Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) review

Submission to the Attorney-General’s Department

13 November 2025

Recommendations

This submission recommends the Attorney-General’s Department:

Strengthen Information and Communication Technologies accessibility provisions in the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth).
Amend the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) to explicitly address offensive behaviour, harassment, and vilification in digital spaces.
Expand the definition of “public place” to include online environments.
Introduce a federal prohibition on disability vilification to ensure consistency across states and territories.
Develop clear, practical, and accessible guidance materials to accompany the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth).
Accompany any legislative changes with a structured communication campaign that includes outreach, shareable resources, and an updated Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.2-compliant website.
Adopt the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability recommendations on strengthening the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth).
Review the international standards environment to align the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) with global best practice.
Establish a Digital Communications Technology Standard under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth).
Ensure strong complaints and enforcement mechanisms with sufficient investigative powers and resources.
Improve regulatory coordination across the Australian Human Rights Commission, Australian Communications and Media Authority, Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, and eSafety Commissioner.

About this submission

The Australian Communications Consumer Action Network (ACCAN) is pleased to provide this submission to the Attorney-General’s Department on the review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) (the DDA). This review presents an opportunity to update the DDA, ensuring that everyone can access essential communication and digital services in Australia.

PRES TENTS STU iss esicsicssssss cies ssc apni coer cc iS Sa aa en nace Raa 2 REACICIT MIT VN NCUERIN CONS ccs sa iN SZ SS CCAS fw aaa RC 2 OTN scp ete R ERE EIU ROMS 3 i 4 ele ee EU U2 8 RR RR Sa PvP SA RRSP DOO 5 Include ICT-based barriers in the definition of indirect discrimination ……………….cceceeeeeeeeeeeseeeeeeeeees 5 Address digital barriers in employment and hiring practices ………………cceceeseeseeeeecesceseececescescescseesesees 5 Recognise digital access points as part of an “access to PreMiSeS” …………..eceecceceeeceseeeeseesteeeseeeeseees 5 Ensure accessible ICT in digital goods and ServiCes …………….cccecescscceeeeseeseeseseeseeeesecacseeaeeeesceaeseesecatseees 5 Ensure accessible ICT in the administration of government programs ……………..:.scecceseeseeseeseeeeneeeeees 8 Disability standard for accessible ICT ou… ee eeeeeecescesessesesesseecesseeseesesecsesesceaesaeseeaesecsecacsceaesaescesssecaeeateeees 8 International standardisation of accessible ICT ……………ccescescecesseseeeeseeeeseeseseeseeaeseeceeeesceseseesceataceaseeeaeees 9 EE Ino fflosrceseresensemennreenemeemnenmemenneumneememnenemenennsemenmenmumnenemesemnemeneumnnemenenees 9 Offensive behaviour, harassment, and vilification in digital SPaCe@S ……………ceceecceceseeseseeeesceseeeeseeseseeees 10 Additional guidance materials that should be provided to the community ………………:::csccscesseeeeeeeeeeeees 12 ee | ee ee ee is Other issues that should be addressed in the DDA review……………..:csccscesesceseesceeeseecesceseeeesceseeeseeceaeeaees 14 SEMIN sissies SNC tA SION EON AN RADE SARCODECRTAUSA ESCA TAU REC 14

ACCAN is the peak national consumer organisation advocating trusted, accessible, inclusive, affordable and available communications and digital services.

Introduction

In today’s digitally connected world, access to Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) is a fundamental human right.¹ Communications and digital services underpin almost every aspect of daily life, from education and employment to healthcare, government services, and social participation. For the 5.5 million Australians with disability (21.4% of the population), digital accessibility is essential to full and equal participation in society.²

The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) (the DDA) was developed before the widespread adoption of communications and digital services in Australia. While the DDA has been instrumental in protecting and advancing disability rights, its application to ICT is inconsistent and inadequate. As a result, inaccessible communications and digital services continue to create systemic barriers due to a lack of universal design.³

The Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability (Disability Royal Commission) made a number of recommendations to improve the lives of people with disability, many of which involve reforms aimed at modernising the DDA which the Australian Government has endorsed.

The review of the DDA presents a critical opportunity to embed a comprehensive framework of ICT accessibility within proposed reforms, ensuring businesses take reasonably practicable steps to promote accessibility. Strengthening the DDA in this way would bring Australia into closer alignment with its international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), which explicitly recognises access to “new information and communications technologies and systems, including the internet”, as a human right.⁴ It would also ensure that technological advancements serve to bridge, rather than widen, the participation gap for people with disabilities.

The Australian Communications Consumer Action Network (ACCAN) recommends the Attorney-General’s Department strengthen ICT accessibility provisions in the DDA. Furthermore, we support introducing a positive duty to prevent discrimination, extending protections to online spaces, providing clear and accessible guidance materials, and adopting strong enforcement mechanisms through the DDA review.

1 Centre for Accessibility Australia, Submission to the Disability Discrimination Act (Submission, Attorney-General’s Department, August 2025).

2 Australian Bureau of Statistics, Disability, Ageing and Carers, Australia: Summary of Findings (Web Page, 4 July 2024) https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/disability/disability-ageing-and-carers-australia-summary-findings/latest-release; Centre for Accessibility Australia, Submission to the Disability Discrimination Act (Submission, Attorney-General’s Department, August 2025).

3 Australian Human Rights Commission, Guideline on equal access to digital goods and services (Guideline, April 2025) 17.

4 United National Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability, 2006, Article 9.

Proposed amendments to the DDA

Include ICT-based barriers in the definition of indirect discrimination

ACCAN recommends the DDA’s definition of indirect discrimination, in Section 6, should explicitly cover ICT-based barriers. For example, a “digital first” service policy with no accessible alternative could unfairly disadvantage people with certain disabilities. Making it clear that policies like online-only service delivery or ICT procurement practices that ignore accessibility can constitute indirect discrimination would reinforce the need for inclusive design. This ensures that seemingly neutral requirements (such as using a smartphone app to access a service) do not unreasonably exclude people with disability.

Address digital barriers in employment and hiring practices

ACCAN recommends updating employment discrimination provisions in Section 15 to address digital barriers in hiring and the workplace so far as is reasonably practicable. ACCAN stakeholders noted that several job application systems and workplace software platforms are not accessible, effectively excluding people with disability from applying or working on an equal basis.

Clarifying that failing to provide accessible application processes or workplace ICT can be unlawful discrimination would promote fair employment opportunities. The Australian Human Rights Commission’s (AHRC) guidance notes that not providing reasonable adjustments (for instance, requiring an employee to use software that is incompatible with assistive technology) can constitute discrimination under the DDA.⁵ Strengthening Section 15 to explicitly cover such scenarios will push employers to eliminate digital accessibility obstacles in recruitment and during employment.

Recognise digital access points as part of an “access to premises”

ACCAN recommends that Section 23 be expanded to clarify that if a venue or service uses a digital system as a gateway to a physical place or service, that system should be accessible. ACCAN stakeholders highlighted concerns with physical premises often being inaccessible due to digital access points, such as self-service kiosks. By recognising digital entry points as part of an “access to premises”, the DDA would ensure that a physical location is not effectively off-limits due to an inaccessible device or technology at the entrance.

Ensure accessible ICT in digital goods and services

ACCAN recommends that the Attorney-General’s Department amend Section 24 of the DDA to include a clause focused on ensuring accessible ICT. We propose the following changes (additions in bold):

5 Australian Human Rights Commission, Guideline on equal access to digital goods and services (Guideline, April 2025) 22.

It is unlawful for a person who, whether for payment or not, provides goods or services, or makes facilities available, to discriminate against another person on the ground of the other person’s disability:

a) by refusing to provide the other person with those goods or services or to make those facilities available to the other person; or

b) in the terms or conditions on which the first-mentioned person provides the other person with those goods or services or makes those facilities available to the other person; or

c) in the manner in which the first-mentioned person provides the other person with those goods or services or makes those facilities available to the other person; or

d) by providing the other person with Information and Communications Technology, which does not comply with Australian accessibility provisions, unless compliance is reasonably impracticable.

Adding a subsection requiring ICT to meet Australian accessibility standards, where it is reasonably practicable to do so, will further ensure that digital services and goods are accessible by design. In practice, this means that if a business or government agency provides a digital service or good, it should conform to accepted accessibility benchmarks, such as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2 and the Australian Standard EN 301 549 for ICT accessibility.⁶

While the proposed amendment to Section 24 places an onus on businesses to meet accessibility standards where services are delivered digitally, there may be situations where it is impracticable for them to comply with this outright. We note that similar considerations arise in the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Cth), which achieves its objective of ensuring the highest level of protection to workers against harms to their health, safety and welfare, subject to a “reasonably practicable” qualification.⁷

ACCAN recommends the DDA adopt the “reasonably practicable” framework outlined in the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Cth). This framework defines “reasonably practicable” as balancing the

6 Australian Human Rights Commission, Guideline on equal access to digital goods and services (Guideline, April 2025); AS EN 301 549:2024 (Standards Australia) https://www.standards.org.au/standards-catalogue/standard-details?designation=as-en-301-549-2024; Web Accessibility Initiative, WCAG 2 Overview (Web Page, 12 December 2024) https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag/.

7 Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Cth), Section 18 states that “In this Act, reasonably practicable, in relation to a duty to ensure health and safety, means that which is, or was at a particular time, reasonably able to be done in relation to ensuring health and safety, taking into account and weighing up all relevant matters including: (a) the likelihood of the hazard or the risk concerned occurring; and (b) the degree of harm that might result from the hazard or the risk; and (c) what the person concerned knows, or ought reasonably to know, about: (i) the hazard or the risk; and (ii) ways of eliminating or minimising the risk; and (d) the availability and suitability of ways to eliminate or minimise the risk; and (e) after assessing the extent of the risk and the available ways of eliminating or minimising the risk, the cost associated with available ways of eliminating or minimising the risk, including whether the cost is grossly disproportionate to the risk”.

foreseeability of harm against the availability, suitability, and cost of measures to eliminate or minimise that harm. It involves assessing the level of risk, considering the means available to address it, and determining whether the costs of those measures would be grossly disproportionate to the level of risk involved.⁸

When applied to the DDA, this framework could guide organisations on when and how they must take steps to ensure their services are accessible. Specifically, an obligation would arise in situations where:

It is foreseeable that a person with an access requirement would use the service.
There are reasonable and available steps the organisation could take to ensure accessibility, such as providing alternative formats, utilising accessible technology, or implementing inclusive design.
The costs of providing accessibility are not grossly disproportionate considering the organisation’s resources and the benefits achieved.

This would impose a strong principle-based obligation on entities to provide accessible services, while also recognising legitimate limitations where compliance might be genuinely impracticable, such as in cases of significant financial hardship or where no viable technical solutions exist.

In practice, incorporating the “reasonably practicable” framework from the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Cth) into the DDA would create clearer expectations and consistency in how accessibility obligations are interpreted and enforced. It would also support a cultural shift, encouraging entities to take reasonable steps to improve accessibility as part of standard business practices.

Through ACCAN’s engagement on accessibility issues, it is clear that many organisations currently fail to implement even relatively simple measures to enhance accessibility. Embedding a “reasonably practicable” framework within the DDA would help drive the systemic and cultural change needed to ensure that accessibility is treated as a core responsibility rather than an optional extra.

Furthermore, requiring compliance with accessibility standards in Section 24 of the DDA, where it is reasonably practicable to do so, directly supports the AHRC’s guidelines on equal access to digital goods and services in Australia.⁹ It is also consistent with the way the Disability Royal Commission framed its recommendation in relation to a positive duty in the DDA to take ‘reasonable and proportionate measures’ to eliminate all forms of discrimination, which we have discussed later in this submission.¹⁰

8 Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Cth) Section 18(d) and (e).

9 Australian Human Rights Commission, Guideline on equal access to digital goods and services (Guideline, April 2025).

10 Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, Executive Summary, Our vision for an inclusive Australia and recommendations (Final report, September 2023) 64.

Ensure accessible ICT in the administration of government programs

With limited exception, ACCAN recommends that Section 29 be strengthened to ensure accessible ICT, so far as is reasonably practicable, in government service delivery, and to require that Australian Government agencies procure ICT products and services that are accessible. Exceptions may relate to government programs where there is no clear need to support accessibility. Supporting accessible design in Australian Government ICT procurement through the DDA would ensure that new digital government services, so far as is reasonably practicable, are built to meet Australian standards, such as AS EN 301 549, from the start.¹¹ This reflects ACCAN’s previous recommendation that federal, state, territory, and local governments develop a whole of government procurement policy for accessible ICT.¹²

Disability standard for accessible ICT

ACCAN recommends the development of a dedicated disability standard for accessible ICT under Section 31 of the DDA. Section 31 empowers the Minister to create enforceable standards, and ACCAN supports the AHRC’s 2021 proposal to develop a Digital Communication Technology Standard using this power.¹³ This standard should mandate compliance with current accessibility requirements, such as WCAG 2.2 and AS EN 301 549, across public-facing digital technologies. Establishing an ICT accessibility standard under the DDA would comprehensively address digital access obligations and give these obligations force of law, thereby implementing Australia’s commitments under the UNCRPD, which calls for equal access to ICT. In developing the disability standard, it is crucial that the Minister consult widely with people with disability and industry, as recommended by the AHRC.

ACCAN also endorses the AHRC’s related recommendation that Standards Australia, in consultation with disability advocates, should create a technical specification or Australian standard for accessible product documentation (user guides, instructions, and manuals) to accompany digital goods and services.¹⁴ This would ensure that accessibility is not only built into the products and services themselves but also into the information needed to use them. Such a specification should inform the content of the new Digital Communication Technology Standard, ensuring a cohesive framework for ICT accessibility.

11 AS EN 301 549:2024 (Standards Australia) https://www.standards.org.au/standards-catalogue/standard-details?designation=as-en-301-549-2024.

12 ACCAN, Public Procurement of Accessible Information and Communications Technology (ICT) (Community position paper, May 2022).

13 Australian Human Rights Commission, Human rights and technology final report: summary (Summary, 2021) 16.

14 Ibid 17.

ACCAN stakeholders further noted that the Digital Communication Technology Standard should also include digital accessibility gaps, such as audio descriptions, subtitling, and Auslan translations, along with offering guidelines for emerging technologies, such as Artificial Intelligence.

International standardisation of accessible ICT

ACCAN recommends the Attorney-General’s Department conduct a review of the accessible ICT standards environment, including relevant international standards and guidance available for adoption. This review should ensure support for the broad implementation of appropriate standards and guidance related to accessible communications.¹⁵ It is important to look at recent reforms completed or underway in other jurisdictions, such as Canada and Europe, to identify opportunities for harmonising Australian legislative reforms with international markets.¹⁶ ACCAN stakeholders further emphasised that any review should focus on what is working effectively overseas and avoid replicating weaker models that may dilute protections.

Positive duty in the DDA

ACCAN recommends the introduction of a positive duty to prevent disability discrimination under the DDA.¹⁷ This duty should ensure that accessibility is embedded into the design, development, and delivery of digital goods and services in line with Australia’s obligations under the UNCRPD.

A positive duty should apply across the communications and digital sectors, including both public and private organisations, to promote a consistent, proactive approach to accessibility. However, recognising Australia’s diverse business landscape, the scope and implementation of this duty must be practical and proportionate to the size, capacity, and resources of organisations. This framing of the duty is consistent with the recommendation 4.27 of the Disability Royal Commission for a positive duty to take reasonable and proportionate measures to eliminate discrimination. Some of the factors the Disability Royal Commission suggested as relevant for determining what is ‘reasonable and proportionate’ include:

The size of the person’s business or operations.
The nature and circumstances of the person’s business or operations.
The person’s resources.
The person’s business, risk management plans and operational priorities.

15 Such as, Web Accessibility Initiative, WCAG 2 Overview (Web Page, 12 December 2024) https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag/; AS EN 301 549:2024 (Standards Australia) https://www.standards.org.au/standards-catalogue/standard-details?designation=as-en-301-549-2024; ISO 24495-1:2023 (International Organization for Standardization) https://www.iso.org/standard/78907.html; Directive 2019/882/EU, European Accessibility Act; CAN/ASC - EN 301 549:2024 https://accessible.canada.ca/creating-accessibility-standards/canasc-en-301-5492024-accessibility-requirements-ict-products-and-services.

16 ACCAN, Review of Australia’s Disability Strategy (Submission, Department of Social Services, 6 September 2024) 3.

17 Ibid.

The practicability and the cost of the measures.
Whether the person has a disability action plan.
The nature and extent of the person’s consultation with any person with disability concerned.
Any other relevant facts and circumstances.¹⁸

The ‘reasonably practicable’ standard in the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Cth) is another useful reference for framing the duty. Section 19(2) of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Cth) requires duty holders to ensure safety “so far as is reasonably practicable”. This approach recognises that while all organisations share responsibility for accessibility, the extent of obligations should reflect what is reasonably achievable given their context. The ‘reasonably practicable’ test is unlikely to be relied upon by large businesses and government agencies who have the capacity and resources to ensure their systems and processes are designed or adapted to comply with the duty. The test should apply proportionately to smaller businesses and not-for-profits who are unable to comply without substantial disruption, cost or hardship to their operations.

Accordingly, ACCAN emphasises that the focus should be on reducing the cost and complexity of developing or adapting accessible systems, processes and materials, particularly for small businesses and community organisations. To further support implementation, the Attorney-General’s Department should provide guidance, resources, and capacity-building initiatives, while also ensuring robust enforcement through audits and compliance checks.

Finally, while enforcement mechanisms such as audits and penalties remain essential for accountability, the emphasis should be on education, support, and capacity building as this is critical to generating the cultural shift that is necessary to shift industry practices. This balanced approach promotes shared responsibility and proactive prevention while acknowledging differing capabilities across organisations.

Offensive behaviour, harassment, and vilification in digital spaces

ACCAN supports amending the DDA to explicitly protect people with disability from offensive behaviour, harassment, and vilification both in physical spaces and online environments. People with disability increasingly encounter offensive behaviour in digital public spaces, particularly on social media platforms. To provide effective protections, ACCAN recommends the definition of “public place” within the DDA should be expanded to include online and digital spaces that are accessible to the public.¹⁹

Furthermore, digital platforms and service providers must be held responsible for the systems they operate and the harmful content they host, following the principles established in the Online Safety Act

18 Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, Executive Summary, Our vision for an inclusive Australia and recommendations (Final report, September 2023) 205.

19 Attorney-General’s Department, Disability Discrimination Act 1992 Review (Issues paper, August 2025) 67.

2021 (Cth).²⁰ As noted in ACCAN’s previous submission regarding the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 [Provisions], we recommend the Australian Government amend the Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth) to directly regulate social media services to comply with safety by design measures, such as:

Greater user control over content with the ability to customise, reset or switch off recommender systems and personal algorithms.²¹
Default safety settings for user accounts.
Mandatory transparency requirements for recommender systems, algorithms and platform data modelled on the European Union’s Digital Services Act.²²
Mandatory minimum standards for internal dispute resolution processes.
Mandatory participation in an external dispute resolution body.²³

ACCAN stakeholders also emphasised the crucial need for platforms to mandate data sharing through application programming interfaces (APIs).²⁴ Access to APIs is critical, considering many platforms have reduced or even eliminated access to data sharing for relevant public stakeholders. This reduction limits the ability of regulatory bodies, such as the eSafety Commissioner and the AHRC, to monitor systemic offensive behaviour, harassment, and vilification in digital spaces.

ACCAN stakeholders further noted that the vilification laws in Australian states and territories are inconsistent, varying in both scope and strength. To ensure consistency across Australia, ACCAN recommends the DDA should establish a federal prohibition against disability vilification, especially in digital spaces.

Furthermore, the AHRC should be empowered to initiate systemic complaints against platforms or organisations where widespread discrimination occurs. This would help prevent the inequitable situation in which individual consumers have to confront corporations on their own. We further recommend for better alignment between the AHRC, Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman (TIO) and eSafety Commissioner regarding DDA complaints on digital platforms.

20 Ibid 68.

21 Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society, Parliament of Australia, Inquiry into the influence and impacts of social media on Australian society (Report, November 2024).

22 Ibid.

23 ACCAN, Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 [Provisions] (Submission, Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications, 22 November 2024) 2.

24 Bruns, Axel, Angus, Daniel, Lubicz-Zaorski, Carly, Stardust, Zahra, FitzGerald, Kate, Graham, Timothy, Nagappa, Ashwin, Burgess, Jean, Leeftink, Dennis Alexander, Vilkins, Samantha, Watt, Ned, Ochoa Diaz, Maria, Rodriguez, Aleesha, Kasianenko, Kateryna, Osman, Kim, Whelan-Shamy, Daniel, Nelson, Lucinda, Hyland-Wood, Bernadette, Svegaard, Sebastian F. K., Riedlinger, Michelle, and Dezuanni, Michael, QUT DMRC Submission to the Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society (Submission, Parliament of Australia, 30 July 2024).

Additional guidance materials that should be provided to the community

ACCAN supports the creation of clear, accessible, and practical guidance to accompany the DDA. Feedback from stakeholders highlights the need for materials that not only inform people with disability of their rights but also equip duty holders, including communications and digital service providers, with the knowledge to fulfil their responsibilities.

The DDA and its accompanying guidance should be available in multiple accessible formats, such as Easy Read, Easy English, plain language, Auslan (both summary and full versions), scripts for Deafblind people, audio formats, and text that is compatible with screen readers. All materials should be released simultaneously to ensure equal access for everyone.

In addition, plain language resources are necessary to explain the rights of people with disability and clarify legal concepts like “unjustifiable hardship.” These explanations should be complemented by practical, real-world examples from various sectors, including communications and digital services.

Furthermore, ACCAN recommends concise, focused resources should be developed for everyday service contexts, highlighting the obligations specific to each sector as well as the rights of consumers. Additionally, the guidance should clearly outline the enforcement frameworks and complaint mechanisms available under the DDA.

Any standards referenced under the DDA should be publicly available at no cost and in accessible formats, including for individuals who are blind or have low vision. Supplementary resources, such as checklists and practical compliance tips, would also support duty holders in their efforts to comply with the requirements of the DDA.

To ensure that everyone in Australia is aware of legislative changes to the DDA, guidance materials should be accompanied by a structured communication and awareness campaign. The campaign should include targeted outreach to disability advocacy groups and industry, and the development of shareable materials such as social media graphics and infographics. An updated, accessible DDA website, compliant with WCAG 2.2, should serve as the central hub for information, designed to be easy to navigate and host resources in all required formats.

The effectiveness of communication measures should be evaluated through consumer feedback, accessibility audits, and surveys targeting both people with disability and duty holders. Metrics such as engagement with digital resources, levels of reported awareness, and the uptake of accessible formats will ensure transparency and support ongoing improvement.

A clear timeline is also crucial. Accessible versions of the DDA and core guidance materials should be released concurrently with legislative changes to guarantee immediate and equal access to information. The AHRC should publish sector-specific guides within six months of the changes’ commencement to provide duty holders with timely and practical support.

By delivering guidance in these forms, on this timeline, and with robust communication and evaluation, the Attorney-General’s Department will ensure that the DDA is accessible, understandable, and practical. This approach will help empower people with disability to assert their rights while supporting duty holders in communications and digital services sector to meet their obligations.

Complaints mechanism

ACCAN supports legislative reform to ensure that the DDA complaints system delivers timely, enforceable, and systemic outcomes in the communications and digital services sector. ACCAN stakeholders noted that the current DDA complaints mechanism is under-resourced, slow, and often ineffective in addressing discrimination. They illustrated that individuals could face delays of six to twelve months before their cases are allocated for conciliation, which discourages complaints and undermines confidence in the system.

Furthermore, ACCAN stakeholders highlighted that conciliation under the DDA is voluntary, allowing large companies to delay or disengage from the process. Therefore, ACCAN recommends that the DDA adopt a mandatory conciliation model with enforcement powers, preventing respondents from opting out of addressing complaints.

ACCAN stakeholders also noted that funding is crucial for the effectiveness of any reform. The AHRC, advocacy organisations, and legal aid services must be adequately resourced to manage complaints quickly, support consumers throughout the process, and pursue systemic cases in court when necessary. This approach will help overcome the existing imbalance between individual consumers and large companies. Disability organisations should also have the ability to file complaints on behalf of groups, allowing for more efficient resolution of systemic issues.

In addition, complaint mechanisms must be accessible, and the processes and follow-up responses of these mechanisms should accommodate the communication needs of complainants. For example, an ACCAN member pointed out that individuals who are Deaf should not be contacted by phone, as this method of communication is not accessible to this community. Ensuring that the complaint-handling process is accessible is crucial for building trust in the DDA, encouraging greater use by individuals with disabilities.

ACCAN stakeholders also emphasised the importance of transparency in the DDA complaints process. They noted that standard confidentiality clauses, often referred to as “gag clauses”, in settlements prevent lessons from being shared publicly, masking systemic issues and allowing recurring problems to persist. These clauses should be removed or limited, with the AHRC publishing de-identified case studies across disability groups in plain English to inform consumers and promote industry-wide improvements.

Finally, greater coordination among regulatory bodies is essential. ACCAN stakeholders highlighted that consumers often struggle to determine whether to approach the TIO, the AHRC, eSafety Commissioner, or the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) regarding accessibility-related complaints. To prevent duplication and gaps, these complaint pathways should

be integrated, and the ACMA must be given a clear mandate to enforce accessibility obligations for communications in conjunction with the DDA.

In summary, an effective DDA complaints mechanism must be timely, transparent, enforceable, and adequately funded. Without these reforms, the DDA will continue to burden individuals while failing to drive the systemic change necessary to make communications and digital services accessible for all Australians.

Other issues that should be addressed in the DDA review

To enhance the DDA, the review should also consider adopting the proposed amendments to the DDA recommended by the Disability Royal Commission in recommendations 4.23 to 4.34.²⁵

Conclusion

Revising the DDA to embed strong and enforceable provisions for ICT accessibility is not simply a legal necessity, it is a social, economic, and democratic imperative. Access to ICT underpins every aspect of Australian life. Without explicit protections, people with disability will continue to face systemic exclusion from essential services, opportunities, and participation in society.

By explicitly protecting people with disability from harassment, offensive behaviour, and vilification in digital spaces, and providing clear, accessible guidance and resources, the DDA can be modernised to reflect the realities of the digital age. Complemented by robust enforcement mechanisms and alignment with international standards, these reforms would ensure that technological innovation works to remove barriers rather than reinforce them.

Strengthening ICT accessibility within the DDA is an investment in Australia’s future. It will promote equity, enhance workforce participation, broaden consumer inclusion, and ensure that every Australian can participate fully and equally in our digital society.

We thank the Attorney-General’s Department for the opportunity to comment on the DDA review. Should you wish to discuss any of the issues raised in this submission further, please do not hesitate to contact redacted: s47F - personal privacy Principal Policy Officer, at redacted: s47F - personal privacy.

The Australian Communications Consumer Action Network (ACCAN) is Australia’s peak communication consumer organisation. The operation of ACCAN is made possible by funding provided by the Commonwealth of Australia under section 593 of the Telecommunications Act 1997. This funding is recovered from charges on telecommunications carriers. ACCAN is committed to reconciliation that acknowledges Australia’s past and values the unique culture and heritage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

25 ACCAN, Review of Australia’s Disability Strategy (Submission, Department of Social Services, 6 September 2024) 3; ACCAN, The Australian Government response to the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability (Submission, Department of Social Services, 19 January 2024) 1; Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, Executive Summary, Our vision for an inclusive Australia and recommendations (Final report, September 2023) 204-208.

a(an