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

Contents

• .
• .
• About South West Autism Network (SWAN)
• Executive Summary
• 1.0 Introduction: The Importance of Proactive Human Rights Reform
  • 1.1 Strategic Importance
  • 1.2 The Autistic Experience: A Statistical Overview of Systemic Disadvantage
• 2.0 Modernising Legal Definitions and Concepts of Discrimination
  • 2.1 Strategic Importance
  • 2.2 Adopting the Social Model of Disability and CRPD Alignment
  • 2.3 Reforming Direct Discrimination (DRC Rec 4.23)
    • Case Study: Purvis v New South Wales (Department of Education and Training)
  • 2.4 Addressing Intersectional Discrimination
    • Co-occurring Disabilities:
    • Gender and Sexual Diversity:
    • Case Study: Hans, a First Nations Autistic Man
  • 2.5 Reforming Indirect Discrimination (DRC Rec 4.24)
• 3.0 Shifting from Reaction to Prevention: Strengthening Duties
  • 3.1 Strategic Importance
  • 3.2 A Positive Duty to Eliminate Discrimination (DRC Rec 4.27)
  • 3.3 A Stand-Alone Duty to Make Adjustments (DRC Recs 4.25, 4.26)
    • Case Study: Brooke, an Autistic Teacher
  • 3.4 Tightening the Unjustifiable Hardship Defence (DRC Rec 4.32)
    • Case Study: King v Jetstar Airways Pty Ltd
  • 3.5 Robust Enforcement and Proactive Compliance
• 4.0 Sectoral Reform: Ending Segregation and Exclusion
  • 4.1 Strategic Importance
  • 4.2 Inclusive Education (CRPD Article 24)
    • Case Study: The Human Cost of Segregation
    • Case Study: Punishment for Disability-Related Behaviour
  • 4.3 Employment, Wages, and Economic Inclusion (CRPD Article 27)
    • Case Study: Low Wages and Undermining Dignity
• 5.0 Addressing Critical Gaps in Rights Protection
  • 5.1 Strategic Importance
  • 5.2 Access to Justice and Protection from Vilification
  • 5.3 The Right to Health and Accessible Healthcare (CRPD Article 25)
    • Case Study: Diagnostic Overshadowing

• 5.4 Reforming Exemptions and Special Measures
  • 5.5 Assistance Animals and Digital Accessibility
• 6.0 Summary of Recommendations
  • 6.1 Strategic Importance
  • 6.2 Consolidated Recommendations Table
    • Key Reform Area
    • Specific Action and Rationale
• 7.0 References
• Contacts

SWAN Disability Discrimination Act Review Submission Page | 4

Executive Summary

The South West Autism Network (SWAN) submission to the Review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) calls for urgent, structural reform to achieve genuine equality and human rights for Autistic people and all Australians with disability. SWAN’s recommendations are grounded in lived experience and the findings from the Disability Royal Commission, outlining a comprehensive agenda to move from a reactive, complaints-based approach to proactive systemic change.

Critical Barriers and Systemic Disadvantage

The submission details entrenched disadvantage facing Autistic people across employment, education, health, housing, and justice. Statistics highlight alarming levels of discrimination, exclusionary discipline in schools, elevated mortality, and persistent wage injustice. We emphasise that these outcomes are not inevitable, but result from a legal system that does not prevent or redress discrimination adequately.

SWAN calls for modernising core DDA definitions to align with the social model of disability and Australia’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Responsibility for eliminating discrimination in Australia must shift from individuals to institutions, and a strengthened DDA must actively dismantle segregation and exclusion of people with disability. Our key recommended reforms include:

• Removing the comparator test for direct discrimination and shifting the burden of proof to the respondent.
• Enabling intersectional claims where disability overlaps with other protected attributes.
• Clarifying the scope of indirect discrimination and narrowing the unjustifiable hardship defence to prevent misuse.
• Introducing a universal positive duty for organisations to eliminate discrimination.
• Establishing a stand-alone duty to make necessary adjustments for people with disability, moving beyond ‘reasonableness’.
• Empowering regulatory bodies (such as the Australian Human Rights Commission) with proactive powers for investigation, compliance, and financial penalties.
• Legal entitlement to mainstream school enrolment and prohibiting new segregated educational settings.
• Phasing out subminimum wages and Australian Disability Enterprises (ADEs) with a faster transition and stronger employment protections.
• Amending the DDA to protect against disability vilification and explicitly cover policing duties.
• Developing enforceable Disability Standards for Healthcare to guarantee equitable treatment and accessible communication.
• Reviewing and repealing exemptions, especially migration exemptions and those relating to Defence roles, to prevent exclusionary practices.

These proposed changes are essential to meeting Australia’s human rights obligations and addressing systemic failings identified by the Disability Royal Commission. Our submission calls for decisive action to deliver substantive equality, dignity, and participation for all Australians with disability.

SWAN Disability Discrimination Act Review Submission Page | 5

1.0 Introduction: The Importance of Proactive Human Rights Reform

1.1 Strategic Importance

The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) (DDA) was intended as a landmark piece of legislation to advance the rights and opportunities of people with disability in Australia. However, three decades on, the findings of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability (the DRC) confirm its profound failure to achieve substantive equality (Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability [DRC], 2023).

Its reliance on a reactive, complaints-based model is a fundamental flaw that places the heavy burden of dismantling systemic barriers onto individuals, many of whom lack the resources to pursue costly and complex litigation. SWAN asserts that meaningful reform requires a fundamental structural shift to a proactive, human rights-based framework, one that is fully aligned with Australia’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) (United Nations, 2006).

1.2 The Autistic Experience: A Statistical Overview of Systemic Disadvantage

To understand the urgent need for reform, it is essential to recognise the profound and disproportionate discrimination faced by Autistic Australians. The statistics below paint a clear picture of systemic failure across every key domain of life.

Overall Discrimination

• In 2022, 32% of Autistic people aged 15 and over experienced disability discrimination in the past 12 months. This is more than three times the rate experienced by the broader population of people with disability (10%) (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare [AIHW], 2022).

Employment

• 20% of Autistic people report having lost a job because of their autism (Amaze, n.d.).
• Community attitudes reflect this reality, with 84% of Australians agreeing that Autistic people are discriminated against (Amaze, n.d.).
• Wage injustice remains legal, with the Supported Wage System (SWS) permitting employers to pay some workers with disability as little as $2.90 per hour (Down Syndrome Australia, 2020).

Education

• A 2024 nationwide parent survey found that 35% of families of Autistic children were discouraged or refused enrolment by a school, with half of these cases occurring in the government sector (Parliament of New South Wales, 2024).
• 45% of families reported that their child’s school was reluctant to use accommodations or was unwelcoming (Parliament of New South Wales, 2024).
• Exclusionary practices are widespread: 49% of Autistic students were asked for early pick-up, 31% were offered limited hours, 20% were suspended, and 4% were expelled (Parliament of New South Wales, 2024).

Health and Mortality

SWAN Disability Discrimination Act Review Submission Page | 6

• Autistic individuals have an overall mortality rate roughly twice that of the general population, resulting in a life expectancy that is 20 to 36 years shorter (Autism CRC, 2019).

Restrictive Practices

• The use of unauthorised restrictive practices against people with disability increased five-fold between 2019–20 and 2021–22, from nearly 290,000 incidents to 1.4 million (NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, 2022). This includes the use of chemical restraint to manage behaviour in Autistic people.

Housing and Homelessness

• While Australian data is limited, UK studies estimate that autism prevalence among people using homelessness services is between 12-18%, compared to 1-2% in the general population. An Australian study suggests an elevated rate of autistic traits of up to 50% in the homeless community (Jones et al., 2022).

These adverse outcomes are not inevitable; they are the direct result of a legal and social framework that fails to prevent discrimination and exclusion. The DDA, in its current form, is a central part of this failure, making the reforms outlined in this submission both urgent and essential.

2.0 Modernising Legal Definitions and Concepts of Discrimination

2.1 Strategic Importance

To be effective, the DDA must be updated to reflect a contemporary, rights-based understanding of disability. This begins with aligning the Act’s core definitions with the social model of disability and Australia’s international obligations under the CRPD, ensuring the law is equipped to address the real-world barriers that create disadvantage.

2.2 Adopting the Social Model of Disability and CRPD Alignment

SWAN recommends that the DDA’s language be modernised, moving away from outdated, deficit-based concepts to language that reflects the social and human rights model of disability. This model views disability as arising from the interaction between a person’s impairment and the attitudinal and environmental barriers that hinder their full participation in society. The definition of disability must be broad and inclusive, explicitly covering all impairment types, including neurological, cognitive, psychosocial, and episodic disabilities (Disabled Persons Organisations Australia, 2020).

Critically, the DDA must include an explicit provision requiring the Act to be interpreted in a manner that respects, protects, and fulfils Australia’s obligations under the CRPD (United Nations, 2006). This includes the foundational principle that segregation is a “grave source of discrimination,” as stated by former UN Special Rapporteur Ms Catalina Devandas (Disabled Persons Organisations Australia, 2020). Former Disability Discrimination Commissioner Rosemary Kayess has similarly affirmed that the CRPD is inherently focused on dismantling segregation based on disability.

SWAN Disability Discrimination Act Review Submission Page | 7

2.3 Reforming Direct Discrimination (DRC Rec 4.23)

The current legal test for direct discrimination, which relies on a “comparator test,” creates a significant and often insurmountable barrier to justice. This test requires a person to prove they were treated less favourably than a person without their disability would have been treated in the same circumstances. This fails to account for situations where behaviour is a manifestation of a person’s disability, as illustrated by the case of Purvis v New South Wales.

Case Study: Purvis v New South Wales (Department of Education and Training)

In this case, the High Court adopted a narrow interpretation of direct discrimination. By comparing the treatment of a student whose behaviour was a manifestation of his disability to the treatment of a non-disabled student exhibiting the same ‘violent conduct’, the court concluded that no discrimination had occurred. Because the school would have expelled any student who behaved in that manner, the treatment was deemed not to be “less favourable.” This interpretation has been widely criticised for entrenching a model of formal, not substantive, equality, making it extremely difficult to prove discrimination where the conduct in question is intrinsically linked to a person’s disability (Australian Law Reform Commission [ALRC], n.d.).

To remedy this, SWAN supports the DRC’s recommendations (Rec 4.23) to reform the test for direct discrimination by:

• Removing the comparator test and focusing instead on whether a person experienced unfavourable treatment on the ground of their disability.
• Shifting the burden of proof to the alleged discriminator once unfavourable treatment is established. The onus should be on the respondent to prove that the treatment was not because of the person’s disability, mirroring the model in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

2.4 Addressing Intersectional Discrimination

The DDA must be amended to explicitly enable claims based on the intersection of disability with other protected attributes, such as race, gender identity, sexual orientation, or age. Autistic people are more likely to have co-occurring disabilities and intersecting identities, which can compound experiences of discrimination. The Disability Rights Now 2019 shadow report also urged strengthening our laws to “address intersectional discrimination” (DPO Australia, 2019).

• Co-occurring Disabilities: High rates of co-occurring conditions are common, including ADHD (approx. 38.5%), Intellectual Disability (approx. 39.6%), and Epilepsy (approx. 12%) (Amiet et al., 2008; Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, 2022; Lai et al., 2019).
• Gender and Sexual Diversity: Autistic people are significantly more likely to identify as gender diverse or non-heterosexual. Researchers estimate that up to 25% of gender diverse people may also be Autistic (Warrier et al., 2021).

This intersectionality results in tangible disadvantage. For example, NDIS access rates for people identifying with a gender other than male or female are lower (94%) compared to males and females (98%) (National Disability Insurance Agency [NDIA], n.d.). Autistic Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people also face culturally unsafe and geographically inaccessible pathways to diagnosis and support (Parliament of Australia, n.d.). The catastrophic consequences of failing to address intersectionality are starkly illustrated in the case of Hans.

SWAN Disability Discrimination Act Review Submission Page | 8

Case Study: Hans, a First Nations Autistic Man

Hans was subjected to a lifetime of compounding systemic discrimination. At just 12 years old, he was placed in juvenile detention instead of a refuge, chemically restrained, and later sexually assaulted in detention. His case highlights the deep and devastating failure of justice, health, and welfare systems to accommodate and protect individuals with intersectional identities (DRC, 2023).

2.5 Reforming Indirect Discrimination (DRC Rec 4.24)

SWAN supports the DRC’s recommendation (Rec 4.24) to simplify the definition of indirect discrimination. This involves removing the “reasonableness element” from the test, making “unjustifiable hardship” the sole defence available to a respondent. This reform would bring greater clarity and focus to indirect discrimination claims, centring the analysis on the impact of a policy or practice and the viability of alternatives. This shift from modernising definitions to mandating proactive duties on institutions is the logical next step for effective reform.

3.0 Shifting from Reaction to Prevention: Strengthening Duties

3.1 Strategic Importance

The DDA’s current reactive, complaints-based model fundamentally fails to prevent discrimination. It places an unreasonable burden on individuals to enforce their rights after harm has already occurred. Meaningful reform requires shifting this responsibility from individuals to institutions by introducing strong, enforceable, and proactive duties to prevent discrimination and create inclusive environments.

3.2 A Positive Duty to Eliminate Discrimination (DRC Rec 4.27)

SWAN strongly supports the DRC’s recommendation (Rec 4.27) to introduce a positive duty on all public and private sector entities. This duty would require organisations to take “reasonable and proportionate measures to eliminate” discrimination, harassment, and victimisation on the ground of disability. This proactive duty should be modelled on the successful 2022 amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), which shifted the focus from individual complaints to organisational responsibility for creating safe and equitable environments (DRC, 2023).

3.3 A Stand-Alone Duty to Make Adjustments (DRC Recs 4.25, 4.26)

The provision of adjustments is a right, not a discretionary act of kindness. To embed this principle in law, SWAN supports the DRC’s recommendations (Recs 4.25 and 4.26) to:

• Replace the term “reasonable adjustments” with “adjustments” throughout the Act, clarifying that the provision of support is a baseline expectation.
• Introduce a stand-alone duty to make adjustments, making it explicitly unlawful to fail or refuse to provide an adjustment unless doing so would impose an unjustifiable hardship (DRC, 2023).

This reform is critical to overcoming the “Sklavos enforcement gap.” The judgment in Sklavos v Australasian College of Dermatologists made it nearly impossible to prove discrimination based on the denial of an adjustment. The court required the applicant to prove that the refusal to make an adjustment was motivated by their disability, an interpretation that fails to recognise that the discriminatory barrier is often not prejudice, but

SWAN Disability Discrimination Act Review Submission Page | 9

rather institutional considerations of cost or inconvenience (DPO Australia, 2023). This has severely weakened the DDA. A clear statutory provision is needed to overturn the Sklavos interpretation and affirm that the failure to provide a necessary adjustment constitutes discrimination.

Case Study: Brooke, an Autistic Teacher

Brooke, an Autistic teacher, requested simple adjustments at her workplace, including changing the venue for staff meetings from a noisy café to a quieter location. Her unsupportive manager repeatedly refused. This sustained failure to provide a necessary adjustment was a clear act of discrimination that ultimately forced Brooke to leave her job, demonstrating the profound real-world harm caused by the denial of adjustments. (DRC, 2023).

3.4 Tightening the Unjustifiable Hardship Defence (DRC Rec 4.32)

The unjustifiable hardship defence must be interpreted strictly to prevent its misuse as a loophole for avoiding responsibility. The current application of this defence can lead to perverse outcomes where discrimination is legally excused, and the victim is financially penalised for seeking justice.

Case Study: King v Jetstar Airways Pty Ltd

In this case, the court found that while Jetstar Airways had discriminated against Sheila King, a wheelchair user, the airline was legally excused under the “unjustifiable hardship” defence. To compound this injustice, Mrs King, a disability pensioner, was ordered to pay the airline’s legal costs of approximately AU$20,000. People with disability should not be forced to bear the financial cost of fighting systemic discrimination (Rights and Justice Centre, n.d.).

To prevent such injustices, SWAN supports the DRC’s recommendations (Rec 4.32) to strengthen the defence by ensuring:

• The onus of proof lies entirely with the respondent to prove that an adjustment would cause unjustifiable hardship.
• The respondent is required to provide evidence of genuine consultation with the person with a disability and prove that all available alternative measures were considered and exhausted before the defence can be claimed (DRC, 2023).

3.5 Robust Enforcement and Proactive Compliance

Enforcement of the DDA must be structural, not individual. SWAN advocates for empowering the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), or a new dedicated statutory body, with proactive regulatory powers. This body must be equipped to conduct own-motion investigations into systemic issues, issue binding compliance notices with clear timelines, and impose substantial financial penalties for non-compliance.

Proactive measures like mandatory Disability Action and Inclusion Plans (DAIPs) are also essential. The model used in Western Australia, under the Disability Services Act 1993 (WA), serves as an example of best practice. It mandates that public authorities develop, implement, and publicly report on DAIPs covering key outcome areas such as access to services, information, buildings, and employment (Western Australian Government, n.d.).

SWAN Disability Discrimination Act Review Submission Page | 10

This approach balances robust enforcement with education, driving genuine organisational change and paving the way for targeted reforms in key sectors.

4.0 Sectoral Reform: Ending Segregation and Exclusion

4.1 Strategic Importance

Segregation in any form, whether in schools, workplaces, or housing, is a fundamental act of discrimination that is incompatible with the CRPD. It denies people with disability the right to full and effective participation in the community. The DDA must be reformed to actively dismantle segregated systems and promote genuine inclusion in critical life domains.

4.2 Inclusive Education (CRPD Article 24)

Australia’s continued maintenance of segregated education systems represents a clear failure to meet its obligations under Article 24 of the CRPD and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) (Disabled Persons Organisations Australia, 2020). SWAN aligns with the view of the DRC Commissioners who concluded that the persistence of segregated education is incompatible with Australia’s human rights obligations (DRC, 2023).

We therefore recommend a legal entitlement for all students with disability to enrol in their local mainstream school, subject only to unjustifiable hardship, and support the DRC’s recommendation (Rec 7.1) to prohibit the creation of new segregated schools or units from 2025 onwards. The profound human cost of segregation is undeniable.

Case Study: The Human Cost of Segregation

The testimonies of former students reveal the dehumanising impact of segregated settings. Cillian described his “autism unit” as a “prison” where he was “forcibly removed…and locked away”. Sandro was repeatedly locked in a room by his principal as a response to him reacting to bullying. Xavy was isolated in a room by himself because his teachers “didn’t have the energy” for him. These are not acts of education; they are acts of exclusion, neglect, and discrimination. (DRC, 2023).

Furthermore, the DDA must address the crisis of exclusionary discipline. Students with disability are suspended at significantly higher rates than their peers, often as a punishment for disability-related behaviour (DRC, 2023). SWAN calls for Section 22(2)(b) of the DDA to be amended to explicitly cover “suspension and exclusion” and, in line with DRC Recommendation 7.2, to require that behaviour support plans and adjustments are implemented before exclusionary discipline can be considered.

Case Study: Punishment for Disability-Related Behaviour

Joaquín, an Autistic student, was suspended six times in a single year because school staff misinterpreted his outbursts as “intentional” misbehaviour rather than a manifestation of his disability. His mother stated: “All he’s learning is you get punished for losing control. Punished and tortured.” (DRC, 2023).

4.3 Employment, Wages, and Economic Inclusion (CRPD Article 27)

The DDA must be a tool to address the dramatic and unacceptable disparity in employment outcomes for Autistic people. The persistence of segregated Australian Disability

SWAN Disability Discrimination Act Review Submission Page | 11

Enterprises (ADEs) and the legality of paying subminimum wages are fundamentally incompatible with the principles of dignity, respect, and equal pay for equal work enshrined in CRPD Article 27.

SWAN endorses the DRC recommendation (Rec 7.32) to develop a National Inclusive Employment Roadmap aimed at eliminating subminimum wages. However, we argue for a transition period significantly shorter than the proposed 2034 deadline and for an immediate raise of the subminimum wage to at least the national minimum wage. International precedents in Canada and the UK, where paying workers with disability below the minimum wage is prohibited, demonstrate that this is achievable (DRC, 2023).

Case Study: Low Wages and Undermining Dignity

Marc, who worked in an ADE, described how the payment of subminimum wages characterises the labour of people with disability as mere supplemental income rather than valued work. This practice undermines economic independence and, most importantly, human dignity. (DRC, 2023).

To further protect against employment discrimination, SWAN supports amending Section 21A of the DDA (Rec 7.26). This would strengthen the “inherent requirements” test by mandating that employers give explicit consideration to the adjustments made and the extent of consultation undertaken with the individual before determining they cannot perform a role (DRC, 2023). Protecting these fundamental rights in education and employment is paramount, yet other critical gaps in rights protection persist.

5.0 Addressing Critical Gaps in Rights Protection

5.1 Strategic Importance

Beyond major structural reforms, the DDA has critical gaps that leave people with disability vulnerable in essential areas of life, including interactions with the justice system, accessing healthcare, and migrating to Australia. A truly comprehensive reform must address these specific legislative failings to ensure universal protection of rights.

5.2 Access to Justice and Protection from Vilification

To ensure accountability and non-discrimination in law enforcement, SWAN calls for the DDA to be amended to explicitly cover “services provided by police officers in the course of performing policing duties and powers.” This would ensure that police are subject to the Act’s requirements, including the duty to make adjustments for communication and procedural fairness.

There is also a “civil gap” in protection from disability vilification. While criminal laws address hate crimes, there is no effective civil remedy for offensive, insulting, or humiliating public conduct based on disability. SWAN supports the DRC’s recommendations (Recs 4.29, 4.30) to add a standalone prohibition on disability vilification and offensive public conduct to the DDA, modelled on the provisions in the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth).

5.3 The Right to Health and Accessible Healthcare (CRPD Article 25)

Discrimination in healthcare is pervasive and can have life-threatening consequences. The positive duty to eliminate discrimination must explicitly require health services to provide communication supports and procedural adjustments. To ensure this, SWAN advocates for

SWAN Disability Discrimination Act Review Submission Page | 12

the development of Disability Standards for Healthcare under the DDA. These standards would operationalise the rights outlined in CRPD Article 25, guaranteeing people with disability receive the “same range, quality and standard of health care” as others (United Nations, 2006).

Furthermore, a human rights framework for ethical decision-making must be embedded in healthcare practice. This framework asserts that healthcare cannot be denied or limited based on impairment, the need for an adjustment, or prejudicial quality-of-life judgements about a person with a disability (Disabled Persons Organisations Australia, 2020).

Case Study: Diagnostic Overshadowing

redacted, who is Autistic and has ADHD, experienced years of misdiagnosis and dismissal from clinicians who attributed his physical and mental health symptoms to his disabilities. This common form of healthcare discrimination, known as diagnostic overshadowing, delayed vital support and caused significant harm.

5.4 Reforming Exemptions and Special Measures

SWAN supports the immediate review and eventual repeal of the Migration Exemption (section 52 of the DDA), as recommended by the DRC (Rec 4.31). This provision, which permits discrimination against people with disability in migration decisions, is a clear violation of Australia’s human rights commitments (DRC, 2023).

Additionally, the “Special Measures” provision (Section 45) must be clarified to ensure it cannot be misused to justify segregated or paternalistic practices that are not in the best interests of people with disability. Special measures must be genuinely intended to advance equality and developed in full consultation with the affected community.

SWAN suggests reviewing exemption processes and permanent exemptions from the DDA. For example, Subsection 53 (1) of the DDA provides an exemption in relation to combat duties and peacekeeping services including in relation to combat duties, combat-related duties or peacekeeping service. This exemption embeds discrimination within Australia’s Defence system, which effectively precludes not only disabled people from joining the military but also from returning to work after having been injured.

‘Once again, this Court has before it an appeal which concerns the operation of anti-discrimination legislation. Once again, the legislation relates to the disability of a complainant. Once again, the disability in question is said to arise from the complainant’s status as a person living with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) which ordinarily progresses at Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS). Once again, the complainant has succeeded under the legislation, only to have the victory taken away by a judicial determination that the favourable decision was flawed by error of law. - Justice Michael Kirby. High Court of Australia (1999)’

5.5 Assistance Animals and Digital Accessibility

SWAN recommends that the DDA’s assistance animal provisions be clarified to better accommodate owner-trained animals and prevent duty holders from erecting arbitrary paperwork barriers that deny access.

In an increasingly digital world, accessibility is a prerequisite for participation. SWAN advocates for the development of a mandatory Digital Accessibility Standard under the

SWAN Disability Discrimination Act Review Submission Page | 13

DDA. This standard should include mandatory government procurement obligations and a requirement for information to be provided in plain and Easy English formats to ensure equal access for people with cognitive and intellectual disabilities. These specific reforms, combined with the broader structural changes previously outlined, form a comprehensive agenda for change, which is summarised in our final recommendations.

6.0 Summary of Recommendations

6.1 Strategic Importance

This final section consolidates SWAN’s key recommendations for reforming the Disability Discrimination Act 1992. These reforms are essential, interconnected steps required to align Australian law with the CRPD, address the findings of the Disability Royal Commission, and finally deliver on the promise of substantive equality for all people with disability.

6.2 Consolidated Recommendations Table

SWAN Disability Discrimination Act Review Submission Page | 14

| | a transition significantly faster than 2034 and an immediate raise of the subminimum wage to at least the national minimum wage. Strengthen the “inherent requirements” test to mandate consideration of adjustments and consultation (DRC Rec 7.26). | | 8. Justice & Vilification | Amend the DDA to include a civil prohibition on disability vilification and offensive public conduct (DRC Recs 4.29, 4.30). Explicitly state that the DDA’s provisions cover services provided by police officers. | | 9. Healthcare | Develop enforceable Disability Standards for Healthcare under the DDA to guarantee the rights outlined in CRPD Article 25, including accessible communication and informed consent. | | 10. Exemptions | Repeal the Migration Act exemption (section 52) to end discrimination in immigration decisions (DRC Rec 4.31). Clarify the “Special Measures” provision to prevent misuse for segregation. Review DDA exemptions such as the Australian Defence Force and the temporary exemption process. |

7.0 References

• Amaze. (n.d.). Community research/factsheet.
• Amiet, C., Gourfinkel-An, I., Bouzamondo, A., Tordjman, S., Baulac, M., Lechat, P., Mottron, L., & Cohen, D. (2008). Epilepsy in autism is associated with intellectual disability and gender: evidence from a meta-analysis. Biological Psychiatry, 64(7), 577-582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.04.030
• Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2022). People with disability in Australia 2022. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/disability/people-with-disability-in-australia/contents/about
• Australian Law Reform Commission. (n.d.). Purvis v New South Wales (Department of Education and Training).
• Autism CRC. (2019). Health and wellbeing. https://www.autismcrc.com.au/knowledge-centre/life-stages/health-and-wellbeing
• Centres for Disease Control and Prevention. (2022). Data and statistics on autism spectrum disorder. https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html
• Disability Services Act 1993 (WA).
• Disabled Persons Organisations Australia. (2020). Segregation of people with disability. https://dpoa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Segregation-of-People-with-Disability_Position-Paper.pdf
• Down Syndrome Australia. (2020). Submission to the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
• DPO Australia. (2019). Disability Rights Now: Civil Society Shadow Report to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
• DPO Australia. (2023). A human rights approach to disability discrimination.
• Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).
• Jones, S. C., Gordon, C. S., Akram, M., Murphy, N. C., & Sharkie, T. (2022). Autistic and without a home: a systematic review and meta-ethnography of the presence and experiences of homelessness amongst autistic individuals. Journal of Social Distress and Homelessness, 31(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10530789.2022.2081692
• King v Jetstar Airways Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 16.

SWAN Disability Discrimination Act Review Submission Page | 15

• Kirby, M. 1 X v The Commonwealth [1999 HCA 63, (Unreported, Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne and Callanan JJ, 2 December 1999) [141 (Kirby J)
• Lai, M. C., Kassee, C., Besney, R., Bonato, S., Hull, L., Mandy, W., Szatmari, P., & Ameis, S. H. (2019). Prevalence of co-occurring mental health diagnoses in the autism population: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Psychiatry, 6(10), 819-829. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(19)30289-5
• National Disability Insurance Agency. (n.d.). Data and insights. https://data.ndis.gov.au/
• NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. (2022). Annual Report 2021-22. https://www.ndiscommission.gov.au/resources/corporate-publications/annual-report-2021-22
• Parliament of Australia. (n.d.). Services for people with autism. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/autism/Report/c05
• Parliament of New South Wales. (2024). Inquiry into support for autistic children and young people in New South Wales.
• Purvis v New South Wales (Department of Education and Training) (2003) 217 CLR 92.
• Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth).
• Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. (2023a). Final report — Executive summary: Our vision for an inclusive Australia and recommendations. Commonwealth of Australia.
• Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. (2023b). Final report - Volume 4: Realising the human rights of people with disability. Commonwealth of Australia.
• Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. (2023c). Final report - Volume 6: Enabling autonomy and access. Commonwealth of Australia.
• Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. (2023d). Final report 0 Volume 7: Inclusive education, employment and housing (Parts A-C and Summary). Commonwealth of Australia. (Cited for education discipline, employment procurement and inherent-requirements analysis.)
• Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. (2023e). Final report - Volume 1: Voices of people with disability (Books 1-3). Commonwealth of Australia. (Autistic case studies and verbatim quotes)
• Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. (2023f). Final report - Volume 3: Nature and extent of violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation. Commonwealth of Australia.
• Rights and Justice Centre. (n.d.). King v Jetstar Airways Pty Ltd. https://rlc.org.au/
• Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. (2023). Final Report. Commonwealth of Australia.
• Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth).
• Sklavos v Australasian College of Dermatologists [2017] FCAFC 128.
• United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
• Warrier, V., Greenberg, D. M., Weir, E., Buckingham, C., Smith, P., Lai, M. C., Allison, C., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2021). Elevated rates of autism, other neurodevelopmental and psychiatric diagnoses, and autistic traits in transgender and gender-diverse individuals. Nature Communications, 11, 3959. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17794-1

SWAN Disability Discrimination Act Review Submission Page | 16

• Kirby, M. 1 X v The Commonwealth [1999 HCA 63, (Unreported, Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne and Callanan JJ, 2 December 1999) [141 (Kirby J)

• Lai, M. C., Kassee, C., Besney, R., Bonato, S., Hull, L., Mandy, W., Szatmari, P., & Ameis, S. H. (2019). Prevalence of co-occurring mental health diagnoses in the autism population: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Psychiatry, 6(10), 819-829. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(19)30289-5

• National Disability Insurance Agency. (n.d.). Data and insights. https://data.ndis.gov.au/

• NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. (2022). Annual Report 2021-22. https://www.ndiscommission.gov.au/resources/corporate-publications/annual- report-2021-22

• Parliament of Australia. (n.d.). Services for people with autism. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_A ffairs/autism/Report/c05

• Parliament of New South Wales. (2024). Inquiry into support for autistic children and young people in New South Wales.

• Purvis v New South Wales (Department of Education and Training) (2003) 217 CLR

• Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth).

• Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. (2023a). Final report — Executive summary: Our vision for an inclusive Australia and recommendations. Commonwealth of Australia.

• Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. (2023b). Final report - Volume 4: Realising the human rights of people with disability. Commonwealth of Australia.

• Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. (2023c). Final report - Volume 6: Enabling autonomy and access. Commonwealth of Australia.

• Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. (2023d). Final report O Volume 7: Inclusive education, employment and housing (Parts A-C and Summary). Commonwealth of Australia. (Cited for education discipline, employment procurement and inherent-requirements analysis.)

• Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. (2023e). Final report - Volume 1: Voices of people with disability (Books 1-3). Commonwealth of Australia. (Autistic case studies and verbatim quotes)

• Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. (2023f). Final report - Volume 3: Nature and extent of violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation. Commonwealth of Australia.

• Rights and Justice Centre. (n.d.). King v Jetstar Airways Pty Ltd. https://rlc.org.au/

• Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. (2023). Final Report. Commonwealth of Australia.

Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth).

Sklavos v Australasian College of Dermatologists [2017] FCAFC 128.

United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Warrier, V., Greenberg, D. M., Weir, E., Buckingham, C., Smith, P., Lai, M. C., Allison, C., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2021). Elevated rates of autism, other neurodevelopmental and psychiatric diagnoses, and autistic traits in transgender and gender-diverse individuals. Nature Communications, 11, 3959. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17794-1

SWAN Disability Discrimination Act Review Submission Page | 16

• Western Australian Government. (n.d.). Disability Access and Inclusion Plans (DAIPs). https://www.wa.gov.au/organisation/department-of-communities/disability-access-and-inclusion-plans-daips

SWAN Disability Discrimination Act Review Submission Page | 17

Contacts

Submission prepared by:

redacted
Project Officer
South West Autism Network Inc (SWAN)
redacted

Submission authorised by:

redacted
CEO
South West Autism Network Inc (SWAN)
redacted

South West Autism Network Inc (SWAN)
redacted
E: redacted
W: www.swanautism.org.au

SWAN Disability Discrimination Act Review Submission Page | 18