Guide Dogs.

Submission to the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 Review 2025

Jeremy Anderson, National Head of Government Relations, Policy & Advocacy and redacted, National Manager Policy & Advocacy

Email: redacted Phone: redacted

Submission Type: Written Consent to Publish: Yes

Contents

• 1. Consultation Approach

• Acknowledgements

• 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• 3. Guide Dogs Australia Statement

• 4. Consultation Response

• Part 1 — Updating understandings of disability and disability discrimination

• Statement

• Recommendations

• Part 2 — Positive Duty to Eliminate Discrimination

• Statement

• Recommendations

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

• Statement

• Recommendations

• Part 4 — Improving Access to Justice

• Representative and Class Actions

• Recommendations

• Part 5 — Exemptions

• Statement

• Guide Dogs Australia refrains from recommending any exemptions to the DDA

• Recommendations

• Part 6 — Modernising the DDA - Strengthening Assistance Animal Rights and Accreditation

• Statement

• Recommendations

• Part 7 — Further options for reform

• Statement

• Recommendations

• Response to Consultation Questions

• Part 1 — Updating understandings of disability and disability discrimination
• Part 2 — Positive Duty to Eliminate Discrimination
• Part 3 — Encouraging inclusion of people with disability in employment, education, and other areas of public life
• Part 5 — Exemptions
• Part 6 — Modernising the DDA - Strengthening Assistance Animal Rights and Accreditation
• Part 7 — Further options for reform
• Citations

1. Consultation Approach

Guide Dogs Australia’s submission is grounded in the lived experiences of people who are blind or have low vision. Our consultation approach prioritised authentic, community-led insights and was informed by a diverse range of engagement methods, including:

• Internal working group led by staff with lived experience of blindness and low vision.
• The Guide Dogs Australia national research survey (2023).
• Social Impact Measurement reporting (2022–2024).
• A targeted survey on discrimination and reform outcomes in September 2025 conducted by Guide Dogs Australia and state Guide Dog organisations Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, and Northern Territory.
• A focus group facilitated by Guide Dogs NSW/ACT.
• Broader consultation with national and international disability advocates, particularly those representing low vision and blindness perspectives.
• Pro bono legal advice from Hicksons, Hunt and Hunt to support policy development and legislative analysis.

This multi-method approach ensures that the voices of people with disability are central to shaping our recommendations and responses throughout the submission.

Acknowledgements

Guide Dogs Australia is grateful to the many individuals who are blind or have low vision, who have given up their time and shared their unique perspective and subject expertise with us to inform this submission. We also thank the many disability organisations and our many dedicated colleagues, who have collaborated with Guide Dogs Australia to represent the blind and low vision sector as broadly as possible.

Guide Dogs Australia would also like to acknowledge the perspectives, experiences, and contributions of people with disability to the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability (DRC). It is because of their efforts and commitment to calling for change and reform, that the Federal government is responding to the DRC recommendations and creating this landmark review.

2. Executive Summary

Guide Dogs Australia (GDA) welcomes the review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) and advocates for urgent, systemic reform to strengthen protections and promote inclusion for people with disability. Drawing on extensive consultation with the blind and low vision community, this submission outlines key recommendations to modernise the DDA and align it with Australia’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD).

This submission calls for:

1. A modernised definition of disability that reflects the social model, removes deficit-based language, and includes neurodiversity and intersectionality.
2. Introduction of a positive duty on all duty holders to proactively prevent discrimination, shifting the burden from individuals to systems.
3. Stronger employment protections, including mandatory consultation and consideration of accommodations before assessing inherent job requirements.
4. Improved access to justice, with accessible complaint processes, protections against vilification, and better support for accessing and navigating legal systems.
5. Enhanced rights and regulation for assistance animals, including national licensing, minimum training standards, and consistent enforcement.
6. Clearer legislative alignment and accountability, including enforceable disability action plans, reporting obligations, and support for systemic reform.

This submission highlights widespread discrimination across public transport (including the taxi and rideshare industry), employment, education, accommodation, health, digital platforms, and legal systems. It urges the Commonwealth Government to treat disability inclusion as an investment in people and community, not a cost, and to lead a coordinated national response through legislative reform.

3. Guide Dogs Australia Statement

Guide Dogs Australia strongly supports the review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) (DDA) and welcomes the opportunity to contribute to this important reform process. Guide Dogs Australia emphasises the urgency of implementing changes that reflect contemporary understandings of disability and address persistent systemic barriers.

The original enactment of the DDA was a landmark moment for advancing equality and human rights in Australia. However, findings from the Disability Royal Commission have made clear that the legislation needs updating and is insufficient to meet the needs of people with disability in today’s society.

Despite previous reforms, discrimination remains widespread and significantly under-reported due to ineffective enforcement mechanisms and inaccessible complaint processes. Guide Dogs Australia believes that without transparent reporting, investigation, and publication of discrimination incidents, superficial compliance—known as “disability discrimination washing”—will continue to undermine genuine inclusion.

This review presents a critical opportunity to modernise the DDA as the pinnacle of national legislation guiding disability rights across Commonwealth, State, and Territory frameworks. A coordinated, person-centred approach led by the Commonwealth Government is essential to shift the narrative from disability reform being seen as a cost, to recognising it as an investment in people, productivity, and community wellbeing.

We urge the government to mandate change, not merely encourage it. Voluntary measures and progress have proven insufficient. Legislative reform must embed minimum standards, enforceable obligations, and systemic accountability to dismantle the barriers that prevent full participation of people with disability in Australian society.

4. Consultation Response

Part 1 — Updating understandings of disability and disability discrimination.

Statement

Guide Dogs Australia supports a human rights-based definition of disability that is aligned with the UN CRPD. This removes deficit-based language and includes neurodiversity and intersectionality. Furthermore, Guide Dogs Australia supports the inclusion of any practical alignment of concepts that support First Nation peoples and ensures consistency across Commonwealth, State and Territory legislation.

Supporting consultation and evidence indicates:

• 69.5% of survey respondents support modernising definitions of disability and clearer definition of discrimination.
• 77% of respondents reported challenges using digital devices, products and websites due to poor design, and lack of assistive technology support and technical understanding of accessibility. This supports the argument that disability is shaped by barriers in society, not just individuals’ medical conditions.

Guide Dogs Australia supports the definition of disability in the DDA to be updated and modernised to reflect current social, cultural, and economic contexts.

While the current DDA definition of disability may have been appropriate when enacted in 1992, it contains language and concepts that mostly reflect the medical model of disability and are outdated. Australia’s subsequent adoption of the social model of disability means these definitions do not take in to account the disabling elements of a non-inclusive society. Deficit-based assessments impact the nature, response, and attitudes of society, embedding negativity and exclusion in all societal pillars: environment, transport, healthcare and allied health sector, support worker workforce, sports and leisure, access to the built environment, employment practices and more.

The United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities General Comment Number 6 on Article 5 makes clear that the human rights model of disability recognises that disability is a social construct and impairments must not be taken as a legitimate ground for the denial or restriction of human rights. While Guide Dogs Australia is not comfortable with the term “impairments” which is deficit-based language, we agree with the intent. It goes on to state: It acknowledges that disability is one of several layers of identity. Hence, disability laws and policies must take the diversity of people with disability into account. It also recognises that human rights are interdependent, interrelated and indivisible.

1 United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, General comment no. 6 (2018) on equality and non-discrimination (Geneva, 26 April 2018) UN Doc D/C/GC/6, p 2.

Guide Dogs Australia supports the UN CRPD definition which makes clear the burden of responsibility must be shifted on to the systems and structures in place (barriers), to include people with disability and not to discriminate. Aligning with the UN CRPD also offers clear legal advantages for Australia: as a signatory, it reinforces our international obligations, supports emerging domestic jurisprudence where courts are already referencing it, and provides a robust framework to modernise and harmonise national legislation with global human rights standards.

Guide Dogs Australia will, however, like consideration given to the use of the term “long term disability” also used in the articles, which we feel is not specific enough and does not take in to account the transient nature of some disabilities which will also need, and be entitled to, legal protections. We will also support the use of another descriptor other than “impairment.” This is a position Blind Citizens Australia is advocating for in the reforms with its membership preferring another term be adopted.

An example of the application of the word “impairment,” is its deficit-based use in the National Disability Insurance Scheme. This deficit-based language has led to an entrenched funding model and funded support structure founded on why an individual “cannot,” rather than investing in” how they can.” The ability to redefine disability allows for investment models to be established rather than welfare models.

Finally, in consultation with people who are blind or have low vision, Guide Dogs Australia supports replacing the current comparator test and causation element with the recommended detriment test. This will better serve people with disability by removing the burden of proving two elements (both which can be difficult and technical to prove) and aligning the enforcement of the DDA with the positive duty requirement.

Recommendations

1. Adopt the UN CRPD Definition of Disability: Guide Dogs Australia recommends that the definition of disability from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD) be adopted and used in the updated DDA. This should include a clearer interpretation of the term “long term” to reflect the diverse and sometimes transient nature of disability. We also recommend removing the term “impairment” which is deficit-based language.
2. Ensure timely updates to the Definition: As Australia ratified the UN CRPD in 2018, any future updates to the Convention’s definition of disability should trigger a timely review and amendment of the DDA to maintain alignment with international standards.
3. Replace the Comparator Test with a Detriment Test: The current comparator test should be replaced with a detriment test, which better reflects the lived experience of discrimination and simplifies the legal process for complainants.
4. Causation and burden of proof: the burden of proof should be adopted for the respondent to demonstrate that discrimination did not occur because of

the person’s disability. The DDA should utilise a burden of proof model consistent with the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), where the complainant must show that the treatment occurred, and the respondent must prove that it was not based on disability.

Part 2 — Positive Duty to Eliminate Discrimination

Statement

Guide Dogs Australia strongly supports the implementation of positive duty obligations across all duty holders. This includes, but is not limited to, government entities, employers, educational institutions, healthcare providers and allied health professionals, sporting and recreational organisations, service providers, and support workers.

Recent evidence from the Guide Dogs Australia 2025 National Survey highlights the urgent need for proactive measures to prevent discrimination before it occurs:

• 84.1% of respondents endorsed the introduction of a positive duty to prevent discrimination.
• 82% reported experiencing discrimination in public spaces or on public transport within the past two years.
• Guide dog handlers face disproportionately high rates of refusal and discrimination, particularly in taxis, rideshare services, and venues with security personnel.
• Alarmingly, 40% of respondents identified healthcare settings as a source of discrimination.

In consultation with Vision 2020 Australia, we recommend that healthcare providers be explicitly included as duty holders under the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA). This will compel healthcare systems to improve their understanding and treatment of people with disability and lay the foundation for a future healthcare disability standard. This represents an important and logical step that would mirror existing standards for transport, education, and premises.

The blind and low vision community has made it clear: they are exhausted by the burden of having to constantly report, complain, follow up, and gather evidence to prove discrimination. This fatigue and burden undermine the very purpose of the DDA and discourages individuals from seeking justice. The result is people give up on the system and change the way they socially and economically participate to the detriment of our society.

There is also a growing perception that only those with sufficient education, support, and personal resources can navigate the complaints process under the DDA. This is a signal that legislative reform is needed to protect the many and not just the few.

Introducing positive duty will create meaningful legislative reform that ensures dignity, inclusion and equal access for all by:

• Shifting responsibility to organisations to proactively prevent discrimination.
• Reducing complaint fatigue and improve access to justice.
• Promoting education and awareness among duty holders, leading to more inclusive and welcoming environments.
• Enhancing service delivery, expanding recruitment opportunities, and reducing legal and litigation costs.

• Increasing transparency and understanding of the systemic nature of discrimination.

Guide Dogs Australia also supports extending positive duty obligations to providers of digital goods and services. As Vision 2020 Australia notes in its submission, “without legislative reform, there is no clear mechanism to hold digital providers accountable. This gap enables the exclusion of people who are blind or have low vision from digital environments and undermines the intent of the DDA.” Guide Dogs Australia endorses Vision 2020 Australia’s recommendation to amend the DDA to explicitly designate digital providers as duty holders.

Recommendations

1. Introduce a Positive Duty to Prevent Discrimination: Guide Dogs Australia recommends a positive duty should be incorporated into the DDA, requiring duty holders to proactively assess and ensure compliance with their obligations to prevent discrimination against people with disability.
2. Broaden the Scope and Obligation of Duty Holders: Guide Dogs Australia recommends the positive duty should mirror the approach taken in the Sex Discrimination Act. Furthermore, GDA recommends the scope and obligations be broadened to apply to all duty holders—not just employers and businesses. This will include government agencies, service providers, employers, educators and education institutions, healthcare providers and allied healthcare businesses and practitioners, sporting and recreation organisations and businesses, and service providers including support workers. and other entities with responsibilities under the DDA.
3. Support for Duty Holders Facing Financial Constraints: Guide Dogs Australia recommends that, where compliance with the positive duty imposes an unreasonable financial burden, government support should be made available. This could include funding, technical assistance, or access to shared resources to help duty holders meet their obligations.
4. Introduce Enforceable Undertakings as a Compliance Mechanism: Guide Dogs Australia recommends that, in cases where discrimination has occurred and prosecution is not deemed appropriate, enforceable undertakings should be available as an alternative remedy. Drawing from the Work Health and Safety Act, such undertakings should deliver:
   • Tangible benefits to the workplace.
   • Broader improvements within the industry.
   • Positive outcomes for the community.
5. Framework for Assessing Unjustifiable Hardship: Guide Dogs Australia recommends that, determinations of unjustifiable hardship in complying with the positive duty, should be guided by a structured framework, including:
   • Use of a risk matrix to assess likelihood and impact.
   • Consideration of the consequences of inaction versus action.

• Evaluation of feasible actions and their compliance outcomes.
• Consultation and co-design with people with disability.
• Independent review to ensure objectivity and fairness.

6. Guidance and Tools from the Australian Human Rights Commission: Guide Dogs Australia recommends that the Australian Human Rights Commission should develop and publish practical resources, including examples and guidelines, to help duty holders understand what constitutes appropriate action and how to assess their obligations under the positive duty.
7. Establish a Centralised Database of Accommodations: Guide Dogs Australia recommends that a reportable database of accommodations and adjustments successfully implemented across sectors should be created. This will enable duty holders to learn from existing practices and promote consistency and innovation in inclusive approaches.
8. Introduce Disability Reporting Requirements: Guide Dogs Australia recommends that, like gender reporting obligations, duty holders should be required to report on disability inclusion efforts. This will support data collection on the implementation and impact of the positive duty across industries and communities.

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

Statement

Guide Dogs Australia supports a stand-alone duty to provide adjustments and remove the term ‘reasonable.’ Confidence in accessing public spaces and workplaces remains low among people who are blind or have low vision, with only 36% of respondents feeling confident and 27% not confident crossing roads without ramps². These findings support the need for a stand-alone duty to provide adjustments and remove ambiguity around ‘reasonableness.’

• Only 36% of respondents feel very or extremely confident accessing their community.
• 27% are not confident crossing roads without kerb ramps.
• Workplace discrimination and lack of flexibility were common themes in qualitative responses.
• Survey of most reported areas of discrimination:
  • Transport (including taxi and rideshare): 65.9% of respondents.
  • Employment: 53.7% of respondents.
  • Retail: 46.3% of respondents.
  • Education: 43.9% of respondents.
  • Healthcare: 39.0% of respondents.
  • Accommodation: 36.6% of respondents.
  • Government Services: 32.9% of respondents.
  • Housing: 24.4% of respondents.

Recommendations include mandatory consultation and clearer definitions of inherent requirements. Guide Dogs Australia also strongly supports the Disability Royal Commission’s recommendations to add accommodations and consultation to the process of deciding whether a person with disability can conduct the inherent requirements of work. We recommend going further with evidence being required to demonstrate both processes have been undertaken.

During research conducted by Guide Dogs Australia, one responded described being discounted for a job because they do not carry a driver’s licence. The application of these two measures will, to some extent, ensure a conversation took place with a candidate, about the practicality of measures they may already have in place to be able to travel as appropriate for the position.

² Guide Dogs Australia National Research Survey 2023

Recommendations

1. Mandatory Consultation on Inherent Requirements: Guide Dogs Australia recommends employers should be required to consult directly with the person with disability to assess their ability to perform the inherent requirements of the role. This ensures a fair and informed understanding of the individual’s capabilities and potential contributions.
2. Consideration of Accommodations Prior to Determination: Guide Dogs Australia recommends that, before making any employment-related decisions, employers must consider accommodations that could enable the person who is blind or has low vision to meet the inherent requirements of the role. This step should be embedded as a standard part of the recruitment and employment process.
3. Alignment of Legislation: Guide Dogs Australia recommends that, should these principles be adopted, the Fair Work Act should be amended to reflect both the requirement for consultation, and the consideration of accommodations. This will ensure consistency and alignment with the DDA, reinforcing Australia’s obligations under the UN CRPD.
4. Evidence of Consultation and Functional Capacity: Guide Dogs Australia recommends that, where evidence is required, clear guidelines should be established regarding the type and form of acceptable documentation. Importantly, evidence provided by the person with lived experience—such as self-assessment or personal testimony—should be considered sufficient to demonstrate capacity to perform the role. External assessments (e.g. functional assessments or occupational therapist reports) should not be mandated unless voluntarily provided by the individual.

Part 4 — Improving Access to Justice

Statement

Guide Dogs Australia strongly supports the adoption of provisions like section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act to address harassment and vilification. The participants surveyed described being refused service, ridiculed, and misunderstood by staff and security personnel³. These experiences, combined with inaccessible complaint processes, underscore the need for stronger protection against vilification and offensive behaviour with:

• Respondents reporting refusal of service, ridicule, and lack of understanding. from staff and security personnel.
• Qualitative feedback highlighting barriers to making complaints, including inaccessible forms and lack of support. This exacerbates under-reporting and complaint fatigue.
• Survey results show 50% support protection from harassment in online spaces.
• Focus group feedback highlighting systemic barriers in police response and inaccessible complaint processes.
• Guide Dogs Australia recommends clearer guidance and facilitation of representative action.
• Guide Dogs Australia also recommends the DDA should incorporate appropriate measures—either through regulation or within the Act itself—that align with the role and enforcement responsibilities of the eSafety Commissioner.

Throughout Guide Dogs Australia’s consultation with stakeholders and people who are blind or have low vision on the accessibility of the justice system, the same issues were raised repeatedly: the lack of police response to discrimination complaints and people’s access to the judicial system and information.

Many people who are blind or have low vision are aware that the police can be called to attend a situation where people are refused access to premises for example or have been refused access to public transport such as a taxi or rideshare. In some examples, the police have declined to attend at all clearly failing to understand their obligations in enforcing discrimination laws.

Furthermore, people who are blind or have low vision themselves do not know when they can call the police to help resolve a situation or enforce the discrimination law.

³ Guide Dogs Australia National Research Survey 2023

Access to the judicial system was, however, by far the larger problem for people who are blind or have low vision. This has been highlighted in focus group discussion statements that included the following commentary regarding access to justice with the Australian Human Rights Commission:

“You have to constantly keep reminding the President and the Tribunal the respondent, or whatever, that they’ve got to provide their statements, and materials in a printed form, sometimes the rules and the rest that you need to access, aren’t accessible.”

A person said of their experience lodging a disability discrimination complaint:

“So, we have two forms that we can download. We have a Word form which has all those horrible content controls that you need to click into, and fill in, which are an absolute accessibility nightmare.

“The other option was a PDF, … I thought, ‘hopefully it’ll just be a nice, fillable PDF, and I can do it like that’. No, the PDF one was a printout and fill-in by hand form.

“I did say to my colleagues at the time, ‘can I take the Human Rights Commission to the Human Rights Commission for discrimination’? Because I couldn’t even put in the complaint if I wanted to at the time, because the … disability discrimination complaint system was disability discriminatory.”

“You have to sign the bit of paper that says you agree on what you agree on. So, they send that out to you. That’s wonderful, but if you are totally blind, how are you meant to print it off, sign it, scan it, and return it back?

“Because, you know, every blind person just has a carer that they can click their fingers and they magically appear and do all their, private and confidential work for them.”

Guide Dogs Australia has also heard from people who have failed to reach conciliation through the AHRC process, and the matter was then lodged in federal court. Their experience of the judicial system and access of information pertaining to their case including their rights and responsibilities was not provided in an accessible format.

One example that represents all that is systemically wrong with the current legal system across positive duty and access to justice, is a blind citizen who has taken the extraordinary step of pursuing justice for repeated access refusals from a

rideshare platform.4 We support and commend this individual for taking a stand against a system that hinders, not helps, and they have kindly given permission for Guide Dogs Australia to include their perspectives to key questions that are provided below.

The effectiveness of the DDA must be measured not only by its legal provisions but by how accessible and navigable its complaints process is for people with disability.

The lived experience of individuals who are blind or have low vision reveals persistent and systemic barriers that undermine access to justice. These include excessive time delays, inaccessible documentation formats, inconsistent communication methods, and financial burdens that disproportionately affect those in rural or remote areas. These obstacles not only deter individuals from pursuing complaints but also perpetuate inequality by placing the burden of accessibility on the complainant.

The current review of the DDA presents a critical opportunity to shift from reactive adjustments to proactive, inclusive design—ensuring that the justice system is responsive, equitable, and centred on the diverse needs of people with disability.

What obstacles have you encountered during the DDA complaints process related to your blindness?

“One of the most significant challenges I have faced in pursuing restitution under the DDA is the considerable investment of time required. Before court proceedings can commence, complainants must seek redress through the Australian Human Rights Commission. I initiated this process in late 2022, and the matter is still in process in 2025.

“Beyond the issue of time, I have encountered difficulties with document execution, as traditional signatures are still widely regarded as the standard for indicating consent and understanding. While my legal team has successfully negotiated alternative methods—such as email correspondence and DocuSign—it is my understanding that these approaches have yet to become mainstream within the justice system for acknowledging consent or understanding.

“Another challenge is the frequent last-minute decisions regarding meeting formats (e.g., online versus in-person), which causes undue stress and complicates planning. Although court schedules are inherently subject to change, proactive

4 https://guidedogs.com.au/news/guide-dogs-calls-for-a-fare-go/ https://jcl.org.au/disability-rights/disability-discrimination/after-32-refusals-guide-dog-user-paula-is-taking-on-uber-for- discrimination/ https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-02-19/uber-sued-federal-court-discrimination-guide-dog/104891104

measures—such as confirming the format for subsequent meetings at the close of each session—could help reduce uncertainty and improve accessibility.

“Currently, the prevailing mindset frames accessibility as a matter of “adjustments” to be made. The ongoing review of the DDA presents an opportunity to shift this perspective. Rather than imposing a one-size-fits-all model, the process should accommodate individual needs by actively seeking input from all parties about their preferred modes of participation, and by evaluating the process based on the achievement of its objectives rather than rigid procedures.”

What do you think will improve the process, including your experience thus far in Federal court, as far as you can talk about it?

“For meaningful improvement, accessibility must be treated as an essential requirement rather than an aspect to consider and react to as it arises. This necessitates the involvement of subject matter experts who understand the complexities of implementing accessible solutions. When individuals with disabilities are left to identify and address access gaps themselves, it not only places an undue burden on them but may also constitute discrimination under the DDA, warranting redress.”

What other measures do you think will help to make the system stronger, fairer, and better at protecting people with disability?

“Cost considerations are critical. For instance, I was originally required to travel to Melbourne to fulfill a prerequisite of the process. Such requirements can disproportionately disadvantage individuals with disabilities, particularly those in rural or remote areas, potentially deterring them from pursuing legal remedies under the DDA. Financial barriers, such as travel expenses, may preclude access to justice for many.

“Additionally, it is essential to challenge the assumption that all National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) participants have, or desire, support workers. The legal system should recognise the diversity of needs and preferences within the disability community. Introducing transport assistance—akin to non-emergency ambulance services for medical appointments—could significantly improve access to the justice system for people with disabilities.”

“Currently, the prevailing mindset frames accessibility as a matter of ‘adjustments’ to be made. The ongoing review of the DDA presents an opportunity to shift this perspective. Rather than imposing a one-size-fits-all model, the process should accommodate individual needs by actively seeking input from all parties about their preferred modes of participation, and by evaluating the process based on the achievement of its objectives rather than rigid procedures.”

Representative and Class Actions

Guide Dogs Australia recommends that the facility for representative action and class action be made clearer with respect to discrimination. While the Australian Human Rights Commission Act has provision in it, there is no public record of any action against a duty holder or entity that has been brought on behalf of a disability group or organisation. The particulars of any such action may be undisclosed because of conciliation settlements; however, research and discussions have shown that individuals and organisations believe there is no actual provision for such an action within the Commonwealth discrimination framework.

The blindness and low vision sector is dealing with a ubiquitous problem which is causing a great deal of stress, distress and, in some cases, isolation. People who are blind or have low vision who choose a guide dog as a mobility aid, are routinely being refused access to Taxis and Rideshares because of their dog. Guide Dogs Australia is aware of at least ten individuals who have lodged disability discrimination complaints against one particular and regular source of complaints, Uber. These refusals are happening daily across Australia, limiting peoples’ ability to get to work, medical appointments etc. Guide Dogs Australia notes that: “During an inquiry of the President of the AHRC, S.46PF(2) permits the President to hold a single inquiry and/or conciliation if the President thinks that 2 or more complaints arise out of the same or substantially the same circumstances or subject.” It is noted that, despite a substantial number of individual complaints of discrimination having been made, no inquiry has yet been actioned. Guide Dogs Australia recommends that the provision be changed, such that the AHRC must launch such an inquiry after receiving a specified number of complaints on the same or similar allegations of discrimination. This would change the threshold for an enquiry from a discretionary ‘may’ into a mandatory action once a certain threshold has been reached.

Guide Dogs Australia calls on this review of the DDA to produce clear guidance on how representative action can be pursued. Guide Dogs Australia also recommends that this facility be referenced in the updated DDA with advice on pursuing such action and information about the circumstances that resulting action can be taken and may deliver substantive change.

The DDA should incorporate appropriate measures—either through regulation or within the Act itself—that align with the role and enforcement responsibilities of the eSafety Commissioner. This alignment will help mitigate the use of technology platforms to perpetrate vilification, harassment, or discrimination.

Recommendations

1. Ensure All Information Is Accessible: Guide Dogs Australia recommends all legal and procedural information must be provided in formats accessible to people with disability. Given the availability of tools and expertise, persistent inaccessibility is unacceptable and must be addressed as a priority.

2. Provide Meaningful Accommodations Where Accessibility Is Limited: Guide Dogs Australia recommends that where full accessibility cannot be achieved, duty holders must offer appropriate accommodations. These should be developed in consultation with the individual to ensure they retain full participation and control throughout the process.

3. Extend Accessibility Obligations Across Justice Interfaces: Guide Dogs Australia recommends accessibility principles must apply to all interactions with police, courts, and justice systems for people who are blind or have low vision. This includes communication, documentation, and procedural access.

4. Consider Cost, Time, and Burden When Designing Adjustments: Guide Dogs Australia recommends adjustments should be assessed not only for feasibility but also for their impact on the individual. Cost, time, and emotional or logistical burden must be factored into decisions to ensure equitable access.

5. Provide Prominent Information and Guidance on Representative Action: Guide Dogs Australia recommends information and guidance on how individuals/groups can pursue class and representative action be placed more prominently in the Act. Furthermore, GDA recommends that guidance and guidelines be drawn up to support this information.

6. Incorporate Appropriate Measures and Guidance for ESafety Commissioner: Guide Dogs Australia recommends that, either through regulation or within the Act itself, measures are incorporated to align with the role and enforcement responsibilities of the eSafety Commissioner. This alignment will help mitigate the use of technology platforms to perpetrate vilification, harassment, or discrimination.

Part 5 — Exemptions

Statement

Guide Dogs Australia refrains from recommending any exemptions to the DDA.

Recommendations

Guide Dogs Australia fully supports strengthening the DDA to reduce discrimination against people with disability and to enforce actions when necessary. However, considering other legislative frameworks and Acts that effectively overshadow the DDA and take precedent in some cases, we believe there are legal instruments in place within these other measures that make exemptions to the DDA redundant.

Part 6 — Modernising the DDA - Strengthening Assistance Animal Rights and Accreditation

Statement

Guide Dogs Australia supports national licensing, minimum training standards, and stronger protections against discrimination against people with disability wno use assistance animals. The EY Sweeney survey conducted by Guide Dogs Australia in 20235 found that guide dog handlers are disproportionately affected by access refusals with:

• 30–35% reporting discrimination in public venues and transport. This demonstrates the need for nationally consistent standards and stronger enforcement mechanisms.
• 75.6% of respondents in a Guide Dogs Australia 2025 national survey called for clearer protections for assistance animals.
• Guide dog handlers face higher rates of access refusal in cafes, taxis, rideshares, and venues with security guards.
• 30% of handlers reported refusal of entry at cafes/restaurants; 35% in taxis; 27% in rideshares.

Guide Dogs Australia emphasises the importance of reducing regulatory burden on people with disability while ensuring robust accreditation, training, and welfare standards for assistance dogs (and animals).

An international survey of assistance dog handlers also reports systemic failures are due to inconsistent regulations and education of handler rights6.

Guide Dogs Australia strongly supports the development of nationally consistent standards and frameworks for assistance animals to improve clarity, safety, and public confidence. Noting the Department of Social Services consultation, the Guide Dogs Australia submission advocates for high but inclusive standards, co-designed with sector experts, and aligned with internationally recognised benchmarks such as those from Assistance Dogs International (ADI), the International Guide Dog Federation (IGDF) and the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN).

Incidents of poorly behaved assistance animals and the increased visibility of pets in the community wearing coats are undermining the status of genuine assistance animals. This has led to a significant erosion in public trust and confidence, which in

Guide Dogs Australia National Research Survey (2023) https://guidedogs.com.au/news/guide-dogs-australia-2023-survey-research-findings/ 6 https://guidedogs.com.au/news/systemic-issues-require-systemic-solutions/

turn is leading to increased skepticism and discrimination. The Guide Dogs Australia community reports that this is impacting on their confidence and willingness to get out and about in the community, undermining one of the principal benefits of an assistance animal for people with disability.

These factors have also led to confusion and misunderstanding of legal application of rights and led to access refusals for assistance animal handlers. Guide Dogs Australia responded to the consultation of the Principles for National Regulation of Assistance Animals and has drawn on, and developed, that position to inform our recommendations to this review.

We strongly support and advocate national accreditation, minimum training standards, and subsequently minimum evidence of training of assistance animals. We also call for stronger protection for people with disability who choose to rely on assistance animals.

Furthermore, Guide Dogs Australia recommends assistance dogs, rather than the broader ‘assistance animal’ definition, be prescribed within the DDA. The overwhelming majority of assistance animals are dogs because of their social acceptance and trainability. Given the training and licensing infrastructure being recommended within this submission, it is unlikely other animal types will meet the required, legislated standards. Therefore, a clear directed definition in the DDA will give clarity and prevent confusion for duty holders, as well as providing certainty of status to the assistance dog sector.

We also support the implementation of nationally recognised licenses for training organisations and handlers that mitigate the requirements for evidence in Section 54A of the DDA.

While Guide Dogs Australia supports the adoption of rigorous standards such as those set by Assistance Dogs International (ADI) and International Guide Dogs Federation (IGDF), and recognising that governments may be considering a balanced approach that maintains quality without excluding “capable” providers, there should also be regulatory recognition for ADI and IGDF members that provides a minimum level of duplication and regulatory burden. This should include the DDA recognising this accreditation above state and jurisdictional legislative structures to avoid doubt against subordinate standards.

Furthermore, to ensure greater levels of access and inclusion, public confidence can only be assured over the long term through high standards that are clear, recognised and enforceable such as the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN). While voluntary in Europe, they set a benchmark for the sorts of minimum standards that

governments should be aiming for in relation to assistance animals, without having to defer to ADI or IGDF.

There are currently no minimum national training standards for assistance animals, which leads to inconsistency and uncertainty across the sector. Without clear standards, it’s harder for users to choose reliable trainers, and for businesses and the public to trust that assistance animals are professionally trained and safe in public spaces. Establishing minimum training standards will improve confidence and safety, and informed decision-making for everyone involved and provide a basis for a minimum standard of evidence.

Finally, Guide Dogs Australia supports the recommendation of organisations which have been assessed and accredited by international bodies to international standards be prescribed in the DDA. This will also assist in providing clarity for entities and businesses when requesting identification and accreditation evidence.

Recommendations

1. Consistent and Cohesive Reform: Guide Dogs Australia recommends consistent and cohesive reform across all Jurisdictions. This will improve clarity, consistency, and enforcement of rights for people with disability who rely on assistance animals.

2. An Integrated National Licensing System: Guide Dogs Australia recommends the introduction of a government-issued licence—like that of a driver’s licence—as formal proof of handler accreditation and assistance animal training. This will also overcome the current Section 54A requirements in the DDA.

3. Recognition of Accredited Organisations: Guide Dogs Australia recommends prescribed internationally recognised training organisations, such as Assistance Dogs International (ADI) and the International Guide Dog Federation (IGDF), are included within the DDA to eliminate confusion and ensure legitimacy of trained assistance animals.

4. Minimum Training Standards: Establish national minimum training standards for assistance animals to ensure consistent behaviour and public safety, including for organisations that are not internationally accredited.

5. Change the DDA Definition of Assistance Animals: Guide Dogs Australia recommends assistance dogs, rather than the broader ‘assistance animal’ definition, be prescribed within the DDA.

6. Stronger Enforcement and Penalties: Guide Dogs Australia recommends applying higher fines and consistent enforcement across jurisdictions for entities that unlawfully refuse access to individuals accompanied by an assistance animal. Guide Dogs Australia also recommends that the

government consider vicarious liability or imputed liability in any such enforcement, so that penalties can be issued to companies as opposed to just their independent contractors.

7. Mandatory Training for Non-Compliant Entities: Guide Dogs Australia recommends face-to-face regulatory training be required for any organisation or entity found to have refused access to a person with disability due to their use of an assistance animal.

8. Application of Positive Duty: Guide Dogs Australia recommends extending the positive duty to all entities and organisations, requiring them to proactively prevent discrimination against people with disability who use assistance animals.

9. Monitoring and Reporting Mechanisms: Guide Dogs Australia recommends Establishing reporting pathways through national, state and territory human rights commissions to track trends and support co-designed solutions to systemic issues.

Part 7 — Further options for reform

Statement

Guide Dogs Australia welcomes the inclusion of best practices from other jurisdictions and the provision of clear guidance materials. The DDA must be responsive to UN CRPD changes and other international frameworks that may impact Australia and Australians with Disability.

The DDA must remain agile and responsive to societal changes within Australia as well.

Inclusion of provisions for intersectional discrimination and support for First Nations people with disability must also be integral to the refreshed legislation.

Recommendations

1. Intersectional Disability: Guide Dogs Australia recommends the DDA include clearer provisions for intersectional discrimination.

2. Support for First Nations People: Guide Dogs Australia recommends improved support for First Nations people with disability.

3. Legislative Agility: Guide Dogs Australia recommends the DDA should be responsive to changes in international discrimination laws and frameworks. It also must be reactive to local societal changes with impacts on people with disability.

Response to consultation questions

Part 1 — Updating understandings of disability and disability discrimination.

Q1. How should disability be defined in the DDA?

Response:

Guide Dogs Australia supports a shift to a human rights-based definition of disability, consistent with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). The current definition should be amended to remove deficit-based language and better reflect neurodiversity, psychosocial disability, and intersectional experiences.

Q2. What factors should be considered in developing a new definition?

Response:

• Alignment with CRPD and First Nations concepts of disability
• Recognition of disability as a social construct
• Inclusion of lived experience and diverse identities
• Consistency across Commonwealth legislation (e.g., Fair Work Act)

Q3. Will the DDA be strengthened by expressly allowing claims to be brought for multiple or combined protected attributes?

Response:

Yes. Guide Dogs Australia supports the express inclusion of provisions that allow claims to be brought for multiple or combined protected attributes. This will strengthen the DDA by acknowledging the reality of intersectional discrimination—where individuals may face compounded disadvantage due to overlapping identities such as disability, race, gender, age, or socio-economic status.

Recognising intersectionality in the DDA will:

• Align the Act with contemporary human rights frameworks, including the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD).
• Improve legal clarity and access to justice for individuals whose experiences of discrimination cannot be adequately addressed through a single-attribute lens.
• Reflect the lived experiences of people with disability, particularly those from First Nations communities, culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, and LGBTQIA+ communities.

This reform will also support broader systemic change by encouraging duty holders to consider the full spectrum of diversity in their policies and practices.

Q4. Could any other changes be made to the DDA to recognise and provide protection for people with disability who have intersecting identities, or addressing compounding discrimination?

Response:

Guide Dogs Australia recommends that the DDA be amended to explicitly recognise and protect individuals who experience intersectional and compounding discrimination. People with disability who also identify as First Nations, culturally and linguistically diverse, LGBTQIA+, or socio-economically disadvantaged often face layered and systemic barriers that are not adequately addressed through a single-attribute lens. To strengthen the DDA, we propose the inclusion of intersectionality in the objects and interpretation provisions of the Act, enabling claims to be brought based on multiple protected attributes. This reform will align the DDA with contemporary human rights frameworks, including the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD), and reflect the lived experiences of diverse communities. Additionally, we recommend the development of guidance materials and training for duty holders to support the identification and prevention of intersectional discrimination, and the implementation of culturally safe legal processes for First Nations people with disability. These changes will ensure the DDA remains responsive, inclusive, and effective in protecting all Australians with disability.

Q5. What test should be used to ensure that the definition of direct discrimination is easy to understand and implement for both duty holders and people with disability, and why?

Response:

The adoption of a “detriment test” as the preferred approach to defining direct discrimination under the DDA. The current comparator test and causation element place an undue burden on complainants, requiring them to prove both differential treatment and its link to disability. This requires placing the onus on the individual to go through complex and technical legal arguments.

Replacing this with a detriment test will simplify the legal process, better reflect the lived experience of discrimination, and align with the principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD).

A detriment test will focus on whether the person with disability experienced disadvantage or harm, rather than requiring comparison with a hypothetical non-disabled person.

Q6. How should the burden of proof be addressed in the DDA?

Response:

Guide Dogs Australia recommends the adoption of a burden of proof model consistent with the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) for the Act. Under this model, the complainant will be required to demonstrate that the discriminatory treatment occurred, while the respondent will bear the responsibility of proving that the treatment was not based on the person’s disability.

This approach shifts the evidentiary burden away from individuals with disability—who often face significant barriers in gathering evidence—and places it on duty holders, who are better positioned to account for their actions.

Aligning the DDA with the Fair Work Act will simplify the legal process, promote fairness, and better reflect the lived experiences of discrimination. It will also support the introduction of a detriment test and unfavourable treatment test, further strengthening the DDA’s accessibility and effectiveness.

Q7. How could the definition of indirect discrimination be amended to ensure that it is easy to understand and implement for people with disability and duty holders?

Response:

It is recommended that the definition of indirect discrimination in the DDA be amended to improve clarity and accessibility for both people with disability and duty holders. There is a need for clarity that will come from simplified legal tests and consistency to remove ambiguity. This is particularly relevant to terms like “reasonable.”

Q8. Should the reasonableness element in the definition of indirect discrimination be:

a. removed

b. retained and supplemented with a list of factors to consider.

c. replaced by a legitimate and proportionate test.

d. other

Response:

Guide Dogs Australia recommends removing the word “reasonable” from the term “reasonable adjustments” in the DDA. The concept of “reasonableness” introduces ambiguity and often places the burden on individuals with disability to justify their needs, which can lead to inconsistent interpretations and outcomes. Removing this term will simplify compliance for duty holders and better reflect the lived experiences of people with disability. It will also align with the principle of unjustifiable hardship, which provides a clearer and more structured framework for assessing whether adjustments are feasible. This reform will support a shift toward proactive inclusion and ensure that the DDA promotes equitable access without requiring individuals to navigate complex legal thresholds.

Q9. Should the language of ‘does not or will not comply, or is not able or will not be able to comply’ be removed from the definition of indirect discrimination?

Response:

Guide Dogs Australia supports the removal of the phrase “does not or will not comply or is not able or will not be able to comply” from the definition of indirect discrimination in the DDA. This language reinforces deficit-based assumptions and places an undue burden on individuals with disability to prove non-compliance or incapacity. Such framing is inconsistent with the social and human rights models of disability, which recognise that barriers are created by systems and environments—not by individuals. Removing this language will simplify the legal test, reduce ambiguity, and better reflect the lived experiences of people with disability. It will also support a shift toward proactive inclusion and systemic accountability, aligning the DDA with Australia’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD).

Q10. Should the Disabilities Convention be included in the objects provision of the DDA?

Response:

Guide Dogs Australia supports the inclusion of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD) in the objects provision of the DDA. As Australia ratified the UN CRPD in 2018, embedding it within the Act will reinforce our international obligations and ensure that domestic legislation is interpreted in line with contemporary human rights standards. This alignment will also support emerging jurisprudence, where courts increasingly reference the Convention, and provide a framework for harmonising national laws with global best practice. Guide Dogs Australia recommends that, where parliamentary approval is required, the

objects provision be updated via ministerial mechanism or legislative amendment as soon as practicable to reflect this commitment.

Q11. Should the DDA be expressly required to be interpreted in a way that is beneficial to people with disability, in line with human rights treaties?

Response:

The DDA should be amended to require that it be interpreted in a way that is beneficial to people with disability, consistent with Australia’s obligations under international human rights treaties such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD). This interpretive approach will ensure that the Act is applied in a manner that promotes inclusion, equity, and dignity, and reflects the lived experiences of people with disability. It will also provide clearer guidance to courts, tribunals, and duty holders, reinforcing the principle that disability rights are human rights and must be upheld in all aspects of public life.

Part 2 — Positive Duty to Eliminate Discrimination

Q12. Who should the positive duty apply to?

Response:

It is recommended that the positive duty to eliminate discrimination apply to all duty holders under the DDA. This includes government agencies, employers, education providers, service providers, health and allied health providers, sport and recreation organisations, and other entities with responsibilities under the Act. This duty should be scalable based on organisational size and capacity, ensuring that smaller entities are supported through transitional measures and guidance. Applying the positive duty broadly will shift the burden of preventing discrimination from individuals to systems. This reform will only foster proactive inclusion and reducing complaint fatigue and reflects the staunch support from the blind and low vision community, who consistently report exhaustion from having to initiate and pursue complaints.

Q13. Are there lessons from the operation of the positive duty in the Sex Discrimination Act that could be incorporated into a positive duty in the DDA?

Response:

The DDA can draw on lessons from the operation of the positive duty in the Sex Discrimination Act, while expanding its scope to apply to all duty holders—not just employers and businesses. The positive duty should be proactive, requiring entities

to assess and ensure compliance with their obligations to prevent discrimination before it occurs.

This approach shifts the burden from individuals to systems and promotes cultural change. Guide Dogs Australia also supports the introduction of enforceable undertakings as a compliance mechanism, like those under the Work Health and Safety Act. This could deliver tangible benefits to workplaces, broader improvements across industries, and positive outcomes for the community.

These mechanisms, combined with structured frameworks for assessing unjustifiable hardship could be enhanced with practical guidance from the Australian Human Rights Commission, to ensure support effective implementation and accountability.

Q14. What impact will duty holders experience?

Response:

Guide Dogs Australia anticipates that the introduction of a positive duty under the DDA will create the following benefits:

• Improved compliance with disability rights obligations, cultural change within organisations, and
• A reduced reliance on complaints-based enforcement mechanisms.
• Outcomes that foster more inclusive environments and reduce the burden on individuals with disability to initiate legal action.

Guide Dogs Australia appreciates that these changes will have a financial implication with considerations to training, policy development, and implementation of inclusive practices. However, these costs should be supported through clear guidance, transitional support, and practical resources provided by the Australian Human Rights Commission.

Overall, the positive duty will be an investment in promoting systemic accountability and long-term improvements in inclusion and accessibility that can only benefit economic and social participation.

Q15. Should there be exceptions or limits to the application of a positive duty?

Response:

Guide Dogs Australia recommends that no broad exceptions or limits be placed on the application of a positive duty under the DDA.

Instead, the duty should apply to all duty holders, with proportionality and support mechanisms built in to assist entities with limited resources. Where compliance imposes an unreasonable financial burden, government support should be made available—such as funding, technical assistance, or access to shared resources.

Additionally, a structured framework should guide determinations of unjustifiable hardship, including risk assessment matrices, consultation with people with disability, and independent review processes. These measures will ensure fairness while maintaining the integrity and effectiveness of the positive duty.

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

Q16. Will the creation of a stand-alone duty to provide adjustments better assist people with disability and duty holders to understand their rights and obligations?

Response:

Guide Dogs Australia supports the creation of a stand-alone duty to provide adjustments under the DDA. This will clarify obligations for duty holders and reduce reliance on complex legal interpretation.

Removing the term “reasonable” from “reasonable adjustments” will eliminate ambiguity and better reflect the lived experiences of people with disability, particularly those who face barriers in accessing public spaces, workplaces, and services. A stand-alone duty will also align with the principle of unjustifiable hardship, providing a clearer framework for assessing feasibility while promoting proactive inclusion.

Q 17. Should the scope of the duty to provide adjustments apply only to the existing areas of public life covered by the DDA, or extend to other contexts?

Response:

Guide Dogs Australia recommends that the scope of the duty to provide adjustments under the DDA be extended beyond the existing areas of public life currently covered.

While the DDA presently applies to domains such as employment, education, and access to services, the lived experiences of people with disability—particularly those who are blind or have low vision—highlight persistent barriers in areas not explicitly

covered, including digital platforms, recreational licensing, and informal community settings.

Expanding the scope of the duty will ensure that people with disability are protected across all aspects of public life, and that duty holders are clearly accountable for removing barriers wherever they exist.

Q 18. Will removing the word ‘reasonable’ from the term ‘reasonable adjustments’ to align the language with the legal effect create any unintended consequences?

Response:

Guide Dogs Australia recommends removing the word “reasonable” from the term “reasonable adjustments” in the DDA. The concept of “reasonableness” leads to ambiguity and places an undue burden on individuals with disability to justify their needs and undermines the goal of equitable access.

Removing this term will simplify compliance for duty holders and better reflect the lived experiences of people with disability. It will also align with the principle of unjustifiable hardship, which offers a clearer and more structured framework for assessing feasibility. This reform will support a shift toward proactive inclusion without requiring individuals to navigate complex legal thresholds.

Q 19. What is your preferred approach to achieving greater fairness and transparency in claims of unjustifiable hardship:

a. the Disability Royal Commission amendment as proposed.

b. a new definition of unjustifiable hardship

c. other

Response:

Guide Dogs Australia supports the Disability Royal Commission’s proposed amendment as the preferred approach to achieving greater fairness and transparency in claims of unjustifiable hardship.

This approach provides a structured and rights-based framework for assessing whether adjustments are feasible, while ensuring that the impact on individuals with disability is properly considered.

Guide Dogs Australia recommends that determinations of unjustifiable hardship incorporate a risk matrix to assess likelihood and impact, consultation, and co-design with people with disability, and independent review to ensure objectivity and fairness.

Reform measures should promote consistency, reduce ambiguity, and ensure that hardship claims do not undermine the right to inclusion and participation.

Q20. What are your views on amending the DDA to consider the nature and extent of any adjustments made and encourage consultation between prospective or current employers and prospective or current employees before making employment decisions?

Response:

Guide Dogs Australia strongly supports amending the DDA to require mandatory consultation between prospective or current employers and employees with disability when assessing inherent requirements of a role.

This consultation should be a standard part of the employment process and must occur before any decisions are made regarding a person’s suitability for a position. Additionally, employers should be required to consider accommodations prior to determining whether a person can meet the inherent requirements. These steps ensure a fair and informed understanding of the individual’s capabilities and potential contributions.

Guide Dogs Australia also recommends that clear guidelines be established for documenting these consultations, and that evidence provided by individuals with lived experience (such as self-assessment or personal testimony) be considered sufficient to demonstrate functional capacity however not mandatory and part of the consultation process.

Q 21. Are there other amendments to the DDA that could support engagement between prospective or current employers and prospective or current employees to better understand the inherent requirements of a job?

Response:

As outlined in the previous response the Act should be amended to require evidence of consultation and consideration of functional capacity before employment decisions are made. This includes recognising self-assessment and personal testimony from individuals with disability as valid forms of evidence, rather than mandating external assessments such as occupational therapist reports unless voluntarily provided.

These changes will ensure that employers engage in genuine dialogue with candidates and employees, and that decisions regarding inherent requirements are informed by lived experience rather than assumptions. Such reforms will promote fairness, transparency, and inclusion in employment practices.

Q 22. Should any other amendments be made to the definition of inherent requirements, including factors that should be considered when deciding whether a person could carry out the inherent requirements of a job?

Response:

It’s recommended that the definition of inherent requirements in the DDA be amended to include clearer guidance on the factors that must be considered when determining whether a person with disability can carry out the inherent requirements of a job. These factors should include:

• Mandatory consultation with the individual to understand their lived experience and existing strategies for performing the role.
• Consideration of accommodations prior to any determination, ensuring that adjustments are explored before concluding incapacity.
• Recognition of diverse evidence, including self-assessment and personal testimony, as valid indicators of functional capacity.
• Avoidance of assumptions, such as the necessity of a driver’s licence, without exploring alternative means of fulfilling job duties.

Q 23. Should the concepts of exclusion and exclusionary discipline be defined in the DDA?

Response:

Guide Dogs Australia supports the inclusion of clear definitions for exclusion and exclusionary discipline within the DDA. Defining these concepts will help ensure that disciplinary actions do not disproportionately or unjustly impact people with disability and will support the development of safeguards against discriminatory exclusion.

Q 24. Should there be exceptions or limits on when exclusion is unlawful?

Response:

The Act should ensure that exclusionary practices are not used as a default or convenience. Exceptions should not undermine the core purpose of the Act, which is to promote inclusion and protect the rights of people with disability.

Where exclusions are considered, they must be justified through transparent criteria, including consultation with affected communities, consideration of adjustments, and alignment with human rights principles.

Q 25. Should any of the state and territory provisions relating to exclusionary discipline be adopted in the DDA?

Response:

There is a need for clearer definitions and safeguards to ensure disciplinary practices do not disproportionately impact people with disability. Incorporating best-practice elements from state and territory legislation could help standardise approaches, reduce ambiguity, and ensure that exclusionary discipline is applied fairly and only when necessary.

Q 26. Will a different approach to exclusionary discipline be more appropriate in the higher education and vocational education and training sectors?

Response:

Guide Dogs Australia supports the development of differentiated approaches to exclusionary discipline in the higher education and vocational education and training sectors, recognising the distinct contexts and needs of adult learners. While the Institutions should be required to consult with students with disability before implementing disciplinary measures and ensure that all processes are accessible and responsive to individual needs. A tailored approach will help prevent disproportionate impacts and promote equitable participation in education and training.

Part 4 — Improving Access to Justice

Q 27. How could the DDA be amended to protect people with disability from offensive behaviour and/or harassment?

Response:

Guide Dogs Australia supports the introduction of a provision in the DDA modelled on section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, to address offensive behaviour and harassment against people with disability.

This provision should include appropriate exemptions for artistic, academic, and public interest expression, while ensuring robust protections against vilification and discriminatory conduct.

Consultation feedback from people who are blind or have low vision revealed frequent experiences of ridicule, refusal of service, and misunderstanding by staff and security personnel. These incidents, combined with inaccessible complaint processes, contribute to under-reporting and complaint fatigue. A legislative

amendment to prohibit offensive behaviour will provide clearer legal recourse, promote respectful treatment, and align the DDA with contemporary human rights standards.

Q 28. If the DDA were to prohibit offensive behaviour and/or harassment, how should these terms be defined?

Response:

Guide Dogs Australia recommends that if the DDA is amended to prohibit offensive behaviour and/or harassment, these terms should be defined in a way that reflects the lived experiences of people with disability and aligns with human rights principles.

Definitions should encompass verbal, physical, and digital conduct that demeans, intimidates, or excludes individuals based on disability. The definition should also account for systemic and repeated behaviours, including those occurring in public spaces, online environments, and service interactions.

Importantly, definitions must be inclusive of the diverse ways in which people with disability experience harm and should be developed in consultation with affected communities to ensure relevance and clarity.

Q 29. Should there be exemptions for any behaviour, similar to the Racial Discrimination Act?

Response:

Guide Dogs Australia supports consistency in reforms and will seek alignment with appropriate exemptions in any provision of the DDA that prohibits offensive behaviour and/or harassment, like those found in section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.

These exemptions should protect legitimate expressions in artistic, academic, and public interest contexts, ensuring that freedom of expression is preserved while maintaining robust protections against vilification and discriminatory conduct.

Q 30. Given the recent legislative developments, are there any further gaps in the legislative framework that could be addressed by amendments to the DDA to protect people with disability from vilification?

Response:

The DDA should include a specific prohibition on vilification of people with disability, supported by civil remedies and aligned with recent Commonwealth and state

legislative reforms. Strengthening the DDA to explicitly prohibit vilification will provide clearer legal protections, promote respectful treatment, and reinforce Australia’s commitment to upholding the rights and dignity of people with disability.

Q 31. How could the DDA be amended to ensure that it covers policing?

Response:

The DDA should be amended to explicitly cover policing as part of its protections against discrimination. Consultation feedback from people who are blind or have low vision revealed systemic issues in police response to discrimination complaints, including instances where police declined to attend situations involving access refusals or failed to understand their obligations under discrimination law.

Many individuals are unaware of when they can call the police to enforce their rights, and even when they do, responses are inconsistent and often ineffective. Amending the Act to include clear obligations for police and law enforcement agencies will ensure accountability, improve enforcement of disability rights, and provide greater clarity for both officers and the public.

Q 32. Are there any specific circumstances or situations relating to policing or justice that should be excluded from the application of the DDA?

Response:

Guide Dogs Australia does not support broad exclusions from the application of the DDA in relation to policing or justice. Instead, we advocate for explicit inclusion of policing within the scope of the DDA to ensure accountability and consistent enforcement of disability rights.

The lived experiences shared in the submission highlight systemic failures in police response to discrimination complaints (such as refusal to attend incidents involving access denials) and a lack of understanding of obligations under discrimination law. These issues underscore the need for greater clarity and responsibility, not exemptions.

Any exclusions, if considered, should be narrowly defined and not undermine the objectives of reform and the Act. It is Guide Dogs Australia’s position that any reforms should focus on:

• Training and education for police and justice officials on disability rights.
• Clear procedural obligations for responding to discrimination incidents.
• Accessible complaint and legal processes for people with disability.

Part 5 — Exemptions

Guide Dogs Australia has not provided responses to Q33 — Q37.

Q 33. Could any of the permanent exemptions be narrowed or updated, while balancing other policy considerations?

Q 34. Should the Australian Human Rights Commission be given the power to grant special measures certificates?

Q 35. Should a definition for special measures be added to the DDA?

Q 36. Should a definition for temporary exemptions be added to the DDA?

Q 37. Will you recommend any changes to the legislative process of granting temporary exemptions?

Part 6 — Modernising the DDA - Strengthening Assistance Animal Rights and Accreditation

Q 38. How could the protections for assistance animals be clarified for both people with disability and duty holders, including in relation to evidence of training, evidence or standards of hygiene and behaviour that are appropriate for a public place?

Response:

Guide Dogs Australia recommends several measures to clarify and strengthen protections for assistance animals under the DDA. These reforms will improve clarity, consistency, and confidence for both people with disability and duty holders, ensuring that assistance animals are properly recognised and protected in public spaces.

1. Nationally Consistent Public Access Test (PAT): Introduce a standardised PAT to ensure assistance animals meet hygiene, behaviour, and control standards suitable for public environments. This should include annual reassessments and veterinary checks to maintain public safety and animal welfare.

2. Minimum Training Standards: Establish national benchmarks for assistance animal training, including criteria for behaviour, trainer qualifications, and ongoing support. These standards should align with internationally recognised frameworks such as those from Assistance Dogs International (ADI) and the International Guide Dog Federation (IGDF). Guide Dogs Australia encourages a similar standard to the European Committee on Standardisation with respect to assistance animals.

3. National Government License: Implement a government-endorsed identity card or digital credential system to verify that an assistance animal meets

national standards. This will reduce confusion, prevent misuse, and provide duty holders with a clear and consistent method of verification.

4. Community Education and Duty Holder Guidance: Develop and distribute clear guidance materials for duty holders (e.g. businesses, transport providers) to help them identify accredited assistance animals and understand their legal responsibilities. This will shift the burden of proof away from individuals with disability and promote respectful, lawful treatment.

Q 39. Will legislative amendments or guidance materials be helpful to balance flexibility and certainty, or a mixture of both?

Response:

Guide Dogs Australia recommends a mixture of legislative amendments and guidance materials to effectively balance flexibility and certainty in the regulation of assistance animals under the DDA.

Legislative amendments should establish:

• Minimum national standards for training, behaviour, hygiene, and public access.
• A nationally recognised and government issued identity card or licensing system for handlers and assistance animals.
• Clear enforcement mechanisms and penalties for unlawful access refusals.

Guidance materials should:

• Support implementation of legislative reforms.
• Provide practical examples and case studies for duty holders.
• Educate the public and businesses on rights and responsibilities regarding assistance animals.
• Clarify verification processes and reduce confusion around accreditation.

This dual approach ensures that the legal framework is robust and enforceable, while allowing for sector diversity and evolving best practices. It also promotes consistency across jurisdictions and improves public confidence in assistance animal protections.

Q 40. Should specific training organisations be prescribed under the Disability Discrimination Regulations?

Response:

Guide Dogs Australia supports the immediate recognition of high-standard organisations such as members of Assistance Dogs International (ADI) and the International Guide Dog Federation (IGDF) being prescribed in Disability Discrimination Regulations.

Guide Dogs Australia recommends that along with prescribing ADI and IDGF members in Disability Discrimination Regulations, there should be the development of a national accreditation framework that:

• Enables rigorous, transparent, and inclusive standards.
• Promotes quality assurance while maintaining sector diversity and innovation.
• Reduces duplication and regulatory burden for organisations already meeting international benchmarks.

This approach balances the need for public confidence and safety with the importance of inclusive regulation that supports a diverse and evolving assistance animal sector.

Q 41. Should there be minimum requirements for action plans (such as through guidelines) and what should the minimum requirements cover?

Response:

Yes. Guide Dogs Australia supports the introduction of minimum requirements for disability action plans, supported by clear guidelines to ensure consistency, accountability, and meaningful impact.

Minimum requirements should include:

• Consultation with People with Disability: Action plans must be co-designed with individuals and communities with lived experience to ensure relevance and responsiveness.
• Evaluation and Reporting Mechanisms: Plans should include measurable goals, timelines, and processes for monitoring progress, with public reporting to promote transparency.
• Alignment with National Frameworks: Action plans should align with the Disability Standards and Australia’s Disability Strategy to ensure coherence across jurisdictions and sectors.
• Accessibility and Publication: Plans must be published in accessible formats and made publicly available to support community awareness and stakeholder engagement.

• Review and Renewal Cycles. Action plans should be reviewed regularly (e.g. every 3–5 years) to reflect evolving best practices and community needs.

These minimum requirements will strengthen the effectiveness of action plans and ensure they contribute meaningfully to systemic change and inclusion.

Q 42. Should the Australian Human Rights Commission be able to reject action plans that fail to meet these requirements?

Response:

Yes. Guide Dogs Australia supports empowering the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) to reject disability action plans that do not meet established minimum requirements.

This authority will ensure that action plans are not merely symbolic but reflect genuine commitments to inclusion and accessibility. It will also:

• Promote accountability by requiring duty holders to meet clear standards.
• Encourage meaningful consultation with people with disability.
• Ensure alignment with national strategies and disability standards.
• Improve consistency across sectors and jurisdictions.

Allowing the AHRC to reject inadequate plans will reinforce the importance of co-design, transparency, and measurable outcomes, and help drive systemic change through enforceable obligations.

Q 43. Should there be a set period for which an action plan is valid?

Response:

Yes. Guide Dogs Australia supports the introduction of a set validity period for disability action plans under the DDA. This should be a defined timeframe no longer than five years. This will ensure:

• Action plans remain current and responsive to evolving best practices, community needs, and legislative changes.
• Promote regular review and renewal, encouraging organisations to assess progress and update goals.
• Support accountability and transparency, especially when paired with public reporting and evaluation mechanisms.
• Align with other strategic planning cycles used across government and corporate sectors, improving integration and consistency.

Q 44. Are there any other changes to the action plan process that you will recommend?

Response:

Guide Dogs Australia recommends the following additional changes to strengthen the disability action plan process under the DDA to make effective tools for driving system change and genuine inclusion. This will be via:

1. Mandatory Co-Design with People with Disability: Action plans should be developed in genuine partnership with people with lived experience of disability to ensure relevance, responsiveness, and authenticity.
2. Integration with Broader Inclusion Strategies: Action plans should be aligned with other organisational strategies (e.g. diversity, equity, and inclusion plans) to embed disability inclusion across all levels of policy and practice.
3. Public Accessibility and Transparency: All action plans should be published in accessible formats and made publicly available to promote transparency, community engagement, and accountability.
4. Independent Review and Feedback Mechanisms: Introduce a process for independent review of action plans and allow for feedback from disability advocacy organisations and affected communities.
5. Incentives for High-Quality Plans: Consider recognition programs or incentives for organisations that demonstrate leadership and innovation in disability inclusion through their action plans.
6. Annual Progress Reporting: Require duty holders to report annually on progress against their action plan goals, including outcomes, challenges, and future priorities.

Q 45. How could compliance with and enforcement of the Disability Standards be improved?

Response:

For compliance, a multi-layered approach should be adopted with enforcement of the Disability Standards under the DDA. Key strategies could include:

1. Clearer Regulatory Frameworks and Monitoring Mechanisms: Strengthen external monitoring by regulators and funding bodies, including structured audits, complaint investigations, and performance assessments. This should complement internal governance and risk management systems within organisations.

2. Mandatory Reporting and Transparency: Require duty holders to publicly report on their compliance with Disability Standards through disability action plans. This promotes accountability and enables benchmarking across sectors.

3. Accessible Complaint and Feedback Systems: Ensure that individuals with disability can easily report non-compliance through accessible, user-friendly platforms. This includes digital accessibility and alternative formats for people who are blind or have low vision.

4. Capacity Building and Education: Provide training and practical resources to duty holders to help them understand and meet their obligations. This includes sector-specific guidance and examples of best practice.

5. Incentives and Recognition Programs: Introduce recognition schemes for organisations that demonstrate leadership in disability inclusion, encouraging voluntary compliance and innovation.

6. Enforceable Undertakings and Penalties: Where non-compliance occurs, regulators should have the authority to impose enforceable undertakings or penalties, like mechanisms under the Work Health and Safety Act.

7. Co-Design and Lived Experience Input: Involve people with disability in the design, implementation, and evaluation of compliance strategies to ensure they are relevant and effective.

Q 46. Should the DDA be amended to encourage relevant duty holders to self-report on their compliance with the Disability Standard(s) in disability action plans?

Response:

Amendments are encouraged and should require relevant duty holders to self-report on their compliance with the Disability Standards through their disability action plans. The impact of these amendments will:

• Promote transparency and accountability, ensuring that organisations actively monitor and disclose their progress toward inclusion.
• Support benchmarking and continuous improvement, allowing comparisons across sectors and identifying areas for targeted support or reform.
• Strengthen enforcement mechanisms, by providing the Australian Human Rights Commission and other regulators with clearer insights into compliance levels.
• Empower people with disability, by making information about organisational commitments and performance publicly accessible and easier to evaluate.

Q 47. Could the Australian Human Rights Commission provide additional guidance to duty holders regarding how to self-report on the Disability Standards in disability action plans?

Response:

Yes. Guide Dogs Australia fully supports the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) providing “additional, practical guidance” to duty holders on how to self-report compliance with the Disability Standards in their disability action plans.

This guidance should include a suite of supports that could include:

• Templates and reporting frameworks to help organisations structure their action plans and ensure consistency across sectors.
• Sector-specific examples and case studies to illustrate best practices and common challenges.
• Clear definitions and expectations for what constitutes compliance, partial compliance, and non-compliance.
• Guidance on co-design and consultation with people with disability to ensure plans are authentic and responsive.
• Resources for small and under-resourced organisations, including simplified tools and access to technical support.

The AHRC already publishes advisory notes and guides to support organisations in meeting their obligations. Expanding this support to include structured self-reporting guidance will promote transparency, accountability, and continuous improvement in disability inclusion.

Part 7 — Further options for reform

Q 48. Are there examples of legislative provisions in Commonwealth or state and territory anti-discrimination law that could be drawn on to modernise or strengthen the DDA?

Response:

Yes. Guide Dogs Australia recommends drawing on several legislative provisions from Commonwealth and state anti-discrimination laws to modernise and strengthen the DDA. Key examples include:

1. Positive Duty Provisions (Sex Discrimination Act 1984) The Sex Discrimination Act includes a positive duty on employers to take reasonable and proportionate measures to eliminate sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and victimisation. A similar duty in the DDA will shift the burden from individuals to systems and promote proactive inclusion.

2. Expanded Definitions of Discrimination (Queensland Anti-Discrimination Act 1991) Queensland’s legislation provides detailed definitions of direct and indirect discrimination, including the concept of unjustifiable hardship. These definitions could be adapted to improve clarity and accessibility in the DDA.

3. Intersectionality and Protected Attributes (Virginia Human Rights Act) The Virginia Human Rights Act includes protections for traits historically associated with race (e.g. hair texture and protective hairstyles) and explicitly defines gender identity and sexual orientation. Incorporating similar provisions into the DDA will strengthen protections for people with intersecting identities.

4. Consistency Across Legislation (Fair Work Act 2009) The Fair Work Act includes provisions on adverse action based on protected attributes. Aligning the DDA with the Fair Work Act—particularly regarding burden of proof and employment protections—will improve consistency and legal clarity.

5. Stronger Enforcement Mechanisms (Work Health and Safety Act) The use of enforceable undertakings and structured compliance mechanisms in the Work Health and Safety Act could be adapted to the DDA to improve enforcement and accountability.

These examples demonstrate how existing legislative models can inform a more inclusive, enforceable, and contemporary DDA.

Q 49. What additional guidance materials should be provided to the community, including duty holders, about the operation of the DDA or specific amendments proposed in this paper?

Response:

Guide Dogs Australia recommends the development and distribution of comprehensive, accessible, and practical guidance materials to support both the community and duty holders in understanding and applying the DDA, especially considering proposed reforms. These materials should be co-designed with people with disability and regularly updated to reflect legislative changes, emerging best practices, and feedback from users.

These materials should include:

1. Plain Language Guides and Easy Read Versions: Ensure all materials are available in formats that are accessible to people with cognitive disability, low literacy, or limited English proficiency. This includes Easy Read, Auslan, and translated versions.

2. Sector-Specific Toolkits: Develop tailored resources for key sectors such as education, employment, transport, healthcare, and justice. These should include case studies, compliance checklists, and examples of best practice.

3. Templates for Disability Action Plans and Reporting: Provide structured templates and sample action plans to help duty holders meet reporting obligations and align with minimum standards.

4. Training Modules and E-Learning Resources: Offer online training for duty holders, frontline staff, and community members on disability rights, inclusive practices, and the implications of DDA reforms. This could include interactive modules and certification options.

5. Guidance on Positive Duty and Intersectionality: Publish explanatory materials on new concepts such as positive duty, detriment tests, and intersectional discrimination, including practical examples and legal interpretations.

6. Complaint Process Navigation Tools: Create step-by-step guides and digital tools to help individuals understand and navigate the complaints process under the DDA, including accessible formats and alternative submission methods.

7. Community Awareness Campaigns: Launch public education initiatives to raise awareness of disability rights and the role of the DDA, particularly among marginalised and underrepresented groups.

Q 50. How can we ensure the DDA remains fit-for-purpose into the future?

Response:

Guide Dogs Australia recommends a future-proofing approach to the DDA that ensures it remains responsive, inclusive, and aligned with evolving human rights standards. Key strategies include:

1. Regular Legislative Review Cycles: Establish a formal mechanism for periodic review of the DDA—such as every five years—to ensure alignment with international obligations (e.g. UN CRPD), emerging jurisprudence, and societal changes.

2. Responsive to Intersectionality and Diversity: Embed provisions that recognise intersectional discrimination and the unique experiences of First Nations people with disability, LGBTQIA+ communities, and culturally and linguistically diverse groups.

3. Integration with National Strategies: Align the DDA with Australia’s Disability Strategy 2021–2031 and other

national frameworks to ensure consistency across policy, service delivery, and legal protections.

4. Positive Duty and Proactive Inclusion: Shift the DDA from a reactive model to one that includes a positive duty on duty holders to prevent discrimination before it occurs. This will promote systemic accountability and cultural change.

5. Simplification and Harmonisation Across Laws: Modernise and harmonise the DDA with other Commonwealth anti-discrimination laws (e.g. Sex, Race, Age Discrimination Acts) to reduce confusion and improve compliance.

6. Co-Design with People with Disability: Create mechanisms to ensure all reforms and implementation processes are co-designed with people with lived experience of disability to maintain relevance and authenticity.

7. Digital and Technological Adaptability: Include provisions that address digital accessibility and emerging technologies to ensure protections extend to online platforms, AI systems, and digital services. This should include capturing any platform that uses this capacity to avoid vicarious liability.

8. Monitoring and Evaluation Frameworks: Introduce robust mechanisms for tracking the effectiveness of the DDA, including data collection, public reporting, and independent evaluation.

Q 51. Are there any other issues with the DDA that should be considered as part of this review?

Response:

Guide Dogs Australia recommends that any reforms have clear consideration of the critical role of government funding and infrastructure in supporting the education, implementation, and enforcement of reforms.

Without appropriate resourcing, even the most progressive legislative changes risk being underutilised or inconsistently applied.

Guide Dogs Australia will be advocating to governments the following key issues and recommendations:

1. Sustainable and Targeted Funding for Education and Awareness Governments must allocate dedicated funding to support public education

campaigns, training for duty holders, and awareness initiatives that explain the rights and responsibilities under the DDA. This includes:

• Sector-specific training for employers, educators, service providers, and law enforcement.
• Accessible materials in formats such as Easy Read, Auslan, and translated versions.
• Community-led awareness programs co-designed with people with disability.

Given the new Care Economy cluster under the Department of Health, Ageing and Disability and their direct interaction with shared obligations including the National Disability Insurance Scheme it will be prudent to establish a re-current funding arrangement that creates outcomes.

2. Implementation Support for Duty Holders Legislative reform must be accompanied by technical assistance and capacity-building for duty holders. This includes:

• Funding for small and under-resourced organisations to meet new obligations.
• Practical tools such as compliance checklists, reporting templates, and case studies.
• Support from the Australian Human Rights Commission to interpret and apply reforms.

3. Inclusive Education Funding Models The complexity of disability funding in education systems—highlighted by the Disability Royal Commission and NDIS Review—must be addressed. Governments should:

• Ensure consistent and equitable funding across jurisdictions using models like the Nationally Consistent Collection of Data on School Students with Disability (NCCD).
• Provide disability loadings that reflect the actual support needs of students, not just formal diagnoses.
• Invest in inclusive education strategies that prioritise co-design, accessibility, and systemic reform.

4. Monitoring and Evaluation Infrastructure Governments should establish robust mechanisms to track the impact of DDA reforms, including:

• Public reporting on compliance and outcomes.
• Independent evaluations of reform effectiveness.
• Feedback loops with disability communities to refine implementation.

5. Cross-Government Coordination The DDA must be supported by intergovernmental collaboration, aligning with frameworks like Australia’s Disability Strategy 2021-2031, which outlines shared responsibilities across Commonwealth, State, and Territory governments.

Citations

Experiences of Discrimination Across Life Domains

As part of this consultation, Guide Dogs Australia committed to ensuring that the voices of people who are blind or have low vision directly informed our analysis and recommendations.

This commitment was realised through a lived experience-led approach, with our workforce guiding internal reviews and contributing to national surveys. Our state member Guide Dogs NSW/ACT facilitated focus group discussions during this consultation review period that highlight the blind and low vision voice on experience and discrimination.

The feedback gathered through these engagements reflects the systemic nature of discrimination and the urgent need for structural reform. It highlights that societal attitudes and behaviours will not shift without clear legislative obligations—specifically, the introduction of a positive duty and enforceable mechanisms to prevent discrimination before it occurs.

Participants shared experiences of exclusion and barriers across multiple domains of life. The key themes emerging from this consultation are summarised below.

1. Public Transport

• This was the sector where participants felt most discriminated against.
• Refusals of service due to Guide Dogs or mobility aids (e.g., canes) were reported.
• Difficulty proving incidents due to lack of accessible evidence (e.g., video/audio) was a barrier.
• Existing laws were perceived as poorly enforced, with authorities often deflecting responsibility.
• Discrimination was also experienced through lack of audio announcements and accessible infrastructure (e.g., Tactile Ground Surface Indicators) at transport hubs.
• Complaint processes were described as inaccessible, making it difficult to report or follow up on incidents.

2. Employment

• Participants reported discrimination during recruitment and while employed, including inaccessible one-way video interviews and online systems.
• Reasonable adjustments were not consistently provided, and indirect discrimination was frequently experienced.
• Some participants described discriminatory recruitment tests, particularly in the public sector, and advised others not to disclose disability to avoid bias.

2. Education

• Delays in receiving accessible learning materials led to missed assessment deadlines.
• Inaccessible documents, such as scanned PDFs, were commonly cited.
• The requirement to re-evidence permanent disability every two years was described as burdensome.
• Support staff often lacked lived experience of disability, impacting the quality of assistance provided.

3. Accommodation

• Participants reported being refused accommodation due to the presence of assistance animals, including Guide Dogs.
• Discrimination in the private rental market was also noted, with some landlords unwilling to accommodate assistance animals.

4. Public Spaces & Built Environment

• Poor service and refusals in restaurants were reported, with some participants attributing this to cultural misunderstandings.
• Accessibility issues in retail environments, particularly food stores, were common.
• Design flaws in public spaces, such as poor reflectivity and navigation challenges, required individuals to self-advocate for changes.

5. Digital Accessibility

• Inaccessible complaint forms, recruitment platforms, and government websites were frequently mentioned.
• Participants noted that website accessibility often deteriorates after updates, with issues such as buttons labelled by colour rather than function.
• Some apps were described as claiming accessibility but failing to work with screen readers.

6. Legal Systems

7. Tribunal forms and legal documents were difficult to access without assistance.

10. The Human Rights Commission process was described as inaccessible and ineffective.

11. Long wait times and inaccessible submission formats created additional barriers.

12. Local councils and police were perceived as failing to enforce existing disability rights laws.

13. Sport

• Discrimination was reported in the process of obtaining licences for recreational activities, such as target shooting.
• In one case, successful advocacy led to policy change and staff training following an initial rejection.