Disability Discrimination Act 1992 Review

Attorney-General’s Department – Australian Government

November 2025

About Queenslanders with Disability Network (QDN)

Queenslanders with Disability Network (QDN) is a state-wide, not-for-profit organisation led by and for people with diverse disability and we are focused on advancing disability rights, inclusion and systemic advocacy in Queensland. QDN is the Executive Peak Body for people with disability in Queensland, providing overarching leadership and coordination across disability peak and representative organisations funded by Queensland Government. QDN operates a state-wide network of over 3,000 members and supporters all over Queensland. Guided by our motto ‘nothing about us without us.’

QDN ensures that people with lived experience of disability are central to shaping policies, services and supports. Our vibrant and dynamic membership is made up of people with diverse disability who are at the centre of everything we do. QDN as an organisation is in a unique position of representing people with a diverse range of disability.

QDN’s work is underpinned by a commitment to inclusion, co-design, collaboration, and innovation and is guided by the pillars of inform, connect, lead and influence. By partnering with communities, service providers, businesses, and government, QDN fosters systemic solutions that empower individuals, amplify the voices of people with disability, and create sustainable, inclusive systems of support, working toward a more equitable and inclusive Queensland.

Through a powerful and engaged network of individuals and 32 Peer Support Groups, QDN informs, leads and influences change on issues impacting the disability community. QDN’s extensive body of work includes connecting people through peer support groups, supporting future leaders through the Emerging Leaders Program, and influencing government policies and programs through targeted advocacy. QDN’s initiatives are co-designed and co-delivered with people with disability. QDN engages with diverse communities, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, Culturally and Linguistically Diverse groups, and rural and remote populations across

Queensland. We believe that Queenslanders with disability need to be empowered active and valued citizens, and fully included in the economic, social, civic and cultural life of Queensland.

Introduction

The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (The Act) is the primary legislative instrument for people with disability when seeking a remedy for discrimination they have faced. Data shows that over the 2023-24 period, the highest number of complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission were related to the Disability Discrimination Act (Australian Human Rights Commission 2025).

QDN recognises the importance of this review to people with disability and the opportunity this review has to align with the recommendations of the Disability Royal Commission (DRC). The DRC recognised the need for improvements in the Act to help make it work better for people with disability (Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability 2023).

As part of the preparation of our submission, QDN undertook a members’ forum to discuss the proposed review of the Act and understand the perspectives of our members on the Act and what they would like to see. The following key themes were highlighted by members during the forum. Please see Appendix One for more detail on the response to these issues from members.

Definitions used within the Act.
Barriers to accessing and understanding the Act
Lack of accountability and enforcement

Queensland Anti-Discrimination Act Review Submission

Previously QDN has provided feedback on the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Act review which was held in 2022.

In its submission response, QDN noted that people with disability face discrimination everyday of their lives. This was due to inaccessibility across physical and digital

environments, systemic processes that were different for other people and attitudinal barriers.

Like the feedback QDN received during the 9 October forum. Members in 2022 expressed the same concerns about reasonable adjustments and unjustifiable hardship being used to justify inaccessibility for people with disability.

The final report, Building belonging: Review of Queensland’s Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 had 46 recommendations (Queensland Human Rights Commission 2022). Two recommendations were focused on disability.

Recommendation 5, focused on a positive duty to make reasonable accommodations. This recommendation noted a non-exhaustive list of criteria for assessing whether accommodation is reasonable should also be included as part of the Act (Queensland Human Rights Commission 2022).

Recommendation 21 noted that disability should replace impairment in the Queensland Act and that the definition of disability should be the same as the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 but with the removal of inappropriate language (Queensland Human Rights Commission 2022).

Part 1: Updating Understandings of Disability and Disability Discrimination

Since the Act was introduced in 1992, the understanding of disability in Australia has changed as education on disability has improved. Along with Government initiatives such as the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), understanding of disability and what constitutes disability has increased.

Despite this, models for support often rely on a medical model, where the disability needs to be fixed. Whereas the social model recognises that it is societal practices that are disabling, rather than the traits of the individual.

It was noted by members that the social model for people with disability is the appropriate and contemporary framing for disability that reflects rights and citizenship. The language in the current Act was not inclusive and therefore was difficult for people

with disability to understand in terms of their rights in the Act and how they could use the Act.

Members found it challenging to have to prove their disability across multiple service systems and the impacts of this, particularly for those with invisible disabilities, made it harder for them to go through the process of making a claim of discrimination based on disability.

Some members also noted the issue of indirect discrimination and that a possible inherent requirement for entities that offer employment could be put in place to provide details on what adjustments the entity has in place, or can put in place, for people with disability from the moment they publish, for example, a job description. As one member noted:

‘Role descriptions in employment should have acknowledgement of reasonable adjustments. How it will be done? It shouldn’t be done when the person starts working.’

Communicating what is available for a person with disability would remove indirect discrimination that takes place due to a lack of understanding or preparedness for the needs of someone who has a disability. An inherent requirement highlighting what adjustments are in place is something for this inquiry to consider as an option to replace the reasonableness test for indirect discrimination.

Part 2: Positive Duty to Eliminate Discrimination

Members of QDN were broadly supportive of the introduction of a positive duty to eliminate discrimination. Many members saw it a requirement for duty holders to assess their compliance with obligations, however questions remained over how this would look in practice. As one member noted:

‘The positive duty needs to be strong, clear, not open to interpretation.’

Like Part One and the need for the person with disability to prove they have a disability and that they had been discriminated against because of that disability, members also noted the following about positive duty:

‘Not the complainants’ responsibility to have to prove the discrimination, the organisation having to prove why they can’t put it in place and the reason they cannot do it. At the moment its up to the complainant to prove everything.’

Other members stressed that the positive duty had to be focused and not open to interpretation. As was noted during the members forum.

‘Positive duty needs to give detailed steps as to why they can’t do something or why they perceive something not to be discriminatory.’

Tightening the positive duty requirements on duty holders is going to be a key component in making the Act work better for people with disability than its current iteration. Incentivising duty holders to undertake the positive duty and make sure they are compliant with the Act was discussed by forum members as an option.

Education of what positive duties are was also discussed amongst members as something that needed to be done as part of updating the Act. There needed to be more done to ensure that people and entities understand what the positive duty is for people with disability. Forum member noted that options to improve education could include the introduction of guidelines on what a disability friendly business looks like and what an entities obligation are.

Guidelines would also help entities self-assess against benchmarks on implementing the guidelines for positive duty and help with reporting what policies they have put in place to assist with implementing improved accessibility and inclusivity for people with disability.

The introduction of a positive duty will only go so far as the ability to enforce the Act and that will include any guidelines or self-assessments that entities can make as part of their work. Forum members identified that if there are loopholes this would lead to significant risk of little to no enforcement of positive duty.

Part 3: Encouraging Inclusion of People with Disability in Employment, Education and Other Areas of Public Life

Although not widely discussed within the members forum, some members did raise the increased digitalisation of services as an area where inclusivity needed to be improved. The increasing digitalisation of services that were hard to access made day to day tasks harder to undertake for people with disability.

QDN members had much to say on reasonable adjustments and how they currently work. QDN recognises that the DRC has recommended changing the language so that only ‘adjustments’ are considered. Ideally this would simplify the requirements for adjustments, however as one member explained:

‘There needs to be a more robust definition for ‘reasonable adjustments’ and ‘unjustifiable hardship’.’

Similar to the feedback noted in the issues paper, the use of ‘reasonable’ in the current legislation was viewed as difficult to define, which impacted on how improved inclusivity of employment and education could be discussed. As one member noted:

‘Understanding the thresholds, where do they kick in? The term reasonable is the issue. People get caught up in understanding, it isn’t just about work, but it’s also about education.’

Without committing to a stronger and more consistent definition, there is a risk that adjustments will be treated in a similar way to how they are currently treated within the Act. Thresholds need to be in place, and they need to be enforced to help make sure the Act is working in the best interest of the people it is supposed to help.

Enforcement was an important consideration and was highlighted by members as part of the need for more accountability. It is not enough to have measures in place to encourage compliance when there is no incentive for businesses, whether it is punitive or rewarding, to implement the adjustments in the first place.

Part 4: Improving Access to Justice

Of the discussion points in the QDN members forum, one key area that was raised consistently was access to justice. Participant feedback suggested people felt the

current Act did not provide enough avenues to achieve justice if they faced discrimination.

For many members, the time, cost and emotional strain of trying to bring forward a case of discrimination was too much to overcome, meaning that any attempts to bring forward justice failed at the earliest hurdles, before claims could even be made. As one member noted:

‘Ultimately to find representation, it’s going to cost me around $70,000 for a retainer for a lawyer who would take it. There was only one in the state who had experience related to my issues that I could find.’

Another member noted that:

‘Not being able to obtain a lawyer at a suitable price point is a big issue. Even if legal advice is favourable there is no way of getting legal representation to take the case further. Usually up to the complainant to do the sole representation of their complaint. Once it gets up to federal court level there is not a lot of ways to make sure you don’t get reversal costs rewarded against you. Basically, need to fund it completely by yourself.’

Beyond price, people with disability noted how hard it was to get legal representatives to believe the claim and to get support. As one member noted:

‘Getting a lawyer who believes in you and helps you get the case ready and access to justice without having to pay exorbitant costs with the lawyer that you have been able to choose is a problem.’

If price wasn’t a concern, members noted that time was. As one member noted:

‘Timeframes of complaints at the moment waiting up to 12 months before a complaint gets to the AHRC needs to be quicker. Needs to be more streamlined in terms of their approach.’

Applying for funding was also an added burden, with members pointing out that applicants for funding to undertake a legal proceeding needed to prove the case had a community benefit. As one member noted:

‘To get funding need to prove the case has community benefit for the whole of the community not just for the disability community. For example, took on a case against an entity that didn’t make their website accessible and couldn’t get funding to take the complaint further because I was unable to show how the complaint could have a large community impact.’

Even in situations where the Act could be used to make a complaint, hurdles like the community benefit test made it harder for a person with disability to pursue justice.

Many members find the current mediation process to be difficult, and QDN heard members talk about their experiences with mediation and the lack of respect for the mediation process that was shown by the responding party.

Currently there is not a lot of enforcement powers for the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) if a respondent doesn’t turn up for a mediation or conciliation. Consequently, an applicant making a claim then has to go to the Federal Court if they want to progress their claim.

Other members noted that education around the processes needed to undertake were difficult to understand which also limited access to justice. One member noted:

‘I didn’t even know I had to go to Australian Human Rights Commission, not the Queensland one.’

There were also gaps in understanding where to go for support. For example.

‘Knowing which agency or organisation to contact for issues. Where would have been the most appropriate starting point, WorkCover or the human rights commission.’

Another member noted:

‘Understanding it (the Act) and getting that advocacy. A lot of places that can help you don’t have capacity to help you or are unsure.’

Understanding where to go, how to use the Act, who to approach for help with understanding the Act, the amount of time and money it can take to make a claim and the better understanding of timeframes were all raised as gaps that need to be fixed with regard to accessing justice through the Act.

Part 5: Exemptions

When discussed within the members forums, most members discussed exemptions in similar language to ‘unjustifiable hardship’ clauses. Meaning that there was some confusion over what is classed as an exemption under the current Act and what is not.

Members did not know or comment on the exemptions that currently exist within the Act.

Part 6: Modernising the Disability Discrimination Act

The use of assistance animals was raised by members during the forum. Members noted that rideshare services often were not aware of the rights that assistance animals have and as a result treated people with assistance animals in a discriminatory manner. For example, by refusing to provide rides to people with assistance animals.

One member noted that refusals of assistance animals were harder to resolve due to the responder often not turning up to a dispute resolution process. Education around assistance animals is something this review could consider to help improve understanding of why they are being used by a person with disability.

Many members highlighted that education around disability needs to be increased that there was still a lack of understanding around disability which led to subtle discrimination and ableist behaviours. Part of the fix to this issue would align with the focus on Disability Action Plans, while they are currently voluntary, making them mandatory might help remove some of the subtle forms of discrimination that exist. As one member put it:

“Accountability also extends to the general public, subtle, ableist behaviours will be easier to fix if they are called out. There are still people doing things that are not right because there is no accountability at the entity level.”

Improving accountability by strengthening requirements around Disability Action Plans will help improve understanding of disability and responsibilities of entities and people when interacting with people with disability.

One area that has not been considered in this review is how resources and education materials and strategies on understanding the Act and what the Act means and does in practice. Accessibility of the Act was raised by members within the forum. This is because the Act is a piece of legislation with the subsequent drafting of a document that is designed to be reviewed in a legal setting.

Without proper educational materials and strategy, it will remain difficult for people with disability to understand their rights. During the members forum to discuss the Act it was noted how hard the Act is to read with one member noting:

“I haven’t been able to find an easy read of the Act yet. There’s a lot to understand and it’s a complex document to read.”

Another member noted that:

“Its inaccessible to me. I was going to try and read it, it’s just overwhelming to try and read it and make sense of it.”

One of the options that could be considered for modernising the Act is to develop educational tools to support understanding of the Act that are easy to read and are accessible for people with disability. Part of the problem with the Act is that the legal profession has not caught up with the need for increased inclusivity and accessibility of legal documentation. If the Act designed to protect the rights of people with disability is not accessible for people with disability, then it falls at the first hurdle with regard to its intended purpose.

Part 7: Further Options for Reform

One of the current weaknesses of the Act is that different States and Territories have different Acts within their jurisdictions. Some states, such as Victoria, have their own Disability Discrimination Acts (Government of Victoria 2006). Queensland has a broader Anti-Discrimination Act which covers disability discrimination as well as other types of discrimination.

As highlighted earlier, the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Act was reviewed in 2022. QDN was chosen to be part of the stakeholder committee and helped engage with the Queensland Government in the finalisation of the Building Belonging Report.

Even within States, there are inconsistencies on the duties different sectors have for people with disability and how much different entities should be doing to promote improved accessibility and inclusivity for people with disability. An example of this is in Queensland where the Queensland Productivity Commission (QPC) has recently suggested that Livable Housing Design Standards (LHDS) be made voluntary (Queensland Productivity Commission 2025). At the same time, Queensland state departments are looking at strategies to ensure accessibility standards are followed.

With these inconsistencies at the State level and sometimes within States themselves in terms of the positive duties entities have for people with disability, there is opportunity for reform at the Federal level to make the Act stronger and ensure standards of inclusivity and accessibility being promoted within the updated Act are enforceable across Australia.

Recommendations

Burden of proof needs to be applied to the respondent to show that how they acted wasn’t discriminatory.
Include the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in DDA to ensure direct alignment with international treaties.
Update the Act so that respectful and affirming language is used.
Increase requirements on transparency concerning available adjustments for people with disability, eg as a visitor, potential employee.
Introduce enforceable positive duty to eliminate disability discrimination.

Incentivise positive duties for entities by providing those who prove they are enacting improved inclusivity and accessible places for people with disability with first preference for government contracts and other benefits.
Publish a guideline complete with self-assessment tool that allows entities to benchmark where they are in the process and help them understand what they can do to improve.
Adequate thresholds for ‘adjustments’ that clearly state the responsibility of the duty holder to introduce adjustments that support people with disability.
Resource the Australian Human Rights Commission to provide stronger accountability and compliance measures.
Update unjustifiable hardship definition to consider equal dignity and worth of people with disability within the community.
Education for and designed by people with disability on the process of using the Act, where to go, and what to expect if you bring forward a complaint.
Include Digital Accessibility Standards as part of modernising the Act.
Improved funding for advocacy support services for people with disability so that they have supports that enable engagement with the Act and potential claims.
Close the loophole of unintended exemptions for entities claiming unjustifiable hardship or unreasonable adjustments for not attempting to improve inclusivity and accessibility.
Education on what the exemptions are, and what is and isn’t an exemption for an entity within the Act.
Introduce mandatory Disability Action Plans across all organisations.
Introduce set guidelines highlighting what should be in Disability Action Plans.
Develop self-assessment tools to ensure that organisations are adhering to their Disability Action Plan.
Improve accessibility of the Act by publishing the Act in multi-modal formats to assist people with disability to read the Act and understand their rights and responsibilities.
Structure the Act so that interpretations and material relating to the Act supersede similar Acts at State and Territory level. There needs to be a nationally consistent Act that can be enforced the same way across all State and Territory jurisdictions.

Conclusion

QDN envisions a society where, information, and advice services empower people with disability to lead independent, fulfilling lives with dignity and opportunity. In a truly inclusive society, every individual would have access to the tools, resources, and supports needed to make informed choices, develop capabilities, and engage meaningfully in their communities. Achieving this vision requires a commitment to core principles that together form a comprehensive, sustainable framework. QDN’s approach emphasises accessibility, person-centred planning, workforce development, cross-sector collaboration, sustainable funding, and diversity as key pillars.

Through active inclusion of people with disability in decision-making processes, QDN ensures individuals with lived experience shape the services and policies that affect their lives. When people with disability are part of the conversation, resulting services are more relevant and practical. QDN’s advocacy prioritises co-design and engagement, allowing individuals to contribute their insights, experiences, and expertise to improve the Disability Discrimination Act and make it truly empowering.

QDN commends the Federal Government on the work to improve the Act and looks forward to continuing to engage in this work.

References

Australian Human Rights Commission . 2025. Management of Complaints by the Australian Human Rights Commission . Data Report, Canberra: Attorney General.

Brisbane 2032. 2025. Procurement Opportunities to Supply Brisbane 2032. 8 October . Accessed October 19, 2025. https://www.olympics.com/en/brisbane-2032/the-committee/partners-sponsors-and-suppliers/procurement.

Government of Victoria. 2006. “Disability Act 2006.” Melbourne: Government of Victoria .

Queensland Productivity Commission. 2025. Opportunities To Improve Productivity Of The Construction Industry . Interim Report, Brisbane: Queensland Government .

Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. 2023. Realising the human rights of people with disability: Final Report Volume 4. Inquiry Report, Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Appendix One

Definitions used within the Act.
- Members feedback included the varying definitions of disability and the challenges with definitions that capture the diversity of experiences. noted there are many different types of disability, and that it is hard to adequately define what it means to have a disability.
- Members identified that the definition of “reasonable adjustments” and “unjustifiable hardship” needs to be more robust and talked about the impact of this in practice where experiences of claims by organisations and entities to claim “unjustifiable hardship” with little or no evidence.
- The Act in its current form does not have inclusive language and uses a medical model to describe disability. Members noted this needs to be aligned to a social model of disability.
Barriers to accessing and understanding the Act
- Members noted that they found the Act hard to understand and that greater support is required in understanding the Act and what is included.
- Making processes easy to understand and accessible to people with disability is critical as well as providing the right supports for people with disability.
- Members noted that changes to the Act need to ensure capacity building is undertaken with a clear focus on people with disability and this needs to be available in multiple accessible formats such as screen magnification and screen reader friendly versions, plain English, easy read, social stories and other formats for people with disability.
- Members noted that the lack of additional supports available for people who have experienced discrimination was a challenge that they experienced that needs to be addressed in the review of the Act. Particularly on what people with disability’s rights are and what they can do, members called for more public awareness and education on the Act and what constitutes discrimination against people with disability.

Members highlighted that they did not know where to go for support if they experience discrimination, and that advocacy services that are in place were often limited in the support they could provide.
Going through the court system for a person with disability undertaking a claim of discrimination was described as expensive, time consuming and emotionally exhausting. The lack of supports for people with disability along the process was cited as a problem when trying to fight a case alone.
Members noted that more supports along the process would lessen the burden that currently exists for people with disability when they go through the current process of a claim of discrimination.
Members raised the stark contrast for entities who have significant resourcing to respond to claims of discrimination and the impact this has on individuals who are disempowered in the process and cite feeling intimidated and hopeless.
Some members who have been through the experience noted
- that communication across the process can be poor and they had limited follow up once a complaint was made.
- They don’t know what organisations or bodies to contact when wanting to make a complaint, the starting point for making a complaint is not clearly understood.

Lack of accountability and enforcement
- Members discussion included:
  - the onus is on the person with disability rather than the “positive duty holder”.
  - Lack of focus on prevention through public awareness campaigns about the legal obligations of entities to comply with the Act.
  - Along with education approaches, members also identified that compliance and enforcement of the Act that could include penalties for breaches and non-compliance
- Some examples of this included larger on the spot fines for businesses who failed to comply with the Act and procurement freezes for businesses who fail to comply with the Act and/or rulings from a Court on a claim of discrimination being made through the Act.

Members noted that there needs to be a way forward that enables stronger protections for people with disability without an overuse of exemptions. There was a perception that there was a lack of accountability on businesses who failed to turn up for a conciliation, with members noting that cases just seemed to end if the other party didn’t engage.
Timeframes for complaints were highlighted as a major problem. With some comments from members noting that it sometimes took up to 12 months before an appearance at the AHRC. Members called for a more streamlined process and for the AHRC to have timeframes in place for when they would hear back and when action would be taken.
Calls were made for employers to have a disability inclusion plan and be audited to ensure they are inclusive. The plan should also have a self-assessment tool to ensure they are meeting benchmarks for disability inclusion. Members also recommended that the AHRC could have a guidebook for organisations to highlight what their responsibilities are.

Other Issues Raised
- Members highlighted infrastructure issues and that the planning and development of the built environment was also a form of discrimination. Some examples included ramp access being far away from building entrances.
- Education on what constitutes disability discrimination needed to be far wider and constitute campaigns for the whole of society not just for specific sectors.
- Digitalisation was also highlighted as a concern. Since the introduction of the Act in 1992, digitalisation of much of day-to-day life has taken place. People with disability are at a disadvantage if these services are not accessible for people with disability.