U | sapvocacy

Response to Attorney General’s Disability Discrimination Act 1992 Review Issues Paper

University of Melbourne Student Union (UMSU) Advocacy Service

14 November 2025

1.0 Who Are We

The UMSU Advocacy Service is a department of the University of Melbourne Student Union (UMSU) which is an incorporated association and recognised by the University of Melbourne as the representative body for all students. The Service is funded via the Student Services and Amenities Fee (SSAF) disbursed by the University in accordance with its statutory obligations under the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (HESA). HESA provides that where an institution levies the SSAF, its students must be given access to independent advocacy officers who provide services in relation to matters arising under the education provider’s academic and procedural rules. The governance of UMSU is wholly independent from the University and the staff of the Advocacy Service must act in the interests of students.

The Service is comprised of professional staff with backgrounds in law and social work who have extensive experience in the tertiary sector, with expertise in policy and university governance frameworks. Our staff profile includes a Divisional Manager, a Team Leader, a Project & Research Lead, four Senior Advocates, and an Assessment and Triage Coordinator.

In 2024 the Advocacy Service assisted almost 1400 students. Over 20% of these matters involved issues with the Special Consideration team and Student Equity and Disability Services (SEDS). The Service regularly assists students with disabilities with complaints regarding the implementation of reasonable adjustments, academic adjustment plans, special consideration, academic progress, fitness to study and fitness to practice processes.

In addition, the Service also provides position papers and feedback on University of Melbourne policy as well as submissions to relevant federal and state agencies and regulating bodies regarding systemic and structural matters affecting students on the ground.

2.0 Executive Summary

The UMSU Advocacy Service calls for urgent reforms to the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) to address systemic barriers faced by students with disabilities in higher education.

First, we recommend introducing a positive duty on tertiary institutions to proactively identify and eliminate discriminatory barriers, shifting compliance from reactive complaints to preventative action.

Second, we propose replacing the ambiguous ‘reasonable adjustment’ framework with a clear obligation to make all necessary adjustments up to the point of unjustifiable hardship, ensuring equal participation for students with a disability.

Third, section 21A should be amended to require genuine consultation and documented flexibility before invoking ‘inherent requirements’ as grounds for educational exclusion, preventing rigid interpretations that lead to unnecessary disadvantage.

Finally, we advocate for mandatory compliance reporting and public accountability, including timeframes and minimum standards for implementing Disability Inclusion Action Plans. These reforms will embed accessibility as a core institutional priority and align Australia with international best practice.

2.1 Summary of Recommendations

A positive duty. UMSU Advocacy recommends amending the DDA to impose a positive duty on tertiary institutions to take reasonable and proportionate steps to identify, prevent, and eliminate discriminatory barriers to education. This duty should require institutions to proactively implement inclusive practices and accessible systems, rather than relying on an individualized, complaint-driven model that places an undue burden on students.
Removing ‘reasonable’ from ‘reasonable adjustments’. UMSU Advocacy recommends amending the DDA to replace the current ‘reasonable adjustment’ framework with a clear, enforceable duty requiring institutions to make all necessary adjustments up to the point of unjustifiable hardship. This would entail removing the word ‘reasonable’ from the requirement. This reform would eliminate ambiguity around ‘reasonableness’, restore the proactive nature of the duty, and prevent institutions from using procedural rigidity or hardship claims to deny support. By aligning with international best practice, this change would ensure students with disabilities can participate on equal terms and reduce reliance on burdensome, individualized complaint processes.
Genuine consultation and adjustments around ‘inherent requirements’. UMSU Advocacy recommends amending section 21A of the DDA to require education providers to engage in genuine consultation with students with disabilities and exhaust all reasonable adjustment options before invoking ‘inherent requirements’ as grounds for exclusion. This obligation should include a documented process demonstrating creativity and flexibility in identifying adjustments, ensuring that students are treated as partners in decision-making. Such reform would prevent rigid interpretations that lead to unnecessary exclusion, promote equitable participation in professional courses, and align Australian practice with international standards for inclusion.
Set timeframes, minimum standards and public reporting. UMSU Advocacy recommends Introducing a legislative requirement for higher education providers to publish compliance reports against their Disability Inclusion Action Plans, including clear timeframes and minimum standards for implementation. This obligation should be enforceable and subject to public reporting to ensure transparency and accountability. By mandating measurable progress, institutions will move beyond aspirational statements and deliver timely, meaningful changes that embed accessibility and inclusion as core priorities, reducing systemic inequities and preventing harm to students with disabilities.

3.0 Introduction

This is a brief targeted submission in response to the Attorney General’s Department request for feedback to the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 Review Issues Paper.

Although there has been a significant push towards increasing the participation and inclusion of students with disabilities in the sector over the last two decades^[1] through the recognition of rights, this has not necessarily translated into the conditions necessary to increase access to education. As the Final Report of the Australian Universities Accord noted, students with a disability were found to be less likely to participate and succeed in tertiary level studies^[2].

In our work, we consistently observe the detrimental impacts of an entrenched organisational culture that perpetuates ableism and stigma toward students with disabilities.

Despite the University of Melbourne’s current Disability and Inclusion Action Plan and organisational policies that outline provisions for equitable adjustments and support for students with disabilities, these commitments are often not effectively implemented in practice. The reasons for this are varied but include the burden on administrative staff having to organise these adjustments, the belief that too many resources create dependence,^[3] and poor staff training.

This places an inordinate burden for students negotiating adjustments and access to education. We have observed many instances in which students with disabilities, striving to uphold their rights, have been hindered and disheartened by the burdensome and inflexible nature of the university’s complaints process.

As such, UMSU Advocacy Service welcomes the review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 which focuses on furthering the rights of people with disability.

^[1] S Kilpatrick et al, ‘Exploring the Retention and Success of Students with Disability in Australian Higher Education’ (2016) 21(7) International Journal of Inclusive Education 747.

^[2] Department of Education ‘Australian Universities Accord’ (Final Report, 28 December 2023) 113.

^[3] Ayse Collins, Fara Azmat and Ruth Rentschler, ‘“Bringing Everyone on the Same Journey”: Revisiting Inclusion in Higher Education’ (2018) 44(8) Studies in Higher Education 1475.

4.0 Response to Consultation Questions

We have adopted a thematic approach to responding to the four areas for potential amendments, grouping related issues to provide clarity and coherence in our recommendations.

4.1 The rationale for a positive duty

The Issues Paper provided by the Attorney General proposes the introduction of a positive duty for workplaces, and relevant to our circumstances, tertiary institutions to ensure organisations take reasonable and proportionate steps to eliminate discriminatory barriers to education.

In our practice, we have observed time and again the punitive nature imposed by the individualised enforcement model which means that students are faced with extraordinarily burdensome procedures which detract from their ability to focus exclusively on their studies. In effect, they experience two distinct barriers to accessing education. One, the actual refusal by the tertiary institution to provide the adjustments necessary and two, the process the student needs to go through to challenge the systemic discrimination.

Client Story 1

The System Says No

Julie^[4] is a part-time PhD candidate with disabilities, chronic illness, and caring responsibilities who experienced ongoing disadvantage and exclusion during her candidature. Despite clear evidence of it, the faculty recommended that Julie downgrade her award to MPhil so she could finish faster. Julie was devastated with the suggestion, considering everything it took her to reach this stage of her candidature. When Julie declined, her candidature was placed “at risk,” a decision she believed reflected bias against part-time students with disabilities rather than genuine academic concerns.

Throughout her studies, Julie reported a lack of meaningful adjustments or flexibility to accommodate her disability and caring responsibilities. Institutional processes were described as rigid, prioritising procedural compliance over equity and wellbeing. Requests for departmental transfer or new supervision were denied under the pretext of policy restrictions, even after the existing supervisors withdrew their support from Julie’s candidature.

Communication from administrators was formal and unsympathetic, focused solely on policy provisions, with no acknowledgment of her health needs or rights to reasonable adjustments.

Julie felt trapped within and exhausted by a system that offered no safe or impartial pathway to continue her studies, reinforcing a culture where disability-related barriers were managed through bureaucracy rather than genuine inclusion.

Julie’s story underscores a critical flaw in the current Act as it relies on an individualised, complaint-driven enforcement model. This approach places an excessive burden on students to navigate complex legal processes, diverting their focus from education and leaving systemic discrimination largely unaddressed. To achieve genuine equality, the Act must be amended to impose a positive duty on institutions which requires institutions to proactively measure, identify and eliminate barriers to access.

Client Story 2

Goliath, the Unmoveable Administrative Monolith

David^[5] is a postgraduate student nearing the end of their degree. David feels exhausted facing ongoing administrative and procedural barriers that prevents them from completing their final subject.

David, who lives with the long-term effects of a brain injury impacting executive functioning, had previously been granted disability-related adjustments and periods of medical leave for

^[4] This client story has been de-identified to safeguard student privacy but is based on UMSU Advocacy’s case records.

^[5] This client story has been de-identified to safeguard student privacy but is based on UMSU Advocacy’s case records.

mental health reasons. When attempting to re-enrol after recovery, David encountered a complex and inaccessible system that required multiple layers of approval, conflicting information, and repeated delays across university departments.

Despite clear documentation of their disability and a history of approved adjustments, requests for flexibility such as late enrolment and rescheduling of assessments were handled as routine administrative matters rather than through a disability informed lens.

Communication was slow, fragmented, and procedural, with no staff member taking responsibility to ensure a coordinated response or provide direct assistance suited to David’s access needs. The system’s reliance on portal-based processes, with no alternative pathway for students requiring administrative support, compounded these barriers.

As a result, David’s opportunity to complete their final subject and graduate was placed at serious risk. The lack of proactive support and reasonable adjustments reflect the university’s processes that prioritise policy compliance over accessibility and inclusion, effectively leaving David excluded from equal participation in their final semester.

David is a student like many that the UMSU Advocacy Service assists regularly. Such cases demonstrate that the burden of an individualised complaints system to rectify discriminatory barriers creates harm to students with a disability. A positive duty on tertiary institutions to meet obligations is important because it shifts compliance from a passive stance (‘do nothing wrong’) to an active responsibility by institutions (‘take steps to prevent harm’). Such a shift would transform compliance from reactive complaint processes to preventative action, fostering inclusive environments and reducing the incidence of discrimination before harm occurs.

Recommendation 1

UMSU Advocacy recommends amending the DDA to impose a positive duty on tertiary institutions to take reasonable and proportionate steps to identify, prevent, and eliminate discriminatory barriers to education. This duty should require institutions to proactively implement inclusive practices and accessible systems, rather than relying on an individualized, complaint-driven model that places an undue burden on students.

4.2 Reasonable adjustments

Originally, the statutory duty under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) which mandated that organisations provide reasonable adjustments was intended to promote genuine equality of outcomes. However, appellate courts have diluted this provision by narrowly interpreting the meaning of ‘reasonable’.^[6] This process has slowly stripped the proactive nature inherent in the provision, leaving students susceptible to institutional claims that the adjustments would place undue hardship on the organisation. This has significantly slowed progress toward eliminating disability discrimination, leaving us behind international best practice standards.^[7]

Client Story 3

The ‘Reasonable’ curtain that hides the true face of Oz

Dorothy^[8] is a postgraduate medical student who experienced ongoing disadvantage following a period of serious illness that prevented her from studying. When seeking reinstatement, the faculty declined their request, citing policy limits on course completion timeframes and concerns about academic progression. The decision effectively excluded Dorothy from continuing her degree, despite her circumstances being directly linked to their disability.

Dorothy reported that throughout her studies, she was repeatedly denied or inadequately provided with reasonable adjustments. This resulted in multiple late withdrawals and extended leave periods which impacted on her course progression. She felt unsupported by

staff, describing a culture of procedural rigidity that prioritised compliance with policy over equitable participation. She also believed that key decision-makers failed to act impartially and that the system relied on individual complaints rather than proactive intervention to address accessibility barriers.

Dorothy’s example underscores the limitations of the ‘reasonable adjustment’ framework, which allows institutions to interpret reasonableness in ways that minimise their obligations. Removing the word ‘reasonable’ and establishing a clear duty to make all necessary adjustments up to the point of unjustifiable hardship would help ensure students receive the support needed to participate on equal terms.

Finally, the case reflects how rigid interpretations of course completion rules can function as de facto exclusions for students with disabilities.

Recommendation 2

UMSU Advocacy recommends amending the DDA to replace the current ‘reasonable adjustment’ framework with a clear, enforceable duty requiring institutions to make all necessary adjustments up to the point of unjustifiable hardship. This would entail removing the word ‘reasonable’ from the requirement. This reform would eliminate ambiguity around ‘reasonableness’, restore the proactive nature of the duty, and prevent institutions from using procedural rigidity or hardship claims to deny support. By aligning with international best practice, this change would ensure students with disabilities can participate on equal terms and reduce reliance on burdensome, individualized complaint processes.

4.3 Inherent Requirements

Under section 21A of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth), an employer may lawfully refuse employment if they can demonstrate that the individual with a disability is unable to perform the inherent requirements of the role. This provision does have a flow on effect with higher education providers offering courses that are accredited with industry-specific professions.

As part of the University of Melbourne’s course offerings, inherent requirements are essential mission statements of learning which inform students of a course’s intended learning outcomes. However, in our Service, we have observed times where the term ‘inherent requirements’ was seen by faculty staff as a reason to exclude students from courses instead of engaging in consultation about how the faculty could offer adjustments to help the students meet the inherent requirements of the course.

Client Story 4

Mr Gorbachev, Tear Down Those ‘Inherent Requirements’

Josephine^[9] is a medical student living with a neurological condition who faced significant physical and cognitive challenges related to a fluctuation of their symptoms. Despite these difficulties, Josephine consistently excelled academically, achieving strong examination results and receiving positive feedback for their clinical reasoning and interactions with patients.

Over time, the university raised concerns that the student might not be able to meet the inherent requirements of the program. However, the specific inherent requirements said to be at issue were not identified to Josephine. Neither the university nor the placement provider offered concrete examples of what they believed Josephine could not do, instead relying on the phrase “inherent requirements” as a broad justification for their decision. It is reasonable to infer that these concerns were linked to Josephine’s need for flexible attendance arrangements, such as modified hours or part-time placement to manage fatigue. The provider appeared to assume that an inability to complete the same shift duration or consecutive scheduling as students without disabilities rendered Josephine unfit to undertake placement or meet course requirements.

^[6] Sklavos v Australasian College of Dermatologists [2018] HCASL 7, [1].

^[7] Alice Taylor, ‘Disability Discrimination, The Duty to Make Adjustments and the Problem of Persistent Misreading’ (2020) 45(2) Monash Law Review 461.

^[8] This client story has been de-identified to safeguard student privacy but is based on UMSU Advocacy’s case records.

Rather than working collaboratively to identify reasonable adjustments or explore flexible placement options, the university and placement provider determined it would be too difficult to modify requirements and instead withdrew Josephine from placement. Faculty staff engaged in minimal consultation with Josephine, and her insights as a person with lived experience of disability, an invaluable perspective in healthcare, were not recognised as a strength.

Simple, reasonable adjustments could have supported Josephine to meet requirements without compromising the integrity of the placement. These include extended rotation periods to allow for shorter days, rest days between shifts, and contingency time for making up days lost due to symptom exacerbation.

This illustrates how the interpretation of inherent requirements can lead to exclusion based on rigidity rather than a fair assessment of an individual’s capacity. It demonstrates the need for clearer legislative guidance requiring genuine consultation, creativity, and flexibility in determining what adjustments might enable capable students with disabilities to meet course requirements and thrive in their chosen profession.

This approach to inherent requirements has the effect of disappearing students with a disability from certain professions entirely. As the Final Report of the Disability Royal Commission asserts:

“When individuals, organisations and governments exclude and segregate people with disability, it renders these individuals ‘unseen and unfamiliar’. This generates and perpetuates attitudes, beliefs and behaviours towards disability by reinforcing the belief that people with disability are ‘different’, ‘other’ or ‘special’”^[10]

The Disability Royal Commission, under recommendation 7.26, endorsed that section 21A of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) should be amended to impose further considerations on employers when considering whether a person should be lawfully excluded under this exception. These further considerations include the nature and extent of any adjustments needed and the extent of consultation where any person with a disability is concerned.

The UMSU Advocacy Service endorses these recommendations as they potentially apply to educational access, but in addition would ask that a threshold obligation be placed on education providers to ensure all options for adjustments have been explored and that the student with a disability is centred as a partner in consultation to explore the adjustments available. The rationale for this higher threshold obligation is to ensure that students with disabilities are not only provided with adjustments but are actively engaged in shaping them, thereby promoting genuine inclusion and reducing the risk of procedural compliance.

Recommendation 3

UMSU Advocacy recommends amending section 21A of the Disability Discrimination Act to require education providers to engage in genuine consultation with students with disabilities and exhaust all reasonable adjustment options before invoking ‘inherent requirements’ as grounds for exclusion. This obligation should include a documented process demonstrating creativity and flexibility in identifying adjustments, ensuring that students are treated as partners in decision-making. Such reform would prevent rigid interpretations that lead to unnecessary exclusion, promote equitable participation in professional courses, and align Australian practice with international standards for inclusion.

4.4 Minimum Standards and Set Timeframes

The University of Melbourne’s Disability Inclusion and Action Plan 2023-2026 outlines the University’s “aspiration to become a champion and an exemplar of disability inclusion and accessibility”^[11] through change in five focus areas and initiatives such as training programs, a new Disability, Accessibility and Inclusion Policy, embedding accountabilities in the University’s structures to address barriers and concerns, digital and physical accessibility, the articulation of inherent requirements for award courses, and the review of student support with a particular focus on SEDS.

^[9] This client story has been de-identified to safeguard student privacy but is based on UMSU Advocacy’s case records.

^[10] Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse and Exploitations of People with Disability (Final Report, September 2023) vol 7, 94.

^[11] Please seethe following website: https://about.unimelb.edu.au/diversity-inclusion/disability-inclusion

Beside each of these goals, most are said to commence in 2023. To this day, there has been no consultative process for a draft or publication of a Disability, Accessibility and Inclusion Policy nor has there been any movement on the articulation of inherent requirements. The review of student services and SEDS is underway but still students with a disability experience harm when exposed to processes that are meant to assist them.

To motivate higher education providers to enact their action plans within set timeframes, we endorse the recommendation outlined by the Australian Human Rights Commission in the Attorney General’s Issues Paper.

By setting timeframes and minimum standards, this will ensure higher education providers enact the changes necessary to embed accessibility and inclusion as core institutional priorities, ensuring that students with disabilities experience timely, meaningful change rather than delayed or procedural compliance.

The following client story illustrates the difference between students when one receives the right adjustments, and the other is left to drift in their studies without the right interventions.

Client Story 5

A Tale of Two Students

Two students, Raya and Indi^[12], both with disabilities, encountered significant challenges in obtaining reasonable adjustments for written examinations at the university. Raya, who had documented comprehension and processing difficulties, requested additional time and assistive technology support to complete their examination. Initial requests were denied, requiring multiple escalations through university channels. It was only after intervention by a senior staff member that Raya was allowed to complete the exam in a separate room, with a scribe assisting their writing and extra time granted.

While this outcome was positive, reliance on a single senior staff member’s advocacy exposed systemic inequity, as most students are not granted access to the intervention of a senior member of staff.

In a related case, a vision-impaired student, Indi, requested assistive technology to access exam notes that were permitted for all students to utilise, as Indi required large font size for them to be able to read their notes on paper which made fitting content on a single page impractical. The university rejected this request, enforcing a policy that all students complete the exam under identical conditions, with only one page of notes permitted. This refusal effectively denied equitable access for Indi.

This case reveals a rigid institutional approach prioritizing uniformity over individualized support, with inconsistent application of disability accommodations. The need for senior intervention in one case, contrasted with outright refusal in another, highlights systemic barriers that undermine equitable academic participation for students with disabilities. Without mandated timeframes and minimum standards, students are left bearing the brunt of systemic inequities that erode confidence and trust in the university sector.

Recommendation 4

UMSU Advocacy recommends introducing a legislative requirement for higher education providers to publish compliance reports against their Disability Inclusion Action Plans, including clear timeframes and minimum standards for implementation. This obligation should be enforceable and subject to public reporting to ensure transparency and accountability. By mandating measurable progress, institutions will move beyond aspirational statements and deliver timely, meaningful changes that embed accessibility and inclusion as core priorities, reducing systemic inequities and preventing harm to students with disabilities.

^[12] These client stories have been de-identified to safeguard student privacy but is based on UMSU Advocacy’s case records.

4.0 Conclusion

Students with disabilities continue to face systemic barriers in higher education due to outdated legislative frameworks and inconsistent institutional practices.

The recommendations outlined by the UMSU Advocacy Service provide a clear pathway to reform by embedding proactive duties, clarifying adjustment obligations, mandating genuine consultation, and enforcing compliance through transparent reporting.

Implementing these changes will shift the sector from reactive, complaint-driven processes to a culture of inclusion and accountability, ensuring that accessibility is not aspirational but operational. These reforms are essential to uphold the rights of students with disabilities and ensure educational equity.

If you require any other information on this submission, please contact:

redacted
Senior Advocate
UMSU Advocacy Service
redacted

redacted
Project & Research Lead
UMSU Advocacy Service
redacted

redacted
CEO, University of Melbourne Student Union
redacted

redacted
President, University of Melbourne Student Union
redacted

All Students, One Union. U

University Of Melbourne Student Union

Anti-Discrimination NSW

Submission — Review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)

November 2025