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

Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations

November 2025

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

your national postgrad voice.

Compiled with the assistance of the Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations (CAPA) office bearers and their affiliated member organisations.

Prepared by Gemma Lucy Smart (Disabilities Officer, CAPA); redacted (Disability Officer, Sydney University Postgraduate Research Association); redacted (CAPA National President); and redacted (Disability and Equity Officer, Melbourne University Graduate Students’ Association).

redacted

For comments, please contact redacted CAPA National President

And Gemma Lucy Smart, CAPA Disabilities Officer

redacted

www.capa.edu.au /

Contents

Introduction
Acknowledgement Of Country
Executive Summary
Part 1: The Unique Context of Postgraduate Education
Part 2: Response to Specific Recommendations
Part 3: External Barriers and Enforcement
Part 4: Additional Critical Issues
Conclusion
Summary Of Recommendations
Legislative Reform to the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)
Income Support and External Barriers
Enforcement and Accountability
Extending Protections and Cultural Change
References

Introduction

The Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations (CAPA) welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the Submission to the Review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth). CAPA is the peak body representing the interests of the over 570,000 postgraduate students in Australia. We represent both domestic and international coursework and research postgraduates. The Council is comprised of 33 university and campus-based postgraduate associations, and collaborates closely with the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Postgraduate Association (NATSIPA). CAPA carries out its mission through policy, research, and advocacy, communicating the interests and issues of postgraduate students to higher education stakeholders, Federal, State/Territory governments, Opposition parties, and minor parties.

Acknowledgement of Country

The Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations acknowledge and celebrate the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples on whose lands we meet and work. We formally recognise the Elders, families and forebears of our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and acknowledge they are the traditional custodians of the land, and have been so for millennia.

We acknowledge that the land on which we work is stolen land and that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have never ceded their sovereignty on these lands and treaties are yet to be negotiated. As unionists, we pledge our ongoing solidarity with the traditional owners, and all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, in their struggle for recognition of sovereignty, historical truths and justice.

Executive Summary

CAPA welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) and strongly supports the Australian Government’s commitment to strengthening protections for people with disability following the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability (Disability Royal Commission). Additionally, as a State Party to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), Australia has commitments to ensure that persons with disabilities can access lifelong learning, including tertiary education, without discrimination and on an equal basis with others (United Nations, 2006). Disability discrimination law must go further than to prohibit individual acts of unfair treatment. A human-rights model that aligns with international jurisprudence would uphold substantive equality, which not only identifies and removes structural and institutional barriers but also mandates procedures and safeguards that reflect disability as a form of human diversity rather than a deficit-based deviation from a presumed norm. A substantive equality lens is pertinent for many postgraduate students whose education is shaped by lengthy, highly individualised supervisory relationships and precarious financial or support arrangements.

Yet, in practice, postgraduate students with disability face unique and systemic barriers that deny them the availability, accessibility, and adaptability of education, all essential features of inclusive education (UNCRPD General Comment No. 4, 2016). Postgraduate experiences differ significantly from those experienced by undergraduate students. Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows that in 2022, one in ten people with disability aged 15 years and over experienced discrimination, with young people aged 15 to 34 experiencing discrimination at almost twice this rate (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2022). The Australian Human Rights Commission receives more complaints under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) than any other anti-discrimination law, with 43%

of complaints in 2023-2024 concerning disability discrimination (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2024).

However, postgraduate students remain largely invisible in disability discrimination discourse. Postgraduate students include all students studying an Australian Qualifications Level Eight (8) or above qualification, including Graduate Certificate, Graduate Diploma, Masters Degree (Research), Masters Degree (Coursework), Masters Degree (Extended) and Doctoral Degree. Masters Degree (Research) and Doctoral Degrees are referred to as Higher Degree by Research (HDR), and comprise a significant research output, commonly called a thesis, the process by which this is developed, is supervised by a small academic team of relevant experts, instead of completing conventional classes.

Despite the Issues Paper’s extensive discussion of education, the term “postgraduate” appears sparingly, and ‘Higher Degree by Research’ not at all. This reflects broader assumptions that people with disability either do not reach postgraduate level or do not require support at this level.

The barriers faced by postgraduate students with disability are compounded by several factors unique to postgraduate contexts:

The power imbalance inherent in supervisory relationships, particularly for HDR candidates who depend on one or two supervisors for assessment, resources, opportunities, and career development.
Inadequate income support forcing many disabled postgraduate students to rely on payments below the poverty line.
Inflexible inherent requirements that exclude disabled students from entire fields of study without evidence-based justification.
Extended candidature durations (3-8+ years for doctoral students) during which discrimination compounds.

Discriminatory assumptions that disabled students should be “grateful” for access or are “high functioning” enough not to need support.

This submission focuses specifically on postgraduate students and makes recommendations to ensure reforms adequately address systemic discrimination faced by this cohort. Our key recommendations include extending positive duty obligations to postgraduate supervision contexts, reforming inherent requirements provisions to require assessment with adjustments in place, strengthening the duty to provide adjustments for research contexts, and establishing a Disability Education Commissioner with expertise in postgraduate education.

Part 1: The Unique Context of Postgraduate Education

1.1 The Supervisory Relationship as a Critical Site of Discrimination

For HDR candidates, the supervisory relationship represents the primary site of potential disability discrimination. Unlike undergraduate education with multiple teaching staff, HDR candidates depend on one to four supervisors for virtually all aspects of academic progress. Supervisors assess work and determine progression, control access to resources and opportunities, provide or withhold professional networking opportunities, and exercise considerable discretion in determining what constitutes “adequate” progress.

This concentrated power creates unique vulnerabilities. Disabled HDR candidates fear that requesting adjustments will be interpreted as lacking “research potential and/or commitment.” Supervisors may conflate disability-related needs with incapability. There is limited oversight of supervisory decisions and changing supervisors effectively requires withdrawing from candidature. The Disability Royal Commission noted that lack

of clarity around inherent requirements can discourage people with disability from applying for roles (Disability Royal Commission, 2023c, pp. 389-390). These supervisory dynamics are not just interpersonal or relationship issues, but the very structural conditions in the university and higher education context in which a student’s rights may be denied or realised.

In postgraduate supervision contexts where inherent requirements are rarely explicitly defined, disabled HDR candidates are vulnerable to their access, participation and progress being undermined. Critically, a 2025 study by the University of New South Wales and Australian Council of Graduate Research of 1,207 graduate researchers, reported that 23.7% of HDR candidate’s supervisors never, rarely or sometimes behaved consistently in response to knowledge of the candidate’s personal circumstances. Moreover, 21.3% of candidates felt that their supervisors never, rarely or sometimes respond appropriately when raising issues or concerns about their health (Lyons, et al. 2025). It is imperative for supervisors to understand disability through a human-rights model, which locates the inaccessibility to the institutional barriers and prejudicial norms that exist within postgraduate environments, rather than a model that pathologises the HDR candidate.

Since the establishment of the National Student Ombudsman in 2025, consultation with the Ombudsman has identified that disabled postgraduate students frequently report concerns about supervisory relationships and alleged discriminatory conduct by supervisors. These complaints suggest that supervisory discrimination represents a significant barrier to successful candidature completion for disabled HDR students, yet such matters rarely progress to formal dispute resolution through federal channels.

Notably, a 2022 survey by the University of Melbourne Graduate Student Association of 468 graduate students, one in five graduate researchers (21.7%) had wanted to make a complaint or to get extra support dealing with a supervisor issue. However, complaints

were often not lodged as researchers were worried their supervisor would become aware of the matter and retaliate negatively (Graduate Student Association, 2022).

1.2 Discriminatory Assumptions About Disabled Postgraduate Students

Postgraduate students with disability face three interconnected discriminatory assumptions. First, there is a persistent view that disabled people do not or cannot reach postgraduate study, rendering disabled postgraduate students invisible in policy discussions. Second, when disabled students do reach postgraduate level, there is an expectation they should be grateful for access and should not request adjustments. Third, there is an assumption that if a disabled student has reached postgraduate level, they must be “mildly affected” and therefore do not require support.

These assumptions create a profound double bind. Disabled students must prove they are capable enough to be at postgraduate level by succeeding despite systemic barriers, but once they demonstrate capability, they are told they are too capable to need support. Any difficulty becomes evidence they do not belong, while any success becomes evidence they do not need adjustment. This reflects what the Disability Royal Commission identified as the discriminatory operation of the comparator test (Disability Royal Commission, 2023d, pp. 300-302). Additionally, a formal equality approach is too simplistic and unable to grasp the nuances of unrecognised pre-existing disadvantage faced by many HDR candidates, as it ignores the institutional context in which these decisions are made. Structural adjustments, ideally to the design of supervision, assessment, and candidature, reinforced by the growing need for Universal Design principles, should be mandated in these principles, so that disabled HDR candidates are not burdened with demonstrating exceptional abilities to access education on an equal basis with their peers.

Part 2: Response to Specific Recommendations

2.1 Definition of Disability

CAPA supports modernising the definition of “disability” in the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) to remove deficit-based language including “malfunction,” “malformation,” “disfigurement,” and “disturbed” (Attorney-General’s Department, 2025, p. 21). For postgraduate students specifically, the definition must explicitly cover episodic and fluctuating conditions common in multi-year candidatures, recognise neurodiversity without pathologising language given high representation of neurodivergent individuals in research, and include conditions that develop during candidature due to sustained pressures of research. Making a change to the definition, Australia would strengthen its alignment with the CRPD, which centres a human rights model of disability. Assisting to transition the legal and human rights frameworks from a formal-equality model towards substantive equality, and a more nuanced approach to disability that identifies the impacts of the environment and conditions which may create the disability for the individual (UNCRPD, 2006).

Recommendation 1: Amend the definition of disability to remove deficit-based language, explicitly recognise disability as a social construct, celebrate neurodiversity, and ensure clear coverage of episodic and fluctuating conditions.

2.2 Addressing Intersectionality

Intersectionality is particularly significant for postgraduate students who frequently experience compounding discrimination. Key intersections include disability and gender (compounded discrimination in research-intensive fields), disability and First Nations identity (cultural barriers compounded by ableism), disability and international student status (visa-related barriers and limited access to support), and multiple disabilities (complex and intersecting barriers).

The current comparator test creates particular difficulties for people with intersecting identities, as it is unclear how to choose appropriate comparators (Blackham & Temple, 2020, p. 779). A disabled First Nations woman undertaking doctoral research faces compounded disadvantage that cannot be captured by comparison to a hypothetical non-disabled person.

Recommendation 2: Explicitly allow claims on the basis of combined or intersecting protected attributes, remove or amend the comparator test, and require decision-makers to consider intersectional impacts.

2.3 Direct and Indirect Discrimination

CAPA strongly supports removing the comparator test and adopting a detriment test. The comparator test creates particular difficulties for postgraduate students because postgraduate education is inherently individualised, supervisory relationships are unique, and intersectionality is common. The current framework also in particular places unreasonable burdens on HDR students to prove causation when they lack access to supervisors’ decision-making information. A detriment-based test can better identify and address the structural disadvantage and systemic patterns of exclusion that disabled students face. Considering the significant power imbalances and information asymmetries that hinder students’ success in current frameworks, it is essential to examine this issue.

The Disability Royal Commission recommended shifting the burden of proof so respondents must prove treatment was not because of disability (Disability Royal Commission, 2023d, p. 302). This approach, similar to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), recognises that respondents are better placed to provide evidence about their reasons for decisions.

Recommendation 3: Replace the comparator test with a detriment test, adopt burden of proof framework similar to Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), and remove the “reasonableness element” from indirect discrimination.

2.4 Positive Duty to Eliminate Discrimination

CAPA strongly supports introducing a positive duty to eliminate discrimination for all duty holders in the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth). Such an amendment would be modelled on the recent amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), although it would extend further than the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), which currently only introduces a positive duty to eliminate discrimination in the workplace or for a person conducting a business or undertaking (see s47C) . For postgraduate education, a positive duty would require universities to proactively identify and address barriers in HDR supervision, implement systemic changes rather than relying on individual requests, provide training for supervisors on disability-inclusive practices, and collect data on experiences and outcomes of postgraduate students with disability.

The positive duty must explicitly extend beyond general “education” to cover supervisory relationships and practices, research training programs, access to research resources and facilities, professional development opportunities, and progression and assessment processes. Currently, universities often apply undergraduate-focused frameworks to postgraduate contexts without recognising distinct needs of research supervision.

A positive duty also reinforces Australia’s international obligation under the CRPD to take proactive measures to progressively realise the right to inclusive education (UN CRPD General Comment No.4, 2016). It is within a positive duty that Universal Design, and specifically Universal Design for Learning principles can become embedded and built-in aspects of education design, increasing accessibility for all. The duty would be enforceable by the Australian Human Rights Commission without requiring individual

complaints (Attorney-General’s Department, 2025, p. 36), addressing power imbalances that currently deter students from making complaints. However, the Commission must be adequately resourced to provide postgraduate-specific guidance and enforce compliance.

Recommendation 4: Introduce a positive duty on all duty holders including universities, explicitly extending to all aspects of postgraduate education including HDR supervision, enforceable by Australian Human Rights Commission without requiring individual complaints.

2.5 Duty to Provide Adjustments

CAPA strongly supports creating a stand-alone duty to provide adjustments and removing “reasonable” from “reasonable adjustments.” The Disability Royal Commission found that reasonable adjustment provisions are not operating as a “duty” in practice (Attorney-General’s Department, 2025, pp. 42-43).

For postgraduate students, the current framework creates significant problems. Supervisors often misunderstand “reasonable” to mean they have discretion rather than understanding they must provide adjustments unless they would cause unjustifiable hardship. Postgraduate-specific adjustments are frequently refused without proper consideration, including extensions to candidature for disability-related interruptions, modifications to supervision arrangements, flexibility in research methodologies, and adjusted expectations for conference attendance.

The duty should extend to all aspects of postgraduate education including supervisory relationships, research training, access to facilities and resources, progression and assessment, fieldwork and placements, and conferences and networking. Universities should implement proactive systems to identify and provide adjustments rather than requiring individual requests that place burdens on disabled students.

Recommendation 5: Create a stand-alone duty to provide adjustments, remove “reasonable” from reasonable adjustments, clarify that the duty extends to all aspects of postgraduate education, and require proactive systems for identifying and providing adjustments.

2.6 Unjustifiable Hardship

CAPA supports strengthening the unjustifiable hardship framework. Currently, universities often claim unjustifiable hardship without proper evidence, without consulting with students, without documenting factors considered, and by invoking “academic standards” without evidence that adjustments would genuinely compromise standards rather than merely differ from traditional approaches.

The Disability Royal Commission recommended requiring consideration of consultation with disabled persons and available alternatives, and requiring documentation of factors considered (Disability Royal Commission, 2023d, p. 337). For postgraduate contexts specifically, there must be evidence that adjustments would genuinely compromise academic standards, with standards defined in terms of research quality and rigour rather than adherence to convention.

Recommendation 6: Require meaningful consultation before claiming unjustifiable hardship, require documentation of factors considered and reasons for decisions, and for postgraduate contexts require evidence that adjustments would genuinely compromise academic standards rather than merely differ from traditional approaches.

2.7 Inherent Requirements

This is one of the most critical issues for postgraduate students with disability. The current operation of “inherent requirements” acts as a gatekeeping mechanism excluding disabled students from entire fields based on assumptions rather than evidence.

The problems are severe. Inherent requirements are assessed without adjustments in place, reversing the proper order of analysis under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth). Requirements are often based on tradition rather than evidence about what is genuinely essential. There is no requirement to consult with students before determining inability to meet requirements. Professional body requirements are treated as fixed constraints universities cannot question. Postgraduate inherent requirements lack clarity, allowing subjective judgments about “research capability.”

Law students with disability may be excluded from postgraduate legal studies at university or training g based on assumptions about capacity to practice without consideration of adjustments or diverse legal careers. For example, an inherent requirement in law studies for students to engage in verbal communication tasks, which may be assessed by in-class discussion amongst students, may result in a university refusing a disabled student’s adjustment to complete the course task virtually or via distance learning and instead require the student attend all university classes in-person, which can put strain on students with mobility disabilities or hidden disabilities like chronic pain or psychosocial disability. Medical and health sciences students face exclusion based on rigid clinical requirements. Research students with mobility disabilities may be excluded from field-based research without consideration of methodological adjustments. Students with mental health conditions may be excluded from professional psychology programs based on stigma rather than evidence.

The absence of published case law testing inherent requirements defences for postgraduate and HDR students under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) is itself noteworthy. Cases dealing with breach of the DDA in higher education contexts typically concern failure to progress or cancellation of candidature rather than disputes over whether reasonable adjustments would compromise inherent requirements. This may indicate either that such disputes are being resolved at institutional or state tribunal levels (and thus not creating federal precedent), or that disabled postgraduate students

lack the resources or support to challenge inherent requirements determinations at the federal level.

The Disability Royal Commission recommended requiring consideration of adjustments and consultation (Disability Royal Commission, 2023c, p. 438). However, CAPA believes more fundamental reform is necessary. The law must clearly require that inherent requirements be assessed with reasonable adjustments in place. Universities and professional bodies should regularly review requirements to ensure genuine necessity, document evidence supporting each requirement, and consider alternative approaches.

Recommendation 7: Require inherent requirements to be assessed with adjustments in place, mandate consultation before determining inability to meet requirements, require regular review of inherent requirements to ensure genuine necessity, and for postgraduate programs require explicit documentation of inherent requirements rather than allowing subjective supervisory judgments.

2.8 Exclusionary Discipline

While exclusionary discipline primarily affects school-age children, principles are relevant to postgraduate contexts. For postgraduate students, exclusionary practices include exclusion from research sites or placements, pressure to discontinue candidature rather than providing adequate support, exclusion from cohort activities, and denial of enrolment based on anticipated “difficulties.”

The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) currently makes it unlawful to subject a student to “any other detriment” (Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth), s 22(2)), which should encompass exclusion, but explicit clarification would be beneficial as the Disability Royal Commission noted (Disability Royal Commission, 2023b, p. 170).

Recommendation 8: Extend protections against exclusionary discipline to postgraduate contexts, prohibit pressuring students to discontinue candidature without first providing comprehensive support, require independent review of discontinuation decisions involving disabled students, and ensure exclusion from research sites or activities is only permitted where genuine unjustifiable hardship can be demonstrated.

2.9 Offensive Behaviour and Vilification

Postgraduate students with disability experience offensive behaviour including dismissive comments from supervisors about disability-related needs, assumptions about incapability, exclusion from professional networks, and demeaning public comments. Power dynamics mean offensive and abrasive behaviour from supervisors is particularly harmful and difficult to challenge.

CAPA supports the Disability Royal Commission’s recommendation to introduce provisions on offensive behaviour and vilification modelled on sections 18C and 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth). Recent passage of the Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Act 2025 (Cth) addresses some serious conduct, but civil protections remain important for addressing vilification below the criminal threshold.

Recommendation 9: Introduce provisions prohibiting offensive behaviour and vilification on the basis of disability, ensure provisions cover educational settings including supervisory relationships, clarify application to online spaces, and ensure accessible enforcement mechanisms.

Part 3: External Barriers and Enforcement

3.1 Income Support Barriers

The current income support system creates severe financial barriers. Austudy provides approximately $19,790 per year, well below poverty line measures and inadequate for disabled students with additional disability-related costs. Participation requirements fail to account for episodic disabilities. Access to Disability Support Pension has been restricted, forcing disabled students who cannot work 15+ hours per week onto inadequate payments. Part-time study restrictions create additional barriers.

These financial barriers force disabled postgraduate students to work while studying (exacerbating health conditions), study part-time (extending time to completion), discontinue studies due to financial hardship, or forego necessary healthcare and support services.

Recommendation 10: Increase income support payments above poverty line, reform Disability Support Pension eligibility for postgraduate students, remove inappropriate participation requirements, and address stipend taxation issues.

3.2 Interface Between NDIS and Higher Education

The interface between NDIS and higher education remains problematic. Unclear responsibility for supports creates gaps where universities and NDIS each claim particular supports are the other’s responsibility. NDIS planning processes rarely account for postgraduate-specific needs like research assistance or conference attendance supports. Long wait times for NDIS access impact ability to commence or continue study. Geographic limitations in provider availability create challenges for students conducting research in areas with limited services.

Recommendation 11: Conduct inquiry led by a Disability Education Commissioner into NDIS and postgraduate education interface, clarify responsibilities for funding postgraduate-specific supports, ensure NDIS planning accounts for postgraduate needs, and provide transitional support for students awaiting NDIS access.

3.3 Enforcement and Accountability

The current complaints-based system is particularly inadequate for postgraduate students. Power imbalances deter complaints as students fear damaging supervisory relationships and jeopardising academic progress. Long timeframes are incompatible with candidature as complaints can take years while candidature may lapse. Limited legal representation leaves students navigating complex processes alone against universities with substantial resources.

Since the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) came into effect, there have only been a few cases where postgraduate students or people seeking enrolment in postgraduate coursework in higher education have brought claims alleging they have experienced disability discrimination in breach of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) (see Kitoko v University of Technology Sydney [2018] FCCA 699, Huang v University of New South Wales [2008] FMCA 11, Zhang v University of Tasmania [2008] FCA 516, Rana v Flinders University (SA) [2005] FMCA 1473), although some of these matters have seen lengthy and complex litigation. Court case dealing with claims of disability discrimination in breach of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) rarely deal with disability discrimination alone and are often accompanied by claims of alleged racial discrimination, sexual harassment, or sex discrimination and breach of other relevant Commonwealth legislation. This may indicate that it is difficult for disabled higher education students, especially HDR and postgraduate students, to bring court cases related only to disability discrimination in breach of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth).

Review of the case law indicates that higher education students generally seek resolution of matters dealing with disability discrimination in higher education contexts through state tribunals or territory tribunals under state or territory anti-discrimination or human rights legislation as compared to claiming disability discrimination due to breach of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth). While bringing disability discrimination matters

to state or territory tribunals can facilitate faster and cheaper access to just resolution than the lengthy court litigation associated with bringing a case for breach of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth), issues arise when these tribunals fail to provide adequate resolution mechanisms to students. The failure of state or territory tribunals and appeal tribunals to the provide adequate resolution can result in students, who then seek to claim breach of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth), needing to escalate their matter. This escalation occurs via first lodging a complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission regarding an alleged breach of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) and, following the failure of that resolution mechanism due to failure to resolve or the Australian Human Rights Commission’s making a decision to discontinue, a student would then need to bring a court case to the Federal Court of Australia or the Federal Circuit Court claiming breach of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth).

As a result, this creates barriers to just, inexpensive, and speedy resolution of matters. Disabled students may experience difficulties navigating the complex and interlocking state, territory, and federal dispute resolution forums for disability discrimination. This complexity is partly explained by the governance structure of Australian universities: except for the Australian National University (which is established under Commonwealth legislation), all Australian universities are established under legislation in the state or territory in which they are registered. Consequently, when disability discrimination occurs and constitutes a breach of university policy, matters are typically directed to state or territory tribunals first, even though the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 is Commonwealth legislation.

This jurisdictional complexity means that disabled students who are advised to initially seek dispute resolution in a state or territory tribunal (and whose claims are unsuccessful at that level) face significant challenges if they then wish to escalate to federal forums. Students may experience financial hardship due to seeking legal advice or retaining counsel, or they may graduate or have their studies terminated before their matter is resolved. The current dispute resolution mechanisms under the Australian Human Rights

Commission relating to the DDA are not functioning effectively for university-based disability discrimination, yet the jurisdictional barriers present significant obstacles to reform

The recent National Student Ombudsman, which commenced 1 February 2025, provides an additional avenue but remains a complaints-based mechanism (Attorney-General’s Department, 2025, p. 58). Since the establishment of the National Student Ombudsman, it is likely that students. who previously would have brought disability discrimination matters to state and territory tribunals or complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission, are seeking assistance through the National Student Ombudsman instead of directly making complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission. Through direct communication with Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations (CAPA) representatives, the National Student Ombudsman has indicated they have received complaints from students regarding disability discrimination and universities’ failure to implement learning adjustment plans for disabled students. However, similar to the issues raised by the process of higher education students initially seeking dispute resolution for disability discrimination in higher education via state and territory tribunals instead of directly complaining to the Australian Human Rights Commission, initial complaint to the National Student Ombudsman may result in students not seeking to make complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission for breach of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth).

In summary, systemic compliance mechanisms are essential, including a positive duty with Commission enforcement powers, a Disability Education Commissioner to monitor compliance and conduct systemic inquiries, strengthened enforcement of Disability Standards for Education, and mandatory reporting on outcomes for postgraduate students with disability. There must also be consideration of how to better facilitate dispute resolution for higher education students under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth).

Recommendation 12: Establish a Disability Education Commissioner with powers to monitor, investigate and enforce compliance, strengthen enforcement of Disability Standards for Education, require public reporting on experiences and outcomes of postgraduate students with disability, and provide Australian Human Rights Commission with resources for systemic inquiries.

3.4 Disability Action Plans

Many universities, including Group of Eight universities, do not have current Disability Action Plans registered with the Australian Human Rights Commission despite receiving Commonwealth funding through the Higher Education Disability Support Program. Existing plans rarely address HDR supervision practices, postgraduate coursework students’ needs, meaningful targets for postgraduate outcomes, or involve postgraduate students in development.

The Issues Paper discusses reforms including Commission authority to provide advice and set minimum requirements, set timeframes for plan validity, and make compliance a condition of Commonwealth funding (Attorney-General’s Department, 2025, p. 80). CAPA strongly supports these reforms with emphasis that minimum standards must require specific attention to postgraduate education.

Recommendation 13: Make current Disability Action Plans a condition of Higher Education Disability Support Program (HE DSP) funding, require plans to specifically address postgraduate education and supervision, mandate minimum standards including consultation with postgraduate students and measurable targets, require annual reporting on progress, and empower Australian Human Rights Commission to reject inadequate plans.

Part 4: Additional Critical Issues

4.1 Research Training and Professional Development

Disability discrimination extends beyond coursework and supervision to research training and professional development opportunities critical for career outcomes. Access to conferences and networking events is frequently compromised by inaccessibility. Opportunities for teaching and research assistance, collaborations, and mentoring may be denied based on assumptions about capability. These exclusions have severe consequences for academic career prospects but are not explicitly addressed in current law or university policies.

Recommendation 14: Explicitly extend Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) protections to research training and professional development, require universities to consider accessibility in planning these activities, and prohibit denial of opportunities without evidence of unjustifiable hardship.

4.2 Cultural Change in Universities

Legislative reform alone will not address systemic ableism in postgraduate education. Fundamental cultural change is necessary including mandatory disability awareness and anti-ableist training for all supervisors developed in partnership with disabled people, inclusion of disabled academics in leadership positions, embedding Universal Design for Learning principles in postgraduate programs, and recognition of the value disabled researchers bring to knowledge production.

Recommendation 15: Require mandatory disability awareness and anti-ableist training for all staff involved in postgraduate education, encourage employment of disabled academics in leadership positions, fund research and guidance on inclusive supervision practices, and promote recognition of disabled researchers’ contributions.

4.3 Discrimination and Inaccessibility in Student Accommodation

Disabled students face unique challenges in accessing student accommodation or accommodation close to campus. Accommodation can be structurally inaccessible for disabled people, and lack of awareness about accessible infrastructure can result in student accommodation being advertised as accessible despite being inaccessible. Accessibility barriers students face in student accommodation can include: lack of automatic doors on the property; lack of disabled accessible shared toilets; uneven pavement around the building; the only means of accessing the student accommodation being via steps with no ramps; lack of signage in braille; and lack of disabled accessible rooms at ground level, or such rooms only being accessible via lift. Long-term construction leading to airborne debris and noise, as well as poor maintenance of student accommodation such as failure to treat black mould on the property, can exacerbate symptoms of a student’s condition or result in students developing a disability.

Entrance paperwork for some student accommodation, such as residential colleges, may request students to disclose if they have any disabilities, especially psychosocial disability. Although student accommodation staff may state that such documentation is a way to identify pastoral care needs of students, requiring students to complete this documentation compels them to disclose deeply private and confidential medical information. There is sometimes no clear information on how such private information may be stored or further used.

Lack of student and staff knowledge and training about the lived experience of disability can result in the unintentional creation of ableist environments where disabled students feel unsafe disclosing their disabilities. These issues can be exacerbated in residential colleges, which are typically privately run and, while associated with universities, are not subject to the full extent of university policy and codes of conduct. Such colleges have

historically fostered elitist, ableist, and non-inclusive environments. One postgraduate student reported to CAPA that when she disclosed to residential college staff that she thought she may be neurodivergent and was struggling with her coursework as a result, staff dismissed her concerns, telling her she was not neurodivergent but simply struggling with challenging postgraduate coursework. Such experiences of ableism and minimisation of disability’s impact can create isolation, lack of support, and fear of being ‘outed’ as disabled within the student accommodation community.

Recommendation 16: Establish mandatory accessibility standards, disability awareness training, and privacy protections for all student accommodation, including privately run residential colleges.

Conclusion

Postgraduate students with disability face unique and systemic discrimination inadequately addressed by current frameworks. Despite assumptions that disabled people do not reach postgraduate education or do not require support at this level, evidence demonstrates disabled postgraduate students face significant barriers throughout candidature.

The proposed reforms to the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) have significant potential to improve outcomes for postgraduate students with disability. However, these reforms must explicitly extend to postgraduate contexts, recognising that postgraduate education differs fundamentally from undergraduate and school education in ways that create distinct barriers.

Legislative reform must be accompanied by reform of inadequate income support, improved NDIS and higher education interface, establishment of a Disability Education

Commissioner, and meaningful enforcement mechanisms. Beyond legislative reform, cultural change in universities is necessary to address systemic ableism.

CAPA urges the Australian Government to ensure postgraduate students with disability are not overlooked in this critical reform process. We call upon all stakeholders across the higher education sector to endorse these recommendations and commit to meaningful action. Every disabled student forced to discontinue, every talented researcher excluded from their field, and every doctoral candidate who spends time fighting for adjustments rather than conducting research represents a loss not only to that individual but to Australian research and knowledge production.

Summary of Recommendations

Legislative Reform to the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)

Recommendation 3: Replace the comparator test with a detriment test, adopt burden of proof framework similar to Fair Work Act, and remove the “reasonableness element” from indirect discrimination.

Income Support and External Barriers

Enforcement and Accountability

Recommendation 13: Make current Disability Action Plans a condition of HE DSP funding, require plans to specifically address postgraduate education and supervision, mandate minimum standards including consultation with postgraduate students and measurable targets, require annual reporting on progress, and empower Australian Human Rights Commission to reject inadequate plans.

Extending Protections and Cultural Change

Recommendation 16: Establish mandatory accessibility standards, disability awareness training, and privacy protections for all student accommodation, including privately run residential colleges.

References

Attorney-General’s Department. (2025). Review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992: Issues Paper. Australian Government.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2022). Disability, Ageing and Carers, Australia: Summary of Findings. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/disability/disability-ageing-and-carers-australia-summary-findings/latest-release

Australian Government Productivity Commission. (2004). Review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992: Productivity Commission Inquiry Report (Vol. 1).

Australian Human Rights Commission. (2024). Annual Report 2023-24. https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/commission-general/publications/annual-report-2023-24

Blackham, A., & Temple, J. (2020). Intersectional discrimination in Australia: An empirical critique of the legal framework. UNSW Law Journal, 43(3), 773-800.

Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Act 2025 (Cth).

Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth).

Disability Royal Commission. (2023a). Voices of people with disability. In Final Report (Vol. 1, Book 1). Australian Government.

Disability Royal Commission. (2023b). Voices of people with disability. In Final Report (Vol. 1, Book 2). Australian Government.

Disability Royal Commission. (2023c). Inclusive education, employment and housing. In Final Report (Vol. 7, Part B). Australian Government.

Disability Royal Commission. (2023d). Realising the human rights of people with disability. In Final Report (Vol. 4). Australian Government.

Engagement with Graduate Students and Graduate Researchers. (2022). Engagement Summary Report. University of Melbourne Graduate Student Association.

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Huang v University of New South Wales [2008] FMCA 1.

Kitoko v University of Technology Sydney [2018] FCCA 699.

Lyons, G., Henry, A., Wong, W.K.T., Breckenridge, J., Hewitt, B. and Nolan, J. (2025) Understanding HDR candidate-supervisor relationship challenges (Phase 2). Australian Human Rights Institute and Gendered Violence Research Network, UNSW Sydney.

Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth).

Rana v Flinders University (SA) [2005] FMCA 1473.

Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth).

UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), General comment No. 4 (2016), Article 24: Right to inclusive education, CRPD/C/GC/4, 2 September 2016.

United Nations. (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. United Nations Treaty Series, 2515, 3.

Zhang v University of Tasmania [2008] FCA 516.