Review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)

Submitted by: OZeWAI (Organisation of the Web Accessibility Initiative in Australia) ABN: 28 988 115 350 Contact details: redacted, website: ozewai.org

Date: 14 November 2025

Review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) ……………………………………………………………. 1

Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………………….1
Establishing clear technical standards ……………………………………………………………………………. 2
The reactive model is outdated ………………………………………………………………………………………..2
Implement Positive Duty for ICT Accessibility …………………………………………………………………..3
Accessible procurement and education actions ………………………………………………………………5
Considering a different approach ……………………………………………………………………………………6
Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………7 Appendix A: Individual Education Plans ……………………………………………………………………………….8 Appendix B: Digital Accessibility Professionals letter ………………………………………………………. 11 Responses to consultation questions ……………………………………………………………………………….13

1. Executive Summary

This submission strongly supports the modernisation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA), particularly the proposed introduction of a Positive Duty to eliminate discrimination.

OZeWAI welcomes the Australian Government’s review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth), particularly in light of the recommendations from the Disability Royal Commission. The DDA is a landmark piece of legislation, but a modern, proactive legal framework is essential to dismantle systemic barriers and to ensure the fundamental rights of people with disability are protected in contemporary life.

OZeWAI’s submission focuses on the critical domain of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) and digital services. We argue that the DDA’s current reactive, complaint-driven model is fundamentally failing to ensure equal access in the digital landscape. There is

a critical need to mandate digital accessibility and shift the DDA from a reactive to a proactive model through new Standards and a clear ‘positive duty.’

To effectively reform the DDA, we propose:

2. Establishing clear technical standards

The Positive Duty regarding ICT must be anchored by non-negotiable, mandatory technical standards.

Recommendation: Mandate that all digital goods and services include general accessibility requirements as in Section III and IV of the European Accessibility Act (2019/882)1.
Recommendation: The Australian Human Rights Commission’s (AHRC) Human Rights and Technology Final Report 2 recommended that the Attorney-General develop a Digital Communication Technology Standard (Recommendation 24). The most effective implementation of measures that satisfy the DDA’s objects have been the creation of the Disability Standards in Education 20053, Disability Standards for Public Transport 2002 4 and Disability (Access to Premises) Standards 2010. OZeWAI endorses Recommendation 24.

3. The reactive model is outdated

The DDA currently relies on individuals with disability to identify discrimination and lodge complaints. In the digital realm, this approach places an unjustifiable burden on users, who must repeatedly exhaust time and emotional energy fighting for basic access to essential services (e.g. banking, health, education, employment portals).

Digital services are the primary method of engagement for almost all goods and services. When these services are inaccessible the result is not merely inconvenience, but fundamental exclusion from civic, economic, and social participation. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD)5 outlines two parallel accessibility duties: a duty to provide reasonable accommodation, which relates to individuals, and a duty to provide equal access, which relates to groups. Reasonable accommodation involves responding to the access needs of an individual in a given situation. The right to equal access is a group right that exists before an individual attempts to access digital goods or services.

1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32019L0882 2 https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/technology-and-human-rights/publications/discussion-paper-human-rights-and-technology 3 https://www.legislation.gov.au/F2005L00767/latest/text 4 https://www.legislation.gov.au/F2005B01059/latest/text 5 https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/disability-rights/united-nations-convention-rights-persons-disabilities-uncrpd

By only focusing on the rights of individuals via reasonable adjustments, the DDA is reactive rather than proactive. The DDA must transition from remediation (after the harm) to prevention (before the barrier).

Action plans are not a great gauge of how well organisations comply with anti-discrimination obligations. Before they can decide on actions, organisations need to assess and reflect upon their current practices. This is where maturity models can be very helpful. For example, last month a W3C Working Group released a draft Accessibility Maturity Model 6 that helps organisations assess their current effectiveness and capabilities and helps to identify gaps and supports planning for next steps. It looks at organisational accessibility maturity through several dimensions: communications, culture, ICT development, knowledge and skills, personnel, procurement and support. Maturity Models have also been created by specific industries.

Recommendation: That the AHRC release a set of accessibility indicators and indexes for measuring access and inclusion, as a precursor to the development of action plans (question 41). This would allow us to leverage off best practice within Australia and overseas.
Recommendation: The DDA must be reformed to introduce a ‘positive duty’, requiring organisations and service providers to take active, reasonable steps to eliminate discrimination and anticipate barriers before they occur. This shift ensures that inclusion is a core, built-in consideration rather than an afterthought.
Recommendation: Mandate that action plans created under the Section 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) cover digital accessibility.
Recommendation: Establish an Equally Effective Alternative Access Plan (EEAAP) Mechanism: Where a technology or service cannot immediately meet full accessibility standards, the provider must implement an Equally Effective Alternate Access Plan (EEAAP). This plan must:
- Detail the steps to provide equivalent access to the same information and services with substantially equivalent ease of use.
- Specify a clear, time-bound roadmap for correcting the underlying accessibility issue.
- Ensure the alternative access is immediate and does not place an undue burden on the user with disability.

4. Implement Positive Duty for ICT Accessibility

The proposed Positive Duty to eliminate discrimination must be clearly defined in relation to

6 https://www.w3.org/TR/maturity-model/

digital goods and services:

4.1 Address ‘unjustifiable hardship’ in the digital context

The current ‘unjustifiable hardship’ defense is frequently used to avoid digital compliance, even for large organisations. In an era where WCAG compliance tools are standardized and readily available and accessibility is an integral part of modern design frameworks, this defense should be significantly limited.

Recommendation: The DDA should clarify that ‘unjustifiable hardship’ cannot be claimed for new ICT developed or procured since the AHRC Guidelines on equal access to digital goods and services 7 took effect. The duty to integrate accessibility must be considered from the initial design phase (Universal Design principle).

4.2 Establish an enforcement Authority and complaint transparency process

Recommendation: Create or empower an existing body (e.g., within the ACCC) with a clear mandate for ICT accessibility compliance across both public and private sectors. This body must be empowered to conduct regular, scheduled audits of critical public and private sector services, rather than waiting for individual complaints.
- The enforcement body must have the power to issue binding corrective orders with short deadlines (e.g., 12 weeks, mirroring the timeline mentioned in the Norwegian context) and apply escalating administrative fines for non-compliance. This shifts the financial and legal risk away from the affected individual and onto the duty holder.
Recommendation: Require all entities to publish a clear, standardised Accessibility Statement detailing their compliance status and providing a mandated feedback mechanism for users to report barriers.
Recommendation: Setup a regulatory body to work with OZeWAI.org and a Registered Training Provider (RTO) to provide consistent and quality training and verification of Digital Accessibility professionals
Recommendation: Establish a Public Complaint Registry: A publicly searchable, anonymised registry of DDA complaints should be established. This would allow the public and providers to see patterns of discrimination and assist in identifying systemic failures, aiding the positive duty.
Recommendation: Regulate Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs): The use of NDAs in discrimination settlements must be reviewed. Over-reliance on NDAs prevents the sharing of crucial information about inaccessible products or services, allowing providers

7 https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/disability-rights/publications/guidelines-equal-access-digital-goods-and-services

to continue selling non-compliant goods without public scrutiny.

Recommendation: That the AHRC create Guidelines on the Use of Confidentiality Clauses in the Resolution of Complaints regarding Equal Access to Digital Goods and Services.
Recommendation: To establish a national framework — administered by OZeWAI (Australian Web Accessibility Initiative) — to ensure that accessibility compliance for digital services is verified by qualified, accredited accessibility professionals. This framework would operate in alignment with the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) (DDA), and other relevant Commonwealth and state legislation.
- While the DDA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, it does not mandate technical verification of accessibility compliance. Consequently, organisations may self-certify compliance or rely on unqualified auditors, resulting in:
  - inconsistent or inadequate accessibility outcomes,
  - misleading accessibility claims, and
  - a lack of professional accountability.
- To ensure that accessibility claims are credible, OZeWAI proposes the establishment of a national accreditation and verification framework — modelled on the FIA’s (fia.org.au) professional certification structure — to formalise accessibility as a recognised profession with clear qualifications, standards, and codes of conduct.

5. Accessible procurement and education actions

5.1 Accessible procurement

Many inaccessible systems are bought off-the-shelf. The procurement process is the most effective point to mandate compliance.

Recommendation: Amend the DDA to require that all public sector procurement and procurement by large entities providing essential services for ICT must conform with AS EN 301 549 8.
Recommendation: Improve the Procurement Process: The Government and all organisations must embed accessibility requirements into the procurement process for all new technology in line with accessibility requirements for ICT products and services, as per the AHRC Guidelines on equal access to digital goods and services. Current procurement models often fail to adequately account for accessibility, resulting in systemic inaccessibility from the outset.

5.2 Education and employment

8 https://www.standards.org.au/standards-catalogue/standard-details?designation=as-en-301-549-2020

Digital accessibility is foundational to education and employment participation. The Disability Standards for Education 2005 are being reviewed to clarify and expand coverage to most early childhood education and care (ECEC) services. Consider an approach similar to the USA (see Appendix A: Proposed duties and obligations: Mandatory identification, assessment, and individual education planning).

Recommendation: Consider digital accessibility as part of the review of the Disability Standards for Education 9.
Recommendation: The Education Standards must be updated to explicitly mandate WCAG compliance for all Learning Management Systems (LMS), Learning Tools, student portals, administrative systems and digital course materials. This includes:
- Amending the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) Act 10 and National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (NVETR) Act 11 to explicitly incorporate compliance with the DDA, DSE, and AS EN 301 549:2020 as part of provider quality assurance, accreditation, and registration standards.
- Embedding ICT accessibility compliance into regulatory reviews by ensuring that TEQSA and ASQA assess providers’ implementation of accessible digital systems.
Recommendation: Establish a digital accessibility apprenticeship program similar to what is available in the UK as part of National Upskill Apprenticeships 12 (refer to Appendix B)

6. Considering a different approach

Accessibility experts in Australia have contributed and used the W3C WAI Guidelines for many years. The guidelines show what can be done to resources to make them as universally accessible as is possible and reasonable. There is a problem, however, because mostly the guidelines are not specifications and they do not solve all problems. This approach is characterised by some of us as dependent on the ‘accessibility’ of the resource (whatever it is).

In a complementary approach, some of us have worked on what is known as the AccessForAll approach. This approach has its focus on the accessibility of a delivered resource to a user, regardless of how well the resource happens to conform to the guidelines.

The AccessForAll (AfA) 13 approach is being developed by the International Standards Organisation (ISO). It depends upon interoperable metadata describing a user’s access

9 https://www.education.gov.au/disability-standards-education-2005/consultations/2025-review-disability-standards-education-consultation 10 https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2011A00073/2022-11-30/text 11 https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2011A00012/latest/versions 12 https://www.nationalupskill.co.uk/apprenticeships/digital-accessibility-specialist 13 https://www.imsglobal.org/accessibility/afav3p0pd/AfA3p0 DESinfoModel v1p0pd.html

needs and preferences that can be matched to a resource’s attributes described using the same system. This approach leads to the possibility of a resource provider, for example a university pointing students to references, to make sure those resources are accessible to the student, matching whatever are their stated needs and preferences.

There are a number of things implicated by this approach:

An accessibility service matches a resource’s access attributes to a user’s chosen ‘needs and preferences’.
A resource may already have what is needed.
A resource may be adjustable by APIs and other devices to satisfy a user’s needs and preferences.
A set of stated needs and preferences does not imply medical disability of a user.
A user might have a number of sets of needs and preferences that they store and reuse according to their circumstances/context.
A resource not well-described for matching can have the required description (metadata) generated by AI.
A resource with attributes that do not satisfy the user’s needs and preferences can be locally edited by a human or AI.

Perhaps the most significant value of the AfA approach is that it offers a practical way for legislation that evaluates the individual delivery of resources rather than the objective conformance of a resource.

It should be noted that an AfA system already operates in Norway. For tens of thousands of resources, adaptations for individual student’s needs and preferences are automatic.

Recommendation: That alternative approaches towards measuring digital accessibility be considered.

7. Conclusion

Reforming the DDA offers a crucial opportunity to modernise the law and create a genuinely inclusive Australia. By shifting to a proactive framework, mandating clear digital accessibility standards, and ensuring transparency in enforcement, the Act can move from merely addressing discrimination to actively preventing it.

OZeWAI urges the government to adopt these recommendations to ensure the DDA remains fit for purpose in the 21st century.

Appendix A: Individual Education Plans

Proposed duties and obligations: Mandatory identification, assessment, and individual education planning

1. Absolute Duty to Identify Students with Disability

1.1 Every education provider must proactively identify and locate students who may have disabilities affecting their participation, learning, or development.

1.2 The provider must not wait for a request or diagnosis before acting; it bears a continuing duty to ensure that all students with actual or suspected disabilities are promptly referred for assessment.

2. Obligation to Conduct Comprehensive Assessments

2.1 Where there is any indication that a student may have a disability that impacts their education, the provider must conduct, or cause to be conducted, a comprehensive and multidisciplinary evaluation of that student’s needs.

2.2 Assessments must:

(a) identify all areas of educational need, including academic, behavioural, communication, social, emotional, and physical domains;

(b) involve qualified professionals; and

3. Mandatory Individual Education Plans (IEPs)

3.1 Upon completion of assessment, the provider must develop an Individual Education Plan (IEP) for each student found to have a disability.

3.2 The IEP must:

(a) describe the student’s current levels of performance and needs;

(b) set measurable annual goals;

(d) assign responsibility for implementation and monitoring.

3.3 The IEP must be developed collaboratively with the student (where appropriate), their parent or guardian, and relevant professionals.

3.4 All supports and services described in the IEP must be delivered in full and without delay.

4. Review and Revision

4.1 Each IEP must be reviewed at least annually and revised as necessary to ensure continued progress and access to education.

4.2 Interim reviews must occur whenever the student’s circumstances or progress change materially.

4.3 Parents or guardians must be included in all review processes.

5. Oversight, Monitoring, and Enforcement

5.1 Establishment of the Independent Education Equity Authority

(a) An Independent Education Equity Authority (IEEA) shall be established as a statutory body corporate under this Act.

(b) The IEEA shall operate nationally and independently of state and territory education departments.

5.2 Functions of the IEEA

The IEEA shall:

(a) monitor compliance with the obligations set out in this Part;

(b) develop and publish national benchmarks, guidance, and reporting standards for IEP implementation;

(d) investigate complaints or systemic failures;

(e) issue binding compliance notices;

(f) refer persistent or serious breaches to the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) or relevant minister for enforcement; and

(g) provide annual public reports on national compliance and outcomes for students with disabilities.

5.3 National Monitoring Plan

(a) The IEEA shall maintain a National IEP Register recording anonymized data on:

the number of students identified and assessed;

IEP implementation rates;

review completion rates; and

measurable educational outcomes.

(b) Each public education authority must submit quarterly compliance reports to the

IEEA detailing progress on identification, assessment, and IEP delivery.

(c) The IEEA shall publish an Annual Education Equity Report detailing findings, trends, and recommendations for continuous improvement.

5.4 Enforcement Powers

(a) The IEEA may require an education provider to produce records, assessments, or IEPs for inspection.

(b) Where the Authority determines that an education provider has failed to meet its obligations, it may:

(i) issue a compliance direction requiring remedial action within a specified timeframe;

(ii) impose administrative penalties for non-compliance; and

(iii) refer matters of systemic or repeated discrimination to the AHRC or relevant court under the DDA.

(c) Failure to comply with a compliance direction or enforcement order constitutes discrimination under section 22 of the DDA.

6. Relationship to the Disability Discrimination Act

6.1 Compliance with this Part forms part of an education provider’s obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth).

6.2 The rights established under this section are absolute and are not limited by cost, convenience, or administrative burden.

6.3 The absence of an IEP or failure to implement one in full constitutes a denial of equal access to education under section 22 of the DDA.

Appendix B: Digital Accessibility Professionals letter

Dated: 4 November 2025

To The Hon Mark Butler MP, Senator the Hon Jenny McAllister, The Hon Amanda Rishworth MP and Senator the Hon Tim Ayres.

Australia needs digital accessibility qualifications

The problem to be solved

We are writing to you The Hon Mark Butler MP in your capacity as Minister for the Health, Disability and Ageing of Australia and your colleagues Senator the Hon Jenny McAllister MP as Minister for Disability and the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and The Hon Amanda Rishworth MP as Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations of Australia, along with the previous NDIS Minister, Bill Shorten, share in a mission to increase people with disability to enter the workforce.

We are writing to you, Senator the Hon Tim Ayres in your capacity as Minister for Industry and Innovation as you may not be aware, but technology built and used by employers in Australia (including Government) is not built or procured to meet digital accessibility compliance, creating an immense barrier for people with disability to enter the workforce and remain there.

Australia, like other nations, is at a critical point in our technological development. The world is shifting towards a digital-first economy, digital education system and many interactions with services and supports are moving on-line or going digital. This means that we need to ensure technology is accessible for people with disabilities, to avoid creating a society that excludes people by design. There have been some positive shifts in government policy at the Federal and State levels, but more work is required. The Australian Human Rights Commission released Guidelines on equal access to digital goods and services on 2 April 2025. The Guidance is now in-line with the latest WCAG and Procurement advice and standards and supports organisations to create and deploy accessible technology. 14 To support this shift OZeWAI is working with the Future Skills Organisation 15 to gather case studies to include in their next iteration of the Digital Capability Workforce Plan.

Why qualifications are important

For over 20 years, OZeWAI has been a venue for sharing information about the Web Accessibility Initiative in Australia. OZeWAI provides information about digital accessibility

14 https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/disability-rights/publications/guidelines-equal-access-digital-goods-and-services 15 https://www.futureskillsorganisation.com.au/digitalcapability

and a place for digital accessibility professionals to connect and learn together.

Digital accessibility professionals are experts in ensuring the accessibility of digital products and services. This expertise relating to digital accessibility has never been more important, and we already know there will be substantial future shortage of digital professionals generally 16. However, Australia does not have a plan to ensure we have enough accessibility professionals to meet the demand driven by technological growth and digital transformation.

Proposal for a Digital Accessibility Apprenticeship

OZeWAI has developed a proposal to introduce a Digital Accessibility Specialist Apprenticeship to uplift digital accessibility knowledge within the Australian Government and Australian businesses. With the upcoming Attorney-Generals Review of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) and implementing recommendations from the review of Disability Standards for Education, this is a perfect time to embed digital accessibility into the educational curriculum and set up apprenticeship opportunities.

Digital Accessibility Apprenticeships in other countries

The US and UK have introduced Digital Accessibility Apprenticeships. These programs have strengthened expertise in both these fields, benefiting students and employers. Businesses can employ experts with the confidence that their work will meet internationally recognised standards. We call on the Government to:

Recognise digital accessibility as a profession
Create an apprenticeship that focuses on digital accessibility

We would welcome the opportunity to meet with you to discuss digital accessibility and the proposed solutions OZeWAI has been investigating as part of our professional membership organisation, and welcome any support with connections to the right agencies and politicians.

Regards

redacted, redacted and redacted, redacted

OZeWAI Committee Co-chairs

Evidence resources

ACCAN’s response to the Review of Australia’s Disability Strategy
DigitalA11y – Time to address the accessibility skills gap - global issue

16 https://digiworkforce.futureskillsorganisation.com.au/

Responses to consultation questions

1. How should disability be defined in the Disability Discrimination Act?

Adjust wording to be more aligned with the social model of disability, and that the barriers in place are socially constructed.

2. What factors should be considered in developing a new definition of disability?

In considering a new definition, there needs to be a shift from a medical model (focus on individual impairment) to a social model (focus on the interaction between a person’s impairment and environmental, attitudinal, and systemic barriers), while other legislation, like the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), often uses a combination of long-term physical, mental, intellectual, or sensory impairments which, “in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.”

3. Would the Disability Discrimination Act be strengthened by expressly allowing claims to be brought for multiple or combined protected attributes?

Answered: Yes

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

Answered: Yes

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

Answered: Other

Recommend replacing the traditional comparator test with another approach (may not be the detriment test) to reflect modern understandings of equality and the social model of disability.

6. How should the burden of proof be addressed in the Disability Discrimination Act?

Answered: Other

Recommend replacing the current burden of proof to reflect modern understandings of equality and the social model of disability.

7. How should the definition of indirect discrimination be amended to ensure that it is easy to understand and implement?

Update the definition to have the focus move away from the complex comparison elements and towards the impact of the barrier on the person with disability.

8. Should the reasonableness element in the definition of indirect discrimination be: a. removed, b. retained and supplemented with a list of factors to consider, c. replaced by a legitimate and proportionate test, d. other? Please expand on your response.

Refer to the response submission from OZeWAI: section 3. The reactive model is outdated.

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

Answered: Yes, it should be removed.

10. Should the Disabilities Convention be included in the objects provision of the Disability Discrimination Act?

Answered: Yes

11. Should the Disability Discrimination Act be expressly required to be interpreted in a way that is beneficial to people with disability, in line with human rights treaties?

Answered: Yes

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

Refer to the response submission from OZeWAI: section 4. Implement Positive Duty for ICT Accessibility.

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?

Refer to the response submission from OZeWAI: section 3. The reactive model is outdated. The central lesson is the shift from a reactive (complaint-driven) to a proactive and preventative model, which strongly aligns with the social model of disability.

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

Refer to the response submission from OZeWAI: section 3. The reactive model is outdated. Ensuring digital accessibility standards are met and checked would reduce the costs to be more proactive rather than reactive.

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

Answered: Unsure. Refer to the response submission from OZeWAI: section 4.1. Address ‘unjustifiable hardship’ in the digital context.

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?

Answered: Yes

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

Answered: Didn’t answer

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

Answered: Didn’t answer

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

Answered: The Disability Royal Commission amendment as proposed.

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?

Refer to the response submission from OZeWAI: Refer to section 4.2 Establish an enforcement Authority and complaint transparency process.

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?

Refer to the response submission from OZeWAI: Refer to section 4.2 Establish an enforcement Authority and complaint transparency process.

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?

Answered: Unsure. Refer to the response submission from OZeWAI: Refer to section 2 2. Establishing clear technical standards.

23. Should the concepts of exclusion and exclusionary discipline be defined in the Disability Discrimination Act?

Answered: Yes

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

Answered: No

25. Should any of the state and territory provisions relating to exclusionary discipline be adopted in the Disability Discrimination Act?

Answered: No

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

Answered: No

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

Answered: Review the use of similar wording used in other discrimination Acts.

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

Answered: Review the use of similar wording used in other discrimination Acts.

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

Answered: Review the use of similar wording used in other discrimination Acts.

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

Answered: Yes. Refer to the response submission from OZeWAI: Digital Accessibility.

31. How could the Disability Discrimination Act be amended to ensure that it covers policing?

Refer to the response submission from OZeWAI: Refer to section 4.2 Establish an enforcement Authority and complaint transparency process.

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

Answered: No.

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

Answered: Yes. Refer to the response submission from OZeWAI: Digital Accessibility.

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

Answered: Yes.

35. Should a definition for special measures be added to the Disability Discrimination Act?

Answered: Yes.

36. Should a definition for temporary exemptions be added to the Disability Discrimination Act?

Answered: Yes.

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

Answered: Didn’t answer

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

Answered: A mixture of both. Refer to the response submission from OZeWAI: Digital Accessibility.

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

Answered: Yes.

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

Answered: Yes. Refer to the response submission from OZeWAI: Digital Accessibility.

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

Answered: Yes. Refer to the response submission from OZeWAI: Digital Accessibility.

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

Answered: Yes. Refer to the response submission from OZeWAI: Digital Accessibility.

Refer to the response submission from OZeWAI: Digital Accessibility.

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

Refer to the response submission from OZeWAI: Digital Accessibility.

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?

Answered: Yes. Refer to the response submission from OZeWAI: Digital Accessibility.

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

Answered: Yes. Refer to the response submission from OZeWAI: Digital Accessibility.

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

Answered: Yes. Refer to the response submission from OZeWAI: Digital Accessibility.

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

Refer to the response submission from OZeWAI: Digital Accessibility.

50. How can we ensure the Disability Discrimination Act remains fit-for-purpose into the future?

Refer to the response submission from OZeWAI: Digital Accessibility.

51. Are there any other issues with the Disability Discrimination Act that should be considered as part of this review?

Refer to the response submission from OZeWAI: Digital Accessibility.

Mandating digital accessibility standards and enforcement for the Disability Discrimination Act

Review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)

1. Executive Summary

2. Establishing clear technical standards

3. The reactive model is outdated

4. Implement Positive Duty for ICT Accessibility

4.1 Address ‘unjustifiable hardship’ in the digital context

4.2 Establish an enforcement Authority and complaint transparency process

5. Accessible procurement and education actions

5.1 Accessible procurement

5.2 Education and employment

6. Considering a different approach

7. Conclusion

Appendix A: Individual Education Plans

Proposed duties and obligations: Mandatory identification, assessment, and individual education planning

1. Absolute Duty to Identify Students with Disability

2. Obligation to Conduct Comprehensive Assessments

3. Mandatory Individual Education Plans (IEPs)

4. Review and Revision

5. Oversight, Monitoring, and Enforcement

5.4 Enforcement Powers

6. Relationship to the Disability Discrimination Act

Appendix B: Digital Accessibility Professionals letter

Australia needs digital accessibility qualifications

The problem to be solved

Why qualifications are important

Proposal for a Digital Accessibility Apprenticeship

Digital Accessibility Apprenticeships in other countries

Evidence resources

Responses to consultation questions

1. How should disability be defined in the Disability Discrimination Act?

2. What factors should be considered in developing a new definition of disability?

3. Would the Disability Discrimination Act be strengthened by expressly allowing claims to be brought for multiple or combined protected attributes?

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

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

6. How should the burden of proof be addressed in the Disability Discrimination Act?

7. How should the definition of indirect discrimination be amended to ensure that it is easy to understand and implement?

8. Should the reasonableness element in the definition of indirect discrimination be: a. removed, b. retained and supplemented with a list of factors to consider, c. replaced by a legitimate and proportionate test, d. other? Please expand on your response.

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

10. Should the Disabilities Convention be included in the objects provision of the Disability Discrimination Act?

11. Should the Disability Discrimination Act be expressly required to be interpreted in a way that is beneficial to people with disability, in line with human rights treaties?

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

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?

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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?

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?

23. Should the concepts of exclusion and exclusionary discipline be defined in the Disability Discrimination Act?

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

25. Should any of the state and territory provisions relating to exclusionary discipline be adopted in the Disability Discrimination Act?

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

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

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

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

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

31. How could the Disability Discrimination Act be amended to ensure that it covers policing?

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

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

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

35. Should a definition for special measures be added to the Disability Discrimination Act?

36. Should a definition for temporary exemptions be added to the Disability Discrimination Act?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

50. How can we ensure the Disability Discrimination Act remains fit-for-purpose into the future?