.1 The Need for a Coordinated National Approach

Families should not face a different standard of rights in one state or territory than in another. Yet, while the DDA provides national protection, its implementation, particularly in education, is mediated through a patchwork of state and territory systems, each with its own policies, resources, and interpretations.

ACSSO strongly believes that meaningful reform must include a national implementation framework. Such a framework should establish clear expectations for what inclusive education looks like in practice, how compliance will be monitored, and how success will be measured. It should be developed collaboratively, bringing together governments, families, educators, and disability advocates to ensure it is both principled and workable.

The framework should sit alongside and be integrated with existing national initiatives, such as the Australian Disability Strategy 2021-2031 and the National School Reform Agreement. It must also speak to schools, acknowledging their pressures, celebrating their efforts, and providing the clarity and resources needed to sustain inclusion over time.

4.2 Resourcing and Capacity-Building

The aspiration of inclusion is often met with the practical question: “But how will we resource it?”

For families, this is not a question of luxury; it is about access to what the law promises. For teachers and principals, it is about having the time, training, and tools to meet diverse learning needs without burning out or feeling isolated.

A strengthened DDA must therefore be accompanied by targeted investment in capacity-building across the education sector. This includes:

• Professional learning that deepens understanding of disability, universal design for learning, and trauma-informed practice;
• Access to allied health and specialist supports, particularly in rural and remote communities where services are scarce;
• Funding models that recognise inclusion as a system-wide priority, not an individual accommodation; and
• Support for family engagement, recognising that successful inclusion is always a partnership between school and home.

The Royal Commission was clear that under-resourced systems cannot deliver equitable outcomes. Investment is not optional; it is the practical expression of Australia’s commitment to uphold the rights of people with disability.

4.3 Monitoring, Accountability, and Continuous Improvement

Families consistently tell ACSSO that the current DDA’s complaints-based model leaves them feeling disempowered and unheard. The burden of proving discrimination should not rest on those already experiencing it.

Reform must therefore introduce proactive accountability mechanisms that encourage learning and improvement, rather than punishment or blame. ACSSO supports the establishment of a national reporting and oversight function within or alongside the Australian Human Rights Commission, tasked with:

• Regularly reviewing the education sector compliance;
• Publishing national data on access, adjustments, suspensions, and complaints; and
• Sharing best-practice models from schools that demonstrate excellence in inclusion.

Transparency builds trust. When schools and systems can see how they compare, when families can understand what to expect, and when government can measure progress over time, inclusion becomes measurable, achievable, and continuous.

This kind of public accountability also helps shift the narrative from compliance as a legal minimum to inclusion as a marker of quality and leadership.

4.4 Partnership with Families and Communities

For ACSSO, genuine reform cannot happen to families; it must happen with them. Parents and carers are not observers in their children’s education; they are co-designers of learning environments that work.

Implementation planning should therefore embed family engagement principles at every level. This means:

• Families are consulted in the design of policy and guidance;
• Schools actively communicate rights and responsibilities in plain, accessible language;
• Mechanisms exist for collaborative planning and review of adjustments; and
• Families have access to culturally safe and linguistically appropriate supports, particularly in First Nations and CALD communities.

The DDA Review provides an opportunity to reinforce this partnership not as an optional extra but as an essential mechanism for ensuring accountability, trust, and shared responsibility.

4.5 Systemic Cultural Change

Laws can compel action, but they cannot, on their own, shift mindset. For inclusion to take hold, there must be cultural change within institutions, a recognition that diversity is not a burden to be managed but a strength to be embraced.

Cultural change begins with leadership. School leaders set the tone for whether inclusion feels like compliance or compassion. Education systems must equip those leaders to foster cultures where difference is understood, valued, and embedded in the way schools operate.

This requires narrative change as much as legislative reform, reframing disability not through deficit, but through dignity, rights, and belonging. When inclusion becomes a core measure of a school’s success as fundamental as literacy or attendance, the DDA’s intent will finally be realised in classrooms and communities.

4.6 The Role of Federal Leadership

Finally, the success of reform depends on national leadership that unites effort across jurisdictions. The Commonwealth cannot legislate inclusion and then step aside; it must champion and resource it.

ACSSO urges the Australian Government to commit to:

• A national education inclusion partnership bringing together education authorities, disability advocates, and family representatives to oversee DDA implementation;

• Periodic national progress reviews, tabled in Parliament, tracking measurable outcomes in participation, satisfaction, and equity; and
• Ensuring that any future agreements with states and territories, such as the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement, explicitly reference DDA compliance and inclusive education priorities.

Only through this kind of joined-up leadership will Australia move beyond symbolic commitment to genuine, lived equality.

In Summary

Implementation is where ideals meet reality. Families do not experience the DDA as a piece of legislation; they experience it in whether their child is welcomed, supported, and able to learn each day.

For reform to matter, it must touch that reality: equipping schools, guiding systems, supporting families, and holding governments accountable. The DDA Review gives Australia the chance to make that connection clear, transforming words on a page into everyday acts of inclusion that honour the dignity of every child.

5. Consultation and Family Engagement

For ACSSO, genuine inclusion begins and ends with relationships between schools and families, between policy and practice, and between the letter of the law and the lived experience of those it is meant to protect.

The Disability Discrimination Act cannot realise its intent if the people most affected by it, students with disability and their families, are not meaningfully involved in shaping how it works day to day.

5.1 Families as Partners, Not Petitioners

Too often, families find themselves petitioners, explaining, proving, or defending their child’s right to learn. They navigate meetings, plans, assessments, and, at times, conflict, simply to secure the reasonable adjustments that legislation already promises. This dynamic must change.

Families are not outsiders to the education process; they are co-educators who bring deep knowledge of their child’s strengths, needs, and communication styles. When schools recognise this expertise, the quality of planning, teaching, and wellbeing outcomes improves dramatically. Conversely, when families are shut out, misunderstandings multiply, trust erodes, and children bear the cost.

The reformed DDA must therefore enshrine the principle that effective consultation with families is a legal and ethical expectation, not a courtesy or afterthought. This partnership is the heartbeat of inclusion.

5.2 Embedding Family Voice in the Reform Process

Families’ experiences should actively inform the Review’s design, implementation, and monitoring. ACSSO strongly supports the establishment of structured consultation mechanisms that give families an ongoing seat at the table, not only when policies are drafted, but when they are applied and reviewed.

These mechanisms could include:

• A National Family and Disability Education Advisory Group, co-chaired by government and family representatives, to provide continuing input on DDA reforms.

• Regular roundtables and public reporting to share what’s working and where gaps persist.
• Partnerships with family organisations and advocacy bodies (including ACSSO and state-based parent associations) to gather feedback from diverse communities, including families in regional, remote, and culturally and linguistically diverse contexts.

Such structures ensure that families’ insights are treated as evidence vital to the design of systems that are both just and practical.

5.3 Making Engagement Accessible, Respectful, and Ongoing

Consultation cannot be meaningful if families are excluded from the process.

Meetings held during work hours, information filled with technical jargon, or communication available only in English all signal that the system’s convenience outweighs the community’s inclusion.

True engagement requires:

• Accessible communication, using plain language and formats suitable for different literacy levels and disabilities;
• Culturally safe practice, particularly for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families and those from CALD backgrounds;
• Multiple entry points for feedback, recognising that not all families will use formal complaints channels; and
• Ongoing dialogue, rather than one-off consultation events.

When families are seen and heard in ways that respect their realities, policy becomes more humane, and implementation becomes more successful.

5.4 Restoring Trust Through Transparency

Families repeatedly express frustration that systems promise consultation but deliver little influence. They share their experiences only to see decisions made elsewhere, with minimal feedback or visible change. This erodes trust not just in institutions, but in the idea that government truly listens.

To rebuild that trust, consultation outcomes must be transparent. Families should be told how their input shaped policy, what decisions were made, and why.

This accountability is a sign of respect. It turns performance into engagement, and it demonstrates that family voice genuinely drives reform.

5.5 Supporting Schools to Engage Well

Effective consultation is a skill, not an assumption.

Many educators want to work collaboratively with families, but have not received training or frameworks to do so. When tensions arise, particularly around complex disability needs, staff can feel ill-equipped, defensive, or fearful of legal consequences.

ACSSO urges the inclusion of professional learning requirements within DDA implementation plans that build confidence in family partnership approaches. Teachers and principals should be supported to:

• Facilitate constructive, empathetic conversations with families;

• Co-design and review reasonable adjustments collaboratively;
• Manage disagreement respectfully; and
• Recognise families as allies in achieving educational success.

Building this capability transforms what can feel like compliance into connection.

5.6 Recognising the Diversity of Families

The term “family” encompasses a rich diversity of structures, cultures, and experiences. For inclusion to be authentic, consultation must reflect that diversity. This means intentionally engaging with:

• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, whose perspectives on disability and learning are deeply connected to culture and Country;
• Families from refugee and migrant backgrounds who may face language barriers or different understandings of disability;
• Grandparents, kinship carers, foster carers, and others providing vital caregiving roles; and
• Families living in regional and remote areas, where services and advocacy networks are limited.

A one-size-fits-all consultation model will always leave some voices out. The DDA’s implementation must therefore be flexible, relational, and responsive to local contexts.

5.7 Consultation as a Foundation for Accountability

Finally, consultation should not be viewed as an end in itself but as a foundation for accountability.

When families are part of the process, they help systems identify where intentions are not meeting outcomes. Their lived experience becomes a continuous feedback loop, a real-time measure of whether inclusion is working.

Embedding structured family consultation into DDA monitoring and evaluation will ensure that reforms remain grounded, adaptive, and transparent. It will also reaffirm a truth that lies at the core of ACSSO’s mission: families are not merely stakeholders; they are co-authors of educational justice.

In Summary

Family engagement is the bridge between policy and practice.

When families are partners, laws gain meaning, schools gain insight, and children gain opportunity. The reformed DDA must honour this partnership not as symbolic language but as a living commitment, one that recognises parents and carers as essential to ensuring that every child, regardless of ability, has an equal chance to thrive.

6. Summary of ACSSO Recommendations

The Australian Council of State School Organisations welcomes the Review as a genuine opportunity to modernise the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) to better reflect the realities of today’s schools, families, and communities.

Our recommendations are not simply technical amendments; they are practical, values-anchored actions designed to make inclusion real in every classroom and community.

6.1 Strengthening the Duty to Provide Reasonable Adjustments

• Establish an explicit, stand-alone legislative duty requiring education providers to make timely, effective, and evidence-based adjustments.
• Embed family consultation as a non-negotiable part of adjustment planning.
• Ensure adjustments are regularly reviewed and monitored to maintain effectiveness.
• Align this duty with the Disability Standards for Education 2005 and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).

6.2 Introducing a Positive Duty to Eliminate Discrimination

• Insert a positive duty compelling schools, employers, and service providers to identify and remove barriers before harm occurs.
• Empower the Australian Human Rights Commission to monitor, support, and report on compliance.
• Require transparent public reporting on accessibility and inclusion outcomes within education systems.

6.3 Prohibiting Suspension or Exclusion on the Basis of Disability

• Amend the DDA to explicitly prohibit exclusion, suspension, or refusal of enrolment on the basis of disability.
• Require education authorities to demonstrate that all reasonable supports and adjustments have been implemented before exclusion is considered.
• Create a national dataset tracking disciplinary actions involving students with disability to ensure oversight and early intervention.
• Provide targeted professional learning and resourcing to support inclusive behaviour management.

6.4 Clarifying “Unjustifiable Hardship”

• Tighten the definition to prevent misuse as a justification for exclusion or inaction.
• Require written evidence of efforts made to provide adjustments prior to invoking this defence.
• Ensure assessments consider the capacity of the broader education system, not just an individual school.

6.5 Embedding Intersectionality and Cultural Safety

• Include intersectionality and cultural safety as interpretive principles in the DDA.
• Fund community-led initiatives to improve awareness and rights literacy among diverse families.
• Ensure complaints and consultation processes are accessible, language-appropriate, and trauma-informed.

6.6 Implementation and Systemic Reform

• Develop a National Inclusive Education Implementation Framework, co-designed with families, educators, and disability advocates.
• Resource ongoing professional development in inclusive practice and family engagement.
• Create national accountability and reporting mechanisms to measure progress and guide continuous improvement.
• Build a culture of inclusion through leadership, transparency, and national collaboration.

6.7 Consultation and Family Engagement

• Recognise families as co-designers of inclusion, not petitioners seeking compliance.
• Establish a National Family and Disability Education Advisory Group to provide continuous feedback and oversight.
• Ensure all engagement is accessible, culturally safe, and transparent, showing families how their input shapes outcomes.
• Require systems to report on family engagement activities as part of DDA implementation reviews.

7. Conclusion

The review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 marks a pivotal moment in Australia’s social and educational story. For more than three decades, the Act has stood as a declaration of equality, yet the voices of families and students remind us daily that equality on paper is not always equality in practice.

Reform is no longer about catching up with complaints; it is about catching up with conscience.

It is about ensuring that our systems are as compassionate as they are compliant, and that the experience of inclusion is consistent, not dependent on postcode, principal, or persistence.

Families do not measure inclusion by the strength of the legislation; they measure it by the welcome their child receives at the school gate, the respect they feel when they speak, and the opportunities their child has to learn alongside peers. The reformed DDA must protect and nurture those everyday moments where fairness becomes visible and dignity is restored.

ACSSO believes this Review offers a once-in-a-generation chance to close the gap between what the law says and what families experience.

We urge the Government to legislate boldly to move from reactive protection to proactive inclusion, from silence to accountability, from promise to practice.

Above all, this is an opportunity to reaffirm what public education at its best already knows: that inclusion enriches everyone; that diversity is strength; and that when families, educators, and communities work together, every child can thrive.

ACSSO stands ready to work alongside the Attorney-General’s Department, the education sector, and our partners in the disability community to make this vision a reality, ensuring that the next generation of students with disability are not merely included, but fully and joyfully part of Australia’s shared learning story.

Through partnership with families and communities, ACSSO will continue to work nationally to ensure every child’s potential becomes a reality within a truly inclusive education system.