NDIA Accountability Project

Advocating for a Disability Discrimination Act that reflects contemporary understandings of disability

‹ PrevPage 1 of 20 · Source p. 1Next ›

All games

Submission in response to the Australian Government’s Issue Paper

11 November 2025

Centre for Disability Research and Policy, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney

Authors

redacted: s47F - Personal privacy
redacted: s47F - Personal privacy
redacted: s47F - Personal privacy
redacted: s47F - Personal privacy
redacted: s47F - Personal privacy

Introduction

The Centre for Disability Research and Policy is a research-based, interdisciplinary centre committed to advancing disability rights through evidence-informed policy and practice. Our work is grounded in the lived experience of people with disability and guided by human rights frameworks, including the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD). We bring together researchers, advocates, and community partners to challenge ableism, promote inclusion, and build a society where people with disability can flourish.

We welcome the Australian Government’s review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) as a timely and necessary opportunity to modernise the Act. The DDA must evolve from a reactive complaints-based model to a proactive legislative framework that fosters inclusion, equity, and participation across all areas of Australian life. Anti-discrimination should not merely prevent harm—it should actively build the conditions for people with disability to live with autonomy, dignity, and full societal participation.

The Centre’s core commitments shape our submission:

  • Lived experience leadership – co-designed research, policy, and practice that centres disability expertise.
  • Human rights and disability thinking – grounded in critical theory and the UN CRPD.
  • Strengths-based approach – challenging deficit models and celebrating diversity.
  • Collaborative inclusion – cross-sector partnerships for evidence-based reform.
  • Intersectionality – recognising diverse identities and the leadership of First Nations people with disability.

Through this submission, we advocate for a Disability Discrimination Act that reflects contemporary understandings of disability, aligns with international human rights obligations, and embeds a positive duty on institutions to prevent discrimination and promote inclusion. We believe the Act should be a catalyst for cultural and structural transformation that enables people with disability to thrive in education, employment, housing, health, justice, and community life.

Inclusion as the foundation

Inclusion must be the central purpose of reform to the Disability Discrimination Act. Inclusion is the cornerstone of the Australian Government’s Disability Strategy and was likewise central to the vision of the Disability Royal Commission, which recommended the revision of the DDA. We affirm the commission’s call for a future where people with and without disability live, learn, work, and thrive together in safe, respectful, and diverse communities (Commonwealth, 2023). Full inclusion is rooted in dignity, equality, and human rights. It recognises the capacity and strength of people with disability, and the vital contribution they make to the collective well-being of Australian society. Creating an inclusive society is the responsibility of all Australians. But it will not occur without a strong legal framework that confronts disability discrimination head-on.

People with disability are continually confronted with profound discrimination, which is fundamentally rooted in pervasive ableism (Harpur, 2009). This prejudice operates on a continuum: it encompasses overtly negative and hostile attitudes and actions—akin to sexism, racism, homophobia, and transphobia—but also extends to more subtle, often unconscious manifestations (Clifton, 2020). The latter includes well-meaning yet damaging stereotypes that foster a dynamic of pity, paternalism, and control. Ableist attitudes and behaviours serve to define people with disabilities as different from, lesser than, or inferior to non-disabled people, thereby questioning their capacity for autonomous decision-making and characterising them as an economic and social liability. This discrimination is evident both in individual interactions and in the systemic bias that fundamentally shapes national legislation, public policies, and organisational practices.

In response to these various forms of discrimination, the DDA must move beyond a reactive, complaints-based model and become a proactive instrument for change. Reform should embed positive duties to prevent discrimination, require co-design with people with disability, and establish mechanisms for systemic accountability. Inclusion is not a passive outcome. It must be actively built into the structures, cultures, and practices of Australian life. A modernised DDA should reflect this ambition, ensuring that people with disability are not only protected from harm but also empowered to flourish.

Note: We have not addressed every question raised in the Australian government’s issues paper. Instead, we have targeted the questions that relate to our Centre’s expertise.

Our recommendations

While the DDA is, at its core, an anti-discrimination statute, it can and should play a more constructive role in shaping systems that prevent exclusion before it occurs. By embedding proactive duties, accountability mechanisms and participatory processes, the Act can better realise its purpose of eliminating discrimination and promoting the full recognition and enjoyment of human rights by people with disability.

Definition of disability (Part 1, Questions 1 and 2)

We advocate for reforming the DDA’s definition of disability to align with contemporary disability theory. The current definition is rooted in outdated, deficit-based, and medicalised language, utilising terms like malfunction, malformation, disfigurement, and disorder. This terminology reflects an era that viewed disability as a defect rather than diversity. It reflects ableist assumptions that human worth is based on perceived “normality” and, therefore, that people with disability are less than fully human. This harmful framing continues to influence systems that segregate, institutionalise, and marginalise people with disability.

Modern disability theories, such as the social model of disability and critical and cultural theories, emphasise that disability is an inherent part of human diversity (Clifton, 2020). It is both an embodied and social reality, arising from the interaction between impairments and attitudinal, environmental, and institutional barriers. These theoretical developments have undergirded the disability rights movement and facilitated a significant social change. Importantly, they shift responsibility for exclusion away from individuals and onto systems and structures that discriminate against the disabled difference. Their insights have been incorporated into the UN CDRP.

The DDA should:

  • recognise disability as part of human diversity and humanity
  • emphasise the role of social and environmental barriers in disabling and discriminating against people with impairments
  • affirms the inherent dignity and rights of all people with disability
  • provides sufficient clarity on understanding disability for practical implementation across sectors such as education, employment and housing.

The UN CRPD does not provide a classification system for impairments, but identifies disability as constituting ‒long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment‒ that interacts with various barriers to hinder full participation. This definition draws on the distinction between the medical and social models of disability, which differentiate bodily impairment and social disablement. Critical disability studies have since critiqued the deficit-based language of ‘impairment’, which could be replaced with neutral terms like ‘characteristics’ or ‘attributes’.

We support maintaining a broad, impairment-related definition of disability while updating the wording to reflect contemporary, inclusive terminology. This approach is consistent with the CRPD Committee’s guidance in General Comment No. 6 and with the Australian Discrimination Law Expert Group’s (ADLEG) submission, which highlights the need to preserve broad legal definitions and protections.

In addition, we recommend including in the objects clause of the Act an explicit recognition of disability as a social concept. This should affirm that disability arises from the interaction between individual characteristics and attitudinal, environmental, or institutional barriers that hinder full participation. Suggested wording could be:

“To promote respect for difference and acceptance of people with disability as part of human diversity and humanity, and to recognise that disability results from the interaction between individuals and social, environmental, and institutional barriers that restrict equal participation in society.”

Including such an object would ensure the DDA is interpreted through a contemporary disability theory lens. It would strengthen the Act’s educative function, guiding policymakers, regulators, and courts to focus on dismantling barriers and advancing inclusion, rather than on categorising or pathologising individuals.

Intersectionality (Part 1, Questions 3 and 4)

Individuals experience discrimination in the context of systems of power such as ableism, racism, sexism, colonialism and ageism which are overlapping in nature. This means that although discrimination law is often single axis in approach, the lived experience of discrimination rarely is.

For example, a First Nations woman with disability may experience exclusion shaped by the interaction of racism, sexism and ableism, producing a qualitatively different experience of discrimination than any of these factors alone. In education, children with disability are often doubly marginalised by ableism and social constructions of childhood that deny agency and underestimate capacity.

This concept of intersectionality, developed by Kimberlé Crenshaw (1991) and advanced in human rights and disability scholarship, recognises that these overlapping structures of inequality produce distinct and unique forms of disadvantage for different individuals and community

The current DDA reflects a single-axis approach. Although complainants may raise multiple grounds, these are treated as separate and unrelated, obscuring the lived reality of intersectional discrimination. Embedding intersectionality in the Act would strengthen its capacity to respond to structural inequality and ensure it protects all people with disability, particularly those at the margins of multiple systems of oppression.

We recommend that the DDA be amended to:

  • explicitly recognise, within the objects clause, the role of the Act in addressing intersectional discrimination
  • explicitly recognise, the role of the DDA in giving effect to certain obligations in the core human rights treaties that Australia is bound, in addition to UN CRPD
  • allow claims that recognise the indivisible nature of intersectional discrimination, where multiple attributes interact to create unique forms of exclusion
  • define intersectional discrimination in a way that captures its structural character, not merely as multiple or compounded claims.

Recognising intersectionality within the DDA would align the Act with Australia’s obligations under the UN CRPD and other core human rights treaties to which Australia has acceded, and ensure that inclusion is realised for all people with disability, in all their diversity.

Objects clause (Part 1, Question 10 and 11)

We support the Disability Royal Commission’s recommendation to strengthen the DDA’s objects clause to make explicit its role in giving effect to Australia’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD).

In addition, as discussed above, the DDA should make explicit that the legislation aims to give effect to certain obligations in the other core human rights treaties that Australia has acceded to, namely:

  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
  • International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)
  • International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD)
  • Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)
  • Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT)
  • Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)

The National Disability Insurance Act 2013 provides a model for this comprehensive reference to core human rights treaties, by signalling in its objects that the legislation aims to give effect to Australia’s obligations under UN CRPD (NDIS Act 2023 (3)(1)(a)) while stating that the legislation also gives effect to ‘certain’ obligations under the other core human rights treaties (NDIS Act 2023 (3)(1)(i)).

We also consider that the clause should go further to reflect the Act’s role in fostering and promoting inclusion of people with disability in society, which requires removing structural barriers, combating stigma, and creating the conditions for full participation. This framing would align the Act with contemporary human rights law and affirm the achievement of

inclusion of people with disability. The objects should make clear that the DDA aims for inclusion as both the means and the measure of eliminating discrimination.

Positive duty to prevent discrimination (Part 2, Questions 12-15)

We support the DDA introducing a positive duty for all duty-holders to take reasonable and proportionate steps to prevent discrimination. This duty should apply across all areas of public life, including education, employment, and service delivery. It would align with Australia’s obligations under the UN CRPD, which requires States to adopt proactive measures to remove barriers, eliminate discrimination, and embed inclusion within public systems.

A positive duty framed around inclusion would shift the DDA from a reactive, complaints-based model to one focused on systemic prevention and transformation. Rather than relying on individuals to challenge discrimination after harm occurs, it would place responsibility on organisations to identify and address structural barriers before they exclude or disadvantage people with disability. We support the ADLEG’s recommendations on the framing of the positive duty in the DDA and other amendments to ensure practical implementation and enforcement. In addition, as noted below, we see a a role for an enhanced a strategic use of Disability Action Plans and Disability Standards to drive social transformation and eliminate discrimination.

Effective design and accountability

To be effective, the positive duty should include clear obligations on duty-holders to assess and act on discrimination risks within their organisation, with guidance from the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC). This could include requiring duty-holders, particularly large organisations and public authorities, to prepare and periodically report on disability inclusion action plans, co-designed with people with disability, and to demonstrate how these plans are being implemented and evaluated. Such reporting mechanisms would promote transparency, consistency, and public accountability while minimising the regulatory burden through alignment with existing planning processes.

The duty should be supported by practical, plain-language guidance developed collaboratively with people with disability and their representative organisation, regulators, employers and education providers. Guidance should make clear what constitutes reasonable and

proportionate steps in different contexts, while encouraging continuous improvement rather than minimal compliance.

Enforcement and compliance

To ensure the positive duty drives genuine change rather than symbolic compliance, the AHRC should have powers to investigate systemic non-compliance, issue compliance notices, and enter enforceable undertakings where appropriate. The Commission should also have the authority to publish compliance findings and provide sector-wide recommendations. These powers would align the DDA with contemporary regulatory models that combine education with enforceable accountability, as seen under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth).

Mandatory engagement with people with disability

To ensure the duty is effective and grounded in lived experience, duty-holders, including government agencies, regulators and education providers, should be required to consult with and actively involve people with disability and their representative organisations when developing and implementing measures to prevent discrimination. This aligns with Article 4(3) of the UN CRPD and the principle of ‒nothing about us without us.‒

As a research centre that integrates lived experience leadership and participatory research methods, the Centre for Disability Research and Policy has demonstrated how co-design and inclusive engagement lead to better policy outcomes (Bourke et al., 2024; Villeneuve, 2022). Codesign is more than mere consultation but involves recognising the lived expertise of people with disability and shifting power to them (Clifton et al., 2025; Fraser-Barbour et al., 2023). Embedding this approach within the DDA would help ensure that systemic reform is informed by the expertise of those directly affected and that inclusion becomes both a process and an outcome of the Act.

Inclusion in education, employment and other areas of public life (Part 3)

We support the Disability Royal Commission’s recommendations and the ADLEG’s further recommendations to:

  • replace the term reasonable adjustments with adjustments, to remove ambiguity and reinforce the obligation to accommodate diversity without implying that inclusion is conditional
  • introduce a stand-alone duty to provide adjustments unless doing so would impose unjustifiable hardship, subject to clearer limitations and guidance
  • strengthen the unjustifiable hardship test by:
    • requiring explicit consideration of: (i) how much the person with disability has been consulted; and (ii) what alternative options were available to remove or reduce hardship
    • requiring duty-holders to document the factors they considered and provide reasons when claiming unjustifiable hardship
  • amend the inherent requirements test to require decision-makers to consider the nature and extent of adjustments and the degree of consultation with the person with disability
  • expand the scope of ‘exclusions’ in section 22 to apply not only to suspensions but to all forms of exclusionary discipline. This should be defined broadly to include any action by an educational authority or institution that results in the withdrawal or denial of education or training to a student with disability. This reform must apply across all levels of education, including tertiary institutions.

These reforms mark a shift from reactive accommodation to proactive inclusion. By embedding duties that prioritise consultation, transparency, and accountability, the DDA can help build systems that support people with disability as full and equal participants in public life. Inclusion must be the guiding principle that ensures people with disability are not just accommodated but empowered to thrive.

Ensuring exemptions support inclusion (Part 5)

Exemptions under the DDA should be strictly limited to measures that demonstrably advance equality and inclusion. At present, some exemptions are inconsistent with Article 5(4) of the UN CRPD, which makes clear that specific measures to accelerate equality must not result in isolation, segregation or stereotyping of people with disability. For example, the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has recommended that Australia

‒remove the exemption in the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 to certain provisions of the Migration Act 1958‒ because it ‒allows for discrimination against persons with disabilities in asylum and migration procedures‒ (CRPD 2019: 10); indeed prominent legal advocates have observed that this exemptions is at odds with the prohibition on discrimination against people with disability in Article 5 CRPD (see NEDA 2009).

Section 45 should therefore be amended to confine special measures to those that promote inclusive equality (CRPD Committee, General Comment No. 6) and to make explicit that any such measure must be consistent with the objects of the Act and the UN CRPD. Language such as “special needs” should be removed, as it reflects outdated, deficit-based conceptions of disability and has contributed to the marginalisation of people with disability in practice.

Enforceability that drives systemic change (Parts 6 and 7)

We agree with the ADLEG’s submission that the DDA’s current reliance on individual complaints means that most systemic discrimination goes unaddressed. People with disability are often required to shoulder the burden of challenging exclusionary practices alone.

The Act should be strengthened to empower the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) to initiate investigations into systemic discrimination, issue compliance notices, and enter enforceable undertakings where breaches occur. These powers, mirroring those already established under the Sex Discrimination Act, would enable the AHRC to promote broad institutional change rather than focusing only on individual remedies.

Embedding enforceable duties would also help governments and service providers integrate human rights compliance into their governance and reporting systems, creating a culture of accountability and transparency.

Disability Action Plans

As noted above, we agree with the ADLEG’s submission that the DDA’s current reliance on individual complaints means that most systemic discrimination goes unaddressed. This over-reliance on individual complaints can be addressed by creating positive duties to prevent discrimination. Disability Action Plans are one pathway for this to occur. At present Disability Actions Plans are a legislated requirement for some agencies, in particular public institutions, but optional for a range of other institutions such as private businesses. Expanding the scope

of institutions that must undertake Disability Action Plans, and tightening requirements for oversight and compliance with plans, is one way to address systemic discrimination.

As a university-based research centre, the CDRP recognises the critical role of Disability Action Plans in advancing systemic change within the higher education sector. Drawing on the work of Harpur et al. (2025), we highlight the importance of disability-led strategies that embed lived experience leadership, universal design, and accountability into institutional planning. The university sector offers a compelling example of how proactive planning can foster inclusive cultures and dismantle structural barriers. We recommend that the DDA encourage the adoption of DIAPs across all sectors.

Digital and technological inclusion (Part 8, Qs 35-38)

Digital environments are now central to participation in education, employment, health care, and public life. However, people with disability continue to encounter a wide range of inaccessible technology and environments: inaccessible websites, television (especially captioning and audio description), mobile and other devices (Ellis et al., 2021), digital assistants (van Toorn, 2024), apps and social media (Tsatsou, 2022), online forms, automated decision systems (van Toorn and Scully, 2024), digital communication platforms, and emerging technology such as VR (Carter et al., 2024) and AI (Bennett & Keyes, 2020; Mack et al., 2024; Zhuang & Goggin, 2025). The evidence of discrimination, exclusion, injustice and barriers to social and digital inclusion have been well documented in the Australian context in the lead up to the original DDA, and since then—by researchers, disability, consumer, and other groups, and by government inquiries (ACCAN, 2020; Goggin, Ellis & Hawkins, 2019; AHRC, 2021; DRC, 2023; Goggin, Hawkins & Schokman, 2024).

Australia saw the first major test of web accessibility in 1999-2000, where the DDA was applied (HREOC 1999, 2000a & b), following on from the landmark 1995 Scott v. Telstra decision (Hannon 1996), which established the principle of the standard telephone service needing to be available on a non-discriminatory equitable basis (Goggin et al. 2017). So, the DDA has played a positive role—although it has required extensive efforts on the part of complaints via conciliation, often with ‒adverse impacts on people with disability‒ (AHRC, 2021 p. 148).

This situation has been long recognized to require specific attention in law, policy, and regulation. There have been various calls for Australia to formulate a national strategy on disability, accessibility, and digital technology of which the DDA is a key element (ACCAN, 2020; AHRC, 2021). The Australian government is developing an Associated Plan under the National Disability, and the Disability Royal Commission final report recommending expanding this (DRC, 2023, Exec Summ, p. 68, 213-214). The need for such a plan was underscored by the decision in landmark case that Laura Henley took to the UN CRDP, Henley v Australia (2022), where it was found that Australia was in breach by not ensuring the provision of audio description via adequate action plans, strategies, laws and policies (DRC, 2023). The scope, effectiveness, and availability of the DDA as an avenue for the complaint was a key and unresolved discussion point in the matter (DRC, 2023, p. 10).

The DDA was not fit for purpose for addressing discrimination relating to technologies in 1992 and this has not yet been addressed (Hawkins, 2020). Now that these technologies have became integral to daily life, and in light of the extensive digital technology provisions in the CRPD (Goggin, 2017; Lazar & Stein, 2017; Quinn, 2021), there is a clear requirement for explicit mechanisms to ensure accessibility and inclusion in the digital sphere in Australia (cf. AHRC, 2021, and DRC, 2023, p. 198). The AHRC’s Guidelines on Equal Access to Digital Goods and Services (ARHC, 2025) are helpful and practical guide to what digital goods and services how in relation to the DDA, how design and provision can occur (in relation to standards, other guidelines and best practice) and how complaints may be raised.

Modernising the DDA to cover digital environments

The DDA should make clear that discrimination includes barriers arising from inaccessible or unusable digital systems, platforms, and technologies.

The DDA could clarify its coverage of digital environments through a simple amendment to the Act itself. The definition of services in section 4 should make explicit that it includes digital services, platforms and technologies, whether delivered directly, through third-party providers, or via automated systems.

This clarification would confirm that discrimination includes barriers arising from inaccessible or unusable digital environments, ensuring that the same equality obligations apply online as

in physical spaces. It would also provide certainty that core areas of modern life—such as online banking, education, government services and health care, communication, information and media—are subject to the DDA’s protections, regardless of how those services are delivered.

Such a clarification would build on and entrench the AHRC’s modernizing discussion on its Guidelines (2025).

Digital accessibility standards

While we recognise this is beyond the scope of the current inquiry, we note that Disability Standards are an important strategy for creating a positive duty to prevent discrimination against people with disability. While the results of Disability Standards in achieving social transformation are mixed, it is indisputable that standard-setting has been an important tool in the ecology of measures that have improved the accessibility of infrastructure and services for people with disability. For example, in most Australian cities, the Disability Standards have led to significant changes in public transport infrastructure, enabling greater participation by people with disabilities in these services. Where these standards are not applied, or yet to be fulfilled, there are negative implications for many people with disability (Chapman et al 2023)

We would recommend the Government develop a Digital Communication Technology Standard under section 31 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth). This was a core recommendation of the AHDR’s 2021 report on Human Rights and Technology. The proposal and rationale is laid out in detail, providing a strong basis for revisiting this and finally moving forward with it. This Digital Communication Technology Standard would provide the appropriate breadth to laid out the expectations and requirements for people with disability in contemporary society, which digital technology, as we note, is pervasive and underpins participation and inclusion. Within this standard could be referenced and included

  • Relevant objects and provisions of the CPRD, including Article 9 – Accessibility, and Article 21 –Freedom of expression and opinion, and access to information
  • Internationally recognised frameworks such as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.2)
  • Universal Design principles (here we note a related issue highlighted in Recommendation 6.3.14 of the Australian Discrimination Law Experts Group (ADLEG) Submission that calling for the express inclusion of Universal design for learning – UDL – in Disability Standards for Education 2005 (Cth) (ADLEG, p. 118)
  • Relevant provisions of the CRPD (including participation of people with disability

The Digital Communication Technology Standard should apply to

  • all public sector websites, digital services, and technology offered, procured or funded by government; and
  • extend to private sector digital technology companies providers providing essential goods and services.

These measures would provide legal certainty for duty-holders, promote consistency across sectors, and reduce reliance on individual complaints by establishing proactive expectations of accessibility.

To support implementation, the DDA could empower the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) to develop and issue Digital Accessibility Guidelines or codes of practice. These instruments would clarify how the positive duty to provide adjustments and the broader anti-discrimination provisions apply in digital contexts. They would also promote alignment with existing government and industry frameworks, offering practical, plain-language examples to guide compliance. This approach would enhance accountability while avoiding the need for the DDA to directly regulate procurement or product design.

Assistive and emerging technologies

Assistive technologies such as screen readers, captioning tools and alternative input devices are essential to participation for many people with disability. The DDA can play a key role in enabling accessibility by ensuring that mainstream digital systems and services are designed to work seamlessly with assistive technologies. A Digital Accessibility Standard could embed this expectation, supported by AHRC guidance to help organisations achieve effective interoperability and inclusive design.

As technology continues to evolve, the DDA should anticipate new forms of discrimination linked to automated decision-making, artificial intelligence (AI), and emerging digital tools.

Algorithmic bias, particularly where datasets under-represent people with disability, can reinforce exclusion and perpetuate ableist assumptions. There are various examples of how to tackle this from other jurisdictions that may be drawn on, notably in Europe with the combination of its two leading laws—the EU AI Act and the EU Accessibility Act—but also from jurisdictions making amendments to existing anti-discrimination and other legislation.

These risks could be addressed through the Digital Communication Technology Standard and associated AHRC guidance, which should clarify that equality obligations extend to automated and data-driven systems (here we note the recommendation 7.4 of the ALEG submission, that the AHRC be funded to provide guidance material on AI and automated decision-making (recommendation 7.4, ALEG, 2025). Guidance could set out expectations for accessible design, inclusive data practices, transparency, and regular evaluation to prevent systemic bias. Embedding these principles within the standard would ensure that the DDA remains responsive to technological change while remaining within its existing scope. In note, we note and endorse the various recommendations of the ADLEG submission regarding AI, such as those on action plans (recommendation 6.2.3, ADLEG, 2025), liability (recommendations 7.5 and 7.6, ADLEG, 2025)

Summary of Recommendations

  • Modernise the definition of disability Update the DDA’s definition to reflect disability as part of human diversity, emphasising the role of social and environmental barriers, and aligning with the UN CRPD and contemporary disability theory.
  • Embed intersectionality Amend the DDA to recognise and address intersectional discrimination, allowing claims that reflect the indivisible nature of overlapping systems of exclusion.
  • Strengthen the objects clause Make explicit the DDA’s role in giving effect to Australia’s obligations under the UN CRPD and other core human rights treaties, and affirm inclusion as both a goal and a measure of success.
  • Introduce a positive duty to prevent discrimination Require duty-holders to take reasonable and proportionate steps to prevent discrimination, supported by co-designed Disability Inclusion Action Plans, AHRC guidance, and enforceable accountability mechanisms.
  • Reform adjustment provisions Replace “reasonable adjustments” with “adjustments,” introduce a stand-alone duty to provide them, and strengthen unjustifiable hardship and inherent requirements tests to ensure transparency and consultation.
  • Expand Disability Action Plans Encourage adoption of Disability Inclusion Action Plans across all sectors. As a university-based centre, the CDRP highlights the importance of disability-led DIAPs in higher education, co-designed with people with disability and embedded in governance structures.
  • Strengthen enforceability Empower the AHRC to investigate systemic discrimination, issue compliance notices, and enter enforceable undertakings to drive institutional change.
  • Ensure digital inclusion Clarify that digital services fall under the DDA, and develop a Digital Communication Technology Standard to ensure accessibility of digital environments, assistive technologies, and emerging systems such as AI.

References

Australian Discrimination Law Experts Group (ADLEG). 2025. Submission of the Australian Discrimination Law Experts Group in response to the Commonwealth’s Attorney-General’s Department Review of the Disability Discrimination Act, 18 October.

Australian Communications Consumer Action Network (ACCAN). (2020a). Ideal accessible communications roadmap. https://engage.dss.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Ideal-Accessible-Communications-Roadmap.docx.

Bennett, C., & Keyes, O. (2020). What is the point of fairness?: disability, AI and the complexity of justice. ACM SIGACCESS Accessibility and Computing(125), 1-1. https://doi.org/10.1145/3386296.3386301

Bourke, J. A., Bragge, P., River, J., Sinnott Jerram, K. A., Arora, M., & Middleton, J. W. (2024). Shining a light on the road towards conducting principle-based co-production research in rehabilitation. Frontiers in Rehabilitation Sciences, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fresc.2024.1386746.

Carter, M., Egliston, B., Clark, K., Goggin, G., Zhuang, V., Ellis, K., Hawkins, W., & Tan, W. (2024). Disability in the Metaverse. Sydney Games and Play Lab. https://hdl.handle. net/2123/33120

Chapman, K., Ehrlich, C., O’Loghlen, J., & Kendall, E. (2023). The dignity experience of people with disability when using trains and buses in an Australian city. Disability & Society, 39(9), 2375–2399. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2023.2203307.

Clifton, S. (2020). Hierarchies of power: Disability theories and models and their implications for violence against, and abuse, neglect, and exploitation of, people with disability. The Disability Royal Commission, https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au/publications/hierarchies-power-disability-theories-and-models-and-their-implications-violence-against-and-abuse-neglect-and-exploitation-people-disability.

Clifton, S., Cooper, E., Bourke, J., Connor, S., Denton, S., Dominish, B., Gibellini, C., Gilroy, J., Hallahan, L., Jessep, S., Katterl, S., Mellifont, D., Farrant, F. Q., O’Brien, B., Watharow, A., & Wynn., R. (2025). Disability lived experience and expertise: Recognising the Expert Contributions of People with Disability. Evidence & policy, Online publication, 1-18. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1332/17442648Y2025D000000060.

Commonwealth. (2023). Final report, Our vision for an inclusive Australia. Royal commission into violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation of people with disability

Ellis, K., Kent, M., Locke, K., McRae, L., Dau, D., & Peaty, G. (2021). Smartphones, disability and the Australian experience of the COVID-19 pandemic for people who are Blind and with low vision. Disability Studies Quarterly, 41(3). https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v41i3.8318.

Fraser-Barbour, E., Robinson, S., Gendera, S., Burton-Clark, I., Fisher, K. R., Alexander, J., & Howe, K. (2023). Shifting power to people with disability in co-designed research. Disability & Society, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2023.2279932.

Goggin, Gerard. “Communication Rights, Disability, and Law: The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in National Perspective.” Law in Context 35, no. 2 (2017): 129-149.

Goggin, Gerard, Katie Ellis, and Wayne Hawkins. “Disability at the Centre of Digital Inclusion: Assessing a New Moment in Technology and Rights.” Communication Research & Practice 5, no. 3 (2019), 290-303.

Goggin, Gerard, Hawkins, Wayne, and Schokman, Aaron. Disability & Digital Citizenship: Australian Consumers & Citizens with Disability Navigating Digital Society, Institute for Culture and Society (ICS), Western Sydney University, Australian Communications Consumer Action Network (ACCAN), & Discipline of Media and Communications, School of Art, Communication & English, Faculty of Arts & Social Sciences, University of Sydney, October 2024. Available at: https://www.westernsydney.edu.au/ data/assets/pdf file/0006/2053851/Disability and Digital CitizenshipreportOct2024Gogginetal.pdf.

Goggin, Gerard, Scott Hollier, and Wayne Hawkins. “Internet Accessibility and Disability Policy: Lessons for Digital Inclusion from Australia.” Internet Policy Review 6.1 (2017), https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/internet-accessibility-and-disability-policy-lessons-digital-inclusion-and.

Harpur, P. (2009). Sexism and Racism, Why Not Ableism?:Calling for a Cultural Shift in the Approach to Disability Discrimination. Alternative law journal, 34(3), 163-167. https://doi.org/10.1177/1037969x0903400304.

Harpur, P. D. (2017). Discrimination, copyright and equality: Opening the e-Book for the print-disabled. Cambridge University Press.

Harpur, P., Stafford, L., & Ellis, K. (2025). A disability-led disability inclusion strategy for the higher education sector. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 47(3), 368-385. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080x.2025.2478537.

Hawkins, R. W. (2020). Please hold: Australia’s communication policy response to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. PhD thesis, Department of Media and Communications, University of Sydney. https://ndl.handle.net/2123/24114

Hannon, M. (1996). Indirect Discrimination and the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth): Scott v Telstra Corporation Limited. Australian Journal of Human Rights, 3(1), 165–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/1323238X.1996.11910974.

Henley v. Australia, CRPD/C/27/D/56/2018 (UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2022)

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC). (1999). Maguire v SOCOG [Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games). No. H 99/115. Sydney: Australian Human Rights Commission.

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC). (2000a). Bruce Lindsay Maguire v Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games. No. H 99/115. Sydney: Australian Human Rights Commission.

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC). (2000b). Bruce Lindsay Maguire v. Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (Respondent) … Concerning Relief. No. H. 99/115.

Lazar, J., & Stein, M. A. (Eds.). (2017). Disability, human rights, and information technology. University of Pennsylvania Press.

Mack, K. A., Qadri, R., Denton, R., Kane, S. K., & Bennett, C. L. (2024). “They only care to show us the wheelchair”: disability representation in text-to-image Al models. (Ed.),^(Eds.). Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

National Ethnic Disability Alliance. (NEDA) ‘Legal Advice Regarding UN Convention on the Rights of Person with Disabilities.’ Submission. 20 August 2009.

Quinn, G. (2021). A/HRC/49/52 - United Nations Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities

Tsatsou, P. (Ed.) (2022). Digital Inclusion: Enhancing Vulnerable People’s Social Inclusion and Welfare? Palgrave

van Toorn, G. (2024). Inclusion interrupted: Lessons from the making of a digital assistant by and for people with disability. Government Information Quarterly, 41(1), 101900.

van Toorn, G., & Scully, J. L. (2024). Unveiling algorithmic power: Exploring the impact of automated systems on disabled people’s engagement with social services. Disability & Society, 39(11), 3004-3029.

Villeneuve, M. (2022). Disability-Inclusive Emergency Planning: Person-Centered Emergency Preparedness. In: Oxford University Press.

Zhuang, K. V., & Goggin, G. Governing generative AI for disability and inclusion. Information, Communication & Society, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2025.2570735