Preventing harm and alleviating distress caused by elder abuse

Elder Abuse Action Australia acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of Country and Island Home across Australia, the lands on which we live and work. We pay our respects to their Elders both past and present and acknowledge the continued connection of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People to land, sea, sky, community, and culture. Sovereignty has never been ceded. It always was and always will be, Aboriginal land.

For enquiries about this submission please contact: Vicki Nash - Policy Manager
redacted
redacted

1

About Elder Abuse Action Australia

Who We Are

Elder Abuse Action Australia (EAAA) is a national peak body established in 2018 to prevent harm and alleviate the distress caused by elder abuse. Elder abuse is a serious issue that causes suffering, disadvantage and vulnerability for many older Australians. EAAA works to reduce this harm, ensuring older people can live safely, with dignity and without fear. Our work positively impacts not only older individuals but also their families, communities and Australian society.

What we do

EAAA has established itself as Australia’s leading authority and primary resource of information, resources and education on elder abuse. As a voice for action, EAAA acts against elder abuse by raising nationwide awareness of this growing social issue and simplifying the process of connecting people to services and information that can help. EAAA’s work impacts positively on the older person, their families, their communities and society more broadly. We seek to prevent harm and alleviate the distress caused by elder abuse through advocacy, education, research, collaboration and capacity building.

We are known and respected for delivering Compass.info, a critical resource that helps alleviate distress by providing practical information on how to recognise, prevent and respond to elder abuse. Compass connects people to frontline services, supporting older Australians in need of support or guidance. EAAA also hosts the National Elder Abuse Conferences, the only conferences of this kind in Australia. Walk the Talk in Hobart (2022) and Turn Up The Volume! in Adelaide (2024) provided valuable opportunities for learning, collaboration and networking for the sector. These events have been widely applauded for driving solutions to reduce elder abuse and its impacts.

A membership-based organisation, we collaborate with individuals and the sector, providing opportunities for building capacity and knowledge through regular webinars, focus groups and social media interactions. As a national voice for action, EAAA works to prevent elder abuse and support those affected by it. We use advocacy, policy development, research and education initiatives to raise awareness and promote effective solutions to reduce harm and provide relief and support to older people experiencing abuse.

Why we do it

Older people experiencing abuse often face distress, hardship and vulnerability, leaving them at risk of further harm and isolation. Many rely on family, friends, and carers for support, but for some, these relationships become sources of mistreatment, coercion and abuse. EAAA works to prevent harm and alleviate suffering by ensuring older Australians can live safely, with dignity and autonomy. Our efforts reduce the barriers older people face in accessing help, ensuring that no one suffers in silence.

Elder abuse not only affects individuals but also weakens communities, limiting the participation of older people and denying society the benefits of their contributions. EAAA exists to protect and support older Australians whose safety, rights and wellbeing are at risk. Through our work, we help relieve distress, prevent harm, and promote safe and supportive environments for all older Australians. We give voice and assistance to those older Australians whose safety, rights, dignity and autonomy are diminished by the people or institutions they deal with.

2

Introduction

The Final Report of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation or People with Disability¹ [hereafter referred to as the Royal Commission] revealed a confronting and uncomfortable truth about the experiences of people living with disability in Australia. It also marked a moment for much needed change, illustrating the way in which people with disability continue to fall through the gaps despite the Disability Discrimination Act, National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) and other mechanisms intended to ensure equity and equality of opportunity. EAAA is therefore encouraged by this review of the Disability Discrimination Act and pleased to provide input in the form of this submission.

The gaps in equity and opportunity for people with disability are even wider for older people with disability who are frequently disregarded and the intersection between ageism and ableism ignored. This is true despite us knowing that more than half of all people in Australia aged over 65 are living with at least one disability². The failure to consider this cohort of approximately 2.3 million people extends to the Royal Commission itself, which deemed older people as out of scope on the basis that:

“Our terms of reference did not require us to inquire into matters dealt with by the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety.”³

This shortsightedness is reflective of the systemic ageism of Australian society, with the assumption that older people belong in the aged care system or will be taken care of by the system. This not only overlooks the common intersection between ageism and ableism, but it is also not reflective of the data. There are more than 4.4 million people aged 65 and over in Australia⁴, of these only 1.27 people use aged care services of any kind⁵, significantly less than one third of older people in Australia.

If we were to assume that all these people were living with disability it would equate to less than half of those older Australians with disability. We of course know that not every person using aged care services lives with disability, there are many other reasons an older person may require aged care, in particular frailty. While not considered a disability, more than half of people aged 65 and over are considered frail or prefrail⁶.

Older people with disability must be prioritised to address this gap and challenge systemic ageism as they face a heightened risk of abuse and mistreatment arising from the intersection of older age and disability⁷. This established risk is too often overlooked in both disability and aged care frameworks. Studies consistently indicate that disability increases vulnerability to all forms of elder abuse, including financial exploitation, neglect, psychological abuse, and physical and sexual violence⁸.

This vulnerability stems not from the disability itself but from societal attitudes, particularly ageism and ableism⁸, dependency created by inaccessible environments¹⁰,

3

and systemic failures to recognise and uphold the rights of older people¹¹. Older people with disability are more likely to have dependencies¹², and require communication aids or decision-making support¹³, which in turn creates power imbalances that can be, and often are, exploited¹⁴.

This increased vulnerability to abuse is compounded by the frequency with which abuses go unrecognised or unreported. Behaviours that would be identified as abusive in other context are often dismissed as ’behaviour management’¹⁵. The intersection of ageism and ableism fuels a culture of disbelief and minimisation, in which the older person’s account may be doubted, their distress attributed to cognitive impairment¹⁶, or their mistreatment rationalised as a part of ageing or disability¹⁷. And in the case of restrictive practices, as a mechanism to prevent other harms¹⁸.

Australia’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) include that all persons with disability are protected from exploitation, violence and abuse under article 16¹⁹, and enjoy legal capacity on an equal basis to others under article 12²⁰. This is intended to protect people with disability of all ages and not just those aged 64 and under who remain the focus of disability systems, services, and policy in Australia.

This submission has been informed by the existing evidence based and the input of EAAA members who were invited to undertake a survey informed by the provided Issues Paper. EAAA is pleased to present the following five recommendations to the Review which if enacted will assist in keeping older people living with disability safer from abuse and greater protected from discrimination.

Recommendation One: Fulfillment of Australia’s obligations under the CRPD should be added as an object of the Act, embedding the right to supported decision-making tools. [Consultation Questions 10, 11]

Recommendation Two: The Act must embed a focus on intersectionality, with an explicit focus on those cohorts most likely to live with disability including older people and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. [Consultation Questions 3, 4]

Recommendation Three: That the language in the Act be altered to address the inherent ableism in the current deficit-based definitions and language. [Consultation Questions 1, 2]

Recommendation Four: That the comparator test be replaced with a detriment test, reducing the burden on applicants. [Consultation Questions 5, 6]

Recommendation Five: The addition of vilification and harassment protections within the Act in a similar format to those found in the Racial Discrimination Act. [Consultation Questions 27, 28, 29]

4

Recommendation One:

Fulfilment of Australia’s Obligations under the CRPD should be added as an object of the Act, embedding the right to supported decision-making tools.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) was ratified by Australia in 2008²¹, joining the international community in a commitment to uphold the rights of persons with disability to equality, dignity, autonomy, and self-determination on an equal basis as those without disability. The CRPD represents a significant step forward in human rights thinking, recognising that disability is not a deficit within an individual, but instead the result of social and structural barriers that limit participation and agency.

While Australia has been a signatory to the CRPD for almost two decades²², the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 has not been amended to explicitly reference Australia’s CRPD obligations or to ensure its objects reflect the Convention’s intent²³. This omission limits the Act’s capacity to drive meaningful reform or provide clear legislative guidance on Australia’s human rights commitments to people with disabilities.

Object (c) of the current Act reads:

“To promote recognition and acceptance within the community of the principle that persons with disabilities have the same fundamental rights as the rest of the community.”²⁴

Whilst this object echoes the spirit of CRPD it lacks the specificity and foundational principles required to truly uphold Australia’s obligations under the Convention. In a similar vein, Object (b) reads:

“To ensure, as far as possible, that persons with disabilities have the same rights to equality before the law as the rest of the community.”²⁵

This directly aligns with Article 12 of the CRPD:

“1. State Parties shall reaffirm that persons with disabilities have the right to recognition everywhere as persons before the law.

2. State Parties shall recognize that persons with disabilities enjoy legal capacity on an equal basis with others in all aspects of life.

3. State Parties shall take appropriate measures to provide access by persons with disability to the support they may require in exercising their legal capacity.

4. State Parties shall ensure that all measures that relate to the exercise of legal capacity provide for appropriate and effective safeguards to prevent abuse in accordance with international human rights law. Such safeguards shall ensure

5

that measures relating to the exercise of legal capacity respect the rights, will and preferences of the person, are free of conflict of interest and undue influence, are proportional and tailored to the person’s circumstances, apply for the shortest time possible and are subject to review by a competent, independent and impartial authority or judicial body. The safeguards shall be proportional to the degree to which such measures affect the person’s rights and interests.

5. Subject to the provisions of this article, State Parties shall take all appropriate and effective measures to ensure the equal right of persons with disabilities to own or inherit property, to control their own financial affairs and to have equal access to bank loans, mortgages and other forms of financial credit, and shall ensure that persons with disabilities are not arbitrarily deprived of their property.”²⁶

The direct alignment between Object (b) of the Disability Discrimination Act and Article 12 of the CRPD signals the right intent of the Act. Without directly including CRPD as an object however, it falls short of embedding the full meaning of this Article, which requires reactive measures to ensure access to justice and equal recognition before the law. Without the explicit addition of CRPD as an object of the Act, the Disability Discrimination Act is limited by its inability to advance the proactive, rights-based approach envisioned by the CRPD and required to enhance the dignity of all people with disability.

Embedding fulfillment of Australia’s CRPD obligations as an object of the Disability Discrimination Act would create clear legislative mandates that uphold the rights of people with disabilities. It would also create a clear legislative mandate for supported decision-making. This is mandated by Article 12 and supported by Article 13, which affirm that every person with disability has the right to make their own decisions and receive whatever support they require to do so²⁷,²⁸. Supported decision-making acknowledges that capacity is not binary nor stagnant but exists on a spectrum and can alter across time and context.

The absence of the right to supported decision-making and any decision-making tools an individual may require within Australia’s current legislative frameworks contributes directly to discriminatory practices. Substitute decision-making arrangements, including guardianship and powers of attorney, have become deeply embedded in Australia’s legal and social systems²⁹. These arrangements are intended to provide individuals with cognitive or communication challenges³⁰. In practice, they often lead to a wholesale transfer of power away from the individual, favouring a subjective interpretation of their ‘best interests’ of the person over their values, beliefs, and preferences³¹. This removal of autonomy and dignity has been proven to be detrimental to health and wellbeing³² and to be a high-level risk factor for abuse and mistreatment³³.

6

EAAA is deeply concerned by the intersection of disability, ageing, and legal capacity. People with cognitive impairment or dementia diagnoses are often assumed to ‘lack capacity’³⁴. This failure to understand the complex nature of capacity and a paternalistic urge to protect at all costs leads to decisions impacting their lives being made without their participation, against their will, and even without their knowledge³⁵. The failure to provide supported decision-making tools is disability discrimination and yet it occurs across the country in all areas of life.

Explicit reference to the CRPD within the Disability Discrimination Act would also strengthen accountability and coherence across Australia’s broader legal and policy landscape. It would ensure that future reforms to guardianship, powers of attorney, mental health and aged care legislation are guided by the same international human rights standards. This would not only align the Act with contemporary human rights but provide greater clarity to regulators, service providers and courts in interpreting and applying its provisions.

EAAA’s membership overwhelmingly supports this reform, with 100% of surveyed members endorsing the addition of the CRPD as an object of the Disability Discrimination Act. This consensus reflects the recognition that all people are entitled to autonomy and self-determination, which themselves are foundational to preventing the abuse and mistreatment of older people.

Recommendation Two:

The Act must embed a focus on intersectionality, with an explicit focus on those cohorts most likely to live with disability, including older people and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

The Disability Discrimination Act must be altered to explicitly recognise the intersectional nature of discrimination and disadvantage; people are complex and discrimination rarely occurs in isolation. As one EAAA member told us:

“People are complex. It’s not just about having a disability – people may also be discriminated against because they are a woman with a disability, or a culturally diverse person with a disability, or an older person with a disability.”

Without explicit recognition of intersectionality, legislation risks treating discrimination as a single-dimensional experience, when in reality the effects of disability often intersect with other attributes and other forms of discrimination including ageism and racism³⁶.

EAAA members strongly supported the need for the Disability Discrimination Act to acknowledge and respond to intersectional discrimination, both in direct response to the question and throughout other areas of the survey undertaken to help inform this submission. One unprompted member commented:

7

“The DDA could be strengthened by expressly recognising the intersectional discrimination in the legislation. This would acknowledge that people with disability often experience compounding disadvantage when disability intersects with other attributes such as race, gender, age, or sexual orientation.”

Another member told us:

“It needs to be recognised that intersectionality can mean people face deepened discrimination that is additionally harmful and marginalising.”

The need for an intersectional framework within the Disability Discrimination Act is particularly urgent in the context of disability and ageing. 52.3% of people aged over 65 in Australia, or more than 2.3 million people³⁷, live with a disability, compared to only 21.4% of the overall population³⁸ and only 15% of those aged under 65³⁹. Yet older people are routinely overlooked within the disability sector and frequently specifically excluded from disability-specific policy, data, and service systems. The most concerning example of this is the Royal Commission which excluded people aged over 65 from its scope because:

“Our terms of reference did not require us to inquire into matters dealt with by the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety.”⁴⁰

Most older people do not use aged care services, including most older people with a disability, indicating that this assumption of the Royal Commission included people who should have been in scope purely based on their age. This false dichotomy between ‘ageing’ and ‘disability’ overlooks the clear intersection between ageism and ableism and fails to reflect the reality of older people’s lives. There are more than 4.4 million people in Australia aged 65 and over⁴¹, of these approximately:

• 193,000 use residential aged care services, including respite care
• 258,000 use in home care services
• 816,000 use in home support services
• 4.500 use transition care.⁴²

This equates to a total of 1.27 million older people using any form of aged care service⁴, less than a third of the older population. Even if every one of these individuals lived with disability, which they do not, this would still account for less than half of all older people with disability. The remaining cohort, more than a million people with a disability, fall outside both the disability and aged care systems, effectively rendered invisible by structural and legislative boundaries.

The intersection of ageism and ableism compounds this invisibility. Older people living with disability often face two forms of discrimination being dismissed or infantalised due to age while simultaneously being excluded from disability frameworks that presume a younger demographic. This is backed by both their omission from the Royal

8

Commission and the focus of the provided Issues Paper on education and work⁴³. This exclusion is not only discriminatory, it also actively undermines inclusion, participation, and protection from abuse. Research has shown that disability⁴⁴, and in particular cognitive impairment⁴⁵, are significant risk factors for elder abuse, with some studies estimating that at least half of people living with dementia experience abuse⁴⁶. The failure of the current system, and the current Disability Discrimination Act to recognise and address these intersecting vulnerabilities perpetuates both harm and silence.

Embedding intersectionality within the Act as a guiding principle would require that all legislative and policy measures recognise the cumulative and compounding nature of discrimination. Those most likely to experience disability, including older people and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, must be meaningfully included in the design, delivery, and oversight of reforms. EAAA does not seek to speak in detail about the experiences of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, however it acknowledges that they experience higher rates of disability than the general population⁴⁷, and the Disability Discrimination Act must recognise this. It must also respond to the distinct barriers faced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and the continuing impact of colonisation, racism and social inequity on the experience of disability⁴⁸.

To be effective, an intersectional framework within the Disability Discrimination Act must also enable people to bring claims that reflect their lived experience of overlapping discrimination. It is not reasonable to require applicants to identify a single primary attribute for discrimination, particularly when the motivation for discrimination lies with the respondent. Discrimination based on age, disability, gender, or race often interact in ways that are inseparable, and the law must reflect this complexity.

The Issues Paper provided for this Review refers to the need for ’inclusive homes and communities’⁴⁹ but again, this is a principle that has not been extended to older people. The disparity in inclusive homes within the Aged Care System and the NDIS is glaring, particularly with the implementation of the new Aged Care Act 2024, where older people face caps on home modifications even when living with degenerative disability⁵⁰. These artificial limits will result in unnecessary or unwanted admission into residential care, contrary to the principle of inclusion and the rights and dignity of older people.

The siloed approach between disability and aged care frameworks is failing. People are not defined by a single characteristic and policy systems must reflect this. Half of all older people in Australia are also people with disability⁵¹, and legislation should not rank which singular characteristic of a person defines them but instead see individuals holistically. To place older people with disability exclusively in the ‘aged care basket’ is not reflective of their reality and results in a denial of their disability rights, the exclusion of protections, and rendering them invisible in the disability policy landscape. This is not good enough.

9

The Disability Discrimination Act is limited in the scope of outcomes it can improve for older people with a disability, embedding intersectionality within the Act would ensure that law recognises and responds to the lived realities of people with disability regardless of their age. EAAA urges the Review to take the steps needed to ensure that older people with disability are visible, included, and afforded equal access to rights, justice, and protection from abuse.

Recommendation Three:

That the language in the Act be altered to address the inherent ableism in the current deficit-based definitions and language.

The language used in the Disability Discrimination Act reflects the values and assumptions of its time. When it was implemented in 1992⁵², the Act was a landmark reform that sought to advance equality and inclusion for people with disability. More than three decades later the Act’s language now reads not only as dated but in many cases also inherently ableist. The continued reliance on deficit-based terminology not only diminishes the dignity of people with disability but also perpetuates outdated understandings of disability as an individual impairment rather than a social construct⁵³.

The current definition of disability within the Act exemplifies this problem. It defines disability in relation to ‘total or partial loss’, ‘malfunction’, ‘malformation’, ‘disfigurement’, ‘disturbed behaviour’, and ‘disorder’⁵⁴. These words imply that people with a disability are deficient or abnormal when compared to those without disability, reinforcing stigma and discrimination instead of promoting the equity that is the objective of the Disability Discrimination Act.

EAAA members expressed deep concern about the ongoing use of this language, with one member characterising the current definition as ’soul-distressing’, reflecting the emotional toll of being defined by terms that emphasise deficiency. Other members called for the language in the Act to move away from a medicalised framing and toward one grounded in human rights, dignity, and social inclusion. As one member put it:

“The framing of disability needs to be guided by social and humanistic approaches that recognise that while people with disability may experience challenges for their physical, sensory, cognitive, intellectual and/or social function, their greatest barriers are those created by social organisation and function.”

Put more succinctly by another member:

10

“We need more life-affirming and less judgmental terms to describe living with a disability.”

EAAA recognises that the definition of disability must remain functional for the purposes of legal clarity and enforcement but believes that this can be achieved through inclusive and respectful language. Some EAAA members supported the use of the definition of disability used in the CRPD:

“Persons with long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which, in interaction with various barriers, may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.”⁵⁵

EAAA is concerned however that even this internationally recognised definition contains deficit-based language. The term ‘impairments’ continues to frame disability as a limitation within the individual rather than as a product of social and environmental barriers. In addition, the focus on ‘long-term’ conditions may exclude people whose disabilities are episodic, fluctuating, or emerging. This is particularly relevant to older people who may develop disabilities in later life or experience progressive health conditions. It is for these reasons that EAAA recommends a variation of the CRPD definition that better reflects contemporary understandings of disability and affirms the dignity of all people:

“Persons with physical, mental, intellectual, or sensory differences which, in interaction with various barriers, may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.”

This alternative wording removes the ableist framing embedded in the current Disability Discrimination Act and in some elements of the CRPD’s language. Replacing ‘impairments’ with ‘differences’ effectively reframes disability as a part of the natural diversity of human experience rather than a deviation from normality.

Updating the Disability Discrimination Act to ensure inclusive, non-deficit-based language is not a tokenistic gesture, but a way to affirm that people with disability are equal to those without disability and entitled to the same rights and human dignity. It would affirm that disability is a dimension of human diversity and that it is barriers and not bodies that disable people. This linguistic shift would ensure that the legislation itself embodies the equality and respect it seeks to guarantee.

Recommendation Four:

That the comparator test be replaced with a detriment test, reducing the burden on applicants.

The current comparator test for determining direct discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act creates unnecessary complexity and confusion for applicants and duty-holders alike. It requires that a person with disability be compared to a

11

hypothetical person without disability in similar circumstances, and that the applicant prove they were treated less favourably than that hypothetical comparator⁵⁶. This approach introduces too many unknown variables and subjective judgments, particularly for those applicants experiencing intersectional discrimination. This makes it difficult to establish discrimination and discourages legitimate claims.

EAAA supports the replacement of the comparator test with a detriment test, which asks a simpler and more equitable question: has the person experienced detriment or unfair treatment because of their disability? A detriment test moves the focus from speculative comparisons to the impact of the conduct. This approach makes the definition of discrimination easier to understand and anti-discrimination measures easier to implement. It also aligns the Disability Discrimination Act with contemporary discrimination law principles.

EAAA members overwhelmingly support this change, with 90% of surveyed members believing the comparator test was inappropriate and remaining surveyed members agreeing that it is ineffective when used in isolation. Members expressed frustration with the comparator test for being overly technical and placing an unreasonable evidentiary burden on people with disability.

Anti-discrimination legislation should be designed to support those experiencing discrimination, not unfairly burden them. EAAA believes that the burden of proof provisions in the Disability Discrimination Act should be revised to mirror those in the Fair Work Act 2009⁵⁷. Under this model the applicant must establish that the act or decision occurred but the onus of proving that the conduct was not discriminatory falls to the respondent. This shared burden of proof model provides a more equitable and practical balance. As one EAAA member explained:

[a shared burden of proof] is fairer and more practical. Respondents are in the best position to explain reasons for their decisions or conduct.

EAAA does not support models, such as the UK approach outlined in the provided Issues Paper⁵⁸, that exempt unintentional discrimination. Discrimination has real world consequences for people with disability regardless of intent and it should not be the responsibility of those affected to bear the costs of others’ lack of awareness or understanding.

Replacing the comparator test with a detriment test would create a fairer and more accessible framework, one that works for people with disability rather than requiring them to make it fit their circumstances. It would also ensure that the Disability Discrimination Act more effectively fulfils its core purpose of eliminating discrimination and promoting equality before the law for all people with disability.

12

Recommendation Five:

The addition of vilification and harassment protections within the Act in a similar format to those found in the Racial Discrimination Act.

The Disability Discrimination Act currently lacks provisions prohibiting vilification and harassment of people with disability⁵⁹, reflecting a significant gap in the protection framework. People with disability continue to experience degrading, hostile, and harmful treatment in public, online, and institutional settings without clear avenues for redress. The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 provides explicit protection against public acts that are reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate someone because of their race or ethnicity⁶⁰. There is no justification for people with a disability to be afforded lesser protection.

EAAA’s surveyed members were unanimous in their support for introducing vilification and harassment provisions to the Act. Members described the prevalence of discriminatory and demeaning behaviour towards people with disability including in online environments. In the words of one member:

“People with disability are frequently subjected to derogatory treatment and hate speech, both in public and online, which undermines dignity and participation.”

EAAA supports the inclusion of vilification and harassment protections in a similar form to those in the Racial Discrimination Act, but with careful consideration of the scope of any exemptions, as recommended by our members. One member reflected:

“I think the [Racial Discrimination Act] includes something around academia, public interest, etc – I don’t necessarily agree with this because academic discussion on racial/disability matters shouldn’t be offensive or harassment anyway.”

EAAA believes this an important point of reflection for the Review. Any exemptions to harassment and vilification provisions must be clearly justified, transparent, and demonstrably consistent with the objectives of equality, dignity, and respect for people with disability. The addition of vilification protections is vital to align the Disability Discrimination Act with Australia’s obligations under the CRPD; to strengthen the legal response to ableism; and to signal a national commitment to the right of people with disability to live free from humiliation, hatred, and abuse.

100% of EAAA members surveyed believed there should be vilification and harassment protections within the Act.

13

Conclusion:

The Disability Discrimination Act is a vital tool for protecting the rights, dignity, and autonomy of people with disability. This submission has sought to highlight the way it currently falls short in recognising the complexity and diversity of lived experience. This is particularly true for older people who are too often rendered invisible by the artificial and inequitable divides between the disability and aged care system. EAAA applauds this overdue Review as without reform the Act risks perpetuating systemic discrimination, undermining the rights of those most vulnerable, and leaving critical gaps in protection and support.

Reforming the Disability Discrimination Act is an opportunity to create a truly inclusive, rights-based framework. It can acknowledge intersecting barriers and value difference instead of reinforcing ideas of deficit. It can also embed dignity, autonomy, and equity as guiding principles.

EAAA urges the Review to seize this opportunity to ensure that all people with disability regardless of age are recognised, respected, and supported to participate fully in society.

14

References:

1. Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability (2023), Final Report: Executive Summary, Our Vision for an Inclusive Australia and Recommendations.
2. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2022), Survey of Disability, Ageing and Carers.
3. Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability.
4. Centre for Population (2024), 2024 Population Statement.
5. GEN Aged Care Data (2024), ‘People Using Aged Care’, 30 April, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.
6. Taylor, D; Barrie, H; Lang, J; Thompson, MQ; Theou, O; & Viscanathan, R (2019), ‘Geospatial modelling of the prevalence and changing distribution of frailty in Australia – 2011 to 2027’, Experimental Gerontology, Vol. 123, pp. 57-65.
7. Walsh, Christine A (2011), ‘Elder Abuse and Oppression: Voices of Marginalized Elders’, Journal of Elder Abuse and Neglect, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 17-42.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. World Health Organization (2011), World Report on Disability.
11. Hopf, Stefan; Previtali, Frederica; & Georgantzi, Nena (2021), ‘New forms of ageism as a challenge for a UN convention on the Rights of Older Persons’, University of Toronto Quarterly, Vol. 90, No. 2.
12. Doroszkiewicz, Halina; & Sierakowska, Matylda (2020), ‘Factors associated with risk of care dependency in disabled geriatric patients’, Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, Vol. 35, Is. 1, pp. 134-142
13. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2022).
14. Wei, Wenxing; & Balser, Sarah (2025), ‘A Scoping Review: Financial exploitation among older people living with dementia’, Trauma, Violence, & Abuse.
15. Hungerford, Catherine; jones, Tony; & Cleary, Michelle (2014), ‘Pharmacological versus non-pharmacological approaches for managing challenging behaviours for people with dementia’, British Journal of Community Nursing, Vol 19, No. 2.
16. Dementia Australia (2020), Proposed response to elder abuse in the ACT.
17. Shepherd, Benjamin F; & Brochu, Paula M (2021), ‘How do stereotypes harm older adults? A theoretical explanation for the perpetration of elder abuse and its rise’, Aggression and Violent Behaviour, Vol 57.
18. Clark, Louise L; Hext, Greg; & Xyrichis, Andreas (2018), ‘Beyond restraint: raising awareness of restrictive practices in acute care settings’, International Journal of Nursing Studies.
19. United Nations General Assembly (2006), Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Article 16.
20. United Nations General Assembly (2006), Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Article 12.
21. United Nations General Assembly (2025), Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Status.

15

22. Ibid.
23. Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth).
24. Ibid.
25. Ibid.
26. United Nations General Assembly (2006), Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Article 12.
27. Ibid.
28. United Nations General Assembly (2006), Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Article 13.
29. Then, Shih-Ning; White, Ben; & Willmott, Lindy (2024), ‘Adults Who Lack capacity: Substitute Decision Making’, In: White, Ben; McDonald, Fiona; Wilmott, Lindy; & Then, Shih-Ning [Eds], Health Law in Australia, Thomson Reuters, Australia.
30. McSherry, Bernadette; & Wilson, Kaye (2015), ‘the concept of capacity in Australian mental health law reform: Going in the wrong way?’, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, Vol. 40, pp. 60-69.
31. Shogren, Karrie A; Wehmeyer, Michael L; Lassmann, Heather; & Forber-Pratt, Anjali J (2017), ‘Supported Decision Making’, Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, Vol. 52, No. 2, pp. 144-157.
32. Blanck, Peter & Martinis, Jonathan G (2015), ‘”The Right to Make Choices”: The National Resource Center for Supported Decision-Making’, Inclusion, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 24-33.
33. Dabove, Maria Isolina (2018), ‘Autonomy, Self-Determination, and Human Rights: Legal Safeguards in Argentina to Prevent Elder Abuse and Neglect’, International Journal of Law Policy and the Family, Vol 32, No. 1, pp. 80-92.
34. Silberfeld, Michel & Fish, Arthur (1994), When the Mind Fails: A Guide to Dealing with Incompetency, University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
35. Tunny, Richard J & Ziegler, Fenja V (2015), ‘Toward a Psychology of Surrogate Decision Making’, Perspectives on Psychological Science, Vol. 10, No. 6, pp. 880-885.
36. Steward, Andrew T; De Fries, Carson M; & Hasche, Leslie (2024), ‘A phenomenological understanding of the intersectionality of ageism and racism among older adults: Interpersonal experiences’, Journal of Social Work, Vol. 24, Is. 6, pp. 829-850.
37. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2022).
38. Ibid
39. Ibid.
40. Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability (2023).
41. Centre for Population (2024).
42. GEN Aged Care Data (2024).
43. Australian Government: Attorney-General’s Department (2025), Disability Discrimination Act 1992 Review: Issues Paper.

16

44. Bordbar, Shima; Ahmadinejad, Parvin; Bahmaei, Jamshid; Vejdani, Marjan; & Yusefi, Ali Reza (2025), ‘Examining the severity of disability and vulnerability among older adults and its impact on elder abuse: a cross-sectional study’, Scientific Reports, Vol. 15.
45. Dong, XinQi; Chen, Ruija; & Simon, Melissa A (2014), ‘Elder abuse and dementia: A review of the research and health policy’, Health Aff, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 642-649.
46. Ibid.
47. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2022a), ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island peoples with disability 2022’, Survey of Disability, Ageing and Carers.
48. King, JA; Brough, M; & Knox, M (2013), ‘Negotiating disability and colonisation: the lived experience of Indigenous Australians with a disability’, Disability & Society, Vol. 29, Is. 5, pp. 738-750.
49. Australian Government: Attorney-General’s Department (2025).
50. Australian Government: Department of Health, Disability, and Ageing (2025), Assistive Technology and Home Modifications (AT-HM) Scheme Guidelines.
51. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2022).
52. Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth).
53. Guevera, Angelica (2021), ‘The need to reimagine disability rights law because the medical model of disability fails us all’, Wisconsin Law Review, Vol. 269.
54. Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth).
55. United Nations General Assembly (2006).
56. Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)
57. Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).
58. Australian Government: Attorney-General’s Department (2025).
59. Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth).
60. Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth).

17