Disability Discrimination Act review

Community survey

Submission from Power in Culture and Equality

November 2025

Who are PCE? …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2

Consent ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2

Privacy ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 3

Part 1 – Updating understandings of disability and disability discrimination …………………………………………………………………. 3

Part 2 – Positive duty to eliminate discrimination …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 8

Part 3 – Encouraging inclusion of people with disability in employment, education and other areas of public life …………. 10

Part 4 – Improving access to justice …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 15

Part 5 – Exemptions ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 16

Part 6 – Modernising the Disability Discrimination Act ………………………………………………………………………………………………… 18

Part 7 – Further options for reform and file upload ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 20

Who are PCE?

Thank you for the chance to respond to this review. Established in 2019, the Power in Culture and Equality (PCE) is a self advocacy group run by and for people with disability from non-English speaking backgrounds. We care about disability discrimination and racism, and we want to promote disability pride. PCE is one of 17 Self Advocacy groups supported by the Self Advocacy Resource Unit (SARU), based in Victoria. SARU is the largest network of self advocacy groups in Australia, supporting self advocacy groups that are run by and for people with an intellectual disability, acquired brain injury, and complex communication support needs.

PCE is a diverse group—diverse in cultural backgrounds, language backgrounds, in our disabilities and in our lived experiences. The following responses represent this diversity.

Please note: we did not answer all questions. We left some unanswered where we felt we didn’t have as much to say.

Have you read, and do you understand, the privacy information provided below? Yes

Do you consent to participating in this consultation? In consenting, you are agreeing that you understand that you do not need to provide your personal or sensitive information to participate in this consultation. Yes

If you aged are under 15, do you have consent from a parent or guardian to participate in our consultation? N/A, this submission is from people aged over 15.

Do you give permission for your submission to be published? If no, your submission will not be published, however, de-identified aggregate data may be published. Yes

Do you consent for your name to be published with your submission? NOTE: this is optional. You do not need to include your name, submissions may be made anonymously. Yes, we consent to the group’s name being published

Are you making this submission on behalf of yourself, another person or an organisation? On behalf of the PCE group

Privacy

Have you read, and do you understand, the privacy information provided below? Yes

The Attorney-General’s Department will be collecting information (including personal information) as part of the consultation process. The information you provide will help us identify different data tends across different groups to inform the development of the framework. The privacy and security of your personal information is important to us, and is protected by law. You have the option of selecting ‘prefer not to say’ for personal questions.

Third parties that may assist with the consultation process may also have access to your personal information. If you disclose information that leads us to consider you, or someone else, may be at risk of harm, we may be required to disclose this information to police and/or other relevant authorities. We may also be required to disclose your personal information to meet mandatory reporting requirements or to report a suspected crime. Your personal information may also be subject to Freedom of Information requests or requests for information from the Parliament.

If you require further information about our collection of your personal information, please read our Collection Notice and Privacy Policy. The department’s privacy policy contains information about complaints or information access/correction requests.

All questions are voluntary and you are not required to give your personal information for the department to consider your feedback. If you give sensitive information, the department may collect this information and use it, including as part of its policy analysis.

Part 1 – Updating understandings of disability and disability discrimination

This section asks questions about how disability and disability discrimination are defined in the Disability Discrimination Act.

1. What should the definition of disability in the Disability Discrimination Act include?

We understand that the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) broadly defines disability as:

disability, in relation to a person, means:

(a) total or partial loss of the person’s bodily or mental functions; or

(b) total or partial loss of a part of the body; or

(c) the presence in the body of organisms causing disease or illness; or

(d) the presence in the body of organisms capable of causing disease or illness; or

(e) the malfunction, malformation or disfigurement of a part of the person’s body; or

(f) a disorder or malfunction that results in the person learning differently from a person without the disorder or malfunction; or

(g) a disorder, illness or disease that affects a person’s thought processes, perception of reality, emotions or judgment or that results in disturbed behaviour;

and includes a disability that:

(h) presently exists; or

(i) previously existed but no longer exists; or

(j) may exist in the future (including because of a genetic predisposition to that disability); or

(k) is imputed to a person.

To avoid doubt, a disability that is otherwise covered by this definition includes behaviour that is a symptom or manifestation of the disability.

Overall, we think this definition is ok. Below we describe some issues with it and suggestions for how it might change.

Accessibility: this definition should be written more accessibly. It needs to be more accessible for people with a disability, the people who this Act is meant to support.
Disability as relational: The definition doesn’t capture how disability impacts on a person’s life. It could better describe the ways which clearly show that disability is not an individual experience, it is also defined by the way society supports or doesn’t support the person with a disability. This is more in line with a social model of disability that recognises that society creates barriers for people with a disability.
Inconsistent definitions: We note too that the definition of disability varies between government departments and service providers. Can the definition be standardised and become universal between government departments? For example, the NDIS and Centrelink have different definitions yet people with disability are often having to navigate different government

department. We recognise that the variation in definitions suits the services and policies the different departments offer but it provides more work and more inconsistency for people with a disability. Can the DDA enforce this standardisation?

2. How much do you agree or disagree with these statements about how the Disability Discrimination Act defines discrimination?

This question gave us a scale of answers to respond to. We wanted to respond differently and give more explanation.

The current definitions of discrimination are clear and easy to understand.

We disagree and think the definitions could be written more accessibly.

Direct discrimination should only be about if a person with disability has been treated differently because of their disability.

We note that direct discrimination in the Act is:

Direct disability discrimination

(1) For the purposes of this Act, a person (the discriminator) discriminates against another person (the aggrieved person) on the ground of a disability of the aggrieved person if, because of the disability, the discriminator treats, or proposes to treat, the aggrieved person less favourably than the discriminator would treat a person without the disability in circumstances that are not materially different.

(2) For the purposes of this Act, a person (the discriminator) also discriminates against another person (the aggrieved person) on the ground of a disability of the aggrieved person if:

(a) the discriminator does not make, or proposes not to make, reasonable adjustments for the person; and

(b) the failure to make the reasonable adjustments has, or would have, the effect that the aggrieved person is, because of the disability, treated less favourably than a person without the disability would be treated in circumstances that are not materially different.

(3) For the purposes of this section, circumstances are not materially different because of the fact that, because of the disability, the aggrieved person requires adjustments.

We think this definition of direct discrimination is narrow. It makes it about only an individual-to-individual interaction. Direct discrimination can be structural too. For example, one of our members discussed attending events where audio loop was offered. However once there, the audio loop wasn’t working. The access was partial, suggesting the organisation had thought to offer audio loop hearing services but hadn’t thought to check it before the event. Or when using private transport like Ubers or taxis, the member needed to bring their service dog. They had experienced being refused transport once the driver saw their dog. Potentially, the driver might have assumed the dog was a pet and/or had religious reasons for not wanting an animal in their car. We note that the line between direct and indirect discrimination for people with a disability can be more overlapping.

A person with disability shouldn’t need to compare themselves against someone without their disability to say that they have faced discrimination.

We strongly agree. As one member put it, they shouldn’t compare themselves with someone who can walk.

When a person with disability experiences discrimination, the other person should have to prove that they did not discriminate because of the person’s disability.

We note that our answers here also relate to the questions and answers for Part 2 of this survey around positive duty but if you run a business or provide a service, you need to know your duties and responsibilities. This includes better training and education too for your staff, external contractors and volunteers.

We think that ignorance or lack of training or education is not a defence. ‘The other person should have to prove that they did not discriminate because of a person’s disability’ shows that the other person didn’t first consider that a person might have a disability and how the other person might adjust or accommodate. Instead, it suggests that the other person can find or have a reason to discriminate. So if indirect discrimination occurs, it’s still discrimination. As the review of the Act has noted, once the person with a disability has experienced the discrimination, it’s after the fact, the person has already experienced discrimination and now, if they want to, have to go through a legal process for justice or compensation. It’s more work and more stress for the person with a disability.

We note that in other parts of the world, there are examples to learn from. The USA’s equivalent DDA is stronger. There are larger penalties for non-compliance. In Australia, we enforce through legal action, and as we noted, it relies on proving claims to get change.

Indirect discrimination should only be allowed if avoiding discrimination would put an unjustifiable hardship on the duty holder.

We note that the Act defines indirect discrimination as:

Indirect disability discrimination

(1) For the purposes of this Act, a person (the discriminator) discriminates against another person (the aggrieved person) on the ground of a disability of the aggrieved person if:

(a) the discriminator requires, or proposes to require, the aggrieved person to comply with a requirement or condition; and

(b) because of the disability, the aggrieved person does not or would not comply, or is not able or would not be able to comply, with the requirement or condition; and

(c) the requirement or condition has, or is likely to have, the effect of disadvantaging persons with the disability.

(2) For the purposes of this Act, a person (the discriminator) also discriminates against another person (the aggrieved person) on the ground of a disability of the aggrieved person if:

(a) the discriminator requires, or proposes to require, the aggrieved person to comply with a requirement or condition; and

(b) because of the disability, the aggrieved person would comply, or would be able to comply, with the requirement or condition only if the discriminator made reasonable adjustments for the person, but the discriminator does not do so or proposes not to do so; and

(c) the failure to make reasonable adjustments has, or is likely to have, the effect of disadvantaging persons with the disability.

(3) Subsection (1) or (2) does not apply if the requirement or condition is reasonable, having regard to the circumstances of the case.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), the burden of proving that the requirement or condition is reasonable, having regard to the circumstances of the case, lies on the person who requires, or proposes to require, the person with the disability to comply with the requirement or condition.

We note that the current Act effectively gives permission to certain areas/sectors not to make their services or goods more accessible through the ‘unjustifiable hardship’ argument. It favours an organisation to say ‘It’ll cost too much’ whether or not this is

about having limited resources or more about lacking the will to commit resources to change. It also shows that neoliberal arguments favour access and human rights arguments. A member noted that building standards in one Australian state were being discussed to move towards new builds having universal access. Any developer or builder building new builds would need to build with universal access. In this private sector of construction and property development, where it favours the developers to minimise costs so as to maximise their profits, they might argue that universal access standards are unjustifiable. We note that actually universal access is not costly over the long term, and that retro-fitting is more expensive.

If the government leaves an unjustifiable hardship clause in the Act, it cancels out the rest of the Act in its spirit, intentions and its applications. If the Act is meant to protect and uphold the rights of people with a disability to live without discrimination, the unjustifiable hardship clause gives permission to discriminate. We also ask who decides if the cost is unjustifiable—it should be the person with a disability. One member felt that there should be consequences for organisations opting for ‘unjustifiable hardship’, they must promote they’re inaccessible, or there could be a monetary consequence.

Part 2 – Positive duty to eliminate discrimination

This section asks questions about adding a positive duty to the Disability Discrimination Act. Right now, people can only make a complaint after discrimination happens. A proposed change is to introduce a ‘positive duty’. This means:

Employers, schools, organisations and businesses must actively prevent discrimination. They shouldn’t just deal with it afterward.

The Australian Human Rights Commission may be able to make sure they do this.

This ‘positive duty’ would apply to all duty holders and would be similar to the positive duty that applies to employers to prevent sex discrimination. Duty holders covers a wide range of people and organisations. It includes schools, businesses and workplaces, organisations and services.

3. Should the law introduce a ‘positive duty’ for duty holders?

(Please select one)

Yes

Unsure

We agreed on ‘Yes’.

Please expand on your response

Without a positive duty, this can allow for duty holders to be passive in their duties. Not knowing your duties or responsibilities allows for discrimination. A positive duty is a good thing, it can help change attitudes and the culture of an organisation. It raises the bar for the way that organisation provides services or goods. We believe in a stronger framing of the positive duty too. The Act should state that all organisations/duty holders should have it in their procedures and policies to promote ‘outing’ discrimination. Organisations and duty holders should be compelled, via the Act, to have conscious actions and be explicit in their policies. For example, the height of counters and furniture where it relates to people in mobility vehicles. The Act should compel duty holders to properly train staff, external contractors and volunteers too to implement policies and procedures.

We note that structurally things should be in place for organisations/duty holders to minimise discrimination as much as possible. You may not be able to eliminate stigma, prejudice and violence completely, but the duty holders should ensure their practices minimise discrimination.

One member noted that ‘Businesses, organisations and services should trust that people with a disability know what is right for us. Follow our lead’. The Act should compel that people with disabilities co-design policies and procedures that enable duty holders to have a positive duty. This might follow other examples such as national child safe frameworks and standards.

We questioned how to ensure the organisations/duty holders actually practiced their positive duty. How would this be monitored, accredited or enforced? What is the carrot? Who is waving the stick? Non-compliance should be penalised.

We suggest the Act allow for more research and development into how positive duty becomes embedded into organisations, and to look to other models. While the US model has better enforcement, the UK model has better mechanisms to deal with compliance. We noted that the Act might establish a body to oversee compliance but it would have to be a body that is properly empowered and resourced.

If you said yes to the previous question, which of the existing categories of duty holders should the positive duty apply to?

(Please select all that apply)

Employers Organisations providing goods and services (including shops and other businesses)

Schools and other education providers

Accommodation providers (including landlords)

Government departments and agencies

We agreed that the positive duty should apply to ALL categories of duty holders.

Part 3 – Encouraging inclusion of people with disability in employment, education and other areas of public life

This section asks questions about encouraging inclusion of people with disability in areas of public life. There are proposed changes to:

make the rules clearer around making adjustments for people with disability.
what duty holders need to think about when deciding if making an adjustment is too difficult (unjustifiable hardship).
make the rules clearer that schools and universities cannot exclude or suspend a student because of their disability.

5. Should the rules around providing adjustments be made clearer?

Yes, a clearer duty to provide adjustments would help people with disability and duty holders better understand their rights and obligations

No, the current rules are working well and do not need to change

The rules should be changed in another way.

We noted that what is not known to many people is that reasonable adjustments are often subsidised or free via the government. More clear and simplified information needs to be available to business managers and educators. However, we recognise that it is easier to support those with physical impairments than those who have neurological or requiring behavioural support.

6. How much do you agree or disagree with these statements about making adjustments and when it creates an ‘unjustifiable hardship’?

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
Duty holders should be encouraged to consult with people with disability who need adjustments.	x
Duty holders should think about what else they could do instead to		x

	Strongly Agree	Agree
provide adjustments.
Duty holders should document why they think it would be too hard to provide the adjustments.	x
Duty holders should always provide an adjustment if it helps the person with disability or community more than the amount of effort or cost to the duty holder.		x

7. How much do you agree or disagree with these statements about the ‘inherent requirements’ of a job?

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
The current factors that need to be considered are enough to protect employees with disability.				x
Employers should have to talk to current or potential employees with disability about the inherent		x

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
requirements of a role.
Employers should have to consider any adjustments that could be made for current or potential employees so that they would be able to do the job.	x

8. Should the Disability Discrimination Act be changed to make it clear that educational institutions (including schools, universities and TAFE) are not allowed to discriminate against students because of their disability by excluding or suspending them?

(Please select one)

Yes

Unsure

The rules should be changed in another way

Children and Young People with Disability Australia (CYDA) would have more to say on this matter of discrimination and education. What PCE want to raise is the intersections of racism and ableism that children from migrant and refugee with disabilities experience from education professionals. It is the assumption that their lack of English is what holding back students of colour. This assumption has been used to not bring in education supports for the student’s developmental delay rather than recognising the role of their often undiagnosed PTSD or behaviours from spending most of their schooling years in refugee camps.

Part 4 – Improving access to justice

This section asks questions about improving access to justice for people with disability under the Disability Discrimination Act.

We are looking at ways to improve protections for people with disability, including:

stronger rules against offensive behaviour
addressing discrimination within the justice system.

Currently, there isn’t enough protection against offensive behaviour and hate speech (also known as vilification). The review is looking at:

making it illegal to harass, threaten, or spread hate about people with disability.
extending protection to online spaces (such as social media).
It is also looking at better protection when dealing with police and the justice system.

9. How could the Disability Discrimination Act be updated to protect people with disability from offensive behaviour or stop people from spreading hate about people with disability (vilification)?

For example, you might like to comment on how harassment and offensive behaviour could be defined.

10. Should the Disability Discrimination Act be changed to better protect people with disability when dealing with police?

(Please select one)

Yes

Unsure

Please expand on your response

Part 5 – Exemptions

Sometimes the Disability Discrimination Act will allow discrimination against people with disability in certain situations. These are called exemptions. Sometimes exemptions can help people with disability.

For example, the special measures exemption lets people or organisations treat people differently to help people with disability.

We are reviewing all of the exemptions to see if any should be changed/improved.

11. How much do you agree or disagree with these statements about exemptions under the Disability Discrimination Act?

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
The Australian Human Rights Commission should be able to grant duty holders a certificate to confirm that the special measures exemption applies to them or to something they are doing				x
The Disability Discrimination Act should provide criteria for the Australian Human Rights Commission to follow when deciding on whether to make a	x

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
temporary exemption
Other changes should be made to the exemptions (please explain).

Please expand on your response

First, the Migration Act should not be exempt, the “hypothetical man” assessment should be abolished. This is used to assess if a migrant’s disability costs the government too much in relative to an Australian having the same disability.

We support the current restriction to service dogs as these are common sense.

Part 6 – Modernising the Disability Discrimination Act

This section asks questions about other ways that we could improve the Disability Discrimination Act.

Stakeholders and the disability community have raised other possible updates to the Disability Discrimination Act. They include:

Assistance animals

The rules about assistance animals are unclear. This includes for people with disability and duty holders.
The review is asking how to make the rules clearer about training and certification.

Disability action plans

Some organisations have voluntary plans to improve accessibility.

The review is asking how these plans could be improved.

Disability Standards

Public premises, public transport and education have special rules to help them be accessible.

The review is asking how we can be better at enforcing and reporting on these rules.

12. This question is about assistance animals. How could protections for assistance animals be improved? If you have any comments about how to make the rules about assistance animals clearer or work better (including rules for training and certification), please write them here:

PCE wants to acknowledge the Australian Government committed to a review into Assistance Animal National Principles from 7 March 2025 to 1 June 2025. We also like to raise the inconsistency the NDIA has when it comes to funding and approving assistance dogs to people who are blind or Deaf. Additionally, people with disability who currently use assistance dogs continue to experience denial to petrol stations, restaurants, and taxi and Uber services etc. Managers and owners of these mainstream services must know the access rights of assistance dogs.

13. This question is about Disability Action Plans. If you have any ideas or comments about how Disability Action Plans could be made more useful, please explain them here:

Enter your response here

14. This question is about Disability Standards. How could the Disability Discrimination Act be changed to improve compliance with the Disability Standards, to ensure people follow these rules? Please write your ideas here:

Enter your response here

Part 7 – Further options for reform and file upload

This section asks questions about other things we can do to change the Disability Discrimination Act. There might be other things you think need to be changed in the Disability Discrimination Act.

If you also want to upload a written, audio or video submission, you can do that here.

This is the last page of questions in this survey.

15. What other changes should be made to the Disability Discrimination Act?

Enter your response here