Response ID ANON-NT3M-UNMY-B

Submitted to Disability Discrimination Act Review – Issues Paper Submitted on 2025-08-31 20:59:30

Consent to participate in our consultation

Do you consent to participate in our consultation?

Yes – I consent to participate in this consultation. I understand that I do not need to provide my personal or sensitive information to participate in this consultation.

If you are aged under 15, do you have consent from a parent or guardian to participate in our consultation?

I am aged 15 or over.

Publishing your submission

Do you give permission for your response to be published?

Yes – I give permission for my response/submission to be published.

What is your name?

Name: Janette

If you provided your name in response to the previous question, do you consent for your name to be published with your submission?

Yes

Are you making this submission on behalf of:

Yourself

Please specify the name of the organisation:

What is your email address?

Email:

Questions about you

Which of the following best describes your interests in the department’s review of the Disability Discrimination Act?

I am a person with disability

Please specify:

Deaf.

If you are making a submission in a professional capacity or as part of your work, please select the industry or industries that best apply to you:

Education and training

Please specify:

How do you describe your gender?

Woman or female

Please specify:

Do you identify with any of the following groups?

None of the above

What type of area are you or your organisation located?

Regional area

Where are you or your organisation based?

Victoria

Please expand on your response:

Part 1 – Updating understandings of disability and disability discrimination

1. How should disability be defined in the Disability Discrimination Act?

Enter your response here:

Disability should be defined in a way that is inclusive of Deaf and hard of hearing people as a cultural and linguistic group, not solely through a medical lens. The definition should recognise the social model of disability — that barriers in society, not individuals’ conditions, are the true cause of exclusion and discrimination.

2. What factors should be considered in developing a new definition of disability?

Enter your response here:

• Recognition of cultural and linguistic identity (e.g., Deaf identity and Auslan)
• The role of environmental and communication barriers
• The need for full inclusion in education, health, sport, and community
• The importance of recognising lived experiences of discrimination, not just medical diagnoses

3. Would the Disability Discrimination Act be strengthened by expressly allowing claims to be brought for multiple or combined protected attributes?

Yes

Please expand on your response:

Yes. Many deaf and hard of hearing individuals experience discrimination based on intersecting identities — for example, disability, language, and cultural identity. Families also experience discrimination when assumptions are made about parenting choices, language use (e.g., choosing Auslan), or refusing medical interventions like cochlear implants. These combined forms of discrimination must be recognised under the Act.

4. Could any other changes be made to the Disability Discrimination Act to recognise and provide protection for people with disability who have intersecting identities, or addressing compounding discrimination?

Yes

Please expand on your response:

Yes. The Act should clearly require services (schools, hospitals, sports clubs) to consider and accommodate intersecting needs — such as language (Auslan), cultural identity, and communication access. There should be legal consequences when these are ignored, as it leads to exclusion and psychological harm, especially for children.

5. What test should be used to ensure that the definition of direct discrimination is easy to understand and implement for both duty holders and people with disability, and why?

Detriment test

Please expand on your response:

The detriment test is more appropriate. Deaf people often face unique forms of unfavourable treatment that aren’t always easy to compare directly with hearing people. For example, the absence of an Auslan interpreter is not about “less favourable treatment” compared to a hearing person — it’s about denial of access altogether. The detriment test better captures the harm caused by such failures.

6. How should the burden of proof be addressed in the Disability Discrimination Act?

Other

Please expand on your response:

The UK model shifts the burden to the respondent once a prima facie case of discrimination is made. This would assist families like ours, who are often overwhelmed and emotionally exhausted, and do not have the legal knowledge or resources to prove complex systemic discrimination. The burden should not fall entirely on those experiencing discrimination.

7. How should the definition of indirect discrimination be amended to ensure that it is easy to understand and implement?

Part 1 – Definition of indirect discrimination

The definition should clearly state that indirect discrimination happens when a rule or policy seems fair to everyone but actually excludes or disadvantages people with disability. For example, if a school holds an event or special day without providing an Auslan interpreter, Deaf children cannot join in equally. This shows why the definition must highlight the need to respect children’s communication needs and make sure access is provided.

8 Should the reasonableness element in the definition of indirect discrimination be:

• Replaced by a legitimate and proportionate test

Please expand on your response:

The “reasonableness” test is too weak because schools, hospitals, or services can say it is “reasonable” not to provide an interpreter. Replacing it with a “legitimate and proportionate” test makes them show that limiting access is truly necessary and fair. For Deaf children, not having an interpreter at school events is never proportionate. For Deaf adults, being told to lipread in a hospital instead of being given an Auslan interpreter is unfair, unsafe, and never justified

9 Should the language of ‘does not or would not comply, or is not able or would not be able to comply’ be removed from the definition of indirect discrimination?

• Yes, it should be removed.

Please expand on your response:

This language is confusing and negative. It makes it sound like the problem is with the person “not being able” to do something, instead of the service failing to provide access. For Deaf children, the issue is not that they “cannot” understand — the problem is when schools do not provide Auslan. For Deaf adults, the issue is when hospitals forget to book an interpreter and instead ask them to lipread. Removing this language helps shift the focus to emoving barriers created by services.

10 Should the Disabilities Convention be included in the objects provision of the DisabilityDiscrimination Act?

• Yes

Please expand on your response:

Yes, because the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) supports equal rights, dignity, and inclusion. If the Act includes the Convention, it will guide schools, doctors, hospitals, and community services to always provide Auslan interpreters and respect Deaf people’s language and cultural identity. This ensures both Deaf children and adults are not excluded from important parts of life.

11 Should the Disability Discrimination Act be expressly required to be interpreted in a way that is beneficial to people with disability, in line with human rights treaties?

• Yes

Please expand on your response:

Yes. The law should always be read in the way that best protects people with disability. For Deaf children, this means their right to use Auslan and have qualified interpreters at school events, assemblies, and special days. A Teacher of the Deaf (TOD) should not be used as an interpreter, especially if they are injured or not fully trained to interpreter. TODs already support children every day in their learning, and their role must be respected — schools must still book Auslan interpreters for events. For Deaf adults, this means hospitals and doctors must provide interpreters straight away, especially in emergencies, instead of asking them to lipread. Interpreting the law in a human rights–focused way will make schools, hospitals, and services more fair, inclusive, and safe.

Part 2 – Positive duty to eliminate discrimination

12 If there was a positive duty in the Disability Discrimination Act, who should it apply to?

Enter your response here:

It should apply to all organisations and services that provide education, health, employment, housing, transport, community, and sports. This includes schools, early learning centres, hospitals, GP clinics, government services, workplaces, and local sports clubs. A positive duty would make sure Deaf children always have Auslan access at school and sports training, and that Deaf adults receive interpreters in hospitals, workplaces, and community activities without having to fight for them.

13 Are there lessons from the operation of the positive duty in the Sex Discrimination Act that could be incorporated into a positive duty in the Disability Discrimination Act?

Enter your response here:

Yes. The Sex Discrimination Act shows that a positive duty works best when there are clear guidelines, regular monitoring, and accountability. For disability, this means organisations should not wait for a complaint — they must actively remove barriers. For example, schools should plan ahead and

Part 2 – A positive duty to provide information and communication access

Always book Auslan interpreters for assemblies or events, hospitals should have systems in place to provide interpreters in emergencies, and local sports clubs should provide communication access so Deaf children and adults can join in fully.

14 What costs and other impacts would duty holders experience in meeting a positive duty under the Disability Discrimination Act?

Enter your response here:

There may be costs for training staff, booking interpreters, and making services accessible. However, these costs are small compared to the long-term benefits: fair access, inclusion, improved communication, and better safety for people with disability. For example, providing Auslan interpreters in hospitals avoids medical mistakes and supports better health outcomes. In schools and sports clubs, ensuring access improves learning, teamwork, and prevents exclusion. Accessibility should be seen as an investment, not a burden.

15 Should there be exceptions or limits to the application of a positive duty?

No

Please expand on your response:

No, because equality and access are basic human rights. If exceptions exist, then services may use them as excuses to deny access. For Deaf people, even one missed interpreter booking at school, hospital, or local sports activity can cause harm, exclusion, or unsafe outcomes. A positive duty must apply everywhere — schools, workplaces, hospitals, sports clubs, government services, and community spaces — so that people with disability can fully and equally take part in all areas of life.

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

16 Would the creation of a stand‑alone duty to provide adjustments better assist people with disability and duty holders to understand their rights and obligations?

Yes

Please expand on your response:

Schools must book Auslan interpreters for assemblies and special events.

Hospitals must provide interpreters for all appointments and emergencies.

Transport services must ensure visual announcements and accessible apps for delays or changes.

Sports clubs must provide communication access so Deaf children and adults can join in fully.

17 Should the scope of the duty to provide adjustments apply only to the existing areas of public life covered by the Disability Discrimination Act, or extend to other contexts?

Enter your response here:

The duty should extend beyond the current areas of public life to include local sports clubs, community events, and transport services.

Deaf people often face barriers outside school or work — for example:

• Missing safety announcements on trains or flights.
• Being excluded from local sports training where instructions are only spoken.
• Having no interpreter or captions at council or community meetings.

Extending the duty ensures equal participation everywhere.

18 Would removing the word ‘reasonable’ from the term ‘reasonable adjustments’ to align the language with the legal effect create any unintended consequences?

No

Please expand on your response:

The word “reasonable” is often used as an excuse not to provide access. For example:

• A hospital may claim it is not “reasonable” to book an interpreter late at night.
• A train service may say it is not “reasonable” to install visual alert systems.

For Deaf people, these adjustments are necessary for safety and inclusion. Removing “reasonable” will make the law clearer and stronger.

19 What is your preferred approach to achieving greater fairness and transparency in claims of unjustifiable hardship?

The Disability Royal Commission amendment as proposed.

Please expand on your response:

The Commission’s approach gives fairness and clarity. Too often, services claim “hardship” when they do not want to pay for access. For Deaf people:

Providing Auslan interpreters at school events, hospitals, or workplaces is not an undue burden.

Installing visual announcements in transport hubs is a basic safety measure.

The amendment would stop services from unfairly avoiding responsibility.

20 What are your views on amending the Disability Discrimination Act to consider the nature and extent of any adjustments made and encourage consultation between prospective or current employers and prospective or current employees before making employment decisions?

Enter your response here:

This amendment would be very positive. Deaf employees are often not asked about their needs — instead, assumptions are made.

For example:

Employers may assume lipreading is enough.

Transport companies may assume Deaf staff cannot work safely without checking adjustments like vibrating alerts or interpreters for training.

Requiring consultation means employees can explain their real needs, preventing misunderstandings and supporting inclusion.

21 Are there other amendments to the Disability Discrimination Act that could support engagement between prospective or current employers and prospective or current employees to better understand the inherent requirements of a role?

Enter your response here:

Yes. The Act should require:

Accessible job interviews (Auslan interpreters or Auslan videos).

Employers to explore flexible ways of meeting role requirements.

For example, a Deaf person applying for a bus depot role could do the job with visual alarms and interpreter support — but under current practices, they are often excluded unfairly.

22 Should any other amendments be made to the definition of inherent requirements, including factors that should be considered when deciding whether a person could carry out the inherent requirements of a job?

Yes

Please expand on your response:

Adjustments must be considered first, and assumptions about “who can do the job” should not automatically exclude Deaf people. Examples:

A Deaf teacher can work in a mainstream school and effectively teach Deaf and hearing students.

Universities or schools may still require a hearing teacher, assuming Deaf teachers cannot do the job. This is unfair.

Deaf teachers are bilingual (Auslan and spoken English) and meet the inherent requirements with adjustments if needed.

The law should ensure being Deaf is not treated as a barrier and that universities and employers recognise Deaf teachers’ skills.

23 Should the concepts of exclusion and exclusionary discipline be defined in the Disability Discrimination Act?

Yes

Please expand on your response:

A Deaf child excluded from assemblies or excursions because no interpreter was booked.

A Deaf passenger left behind on a train because instructions were only shouted.

A Deaf student excluded from university tutorials if interpreters are not provided.

Clear definitions make schools, transport services, and workplaces accountable.

24 Should there be exceptions or limits on when exclusion is unlawful?

No

Please expand on your response:

A Deaf child excluded from an excursion because no interpreter was booked.

A bus service refusing a Deaf passenger instead of providing visual alerts.

25 Should any of the state and territory provisions relating to exclusionary discipline be adopted in the Disability Discrimination Act?

Yes

Please expand on your response:

Some states require schools to try all adjustments before excluding a child. This should apply nationally. Deaf children and students should never be suspended or removed because Auslan access was not provided.

26 Would a different approach to exclusionary discipline be more appropriate in the higher education and vocational education and training sectors?

Yes

Please expand on your response:

A different approach is needed in higher education and VET. Deaf students are often excluded from lectures, tutorials, apprenticeships, or transport training because interpreters are not booked.

Examples:

A Deaf university student excluded from group work without Auslan access.

A Deaf apprentice in transport or safety training excluded if adjustments are not made.

Schools using TODs instead of qualified interpreters for events — TODs already support daily learning and may be unable due to injury or workload.

The focus should be on flexible adjustments, consultation, and respect for qualified staff and students, not exclusion.

Part 4 – Improving access to justice

27 How could the Disability Discrimination Act be amended to protect people with disability from offensive behaviour and/or harassment?

Enter your response here:

The Disability Discrimination Act should be amended to explicitly prohibit offensive behaviour, harassment, and vilification against people with disability. This includes:

Schools and early learning centres: Protect Deaf children from bullying or teasing related to Auslan use or being Deaf.

Workplaces: Protect Deaf employees from harassment due to communication needs or use of interpreters.

Public spaces and transport: Protect Deaf people from mocking, shouting, or ignoring their communication needs.

Policing and justice: Ensure Deaf people are not harassed, treated unfairly, or denied access to communication during investigations or court proceedings.

Including specific protections will send a clear message that offensive behaviour against people with disability is unacceptable in all areas of life.

28 If the Disability Discrimination Act were to prohibit offensive behaviour and/or harassment, how should these terms be defined?

Enter your response here:

Offensive behaviour and harassment should be defined as:

Any action, words, or conduct that humiliates, intimidates, threatens, or isolates a person because of their disability.

Includes verbal, written, online, or visual forms of abuse.

For example:

Mocking a Deaf child for using Auslan at school.

Ignoring a Deaf person in a hospital when they request an interpreter.

29 Should there be exemptions for any behaviour, similar to the Racial Discrimination Act?

No

Please expand on your response:

No. Exemptions could be misused to justify offensive behaviour. People with disability, including Deaf people, should be protected fully. Even a single incident in schools, workplaces, transport, or policing can cause harm. Exemptions risk weakening these protections.

30 Given the recent legislative developments, are there any further gaps in the legislative framework that could be addressed by amendments to the Disability Discrimination Act to protect people with disability from vilification?

Yes

Please expand on your response:

There are gaps, particularly for Deaf people in policing, hospitals, public transport, and online spaces. Examples:

Police or security officers ignoring Auslan requests.

Public figures or social media users mocking or vilifying people with disability.

Lack of clear rules for schools or workplaces regarding vilification against Deaf students or employees.

Amendments should clarify that vilification includes both public and private spaces and covers modern communication methods like social media.

31 How could the Disability Discrimination Act be amended to ensure that it covers policing?

Enter your response here:

The Act should explicitly apply to all policing and justice contexts. This includes:

Ensuring Deaf people have access to interpreters during investigations, interviews, court proceedings, and safety briefings.

Police officers must not ignore or refuse communication requests.

Complaints about police harassment or discrimination must be investigable under the Act, with accessible complaint pathways in Auslan.

This ensures Deaf people are treated fairly and safely in policing and justice systems.

32 Are there any specific circumstances or situations relating to policing or justice that should be excluded from the application of the Disability Discrimination Act?

No

Please expand on your response:

No. All policing and justice actions should be covered by the Act, except where genuinely constrained by safety or emergency laws. Excluding situations could allow systemic discrimination, such as:

Police refusing to provide an interpreter during an arrest or court appearance.

Deaf people being unfairly targeted or isolated in custody because of communication needs.

Full coverage ensures equity, access, and safety for Deaf people and others with disability in all interactions with the justice system.

Part 5 – Exemptions

33 Could any of the permanent exemptions be narrowed or updated, while balancing other policy considerations?

Yes

Schools, workplaces, or sports clubs should not use exemptions as a reason to deny Auslan interpreters or communication access.

Any exemption claiming “undue hardship” should require evidence that no reasonable adjustment is possible.

Narrowing exemptions ensures that Deaf children and adults are not excluded from education, employment, transport, or community participation unnecessarily.

34 Should the Australian Human Rights Commission be given the power to grant special measures certificates?

Yes

Yes. Giving the Commission this power would allow proactive support for people with disability, including Deaf people. For example:

Schools or workplaces could implement programs specifically for Deaf students or employees, like Auslan language support or mentoring, under legally recognised special measures.

This would encourage inclusion rather than exclusion and provide clarity and legal backing for initiatives that support equity.

35 Should a definition for special measures be added to the Disability Discrimination Act?

Yes

Yes. A clear definition ensures that everyone understands what counts as a special measure. For example:

Hiring Deaf staff for Deaf education programs or appointing Deaf interpreters could be explicitly recognised.

Providing visual alerts in transport or emergency situations for Deaf people could be included as a special measure.

This prevents misunderstandings or misuse of the exemption and ensures that programs genuinely promote inclusion.

36 Should a definition for temporary exemptions be added to the Disability Discrimination Act?

Yes

If a school or hospital cannot immediately provide an Auslan interpreter due to unforeseen circumstances, a temporary exemption could be granted, but only for a defined period and with a plan to resolve the issue.

This prevents organisations from using “temporary” as an excuse for long-term exclusion.

37 Would you recommend any changes to the legislative process of granting temporary exemptions?

Yes

Yes. The process should be transparent, time-limited, and include consultation with people with disability. For example:

Deaf students, families, or employees should be informed and consulted before an exemption is granted.

Clear reporting requirements should ensure that temporary exemptions are monitored and do not become permanent barriers.

Organisations should demonstrate that they have tried all reasonable adjustments before an exemption is granted.

Part 6 – Modernising the Disability Discrimination Act

38 How could the protections for assistance animals be clarified for both people with disability and duty holders, including in relation to evidence of training, evidence or standards of hygiene and behaviour that are appropriate for a public place?

Enter your response here:

Protections for assistance animals should be explicit to reduce confusion for both people with disability and duty holders:

Evidence of training: Animals must be certified or trained according to recognised standards, but rules should not be overly restrictive or exclude legitimate assistance animals.

Hygiene and behaviour: Animals must be clean and well-behaved in public, but minor issues should be addressed with support rather than exclusion.

Public places: Schools, transport, workplaces, and community spaces should clearly understand when and how assistance animals can accompany a person with disability.

39 Would legislative amendments or guidance materials be helpful to balance flexibility and certainty, or a mixture of both?

A mixture of both

Please expand on your response:

Legislative amendments provide legal clarity and protection.

Guidance materials give practical examples for schools, hospitals, transport services, and workplaces.

Together, they ensure duty holders know their obligations and people with disability can rely on consistent protections.

40 Should specific training organisations be prescribed under the Disability Discrimination Regulations?

Yes

Please expand on your response:

Yes. Prescribing recognised training organisations ensures that assistance animals are properly trained and meet consistent standards.

This protects people with disability from having their animals unfairly challenged or denied access.

For example, schools, public transport, and workplaces will have confidence in accepting assistance animals when certified by an approved organisation.

41 Should there be minimum requirements for action plans (such as through guidelines) and what should the minimum requirements cover?

Yes

Please expand on your response:

• Clear timelines for implementation.
• Specific measurable outcomes, like Auslan access in schools or visual alerts in workplaces.
• Consultation with people with disability to ensure plans reflect real needs.
• Review of accessibility in transport, community services, and emergency procedures.

42 Should the Australian Human Rights Commission be able to reject action plans that fail to meet these requirements?

Yes

Please expand on your response:

Yes. The Commission should be able to reject plans that fail to meet minimum requirements, ensuring that duty holders take meaningful steps toward accessibility and inclusion.

43 Should there be a set period of time for which an action plan is valid?

Yes

Please expand on your response:

Yes. Action plans should have a set period (e.g., 3–5 years) after which they are reviewed and updated.

This ensures that changes in accessibility needs, technologies, or staff are reflected.

For example, schools should regularly update plans to ensure Auslan interpreters are available, and transport services maintain visual announcements.

44 Are there any other changes to the action plan process that you would recommend?

Part 6 – Further options for reform

Require consultation with people with disability when drafting plans.

Make plans publicly accessible to encourage transparency and accountability.

Include reporting requirements to track progress, including schools, hospitals, transport services, and workplaces.

45 How could compliance with and enforcement of the Disability Standards be improved?

Enter your response here:

Conduct regular audits of schools, transport, workplaces, and public services.

Provide penalties or incentives for compliance.

Support complaint mechanisms accessible in Auslan or other formats for Deaf people.

Encourage training programs for staff in inclusive practices.

46 Should the Disability Discrimination Act be amended to encourage relevant duty holders to self-report on their compliance with the Disability Standard(s) in disability action plans?

Yes

Please expand on your response:

Track accessibility improvements.

Identify gaps in Auslan access, interpreters, visual alerts, or assistance animals.

Demonstrate accountability to both the public and regulators.

47 Could the Australian Human Rights Commission provide additional guidance to duty holders regarding how to self‑report on the Disability Standards in disability action plans?

Yes

Please expand on your response:

Templates and examples of how to report accessibility measures.

Clear instructions for schools, workplaces, transport, and community services.

Support for consistent and meaningful reporting, ensuring action plans lead to real change for Deaf people and other people with disability.

Part 7 – Further options for reform

48 Are there examples of legislative provisions in Commonwealth or state and territory anti-discrimination law that could be drawn on to modernise or strengthen the Disability Discrimination Act?

Yes

Please expand on your response:

The positive duty model in the Sex Discrimination Act ensures duty holders actively prevent discrimination. This could strengthen inclusion for Deaf people in schools, workplaces, transport, and sports.

Provisions for intersectional discrimination in state laws could help the DDA better address overlapping issues like disability, cultural identity, and language (e.g., Deaf and bilingual Auslan users).

Clear definitions of offensive behaviour and vilification in other acts can provide templates for protecting people with disability from harassment or bullying.

49 What additional guidance materials should be provided to the community, including duty holders, about the operation of the Disability Discrimination Act or specific amendments proposed in this paper?

Enter your response here:

Plain language resources in English and Auslan for schools, workplaces, transport services, and community organisations.

Case studies showing how to implement adjustments such as interpreters, visual alerts, and accessibility tools.

Step-by-step guides for compliance with disability action plans and self-reporting.

Online platforms for FAQs and scenario-based training, including emergency situations in hospitals or transport.

50 How can we ensure the Disability Discrimination Act remains fit-for-purpose into the future?

Enter your response here:

Regular reviews and updates to reflect changes in technology, communication methods, and community expectations.

Mandatory consultation with people with disability for any proposed amendments or policy changes.

Monitoring and reporting requirements for duty holders in schools, workplaces, transport, and public services.

Encourage inclusive innovation, such as improved assistive technologies, bilingual education for Deaf children, and accessible transport apps.

51 Are there any other issues with the Disability Discrimination Act that should be considered as part of this review?

Enter your response here:

Recognition of cultural and linguistic identity, especially for Deaf people as a linguistic minority, not only a medical disability.

Education and training for duty holders, including police, transport staff, hospital workers, and teachers, on inclusive practices and Auslan awareness.

Enforceable timelines for adjustments in workplaces, schools, and public services.

Emergency access: ensuring Deaf people and people with disability are not excluded during evacuations, public transport delays, or hospital emergencies.

Intersectionality and multiple attributes: the DDA should clearly cover discrimination based on overlapping identities (e.g., Deaf and Indigenous, Deaf and parent, Deaf and elderly).

Document upload

Document upload

Upload your attachment: Submission to the Disability Discrimination Act Review.docx was uploaded