Response to the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 Review

Vision 2020 Australia

November 2025

National body working in partnership to prevent avoidable blindness and improve vision care

Contents

Introduction 2

• Recommendations 2
• Part 1 – Updating understandings of disability and disability discrimination 3
• Part 2 – Positive duty to eliminate discrimination 4
• Part 3 – Encouraging inclusion of people with disability in employment, education and other areas of public life 7
• Part 4 – Improving access to justice 8
• Part 5 – Exemptions 8
• Part 6 – Modernising the Disability Discrimination Act 9
• Part 7 – Further options for reform 10
• References 11

About Vision 2020 Australia 11

Introduction

The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) is a vital piece of legislation that has facilitated greater inclusion of people with disability in Australian life. Reforms are nevertheless required to reflect the significant changes in technology, terminology and social standards that have occurred in the decades since the passage of the DDA.

We appreciate the Attorney-General’s Department’s invitation to contribute to the review of the DDA. There is strong support across the low vision sector for each of the 15 recommended changes to the DDA as outlined in the Issues Paper. This submission elaborates on the proposed changes and recommends additional ways in which an updated DDA can better uphold the rights of people who are blind or have low vision.

As the peak body for the blindness, low vision and eye health sector, Vision 2020 has consulted extensively with our 50 member organisations to develop our recommendations. We support and appreciate additional submissions lodged by some of our members, which explore some areas in more detail. We hope that the extensive input from the vision sector into this consultation, through our submission and others, demonstrates the genuine need for the work the Department is undertaking.

Recommendations

1. The updated DDA should be grounded in the social model of disability but contain language that is sufficiently robust and specific to apply to duty holders.
2. There should be an in-built, five-yearly legislative review mechanism that allows the DDA to continually reflect modern terminology, technology and social standards as they relate to people with disability.
3. For clarity, a “dog guide” should be defined in the updated DDA as “a dog that has been specially trained to support a person who is blind or has low vision with their mobility”.
4. In recognition of their positive duty, employers, schools, organisations and businesses should be required to record in their annual reports the steps they are taking to eliminate disability discrimination.
5. The updated DDA should incorporate a shift in the burden of proof, similar to the one found in the Fair Work Act.
6. Health systems should become explicit duty holders in the updated DDA, with the aim of developing a healthcare disability standard, like the ones for transport, education, premises and (imminently) air travel.
7. The updated DDA should designate broadcasting licence holders as duty holders, requiring them to take action to ensure all Australians have equal access to cultural and informational content.
8. To ensure equal access in the digital age, providers of digital goods and services should be explicitly designated as duty holders under the DDA.
9. The federal government should ensure the Australian Human Rights Commission is well funded and sufficiently staffed with disability experts, including people with lived experience of disability, empowering it to investigate patterns of discrimination and take proactive action.

10. All legal documents should be made available in multiple alternate formats, including Braille, large print and accessible digital text.
11. The employment of people with lived experience of disability should be coupled with regular and mandatory disability awareness training for all judges, lawyers, court officers, police officers and corrections officers.
12. The federal government should carefully consider the continuation of legislated exemptions and the unintended consequences and rigidities that may result.
13. The Migration Act exemption should be removed from the updated DDA.
14. For identification documents to have practical effect, there must be nationwide recognition and acceptance of dog guides.
15. Specific animal training organisations that meet the necessary legal requirements should be prescribed in the Disability Discrimination Regulations. These Regulations should be reviewed and updated on a regular basis to account for any business name changes to low vision service providers.
16. The low vision sector recommends the updated DDA is explicit that dogs are the only animal to be recognised and accredited as an assistance animal.
17. If Australia eventually legislates a federal Human Rights Act, it should contain specific provisions for people with disability.
18. There should be a national reporting framework where people with disability can lodge a discrimination complaint that can be seen and investigated by the appropriate federal, state and territory authorities.
19. The federal government should establish and fund a national disability consumer organisation.

Part 1 – Updating understandings of disability and disability discrimination

There is strong support across the low vision sector for an updated DDA that reflects the inclusive language of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). It is important to note that the UNCRPD was drafted in 2006 and may itself require updates in the years to come.

It is essential that the updated DDA be a practical piece of legislation. The updated DDA should be grounded in the social model of disability but contain language that is sufficiently robust and specific to apply to duty holders.

To that end, there should be a mechanism within the updated DDA for five-yearly legislative reviews. This would not be a sunset clause that terminates the legislation, but rather an in-built review mechanism that allows the DDA to continually reflect modern terminology, technology and social standards as they relate to people with disability.

As explained in Part 6 of this submission, the low vision sector strongly believes that governments should specifically acknowledge that an assistance animal in Australia can only be a dog. All vision service providers who train dog guides in Australia are accredited members of the International Guide Dog Federation (IGDF), which sets evolving standards regarding the training of dog guides. The IGDF defines a dog guide as “a dog that has been specially trained to support a person who is

blind or has low vision with their mobility”. This definition, which clearly explains the tasks a dog can perform and their utility to their handlers, should be adopted as Australia’s national definition of a dog guide.

Recommendation 1: The updated DDA should be grounded in the social model of disability but contain language that is sufficiently robust and specific to apply to duty holders.

Recommendation 2: There should be an in-built, five-yearly legislative review mechanism that allows the DDA to continually reflect modern terminology, technology and social standards as they relate to people with disability.

Recommendation 3: For clarity, a “dog guide” should be defined in the updated DDA as “a dog that has been specially trained to support a person who is blind or has low vision with their mobility”.

Part 2 – Positive duty to eliminate discrimination

Positive duty and burden of proof

There is strong support across the low vision sector for an updated DDA that introduces a “positive duty.” This positive duty would compel employers, schools, organisations and businesses to actively prevent discrimination, rather than merely respond to it after the event.

In recognition of this positive duty, employers, schools, organisations and businesses should be required to record in their annual reports the steps they are taking to eliminate disability discrimination.

There is also broad support across the low vision sector for the updated DDA to incorporate a shift in the burden of proof, as outlined on page 32 of the Issues Paper. That is, to replicate the Fair Work Act by requiring “the applicant to prove that the conduct occurred and that they have a disability before the respondent must then prove that the conduct was not on the basis of the person’s disability.”

Recommendation 4: In recognition of their positive duty, employers, schools, organisations and businesses should be required to record in their annual reports the steps they are taking to eliminate disability discrimination.

Recommendation 5: The updated DDA should incorporate a shift in the burden of proof, similar to the one found in the Fair Work Act.

Positive duty for health systems

The Australian Charter of Healthcare Rights states that all Australians should “receive safe and high-quality health care that meets national standards” and “be treated as an individual, and with dignity and respect”. The second edition of the Charter was published in 2020.

Despite the broad assurances contained therein, the Charter is not particularly relevant in the day-to-day operations of healthcare providers. Indeed, many healthcare professionals continue to struggle to understand their specific obligations to people with disability – especially to people who are blind or have low vision.

To rectify this situation, we recommend that health systems become explicit duty holders in the updated DDA. In the near term, this would compel healthcare administrators and frontline personnel to actively improve their treatment of people with disability. In the longer term, this would

lay the groundwork for the development of a healthcare disability standard, like the ones for transport, education, premises and (imminently) air travel.

Recommendation 6: Health systems should become explicit duty holders in the updated DDA, with the aim of developing a healthcare disability standard, like the ones for transport, education, premises and (imminently) air travel.

Broadcasting Licence Holders Must Be Duty Holders

The DDA currently lacks explicit provisions that compel broadcasters to provide accessible services such as Audio Description (AD). AD is a vital accessibility feature that provides verbal narration of visual elements – enabling people who are blind or have low vision to fully engage with television content. Despite its availability in other countries and even on exported Australian content, AD remains inconsistently available on domestic free-to-air TV.

People who are blind or have low vision welcomed federal government funding which allowed for the introduction of AD on the ABC and SBS, commencing in 2020. However, there is no guarantee for the future availability of AD on TV, and commercial broadcasters have demonstrated little interest in introducing AD, despite the fact that AD tracks already exist for much of the content they broadcast.

A complaint to the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities by disability advocate Lauren Henley, in collaboration with Blind Citizens Australia and the Justice and Equity Centre, highlighted Australia’s failure to mandate AD on free-to-air television. The Committee found Australia in breach of several CRPD articles:

• Article 4(1) & 4(2): Obligations to adopt legislative measures and promote accessibility.
• Article 9(1): Accessibility in communications and information.
• Article 30(1): Equal participation in cultural life.

The Committee directed Australia to:

• Identify and remove barriers to accessibility, including lack of AD.
• Develop and implement action plans with deadlines.
• Allocate resources to ensure compliance.

These directives underscore the need for legislative reform that includes broadcasters as duty holders – making accessibility a legal requirement, not a policy aspiration.

Since that decision, the federal government has accepted Recommendation 6.1 by the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disabilities, which called for a National Plan for Accessible Communications. Enforcing the Government’s expectations of broadcasters could be a valuable element of this plan, and proof of the Government’s commitment to delivering on the promises of the Convention.

Designating broadcasting licence holders as duty holders under the DDA would:

• Create enforceable obligations for broadcasters to provide AD.
• Clarify accountability, ensuring that accessibility is not treated as optional or discretionary.
• Enable complaints and legal recourse under the DDA when AD is not provided.

This approach should outline clear, actionable duties for those who control content delivery, ensuring that all Australians, regardless of disability, have equal access to cultural and informational content.

Recommendation 7: The updated DDA should designate broadcasting licence holders as duty holders, requiring them to take action to ensure all Australians have equal access to cultural and informational content.

Providers of Digital Goods and Services Should Be Duty Holders

Since its introduction in 1992, the DDA has driven transformative change in physical accessibility across Australia. From ramps and lifts to tactile signage and accessible toilets, the Act has empowered people with disabilities to participate more fully in public life. These improvements were made possible because property owners and service providers were clearly identified as duty holders, legally responsible for removing barriers.

In today’s digital-first society, the same principle must apply to digital environments. Websites, apps, and online platforms are now essential gateways to education, employment, healthcare, banking, and civic participation. Yet many remain inaccessible to people with disabilities. Without clear legal obligations, digital exclusion persists.

Australia is falling behind international best practice. The European Accessibility Act (2019) mandates that digital products and services—including e-commerce, banking apps, and transport booking platforms—must be accessible to people with disabilities. Duty holders include manufacturers, service providers, and distributors.

Similarly, the U.S. Department of Justice has affirmed that websites are places of public accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Canada’s Accessible Canada Act (2019) requires federally regulated entities to remove barriers in digital services.

In April 2025, the Australian Human Rights Commission released updated Guidelines on Equal Access to Digital Goods and Services. These guidelines clarify that digital inaccessibility may constitute unlawful discrimination under the DDA. They recommend compliance with WCAG 2.2 Level AA, now formally adopted as Australia’s minimum accessibility standard.

However, the guidelines are advisory—not enforceable. Without legislative reform, there is no clear mechanism to hold digital providers accountable. This gap undermines the DDA’s intent and enables the exclusion of people who are blind or have low vision from digital environments.

To modernize the DDA and uphold Australia’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), Vision 2020 recommends:

• Amending the DDA to explicitly designate providers of digital goods and services as duty holders.
• Creating enforcement pathways for complaints, investigations, and penalties.

This reform would ensure that digital accessibility is treated with the same seriousness as physical access – making inclusion a legal standard, not a voluntary gesture.

Recommendation 8: To ensure equal access in the digital age, providers of digital goods and services should be explicitly designated as duty holders under the DDA.

A more active enforcement role for the AHRC

The Issues Paper likens the updated DDA’s positive duty function to the one found in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. In December 2023, the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) published a document explaining its compliance and enforcement policy regarding the positive duty under the Sex Discrimination Act.

“In discharging its regulatory role, the Commission is mindful of the need to ease the overall burden on individuals by proactively initiating action to address relevant unlawful conduct, rather than relying on individuals to bring complaints. The Commission will use a risk-based, intelligence-led and data-driven approach to compliance and enforcement, focusing its resources on activities and inquiries that will provide the greatest impact for meaningful cultural change.”1

There is widespread agreement across the low vision sector of the need for the AHRC to play a more proactive role in addressing disability discrimination. One of the more disappointing aspects of the current DDA is the ineffectualness of the compliance and enforcement regime, particularly the need for individuals to bring complaints against well-resourced corporations or governments.

For the updated DDA to have a practical effect, the federal government must ensure the AHRC is well funded and sufficiently staffed with disability experts. These experts must include people with lived experience of disability. This will empower the AHRC to investigate patterns of discrimination and then take proactive action.

Recommendation 9: The federal government should ensure the Australian Human Rights Commission is well funded and sufficiently staffed with disability experts, including people with lived experience of disability, empowering it to investigate patterns of discrimination and take proactive action.

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

There is strong support across the low vision sector for removing the world “reasonable” from reasonable adjustment. With the federal government’s Employment Assistance Fund (EAF) offering free workplace assessments and helping to cover the costs of workplace changes, employers should have no excuse when it comes to providing workplace adjustments.

The federal government, through the Job Access website, provides guidelines for employers on the reasonable adjustments they should make for employees with a disability.2 The guidelines have evidently not sparked a fundamental change in employer attitudes, with the AHRC reporting that “the labour force participation rate has remained relatively unchanged for people with disability over the last 20 years.”3 This is despite the most recent national Occupational Shortages List, released last year, classifying 112 occupations as being in national shortage.4

Tertiary education provides a poignant example of the difficulties in changing employer attitudes. Despite the EAF and other inclusion programs, universities and TAFEs continue to struggle to provide adjustments for staff and students who are blind or have low vision. These adjustments include the timely provision of assistive technology and accessible course materials. The ongoing lack of equitable access in higher education settings contravenes one of the key findings of the 2024 Australian Universities Accord Final Report:

“Only by expanding access to tertiary education to currently under-represented groups – including people from low SES backgrounds, First Nations, people with

disability and regional, rural and remote students – can the nation meet its projected skills needs.”5

A positive duty would compel employers and education institutions to actively prevent discrimination. The elimination of disability discrimination would be an intrinsically beneficial outcome. As a bonus, it would help to relieve some of the structural pressures on the Australian economy in both the short and long term.

Part 4 – Improving access to justice

Australian governments have recognised the enduring impediments to justice for people with disability. In recent years, the governments of Victoria and New South Wales tasked their respective law reform commissions with improving this situation. The federal government also considered disability equity concerns when developing the new Administrative Review Tribunal.

There is a consensus amongst the low vision sector of the need for improved access to justice for people with disability. To that end, it is essential that the police, the courts and the broader legal system do not exempt themselves from anti-discrimination measures.

There are still too many instances of legal documents being inaccessible for people who are blind or have low vision. This applies to criminal, civil and administrative matters. For example, information presented in inaccessible tables and PDFs by the National Disability Insurance Agency, as well as certain wills, contracts and banking documents that are similarly incompatible with screen readers.

Relatively simple changes would make the justice system more accessible for people who have a print disability. It is not difficult to provide legal documents in formats that can be more easily read by people who are blind or have low vision. Additionally, police could carry a Braille and large print document in the glove box of their vehicles, allowing people in the community who cannot sight a badge to comprehend the identity of the officers with whom they are speaking.

Furthermore, regular disability awareness training should be mandatory for all judges, lawyers, court officers, police officers and corrections officers. Employing people with lived experience of disability to work in the legal system and the public service will also enhance disability awareness. This would help to ensure that frontline personnel are understanding, inclusive and respectful of people with disability.

Recommendation 10: All legal documents should be made available in multiple alternate formats, including Braille, large print and accessible digital text.

Recommendation 11: The employment of people with lived experience of disability should be coupled with regular and mandatory disability awareness training for all judges, lawyers, court officers, police officers and corrections officers.

Part 5 – Exemptions

The DDA includes 10 permanent exemptions which set out when discrimination against people with disability is not unlawful. The Australian Human Rights Commission can also grant temporary exemptions. It is important to carefully consider the continuation of legislated exemptions and the unintended consequences and rigidities that may result.

Technological improvements in recent years have undermined the necessity of certain exemptions. For example, a person in a wheelchair may not be able to perform certain physical tasks but could still make an important contribution to the Australian Defence Force as a drone pilot.

The DDA currently provides a permanent exemption to discriminatory provisions in the Migration Act 1958 and to legislative instruments made under that Act. In 2010, a detailed report by the Joint Standing Committee on Migration recommended “a more appropriate and just approach for the migration assessment for people with a disability across the visa streams” that would “better reflect our international obligations and domestic policy on disability.”6 The Migration Act exemption should be removed from the updated DDA.

The DDA also features an exemption on assistance animals. As noted in Vision 2020’s recent submission on the draft Assistance Animals National Principles, providing documentation that a dog guide is a trained and accredited assistance animal can be useful to dog guide users and to the public at large. Accreditation must be nationally consistent and therefore recognised in each state and territory.

For that accreditation to have practical effect, however, there must be nationwide recognition and acceptance of dog guides. It is therefore essential that after presenting that documentation, people with a dog guide are not then subjected to illegal discrimination by business owners and venue operators.

Recommendation 12: The federal government should carefully consider the continuation of legislated exemptions and the unintended consequences and rigidities that may result.

Recommendation 13: The Migration Act exemption should be removed from the updated DDA.

Recommendation 14: For identification documents to have practical effect, there must be nationwide recognition and acceptance of dog guides.

Part 6 – Modernising the Disability Discrimination Act

The Issues Paper identifies the need to strengthen and clarify the training requirements for assistance animals. There is strong support across the low vision sector for specific animal training organisations that meet the necessary legal requirements to be prescribed in the Disability Discrimination Regulations. It is important that these Regulations are reviewed and updated on a regular basis to account for any business name changes to low vision service providers.

Furthermore, as articulated in our recent submission on the draft Assistance Animals National Principles, the low vision sector maintains that governments should specifically acknowledge that an assistance animal in Australia can only be a dog. This would protect Australians from the confusion that transpires in other countries when people access public places with their assistance rat/snake/peacock/miniature horse.

Recommendation 15: Specific animal training organisations that meet the necessary legal requirements should be prescribed in the Disability Discrimination Regulations. These Regulations should be reviewed and updated on a regular basis to account for any business name changes to low vision service providers.

Recommendation 16: The low vision sector recommends the updated DDA is explicit that dogs are the only animal to be recognised and accredited as an assistance animal.

Part 7 – Further options for reform

There are other options for reform regarding disability discrimination policy.

1. If Australia follows the path of countries like the United Kingdom with an Equality Act or Human Rights Act, it is essential that there are specific provisions for people with disability.
2. There is agreement across the low vision sector of the need to simplify and improve the documentation of disability discrimination cases. The online Conciliation Register provides summaries of a selection of complaints that have been resolved through the AHRC’s conciliation process. The Conciliation Register is somewhat useful, but it highlights the need for a nationally consistent reporting framework to record every instance of discrimination.

When it comes to public transport operators and providers, for example, complaints to the AHRC are siloed from complaints made directly to public transport operators and providers. This is further complicated by the interplay between local and state governments in the ownership and management of public transport infrastructure, the contracting of different private companies to operate public transport services within each state, and the contracting of private companies to provide ticketing services and smartcards across each state.

In the absence of a nationally consistent reporting framework, people with disability who experience discrimination may not know to whom they should complain. This prevents disability discrimination from being accurately recorded.

A national reporting framework should include a one-stop shop where people with disability can lodge a discrimination complaint that can be seen and investigated by the appropriate federal, state and territory authorities. The reporting system should include a telephone hotline, an accessible website and an accessible smartphone app. A well-resourced AHRC, as previously discussed in this submission, could act as the one-stop shop.

3. There is a need for greater consumer advocacy for people with disability. As the national consumer regulator, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has provided a few online guides and factsheets for consumers with disability. Though somewhat useful, these ACCC factsheets have evidently failed to address the “disability tax”, whereby National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) participants are charged significantly more than the general public to purchase certain goods and services.

There are well-resourced consumer organisations across many essential product markets, including Energy Consumers Australia, Super Consumers Australia, and the Australian Communications and Consumer Action Network.7 These organisations, funded by market levies, represent consumers in the development and review of market regulation and outcomes.

Government funding would be needed to establish a national disability consumer organisation.

Recommendation 17: If Australia eventually legislates a federal Human Rights Act, it should contain specific provisions for people with disability.

Recommendation 18: There should be a national reporting framework where people with disability can lodge a discrimination complaint that can be seen and investigated by the appropriate federal, state and territory authorities.

Recommendation 19: The federal government should establish and fund a national disability consumer organisation.

References

1. Australian Human Rights Commission, “Positive Duty Under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth): Compliance and Enforcement Policy,” December 2023, https://humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-12/2023%2012%201%20Positive%20Duty%20Compliance%20and%20Enforcement%20Policy%20%281%29.pdf
2. Job Access, “Guidelines on Reasonable Adjustments,” accessed 18 September 2025, https://www.jobaccess.gov.au/i-am-an-employer/know-rights-responsibilities/guidelines-reasonable-adjustment
3. Australian Human Rights Commission, “Employment for People with Disability in Australia,” accessed 18 September 2025, https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/disability-rights/employment-for-people-with-disability-Australia
4. Ai Group, “There’s No Silver Bullet to Fix Skill Shortages, But Collaboration Can Trigger Change,” 10 June 2025, https://www.aigroup.com.au/news/blogs/2025/theres-no-silver-bullet-to-fix-skill-shortages-but-collaboration-will-trigger-results/
5. Department of Education (Commonwealth), “Australian Universities Accord: Final Report,” 21 February 2024, https://www.education.gov.au/australian-universities-accord/resources/final-report
6. Joint Standing Committee on Migration, “Enabling Australia: Inquiry Into the Migration Treatment of Disability,” 21 June 2010, https://www.aph.gov.au/parliamentarybusiness/committees/houseofrepresentativescommittees?url=mig/disability/report.htm
7. Disability Advocacy Network Australia, “Consumer Policy Response to the NDIS Review ‘What We Have Heard’ Report,” August 2023, https://dana.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/230822-NDIS-Review-Consumer-Protection-final.pdf

About Vision 2020 Australia

Vision 2020 Australia is the national peak body for the eye health and vision care sector. Working with and representing almost 50 member organisations, we focus on supporting policy and funding changes to prevent avoidable blindness, enhance eye care delivery and better meet the needs of people who are blind or living with low vision.

Our members span a wide range of areas and engage in local and global eye health and vision care, health promotion, low vision support, vision rehabilitation, eye research, professional assistance, and community support. This means that the work we do in developing sector-supported policy and advice brings a diverse range of expertise and perspectives to bear, and that the perspectives and experiences of both service users and service providers are at the heart of our work.

Avoidable blindness and vision loss in Australia, and our region, can be prevented and treated by working in partnership across government, non-government, private and community sectors. People of all ages who are blind or vision impaired will benefit from these partnerships, with improved access to services that support their independence and community participation.

For further information about this submission, please contact Vision 2020 Australia via email, redacted