Submission to the Attorney General’s Department

Review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992

Submitted by: Australian Disability Network

Date: 14 November 2025

A Message from the CEO

Australian Disability Network (AusDN) is a national, membership-based organisation working to advance the inclusion of people with disability in all aspects of business. Our network comprises 450+ members across the public, private and for-purpose sectors that employ around 2.2 million people—15% of Australia’s workforce. Our members are committed to working with us to build a disability confident Australia, using smart and inclusive business practice as the vehicle for change. Throughout our 25+ years operating as the peak body for disability inclusion in business we have co-designed programs, services and resources that provide practical solutions for our members to create systemic change and maximise our impact.

Over our 25 years of working directly with business we have advocated for employers and service providers to go beyond legislative and regulatory compliance, and strive for dignity, equity and inclusion. While we are guided by the practical and operational needs of business, our purpose is to find mutual benefit and ensure that people with disability are enabled to participate fully both socially and economically.

This submission reflects that dual commitment. We’ve gathered insights from both employers across our network and employees with disability to inform our response to the proposed changes to the Disability Discrimination Act. Our consultation process included surveys and focus groups held in October and November 2025, bringing together voices from diverse organisation sizes and industries—government departments, universities, professional services firms, financial institutions, hospitality providers, and consultancies.

This submission is structured in two parts. Part One addresses questions regarding six of the 15 proposed changes to the Disability Discrimination Act (the Act) most relevant to our network. Part Two consolidates implementation considerations and recommended approaches to the proposed changes.

Key Consultation Findings

Members are committed to advancing disability inclusion in Australia and broadly support the principles underlying the proposed changes to the Act. However, while supporting these principles, members raised significant concerns about practical

implementation, resource requirements, timelines, and the risk of unintended consequences—particularly the potential to deter disability employment.

Employers emphasised the need for:

• Clear guidance with sector-specific examples
• Templates and ready-to-use resources to support implementation
• Adequate implementation timelines (minimum 12 months)
• Support structures to ensure success and ongoing compliance
• Top-down executive commitment, not just bottom-up initiatives
• Scaled expectations recognising different organisational contexts and sizes

Employees with disability emphasised:

• The critical gap between policy and practice in their organisations
• Privacy concerns about who accesses their adjustment information and how it’s stored
• Fear that increased documentation requirements could escalate decisions beyond immediate managers, exposing sensitive information to more people
• Concern that rigid application of inherent requirements could be used to exclude or performance manage people with disability
• Strong support for removing subjective interpretations that currently allow employers to avoid obligations
• The importance of guidance being actionable, not just theoretical

AusDN supports the views of both employers and employees and is prepared to support members through this transition period. We would welcome the opportunity to partner with Attorney-General’s Department in devising guidance tools, templates, training and resources for employers to support the successful implementation of these proposed changes.

redacted Chief Executive Officer Australian Disability Network

Part One: Response to Issues Paper Questions

Positive Duty to Eliminate Discrimination (Recommendations 4.27 and 4.28)

Question 12. If there was a positive duty in the Disability Discrimination Act, who should it apply to?

Both employers and employees expressed enthusiastic support for introducing a positive duty to all duty holders under the Act. Many employers noted they are already implementing similar approaches in response to recent sexual harassment legislation changes and see this as a natural evolution of existing practice. Employers reported that their discrimination, harassment and workplace bullying policies already aim at prevention, making positive duty consistent with broader inclusion strategies.

Employees strongly supported this change, viewing it as shifting focus from reactive complaint-handling to proactive prevention. One employee described accessibility as “a fundamental human right rather than a privilege”, emphasising that organisations should not wait for complaints before addressing discrimination. Another noted that positive duty would help address the often negative experience of bringing forward discrimination concerns internally.

However, employers emphasised that requirements and timeframes for implementation should be scaled to organisational size and capacity. Larger organisations have greater capacity to undertake changes more quickly than smaller organisations and businesses with fewer resources. Employees echoed this concern, noting that smaller teams may struggle to implement changes effectively without adequate support.

In a recent survey of our members, AusDN learned that many organisations do not adequately resource initiatives that would address systemic barriers to disability inclusion, and that lack of leadership buy-in is a significant barrier to progress. Imposing a positive duty would provide greater impetus for leadership to invest in disability inclusion and ensure appropriate resourcing of initiatives, such as development of effective Disability Action Plans.

Key Message: AusDN supports the view of members that a positive duty should be applied to all duty holders, with scaled requirements and timeframes based on organisational size and capacity.

13. 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 Disability Discrimination Act?

Members identified several key lessons from the sex discrimination positive duty implementation, highlighting the following benefits:

• Compliance-driven organisations were prompted to act
• Mandatory training requirements supported implementation by raising awareness
• Government agency support through training modules, guides and monitoring improved accountability
• Self-reporting models created beneficial accountability mechanisms

Employees raised concerns about training effectiveness, noting that mandatory online modules in their workplaces often receive low engagement from staff. They observed that staff often skip through content quickly or view it as taking time away from their work. However, when training is well-designed—short, engaging, relevant and accessible—and when organisations make clear it’s a priority by allocating work time, completion rates and engagement improve significantly.

Throughout our 25 years we have supported organisations to implement review processes and reporting mechanisms to support progress. The Access and Inclusion Index tool (launched in 2016) has been used by 160 organisations to track and monitor their progress towards key benchmarks for disability inclusion. Organisations that participate year on year have achieved an average increase of 21% in their maturity score, demonstrating the benefits of self-reporting. The Index also encourages a pragmatic approach to achieving greater maturity, supporting organisations to meet basic compliance while striving for above-compliance disability inclusion goals.

Key Message: AusDN strongly supports a model that requires regular monitoring and reporting, with guidelines and training provided by government to support implementation.

14. What costs and other impacts would duty holders experience in meeting a positive duty under the Disability Discrimination Act?

The duty would drive systemic change, ensuring organisations consider accessibility and inclusive practice in all business operations. Despite strong support, employers identified considerable cost and resource implications, including:

• Development and delivery of training and resources for all staff
• Targeted support and training for people managers, senior leaders and teams responsible for administering the change
• Infrastructure improvements including premises and digital accessibility
• HR system modifications
• Comprehensive review of all policies and procedures
• Legal and compliance review costs
• Change management coordination

• External consultation costs, particularly for organisations with small or limited internal expertise
• Resources to undertake regular assessments and reporting

Employees emphasised that costs should not be viewed purely as burdens but as investments in creating genuinely inclusive workplaces. They noted that reactive approaches—dealing with discrimination complaints, turnover, and damaged reputations—often prove more costly than proactive prevention. Several employees stressed that adequate resourcing is critical, as underfunded initiatives become tokenistic and can actually worsen the experience for people with disability.

Some employers reported minimal impact for organisations already focused on prevention, viewing this as simply an extension of existing policies. However, employees cautioned against assuming that organisations with existing policies are necessarily implementing them well, noting significant gaps between written policies and lived experience in many workplaces.

Over the past 25 years AusDN has worked with hundreds of organisations to progress disability inclusion. The AusDN Access an Inclusion Index is a whole of business auditing and engagement tool that has demonstrated the positive impact of involving all key business functions in the work of disability inclusion. Typically expenditure on disability inclusion initiatives is confined to Diversity Equity and Inclusion budgets, and often competes for priority with other diversity-related initiatives. AUSDN is supportive of greater investment in eliminating discrimination, and emphasises the need for budgets and leadership engagement across the whole of an organisation to facilitate progress.

Key Message: Organisations that resource disability inclusion across the organisation as a whole see greater and more accelerated progress. A positive duty would necessitate structural changes, a shift in organisational prioritisation, and increased investment which AusDN would support.

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

Rather than blanket exceptions, both employers and employees recommended a scaled approach. AusDN supports this view, noting that organisational capacity has played a significant role in the speed of maturation among our members.

Employers emphasised that smaller organisations may have limited resources to fund and enact required changes, noting concerns about small HR team headcounts and potential external consultation costs. Employees agreed that expectations should be scaled but cautioned against creating loopholes that allow organisations to avoid their obligations entirely. They emphasised that size should affect implementation timelines and available support, not whether the duty applies.

Minimum 12 months for implementation was consistently recommended, with members expressing the need to undertake reviews to understand current state compliance before addressing gaps. One employer emphasised the importance of realistic deadlines that don’t require hiring significant additional staff for short periods to meet them.

Employers suggested funding support in addition to implementation support requirements for smaller organisations, referencing Job Access and the Employment Assistance Fund. Employees noted that support services themselves must be accessible and responsive to be effective.

The emphasis was on flexibility in how the duty is met rather than exemptions from meeting it, ensuring all duty holders work toward elimination of discrimination while recognising different organisational capacities.

Key Message: AusDN supports application of a positive duty without exception, however advises consideration be given to implementation timeframes based on organisational size and capacity.

Strengthened Duty to Provide Adjustments (Recommendations 4.25 and 4.26)

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

Both employers and employees overwhelmingly support removing “reasonable” from “reasonable adjustments”, aligning with AusDN’s long-standing advocacy for ‘Workplace Adjustments’. Many employers have already adopted this terminology.

Employers reported that managers and business units currently misunderstand who can deem an adjustment reasonable and incorrectly view it as subjective, leading to inconsistent application.

Employees strongly supported this change, viewing it as addressing a fundamental problem where employers currently use

reasonable

as a subjective filter to deny adjustments. One employee described managers making uninformed and unilateral decisions about what they personally consider reasonable, without proper consultation or understanding of obligations. Another noted that supervisors currently push back on adjustment requests by citing the word

• Update references in internal systems

Both employers and employees noted these updates represent significant but manageable work if adequate timelines are provided.

5. Privacy and Escalation Concerns

Employees raised a significant concern not identified in employer consultations: the risk that focusing more strongly on unjustifiable hardship determinations might escalate adjustment requests to higher levels within businesses due to associated legal risk. While employers noted this may be appropriate given the risk implications, employees expressed serious concern about privacy when decisions are escalated.

One employee emphasised that escalation means more people gain access to sensitive health information and disability disclosure. They noted that for substantial changes, organisations may need to involve different business units (facilities, IT, procurement), and maintaining privacy becomes increasingly difficult.

Employees stressed that privacy considerations must be paramount regardless of legislative changes, with clear guidance needed on:

• Who genuinely needs to know details versus general awareness that adjustments are being provided
• How information will be securely stored
• What specific information will be shared with external providers
• How to maintain dignity and confidentiality during multi-stakeholder decision-making

The escalation risk is particularly concerning for employees because it may deter disclosure and adjustment requests, undermining the intended benefit of the legislative change.

Key Message: The potential for unintended consequences may be reduced with effective guidance materials for employers, organisational change support, and adequate implementation timeframes. The primary risk is deterring disability employment due to perception of increased costs associated with adjustments.

Unjustifiable Hardship Assessment (Recommendation 4.32)

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

In 2023 AusDN undertook research with employers and people with disability to understand processes, experiences and impacts of workplace adjustments. A lack of consistency, tracking and accountability were identified as significant barriers to a successful workplace adjustments process.

Both employers and employees strongly support mandatory consultation and documentation requirements, with many noting this represents existing best practice that should be formalised in legislation. Both groups recommended adopting the Disability Royal Commission amendments on consultation and documentation while providing clearer definition of unjustifiable hardship including:

• Specific factors such as cost, health and safety, and operational impact
• Scaled to organisational size
• Objective test with practical examples across different contexts
• Clarity on interaction with other legislation (DDA obligations generally take precedence)

Employees particularly emphasised the need for objective criteria, noting that subjective assessments currently enable discrimination. They want to understand what factors can legitimately be considered and what cannot.

Employers identified clear benefits, noting this would improve organisational attitudes toward consultation with people with disability, as currently decisions are often made unilaterally. Many employers indicated these are processes they already implement or are planning to implement, and the proposed change would provide further motivation to ensure consistent and accurate application.

Employees expressed even stronger support, viewing this as essential protection against current practices where decisions are made about them without their input. One employee noted that uninformed decision-making currently leaves them feeling disempowered and subject to subjective assessments by people who don’t understand their situation.

Several employees emphasised that consultation must be meaningful, not tokenistic. They want genuine opportunity to explain their needs, suggest solutions and understand the decision-making process.

Employers support structured documentation, emphasising the need to document consultations with greater detail, record consideration of alternative options, and maintain formal hardship assessments.

However, employees stressed that documentation must be handled with privacy safeguards and should focus on relevant information about needs and considered options, not invasive personal medical details. AusDN’s 2024 research on this topic also found that overly medicalised approaches to workplace adjustment processes are a barrier to positive outcomes.

AusDN has long-advocated for policy and process that supports a consultative and consistent approach to workplace adjustments, from request through to implementation. AusDN recommends a centralised approach to workplace adjustment

considerations, ensuring consistency, adequate funding, and specialised support is available. This approach removes discretionary decision-making from line-managers, and ensures consistency of experience for employees. Employers identified that centralised processes that facilitate proactive, safe discussions with employees, result in better outcomes for both employers and employees.

Key Message: AusDN supports the Disability Royal Commission amendment as proposed, ensuring adequate consultation, consideration of alternative adjustments and transparent documentation of decision-making processes.

Inherent Requirements (Recommendation 7.26)

20. What are your views on amending the Disability Discrimination Act 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?

Both employers and employees support the principle of consulting with candidates and considering adjustments before determining someone cannot meet inherent requirements. However, there is strong consensus that mandatory consultation at the recruitment stage is premature and risks creating more barriers than it removes.

Employers emphasised significant misunderstanding of inherent requirements versus what is listed in job advertisements or role descriptions. Hiring managers have often not identified what the inherent requirements of roles actually are, and there is no clear shared understanding of what constitutes an inherent requirement.

Employees expressed even stronger concerns about this confusion, fearing that without clarity, inherent requirements will be applied too rigidly. One employee described applying for an internal part-time role advertised as pro-rata, only to be asked repeatedly in interviews if they could work full-time. The interviewers emphasised difficulty with part-time coverage and the employee felt they had no genuine chance because they couldn’t commit to full-time work. Subsequently, after a restructure, the same team had 50 staff with none employed part-time, demonstrating that stated flexibility values didn’t translate to practice.

Another employee noted that job descriptions are often vague, preventing people with disability from properly assessing whether they can perform the role and what adjustments they might need. This lack of clarity means people don’t realise they should request adjustments until well into the role.

An employer raised a fundamental concern: the Act should mandate inherent requirements exist before someone asks for an adjustment, so it doesn’t appear as retroactive discrimination (referencing case law in Shazi v Commissioner of Police).

Employees strongly agreed with this sequencing concern. They fear that without documented inherent requirements, employers will retroactively define requirements to exclude them after they request adjustments or when managers want to performance manage them out. Several employees described experiences or awareness of colleagues being told they couldn’t meet requirements that were never clearly stated upfront or that seemed to change when adjustments were needed.

Without first establishing what inherent requirements actually are, mandating consultation about them “puts the cart before the horse.”

Employers also identified substantial operational impacts:

• Consulting with each candidate with disability might lengthen recruitment timelines and involve extra resources
• For line-level roles with supervisors conducting interviews, organisations might need to add HR personnel to all interviews, decreasing candidate experience and adding manpower costs
• Smaller or less-resourced teams might see this as burdensome

Employees acknowledged potential process extensions but expressed different concerns. Several indicated they would rather not apply to roles if they must go through an onerous consultation process about inherent requirements, particularly if they don’t know upfront what those requirements are. They feared this would involve disclosing significant personal information during recruitment only to face rejection.

One employee emphasised that the process of explaining their disability and needs during recruitment is already vulnerable and exposing; adding formal consultation requirements without clear parameters could make many people with disability avoid disclosure entirely, defeating the purpose.

An employer raised a critical tension: if candidates don’t feel comfortable sharing the level of detail organisations need, what does that mean for compliance and how should they proceed?

Employees emphasised that this highlights why mandatory consultation is problematic. They noted that people with disability make strategic decisions about when and how much to disclose based on their assessment of safety and necessity. Forcing disclosure and detailed consultation at recruitment stage removes this agency and may pressure people to share more than they’re comfortable with.

One employee noted that if employers know they must have conversations about inherent requirements and they don’t understand what inherent requirements actually are, they will avoid those conversations by not interviewing people with disability.

Another employee observed that employers already demonstrate reluctance to hire people with disability due to misconceptions about costs and complexity; adding consultation requirements without adequate support and understanding will amplify this reluctance.

Employers noted that organisations would need to:

• Enhance inclusive recruitment training for HR and hiring managers
• Review job design frameworks
• Ensure Talent Partners and hiring managers understand legislative obligations and have knowledge and capability to have disability confident conversations
• Provide training for all hiring managers and HR on conducting assessments

Employees questioned whether organisations would actually invest in this training adequately or whether they would simply avoid hiring people with disability to sidestep the requirement. They noted that training is often inadequate or generic, and without quality training requirements, mandatory consultation could do more harm than good.

A critical employee concern not fully captured in employer feedback was fear of rigid, exclusionary application of inherent requirements. Multiple employees described experiences where inherent requirements were used inflexibly:

• Managers insisting everyone must perform all tasks identically rather than allowing job sharing or task distribution based on strengths
• Requirements being stated rigidly during hiring but then changing once employed, with new requirements introduced that weren’t initially disclosed
• Inherent requirements being used to justify performance management or termination after adjustment requests
• Part-time work being described as flexible and valued but then treated as problematic in practice

One employee described a situation where a manager initially allowed job sharing with team members performing different tasks based on strengths, but when a new manager arrived, they insisted everyone must be able to do everything, causing significant pressure on an employee with disability whose previous arrangement had worked well.

Another employee expressed concern that employees might end up working unpaid overtime just to meet stated inherent requirements and prove they can do the job, even when this is detrimental to their health.

While supporting the principle, members—particularly employees—emphasised that mandatory consultation is premature and potentially harmful without first addressing foundational confusion about inherent requirements. Employees fear this change could make them more vulnerable to discrimination rather than more protected.

Key Message: Employers (and employees) are not ready for mandatory consultation in recruitment, but would support the introduction of clearer guidance regarding the definition of inherent requirements. A phased approach that first addresses the deficit in employer understanding of inherent requirements is preferred.

21. Are there other amendments to the Disability Discrimination Act that could support engagement between prospective or current employers and prospective or current employees to better understand the inherent requirements of a role?

Both employers and employees strongly recommended a phased approach that addresses foundational issues before mandating consultation processes.

Phase 1: Define and document “inherent requirements”

Members emphasised this must be the priority. The Act should clearly differentiate:

• Inherent requirements: What is essential to perform the job and cannot be done elsewhere or by another person—focused on the outcome required, not how it’s achieved
• Essential requirements: Skills typically listed in job descriptions
• Preferred requirements: Desirable but not mandatory qualifications

Employees strongly supported this clarification, emphasising they need to understand upfront what they’re genuinely required to do versus what is preferred or traditional practice. They noted that clearer distinctions would help them assess whether roles are suitable and what adjustments they might need.

Employers indicated Phase 1 requirements would include:

• Clear guidance distinguishing inherent requirements from essential and preferred skills
• Templates for documenting inherent requirements in position descriptions
• Checklists for assessment
• Sector-specific examples
• Focus on outcomes not methods (what needs to be achieved, not how)
• Mandate documentation before recruitment begins

An employer noted that guidance should include factors like whether tasks can be performed by someone else or at different times/locations, and what the actual outcome required is versus the method of achieving it.

Employees emphasised that examples are critical—they need to see what good looks like across different industries and roles. They also noted that verification of necessity is important: organisations should assess whether requirements are based on actual job analysis or just traditional practice.

One employer referenced using the PTR model (Preference, Tradition, Requirement) to guide their thinking about whether something is genuinely required or just habitually done a certain way.

Phase 2: Build on existing consultation practices

Once inherent requirements are clearly defined and documented, then implement consultation requirements that build on existing practices.

Consultation approaches suggested:

1. Applicant certification at application stage: Employers suggested including a statement such as: “I confirm that I can meet these inherent requirements (This may include meeting them with appropriate adjustments).”

This approach:

• Fulfills consultation requirement
• Reduces employer burden
• Doesn’t pressure disclosure
• Applies universally

2. Universal conversations at offer stage: Employers suggested having adjustment conversations with everyone at offer stage, not just with people who have disclosed disability, because this shifts safety and reduces the requirement for disclosure.

This approach:

• Normalizes adjustment conversations
• Reduces stigma
• Applies to all candidates
• Happens after selection decision

Employees strongly supported this approach, viewing it as significantly safer than pre-offer consultation. Several emphasised that adjustment conversations should happen after the hiring decision is made, so there’s no perception that needs will influence selection. One employee noted this feels less vulnerable because they’ve already been selected for their skills and capabilities.

Some employees suggested combining these approaches: simple certification at application, then universal conversation at offer stage for everyone to discuss any adjustments needed to perform the documented inherent requirements.

Key Message: Employers and employees recommend the Act should:

• Require organisations to define and document inherent requirements before recruitment

• Provide enforcement mechanism to prevent retroactive determination after adjustment requests
• Clarify what constitutes meaningful consultation (with flexibility in how it’s achieved)
• Ensure processes don’t unduly lengthen recruitment or decrease candidate experience

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?

AusDN strongly recommends that the Act should clearly differentiate requirements and make explicit that inherent requirements focus on outcomes, not methods.

An employer explained that when looking at inherent requirements, the focus must be on components of the job that cannot be done elsewhere and are mandatory for getting work done, looking at the end result not how it’s done.

Employees strongly supported this outcome-focused approach, with one emphasising that too often employers focus on how tasks have traditionally been done rather than what actually needs to be achieved. This rigidity excludes people with disability who could achieve the same outcomes through different methods.

The Act should require organisations to:

• Clearly identify and state inherent requirements in position descriptions
• Separate inherent requirements from other requirements (employers suggested a distinct section clearly labeling inherent requirements versus other skills)
• Review requirements regularly to ensure they reflect actual job needs
• Document inherent requirements before recruitment begins to prevent retroactive discrimination

Employees emphasised that pre-documentation is essential protection. They described experiences where requirements seemed to materialise or expand after they were hired, particularly when they requested adjustments. Clear upfront documentation would make retroactive additions more obviously discriminatory.

Employees emphasised that job sharing and task distribution should be explicitly recognised as legitimate approaches to meeting inherent requirements.

An employer noted that organisations should think about whether they’re stating something as inherent because it’s truly necessary or because it’s traditionally been done that way. Employees stressed this distinction is critical, as “we’ve always done it this way” should not qualify as inherent requirement.

Key Message: AusDN recommends the following factors be incorporated:

1. Can the task be performed by someone else?
2. Can the task be performed at a different time/location?
3. What is the actual outcome required versus the method of achieving it?
4. Is this requirement based on actual job analysis?
5. Has the organisation considered whether this is truly inherent or just traditional practice?

Disability Action Plans

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

Both employers and employees expressed mixed but generally positive views about minimum requirements, however there was strong consensus that the current voluntary approach with increased requirements would be problematic.

If plans remain voluntary, making requirements more stringent is likely to push organisations away from the process rather than improve outcomes, as increased expectations may cause disengagement.

Employees were more supportive of minimum requirements even for voluntary plans, noting that without standards, organisations can register tokenistic plans that don’t drive real change. One employee described their organisation’s plan as not externally monitored and only tracked internally by dedicated staff, questioning whether plans without external accountability deliver meaningful outcomes.

However, employees agreed that if plans remain voluntary, burdensome requirements will deter participation. They emphasised that the solution is making plans mandatory with appropriate minimum standards, not maintaining voluntary plans with added complexity.

Both groups identified essential elements to be included, should minimum requirements be imposed:

1. Employment:

• Recruitment practices and accessibility
• Retention strategies
• Career progression and development
• Workplace adjustment processes
• Performance management equity

Employees particularly emphasised that career progression often gets overlooked—organisations focus on getting people with disability in the door but don’t address advancement barriers.

2. Accessibility:

• Physical environment (premises standards compliance)
• Digital accessibility (websites, systems, tools)
• Communication accessibility
• Transport access where applicable

An employer noted that digital accessibility is critical and currently not adequately addressed in standards. Employees strongly agreed, noting that inaccessible systems create daily barriers in their work.

3. Culture and Awareness:

• Leadership commitment demonstrations
• Training and capability building
• Employee engagement and consultation
• Disclosure safety and support

Employees emphasised that disclosure safety is critical—they need confidence that disclosing won’t lead to discrimination or career limitation.

4. Measurement:

• Quantitative and qualitative metrics
• Progress tracking against goals
• Benchmarking where possible
• Outcome evaluation

Employees noted that organisations often track what’s easy to measure rather than what matters, and guidance should emphasise meaningful outcomes like employee experience and career progression, not just training completion rates.

5. Consultation:

• Engagement with people with disability
• Co-design of initiatives
• Feedback mechanisms
• Incorporation of lived experience

Both groups emphasised authentic consultation is essential. Employees described frustration with tokenistic consultation where they provide input but nothing changes.

One employee noted that consultation must be recognised as valuable work requiring appropriate time allocation and compensation if it’s extensive.

Additionally, there’s a significant opportunity for Australia to follow international best practice in using procurement to drive disability inclusion. The EU’s European Accessibility Act (EAA), which came into effect in June 2025, demonstrates how accessible procurement can transform employment opportunities.

The EAA mandates that a range of products and services - including consumer electronics, websites, mobile apps, e-commerce platforms, banking services, and self-service terminals - comply with accessibility requirements for people with disabilities across the EU. This affects over 80 million people with disabilities in the EU and applies to any organisation doing business in the EU, including those based outside Europe.

Employment Impact: When goods and services are inherently accessible, it creates a cascading effect:

• Easier employee inclusion: Accessible technology and services reduce barriers for employees with disability
• Customer accessibility: Organisations can better serve customers with disability
• Market leadership: Early adopters gain competitive advantage in the growing accessibility market
• Compliance preparation: As the EAA shows, companies selling technology into public or private sectors need to follow compliance requirements as their customers require conformance as part of procurement efforts

Key Message: Making voluntary plans more onerous will discourage participation rather than improve quality. AUSDN would support minimum standards for action plans to be articulated in guidelines, covering key areas including employment, accessibility, success measurement, co-design and procurement.

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

Employers agreed that accountability measures are important for successful plan implementation but expressed concern that rejection powers would likely deter organisations from submitting plans if they remain voluntary.

Employees were more supportive of rejection powers, viewing quality oversight as essential. However, they acknowledged that if plans are mandatory, rejection should be coupled with comprehensive support to help organisations meet standards rather than simply rejecting non-compliant plans. Rejection should come with clear feedback

about what needs improvement and resources to help organisations strengthen their plans.

One employer questioned AHRC capacity, noting they are not funded to go through multiple reviews. Employees shared this concern but emphasised that adequate resourcing of AHRC is part of implementation planning, not a reason to avoid oversight. If government mandates action plans with quality standards, they must resource AHRC appropriately to fulfill that role.

If plans become mandatory (as both groups ultimately recommend), quality oversight becomes essential but should emphasise support and improvement rather than purely punitive rejection.

Key Message: Rejection powers for voluntary plans would likely deter employers from creating plans. If action plans are mandated, the AHRC should be resourced to provide guidance for improvement alongside authority to reject plans that do not meet minimum requirements.

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

Currently 23% of AusDN’s member organisations have Disability Action Plans in place to support their progress towards meeting or exceeding legislative requirements for access and inclusion. The majority of plans are timebound within a three to five year period, indicative of the time required to implement changes when plans are voluntary and resourced on a discretionary basis.

Both employers and employees strongly support time-bound action plans, noting that without this there is minimal accountability for completion, progress reporting, or continuous improvement.

Both groups recommend three to four year validity periods with:

1. Annual progress reporting:

• Regular check-ins to maintain momentum
• Transparency and accountability
• Opportunity to adjust strategies if needed

Employees emphasised that annual reporting creates regular opportunities to raise issues if implementation isn’t progressing. They noted that without this, plans can sit untouched with no consequences.

2. Mid-term review:

• Assessment at halfway point
• Adjustment of actions based on progress and changing circumstances

• Identification of emerging priorities

3. End-of-Period Evaluation:

• Comprehensive assessment of outcomes achieved
• Lessons learned to inform next cycle
• Demonstration of continuous improvement

4. Mandatory renewal:

• Requirement to develop next plan
• Build on learnings from previous period
• Prevent plans from becoming outdated

Employees particularly emphasised that plans must not be allowed to expire without renewal. They’ve seen initiatives lose momentum when timeframes end without clear next steps.

Employers recommended that timeframes should be consistent, but what organisations commit to achieving within that timeframe should reflect their specific context and organisational capacity. AUSDN supports this view, with reference to the variation in action plan duration, maturity and commitment among our membership base.

Employees agreed but cautioned that flexibility in commitments should not become a loophole for minimal effort. They emphasised that regardless of size or sector, all organisations should demonstrate genuine progress toward inclusion.

Key Message: Action Plans should be timebound to ensure accountability for completion, with commitments conditional upon organisational size and capacity within the same timeframe.

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

Both groups highlighted the need for executive ownership and accountability, with an employer stating that without executive sponsorship, progress will not occur.

Required changes to support this would include:

• CEO/Executive sign-off on action plans
• Executive accountability for implementation
• Public reporting creating reputational accountability at leadership level

Employees were particularly emphatic about this, noting that currently disability inclusion is often delegated to Employee Resource Groups or junior Diversity, Equity and Inclusion staff without adequate authority or resources. This assertion is supported

by responses to our recent member survey. One employee described their organisation’s Disability Employment Network running disability inclusion as voluntary work without budget, stressing that this approach is fundamentally inadequate.

Adequate resourcing was also noted as a significant gap in most action plan development and implementation. Recommended resourcing includes:

• Dedicated coordinator role with appropriate authority and capacity (not volunteer activity)
• Budget allocation for implementation, not just planning
• Distributed responsibilities with accountability across business units, not siloed in Diversity, Equity and Inclusion functions
• Recognition that this requires substantial work with appropriate time allocation

Employees emphasised that adequate resourcing demonstrates whether organisations genuinely value disability inclusion or merely want to be seen as valuing it. They described frustration watching initiatives fail because they were never properly resourced, then being blamed for lack of engagement when they couldn’t sustain unpaid volunteer efforts.

Employers noted that having a government agency providing implementation support through training modules, guides and monitoring improves accountability. The WGEA reporting model was referenced as a useful accountability structure.

Key Message: AusDN recommends that action plans be adequately resourced and supported by leadership, with executive sign-off and accountability for completion. Members suggested implementation support through guides, training and external monitoring would be useful.

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

Both groups expressed enthusiastic support for shifting from reactive complaints-based enforcement to proactive prevention through positive duty.

A number of employers reflected on the success of the WGEA mandatory reporting model, and suggested this approach for reporting on compliance with Disability Standards. This model includes:

• Regular reporting cycles (annual)
• Public transparency
• Centralised data collection and monitoring
• Benchmarking capabilities

• Consequences for non-compliance

Focus was also placed on the need for clear guidance, resources and tools to support proactive compliance. Both groups consistently requested:

• Clear guidance from government on what constitutes compliance
• Sector-specific examples and case studies
• Templates and checklists
• Practical implementation support
• Case studies demonstrating compliance

Employees noted that guidance must be practical and applicable, not just legal interpretation. They noted that guidance written for lawyers doesn’t help frontline managers understand how to implement requirements.

Both groups supported giving AHRC power to enforce compliance independently without waiting for individual complaints. Agreed recommendations from both groups included:

• Adequate AHRC resourcing for proactive enforcement
• Clear, standardised requirements reducing subjective assessment burden
• Potential for sector-specific regulators playing coordinating roles
• External auditing capacity to support AHRC oversight

Key Message: Strong support among AusDN members and employees for mandatory reporting and enforcement powers for the AHRC, coupled with clearer non-legalised guidance on how to meet or exceed compliance with standards.

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

Both groups support self-reporting on compliance, with an employer noting that properly structured reporting helps create accountability for action plan progress and prevents them from becoming static documents.

However, both were emphatic about the fundamental prerequisite: self-reporting should only be implemented if action plans become mandatory, not remain voluntary with added reporting burdens.

Self-reporting on Standards compliance demonstrates organisations are proactively assessing and addressing gaps rather than waiting for complaints.

An employer noted that guidance on what to report and what success measures to use would be highly valued, particularly for organisations without current action plans.

Employees agreed, noting that reporting templates and clear metrics would help ensure organisations focus on meaningful outcomes rather than superficial measures. They want reporting to include qualitative feedback from employees with disability, not just quantitative metrics that can obscure poor experiences.

Key Message: AusDN supports self-reporting, with clear guidelines for employers on what to report and how to track progress. Members emphasised that mandatory reporting on action plans would only work if action plans become mandatory.

Part Two: Implementation Considerations & Recommended Approaches

Australian Disability Network’s member organisations—both employers and employees with disability—strongly support the principles underlying the proposed DDA reforms addressed in this submission. These changes represent an important opportunity to clarify obligations, strengthen protections, and drive proactive disability inclusion across Australian businesses.

However, support for principles does not equal readiness for implementation. Both employers and employees emphasised that success depends on how changes are implemented, not just what changes are made.

Critical Success Factors

1. Partnership Approach

Government, employers, and disability community must work together. Employers want to do the right thing but need practical support to achieve it. Employees want meaningful change that improves their lived experiences, not just policy updates that don’t translate to practice.

2. Clear and Practical Guidance

Both groups consistently requested sector-specific examples, templates, checklists, and ready-to-use resources across all proposed changes. Guidance must be practical and applicable, not just legal interpretation. It must show what good looks like in practice across diverse contexts.

3. Adequate Implementation Timelines

Minimum 12 months was consistently recommended, recognising scope of work required including policy reviews, training development and delivery, system changes, infrastructure improvements, and resource allocation. Phased approach by organisational size enables learning and refinement while maintaining momentum toward change.

4. Support Structures in Place

Funding, training materials, technical assistance, and expertise must be available before changes take effect. Employees particularly emphasised that under-resourced initiatives become tokenistic and can actually worsen experiences. Both groups supported centralised agency providing coordination and support, referencing the successful WGEA structure.

5. Executive Engagement

Leadership commitment drives organisational change. Public reporting and accountability mechanisms at executive level are essential. Employees emphasised that without executive sponsorship, disability inclusion remains delegated to junior staff or volunteers without authority or resources, leading to failure.

6. Scaled Expectations

Recognition of different organisational contexts, sizes, and capacities is essential. Tiered requirements with support for smaller organisations enable all duty holders to progress toward inclusion while acknowledging different starting points and resources. However, scaling should affect timelines and support, not whether organisations must act.

7. Balance Protection and Practicality

Changes must avoid overly complex compliance that deters disability employment. Focus must be on substantive outcomes over prescriptive processes, with flexibility in how obligations are met.

8. Address Privacy Throughout

Employees raised significant privacy concerns across multiple proposed changes. They need confidence about who accesses their information, how it’s stored, what’s shared with external providers, and how dignity is maintained during multi-stakeholder processes. Privacy guidance must be integrated throughout implementation, not treated as an afterthought.

9. Bridge Policy-Practice Gap

Employees particularly highlighted the persistent gap between written policies and lived experiences. They described organisations with impressive policies that aren’t implemented, training that doesn’t translate to behaviour change, and stated values that don’t match practice. Implementation must focus on actual outcomes and experiences, not just policy compliance.

10. Monitor and Course-Correct

Track disability employment outcomes as key success metric. Investigate and address if changes create unintended barriers. Employees stressed this monitoring is critical to ensure changes achieve intended outcomes of enabling participation rather than creating new obstacles. Continuous improvement mindset is essential with willingness to adjust approaches based on evidence.

Addressing the Tension Between Practicality and Positive Outcomes

A recurring tension emerged between employer concerns about burden and deterrence versus employee concerns about inadequate protection and enforcement. This tension reveals the importance of implementation approach.

Employers fear that overly prescriptive, burdensome requirements without adequate guidance and support will deter disability employment and create excessive compliance costs, particularly for smaller organisations.

Employees fear that inadequate requirements, voluntary approaches, or emphasis on flexibility will enable organisations to continue discriminatory practices with minimal consequences, perpetuating current gaps between policy and practice.

The solution lies in implementation that:

• Sets clear definitions and obligations eliminating ambiguity about what’s required
• Provides comprehensive practical support enabling organisations to meet obligations
• Scales expectations appropriately recognising different capacities
• Focuses on meaningful outcomes rather than process compliance
• Creates accountability through monitoring, reporting and enforcement
• Emphasises education and support while maintaining consequences for refusal to engage
• Monitors impacts on employment participation as key success metric

Final Message

Members—both employers and employees—are committed to disability inclusion and recognise these reforms can drive meaningful progress. The key is implementation that enables rather than deters disability employment and participation, while ensuring genuine accountability for outcomes.

As one employer stated, organisations genuinely want to do the right thing, and simpler policy requirements with clear guidance would be less burdensome than uncertainty. An employee echoed this sentiment while stating that clarity must come with accountability: organisations must be held to their obligations, not just trusted to voluntarily comply.

Employees added critical perspectives about the lived experience gaps between policy and practice. They emphasised that reforms must drive actual change in their daily experiences, not just updates to handbooks. They want to see:

• Clearer rights they can assert

• Privacy protections enabling safe disclosure
• Genuine consultation that influences decisions
• Accountability when discrimination occurs
• Culture change not just compliance activity

With thoughtful implementation, adequate support, realistic timelines, and genuine partnership between government, employers, and the disability community, these changes can create workplaces and services that are truly accessible and inclusive for all Australians with disability.

Australian Disability Network looks forward to continuing partnership with the Attorney General’s Department to support successful implementation of these important reforms. We remain committed to supporting our member organisations through this transition and representing the collective voice of both employers and employees with disability who are dedicated to genuine inclusion.

For further information, please contact:

redacted
Head of Marketing and Communications, Australian Disability Network
redacted
redacted
Or
redacted
Senior Manager, Member Insights and Innovation, Australian Disability Network
redacted
redacted