Lived experience and systemic reform for the Disability Discrimination Act

14 November 2025

To: The Disability Discrimination Act Review Secretariat

Attorney-General’s Department, Canberra, ACT

Re: Submission to the Disability Discrimination Act

(DDA) Review

Dear Review Panel,

Please accept this submission as part of the national review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth).

My name is Annie Crowe, and I am a human rights lawyer, disability and neurodiversity advocate, and the Founder and Director of NeuroAccess, a consultancy specialising in neuroinclusive workplace design, systemic accessibility reform, and disability-informed leadership.

I write this submission both professionally and personally:

• as a lawyer with experience across government, not-for-profit, and corporate systems

• as a national speaker and thought leader on disability justice, neurodiversity, inclusion, and systemic reform

• as someone who works directly with hundreds of disabled and neurodivergent adults and families, navigating discrimination in work, education, healthcare, justice, and daily life

• and as an Autistic, ADHD, chronically ill and physically disabled woman living at the intersection of multiple forms of discrimination

I welcome this Review and commend the government for recognising the need to modernise the DDA. The Act in its current form is no longer fit for purpose. It fails to reflect contemporary human rights standards, modern disability understanding, or the lived reality of disabled Australians.

The DDA is a landmark piece of legislation, yet it no longer reflects contemporary understandings of disability, ableism, systemic barriers, or the realities faced by disabled people navigating public life. As an Autistic ADHD woman with multiple chronic illnesses, as a human rights lawyer, and as a national thought leader on disability and neurodiversity, I have lived, witnessed, and professionally addressed the limitations of the current Act every day.

The DDA is structurally outdated because:

• it relies heavily on individual complaint mechanisms rather than proactive duties

• it presumes a deficit model of disability

• it frames discrimination primarily at the interpersonal rather than systemic level

• it is reactive, slow, and inaccessible

• it does not meaningfully address intersectionality

• it does not reflect contemporary understandings of access, culture, power and organisational behaviour

• it unintentionally reinforces shame-based systems by placing the burden on disabled people to self-advocate, disclose, and repeatedly fight for basic rights

In practice, the DDA functions more as a safety net of “minimum compliance” rather than a framework for rights, dignity, and inclusion.

This submission argues that meaningful reform must:

• adopt a CRPD-aligned definition of disability

• introduce a strong positive duty on organisations to prevent discrimination

• modernise the law to recognise neurodivergence, sensory disability, cognitive disability and fluctuating impairment

• strengthen protections in education, employment, policing, digital systems, AI, and public services

• regulate algorithmic discrimination and digital accessibility

• overhaul the exemptions framework to prevent misuse

• introduce new national neurodiversity and cognitive accessibility standards

• embed trauma-informed, culturally safe, and intersectionally aware principles across the Act

• and shift Australia from a reactive model of discrimination response to a proactive, preventative human rights system

My submission includes detailed responses to all 51 consultation questions, blending legal analysis, lived experience, policy context and practical recommendations for implementation.

This Review presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to build a Disability Discrimination Act that is modern, future-facing, and capable of upholding the rights, dignity and inclusion of all disabled people in Australia. I would welcome the opportunity to engage further with the Department, contribute to co-design processes, or support implementation work arising from the Review.

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this important national conversation.

I look forward to continuing to support and advocate for a stronger, more accessible, and more equitable Australia.

Yours sincerely,

NeuroAccess 2

Annie Crowe

Human Rights Lawyer | Neurodiversity Advocate | Disability Consultant

Founder & Director, NeuroAccess

www.neuroaccess.com.au

NeuroAccess

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Submission to the Disability Discrimination Act Review

Introduction

This submission reflects my dual expertise:

• as a human rights lawyer and disability advocate, and
• as a multiply disabled, neurodivergent woman with lived experience as an Autistic, ADHD, bipolar, chronically ill person with complex physical disability.

It is strengthened by my work as the Founder of NeuroAccess, where I support workplaces, government agencies, and organisations to build genuinely neuroinclusive, accessible systems grounded in rights, dignity, and design thinking.

The Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) has not kept pace with contemporary understandings of disability, neurodiversity, technology, systemic discrimination, or human rights principles. It remains overly medicalised, reactive, slow, and structurally inaccessible. Most importantly, it fails to prevent discrimination before it occurs.

This executive summary outlines the key reforms needed to bring the DDA into alignment with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), modern lived experience, and the realities of disabled people’s lives in Australia today.

1. Adopt a Modern, CRPD-Aligned Definition of

Disability

The DDA currently relies on outdated, diagnostic and impairment-centred concepts that do not reflect real-world disability. A modern definition must:

• recognise disability as the interaction between individuals and systemic barriers

• explicitly include neurodivergence, sensory disability, cognitive disability, psychosocial disability and fluctuating conditions

• remove dependence on medical diagnosis or permanence

• acknowledge episodic disability and environmental disabling factors

• centre access needs, not deficit-based labels

• capture intersectional discrimination and compounding barriers NeuroAccess 4

This change alone would radically improve protection for autistic, ADHD, chronically ill, traumatised and otherwise disabled people who currently fall through legal gaps.

2. Introduce a Strong Positive Duty to Prevent

Disability Discrimination

The DDA’s reactive, complaints-based model places the entire burden on disabled people to:

• identify discrimination
• disclose disability
• navigate conflict
• risk retaliation
• self-advocate repeatedly
• endure harm before seeking remedy This is neither trauma-informed nor rights-based.

A positive duty would shift responsibility to organisations and require them to:

• identify and eliminate systemic barriers
• proactively design accessible environments
• consult with disabled people
• implement universal design principles
• take reasonable steps to prevent discrimination before it occurs
• ensure leadership accountability and cultural reform This mirrors best practice in the Sex Discrimination Act and UK equality frameworks and is essential for preventing harm — not simply responding to it.

3. Strengthen and Modernise Reasonable

Adjustments

Adjustments should be:

• anticipatory
• timely
• access-needs-based
• available without medical proof
• inclusive of cognitive, sensory and neurodivergent needs
• protected from retaliation or penalty The law must clarify that “inherent requirements of a job” cannot include discriminatory norms such as rigid hours, sensory-hostile environments, or

NeuroAccess 5

“professionalism” standards that punish Autistic or ADHD communication, nervous systems and processing differences.

4. Protect Disabled Students from Exclusion and

Punitive Behavioural Systems

Autistic, ADHD and traumatised students are suspended at many times the rate of their non-disabled peers.

The DDA must require schools to:

• use positive behaviour support
• prevent suspension for disability-related behaviours
• implement adjustments before considering discipline
• adopt trauma-informed and neurodiversity-affirming practices
• demonstrate attempts at accommodation before exclusion
• collect and report data on suspension and restraint No child should be punished for a disability they cannot switch off.

5. Regulate Policing & Justice to Stop

Disproportionate Harm

Disabled people — especially autistic, ADHD, mentally ill and chronically ill people — experience severe discrimination in policing contexts.

The DDA must explicitly state that policing is a service covered by the Act.

Reforms must include:

• mandatory disability and neurodiversity training
• trauma-informed de-escalation
• prohibiting criminalisation of disability behaviours
• independent oversight
• a duty to consider cognitive load, sensory overwhelm, and processing delays
• national data transparency

6. Overhaul Exemptions (Employment, Education,

Religious, Insurance & Migration)

Exemptions currently undermine the integrity of the Act.

NeuroAccess 6

Reform requires:

• removing permanent exemptions
• strictly limiting temporary exemptions
• requiring evidence-based justification
• mandating accessibility impact assessments
• prohibiting exemptions that harm disabled children
• restricting insurance and migration discrimination
• enforcing transparency and lived experience oversight No sector should be allowed to discriminate simply because it has always done so.

7. Modernise Assistance Animal Protections The law must include a national, inclusive, behaviour- and task-based standard that:

• recognises psychiatric, sensory, and cognitive support roles
• includes self-trained dogs
• removes burdensome certification requirements
• protects handlers from harassment
• ensures consistent access across states and sectors Assistance animals are essential tools of independence, not privileges.

8. Make Disability Action Plans (DAPs) Mandatory

for Large Organisations

To generate systemic change, DAPs must:

• be mandatory for government, education, transport, healthcare, justice, and large employers

• include sensory, cognitive, and digital accessibility

• mandate lived experience co-design

• require annual reporting and leadership accountability Voluntary DAPs have failed.

9. Create New National Accessibility Standards Priority areas include:

NeuroAccess 7

• Neurodiversity & Cognitive Accessibility Standard
• Digital Accessibility Standard (expanded beyond WCAG)
• Workplace Accessibility Standard
• Healthcare Accessibility Standard These standards must be enforceable and regularly updated.

10. Regulate AI & Algorithmic Decision-Making

Under the DDA

AI systems already discriminate against disabled people in:

• hiring

• policing

• education

• welfare

• insurance

• healthcare The DDA must require:

• human rights impact assessments

• disability-inclusive training data

• transparency requirements

• human review of automated decisions

• prohibition on AI systems that penalise neurodivergent communication or embodiment

Digital discrimination is the new frontier of human rights.

11. Strengthen Digital Accessibility, Data

Governance & Privacy

The DDA must ensure:

• mandatory cognitive-accessibility requirements
• accessible government portals
• plain language design
• alternative authentication methods
• trauma-informed data collection
• disabled-led data governance Digital systems are now essential infrastructure. They must be accessible.

NeuroAccess 8

12. Address Cultural Ableism, Shame-Based

Systems & Internalised Harm

The DDA must recognise that discrimination is not only practical — it is cultural.

Disabled people face:

• masking pressure

• shame-based expectations

• workplace retaliation

• systems that require compliance at the expense of wellbeing

• environments that punish sensory or cognitive differences

• medical trauma and dismissal

• organisational norms that treat access needs as personal flaws Reform must address:

• dignity

• psychological safety

• trauma-informed practice

• intersectional discrimination

• neurodiversity-specific harms

• fatphobia and weight-based discrimination This is the missing piece in Australia’s disability equality landscape.

Conclusion

The DDA must evolve from a reactive, inconsistent, medicalised statute into a preventative, proactive, holistic human rights framework aligned with contemporary lived experience.

This Review is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform disability rights and create a future where:

• access is assumed
• accommodations are normalised
• shame is dismantled
• neurodivergence is understood
• systems are redesigned
• culture shifts
• technology supports rather than harms
• discrimination is prevented, not simply punished Australia can no longer afford incremental reform.

NeuroAccess 9

This is the moment for bold, structural change.

Annie Crowe

Human Rights Lawyer | Neurodiversity Advocate | Disability Consultant

Founder & Director, NeuroAccess

www.neuroaccess.com.au

NeuroAccess

10

2. TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

NUMBER

Executive Summary 4

Table of Contents 11 Introduction 12

Framing Principles for This Submission 13

PART 1: Updating Understandings of Disability and Disability 15

Discrimination

Responses To Questions 1-4

PART 2: Positive Duty to Eliminate Discrimination 22

Responses To Questions 5-8

PART 3: Inclusion In Employment, Education & Public Life 30

Responses To Questions 9-17

PART 4: Improving Access to Justice 42

Responses To Questions 18—22

PART 5: Exemptions 50

Responses To Questions 23-37

PART 6: Modernising The DDA 63

Responses To Questions 38-46

PART 7: Further Options for Reform 74

Responses To Questions 47-51

Consolidated Recommendations 88

Conclusion 91

NeuroAccess 11

INTRODUCTION

The DDA was groundbreaking in 1992. But in 2025, the world has changed.

We now understand:

• disability as socially constructed
• accessibility as a design responsibility, not a personal burden
• neurodivergence as a form of human variation, not pathology
• trauma, sensory processing and cognitive load as major factors in inclusion
• that power, culture and systemic design shape discrimination far more than personal prejudice

Despite this, disabled people must still constantly “prove” their disability, “justify” their access needs, and navigate systems built on scepticism, shame, and deficit.

Like thousands of disabled and neurodivergent people I support through NeuroAccess, I have lived the exhaustion, erasure, harm and gaslighting produced by systems that presume ability.

The DDA must evolve to reflect contemporary understandings, global standards, and lived experience.

It must shift from:

“What minimum harm must an organisation avoid?”

to

“How can organisations proactively uphold the dignity, rights and safety of disabled people?”

NeuroAccess 12

FRAMING PRINCIPLES FOR THIS

SUBMISSION

1. NeuroNeutrality: Language is access Language shapes perception, and perception shapes policy.

The DDA must align with language that:

• avoids deficit models
• avoids romanticised/superhuman narratives
• centres access needs, not assumptions
• recognises disability as a mismatch between people and systems
• uses neutral, factual phrasings that reduce shame This is essential for reducing stigma and supporting safe disclosure.

2. NeuroAccessibility: Access is not optional Access is not a “favour” or a “nice to have.”

It is:

• a rights-based obligation
• a leadership competency
• a cultural practice
• an everyday operational necessity The DDA must reflect this.

3. Trauma-informed, shame-aware design Systems that rely on disclosure, self-advocacy, confrontation or complaint inherently disadvantage disabled people.

4. Intersectionality must be explicit Multiple marginalisations compound discrimination in ways the current Act does not address.

5. Systems-first framing Discrimination is not an interpersonal problem — it is a systems design problem.

6. Accessibility must be anticipatory NeuroAccess 13

The current reactive model places unreasonable burdens on disabled people.

NeuroAccess 14

PART 1: RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION

QUESTIONS 1–4

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

Response

The definition of disability must reflect contemporary human rights principles, real world lived experience, and the evolving understanding of disability as an interaction between individuals and their environments.

As a human rights lawyer, Autistic ADHD woman, and someone with multiple chronic illnesses (including hEDS, POTS, lipoedema, diabetes, idiopathic intracranial hypertension, PCOS, HS, asthma, anxiety, PTSD and more), I strongly support a definition that:

A. Fully aligns with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)

The CRPD defines disability as arising from the interaction between impairments and barriers — social, attitudinal, institutional, environmental, sensory, cognitive and cultural.

Australia must adopt a definition that explicitly reflects this relational model.

B. Recognises disability as dynamic, fluctuating, and contextual Many disabilities (especially neurodivergence, chronic illness, pain conditions, sensory sensitivities, autoimmune conditions, trauma-related disabilities, fatigue based disabilities) are:

• episodic
• environment-dependent
• variable day to day
• impacted by culture, sensory load, cognitive load, and external stressors The current definition’s wording is outdated and fails to capture the lived reality of millions.

C. Explicitly includes neurodivergence and cognitive disability The Act should explicitly reference:

NeuroAccess 15

• Autism
• ADHD
• dyslexia and learning disabilities
• intellectual disability
• psychosocial disability
• trauma-related disability
• executive functioning and sensory processing differences
• cognitive energy limitations These are among the most commonly excluded or misunderstood disabilities in workplaces and public life.

D. Removes medicalised assumptions A modern definition should not rely on:

• diagnosis

• medical documentation

• permanence

• severity thresholds These criteria harm people with:

• invisible disabilities

• undiagnosed conditions

• fluctuating conditions

• marginalised community backgrounds who face barriers accessing diagnosis E. Centres access needs rather than impairment labels Annie’s concept of neuroaccessibility and the NeuroNeutrality framework both emphasise:

Access needs are universal — disability arises when environments are built for a narrow group and exclude others.

This principle should inform the legal definition.

F. Captures systemic and cultural barriers, not just functional limitations

Disability discrimination often arises not from a person’s body or mind, but from:

• organisational cultures
• inflexible systems
• harmful assumptions
• rigid workplace norms
• shame-based behavioural expectations
• inaccessible communication styles
• sensory and cognitive overload environments NeuroAccess 16

A definition must reflect this social and interactional dimension.

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

Response

1. Lived experience of disabled people (especially intersectional experiences)

People with multiple disabilities, multiple marginalisations, and fluctuating conditions must be at the centre of reform.

2. Neurodivergent and invisible disabilities Autism, ADHD, dyslexia, trauma, mental health conditions, and cognitive disabilities are commonly dismissed or disbelieved. Any definition that does not explicitly protect us enables ongoing discrimination.

3. Episodic and fluctuating disabilities These must be clearly included.

For example, people with POTS, hEDS, IIH, diabetes, autoimmune conditions, chronic pain and fatigue may:

• be fully capable one day
• and severely limited the next The definition must not require permanence or consistency.

4. Cultural, linguistic, environmental and sensory barriers Disability is not simply medical — it is created by:

• inaccessible communication
• sensory overload
• inflexible workplace cultures
• cognitive load
• shame and stigma
• power imbalances
• risk-averse managerial behaviours
• expectation of “professional” behaviour that masks disability

5. Neuroaccessibility & cognitive load NeuroAccess 17

Cognitive accessibility is not a niche area — it is the most common accessibility barrier for neurodivergent people.

Any definition must recognise:

• executive dysfunction
• sensory regulation difficulties
• decision fatigue
• attention variability
• overwhelm
• emotional dysregulation stemming from inaccessible environments

6. Intersectionality Disabled people who are also:

• women
• First Nations
• BIPOC
• LGBTQIA+
• low income
• trauma survivors experience compounded barriers.

7. Self-identification Self-recognition should be enough to be protected — not diagnosis.

8. Future-proofing Although we cannot yet imagine all future disability experiences (as technology, workplaces, and environments evolve), the definition must be flexible, adaptive, and principle-based.

Question 3 — Would the DDA be strengthened by expressly allowing claims for multiple or combined protected attributes?

Response

Absolutely — this is essential.

Intersectionality is not optional. It is the lived reality of disability.

NeuroAccess 18

As a fat, neurodivergent, disabled woman with chronic illnesses, I have personally experienced compounded discrimination that cannot be separated into neat categories. As have many of my clients.

For example:

• doctors dismissing symptoms as weight-related

• workplaces penalising Autistic communication as “unprofessional”

• ADHD-related executive challenges interpreted through sexist stereotypes

• trauma history influencing how authority figures respond

• neurodivergence amplified by chronic illness

• gender interacting with disability to create invisibility The current DDA forces people to artificially “choose” one ground of discrimination, which:

• distorts the harm

• hides patterns

• weakens case law

• erases experiences of people with multiple marginalisations A modern DDA must explicitly allow:

• intersectional discrimination claims

• combined attributes

• multiple forms of discrimination within a single event

• patterns of structural discrimination across protected categories This aligns with global best practice, including Canada, the UK, and the CRPD Committee’s recommendations.

Question 4 — How else could the DDA recognise and protect people with intersecting identities or compounding discrimination?

Response

1. Explicit statutory recognition of intersectionality The Act should contain direct reference to intersectional discrimination as:

a distinct and compounding form of disadvantage that requires tailored legal recognition.

2. Guidance for courts and tribunals Decision-makers must be instructed to:

NeuroAccess 19

• consider the cumulative effect of multiple attributes
• analyse the socio-cultural context of discrimination
• recognise structural drivers such as racism, fatphobia, sexism, classism, homophobia, and transphobia interacting with ableism

3. Data collection and transparency requirements Government agencies should be required to collect data on:

• intersectional discrimination
• outcomes by gender, race, neurotype, disability type, body size, and age
• patterns of complaint

4. Lived experience-led training for regulators, courts, and decision- makers

Training should include:

• neurodiversity-affirming approaches
• trauma-informed practice
• gender and body-size awareness
• cultural safety
• intersectionality 101

5. A positive duty framed around intersectional risk A proactive duty requires organisations to consider:

• barriers affecting women with ADHD
• sensory trauma responses of Autistic people
• racism in healthcare interacting with disability
• the impact of body-size discrimination on pain and mobility assessments

6. Recognition of internalised ableism and shame-based systems Intersections amplify internalised harm.

Disabled people with intersecting identities often:

• blame themselves
• mask more heavily
• delay seeking help
• self-advocate at personal risk The law must understand this dynamic.

7. Funding for intersectional advocacy support Especially:

NeuroAccess 20

• neurodivergent adults
• culturally and linguistically diverse disabled people
• fat disabled people
• women and gender-diverse disabled people
• First Nations disabled people

8. Remove diagnosis-based barriers Marginalised communities face the greatest barriers to diagnosis and formal recognition.

9. Promote access-needs-based framing Under NeuroNeutrality:

People should not need diagnostic labels to have their access needs taken seriously.

The DDA should embed this philosophy in:

• explanatory notes
• guidance materials
• tribunal directions
• training
• policy frameworks NeuroAccess 21

PART 2: RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS 5–8

Positive Duty to Eliminate Discrimination

Question 5 — Should the Disability Discrimination Act be amended to introduce a positive duty to eliminate disability discrimination?

Response

Yes. A positive duty is essential, overdue, and transformative.

Australia’s current approach places the entire burden of enforcement on disabled people — requiring us to:

• identify discrimination
• name it
• challenge power
• lodge complaints
• navigate conflict
• risk retaliation
• risk reputational harm
• expose our private information
• continually self-advocate
• often repeat trauma In practice, this means:

Disabled people must repeatedly suffer discrimination before we can even begin to seek protection from it.

This is not a functioning human rights model.

As a human rights lawyer and as someone who has helped thousands of disabled and neurodivergent adults advocate for themselves, I see daily the human cost of the current system:

• burnout
• fear
• masking
• shame
• financial instability
• professional stagnation
• health deterioration NeuroAccess 22

• trauma

• interpersonal conflict

• loss of trust in institutions A positive duty — similar to the existing duty in the Sex Discrimination Act (and in Victoria and the UK) — would:

• shift responsibility to organisations

• prevent harm before it occurs

• reduce the need for complaints

• create cultural change

• centre dignity and safety

• recognise that discrimination is systemic Why a positive duty is essential for neurodivergent people specifically

Autistic, ADHD, and other neurodivergent people face:

• cognitive overwhelm
• executive dysfunction
• sensory overload
• trauma histories
• deep fear of retaliation
• shame-based internalised ableism
• highly variable capacity from week to week
• difficulty navigating bureaucracy
• communication differences that are penalised Requiring these individuals to police their own rights is unethical and ineffective.

A positive duty is a matter of basic justice.

Question 6 — What should be included in a positive duty to eliminate disability discrimination?

Response

A positive duty must require organisations to take proactive, reasonable, anticipatory steps, explicitly including:

1. Identification and removal of systemic barriers Organisations must examine:

• physical environments
• sensory environments NeuroAccess 23

• policies
• digital access
• communication practices
• recruitment practices
• performance frameworks
• disciplinary systems
• cultural norms
• expectation of constant availability
• “professionalism” norms rooted in ableism and neuronormativity
• shame-based compliance cultures

2. Anticipatory accessibility Accessibility should be the default — not something that begins only after a request.

This includes:

• flexible work design
• multiple ways of communicating
• sensory-friendly environments
• quiet spaces
• predictable schedules
• trauma-informed practice
• cognitive accessibility
• plain-language communication
• universal design approaches
• accessible digital platforms

3. Leadership accountability Senior leaders must:

• undergo disability and neurodiversity training
• carry responsibility for cultural safety
• be assessed on accessibility outcomes
• integrate accessibility into organisational KPIs

4. Risk management framing Disability discrimination must be treated like any other corporate risk:

• preventable
• foreseeable
• measurable
• mitigatable

5. Requirements for consultation with disabled people Organisations must:

NeuroAccess 24

• co-design with disabled people
• consult during major decisions
• embed lived-experience leadership
• compensate disabled people for their labour

6. Aligning with NeuroNeutrality and access-needs-based language A positive duty must include requirements around:

• respectful, neutral language
• non-stigmatising frameworks
• removal of deficit-based descriptors
• access-needs-first framing

7. Documentation and reporting Organisations must demonstrate ongoing compliance through:

• accessibility action plans
• audits
• reporting obligations
• training records
• remediation plans

8. Specific coverage of intersectional harm Organisations must develop practices that recognise:

• gendered ableism
• fatphobia and weight stigma
• racism
• cultural safety
• neurodivergence
• trauma Disabled people exist at intersections, and the duty must reflect this.

Question 7 — What steps should duty holders be required to take to comply with a positive duty?

Response

The steps below ensure that accessibility becomes an everyday practice, not an afterthought.

1. Conduct accessibility and inclusion audits NeuroAccess 25

At least annually, covering:

• physical access
• sensory environments
• cognitive access
• digital platforms
• workplace culture
• recruitment and HR processes
• disciplinary and complaints processes
• leadership practices

2. Create and maintain a Disability Access & Inclusion Strategy This should include:

• measurable outcomes
• timelines
• accountability owners
• data collection
• consultation with disabled people

3. Proactively redesign systems with inclusion in mind This includes:

• Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in education
• flexible work policies
• accessible communications
• accessible performance frameworks
• accessible meetings
• predictable workflows

4. Embed neuroinclusive leadership practices As a consultant in this area, I emphasise:

• predictable communication
• reduced cognitive load
• clarity of expectations
• flexible timelines
• sensory safety
• consent-based collaboration
• psychological safety frameworks

5. Provide training across the organisation Specifically:

• disability rights NeuroAccess 26

• neurodivergence
• trauma-informed practice
• intersectionality
• accessible communication
• responding to access needs
• understanding sensory, cognitive and emotional regulation needs

6. Introduce mandatory accessible recruitment processes This includes:

• plain-language job ads
• flexible interview options
• removal of unnecessary criteria
• skill-based assessment rather than social performance
• trial periods instead of panel interviews

7. Establish safe, stigma-free processes for requesting adjustments All organisations should have:

• a single point of contact
• confidential processes
• clear timelines
• no requirement for diagnosis or medical proof
• presumptive acceptance (yes unless unreasonable)
• no penalties for needing support

8. Monitor compliance and publish outcomes Transparency drives cultural change.

Question 8 — How should compliance with a positive duty be regulated and enforced?

Response

A positive duty without enforcement is performative.

A duty with enforcement is transformative.

1. The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) should be the primary regulator.

Its powers should include:

NeuroAccess 27

• proactive compliance monitoring
• the ability to investigate systemic issues without a complaint
• authority to issue compliance notices
• binding undertakings
• enforceable guidelines
• capacity to audit high-risk sectors

2. Organisations should be required to demonstrate compliance This should include:

• annual reporting
• accessibility statements
• performance data
• workplace cultural metrics
• leadership accountability records

3. Complaints should still be allowed — but not required to trigger enforcement

Individual complaints should complement, not drive, enforcement.

4. The regulator should have the power to:

• issue improvement notices
• mandate training
• require cultural change initiatives
• impose penalties for repeated non-compliance
• intervene where there is systemic risk
• audit police, justice, education, health, and government

5. Enforcement should prioritise:

• sectors with documented systemic harm
• workplaces with repeated complaints
• educational institutions with high exclusion rates
• police and justice agencies
• large employers whose practices shape cultural norms

6. A human rights risk framework Regulatory action should be triggered by:

• foreseeable risk of discrimination
• patterns of harm
• unsafe organisational cultures
• inaccessible processes
• exclusionary disciplinary practices
• high turnover of disabled workers NeuroAccess 28

• high sick leave linked to stress, sensory overload, or burnout

7. Lived experience should be embedded into oversight Disabled people must be part of:

• advisory panels
• audits
• investigations
• policy development
• enforcement processes This ensures the positive duty reflects real-world needs.

NeuroAccess 29

PART 3: RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS 9–17

Encouraging Inclusion in Employment, Education & Public Life

Question 9 — How can the duty to provide reasonable adjustments be strengthened?

Response

The current duty is reactive, adversarial, and shame-based, placing an unreasonable burden on disabled people to:

• disclose, often at personal risk
• provide medical proof
• repeatedly self-advocate
• educate employers
• justify needs
• endure delay or denial
• manage conflict This approach is incompatible with modern understandings of disability, trauma, neurodivergence, and power dynamics.

A stronger duty must:

1. Require anticipatory accessibility Organisations should not wait for a disabled person to struggle, fail, or burn out before providing support.

Reasonable adjustments must become routine design considerations, not after-the-fact “exceptions.”

2. Remove excessive proof requirements Disabled people should never have to “prove” their disability through:

• medical certificates

• diagnostic paperwork

• “functional capacity” tests

• invasive personal information These requirements disproportionately harm:

• Autistic people NeuroAccess 30

• ADHDers
• traumatised people
• culturally diverse people
• fat and chronically ill people
• those who cannot access diagnosis
• people with episodic disabilities
• people facing disbelief or stigma Access should be based on self-reported needs, not medicalised gatekeeping.

3. Require timely implementation Delays can be discriminatory.

The Act should include mandatory timeframes (e.g., 14 days).

4. Require consultation with the disabled person Often adjustments fail because organisations impose solutions onto disabled people instead of with them.

5. Recognise that the absence of adjustments creates disability Under NeuroNeutrality and neuroaccessibility principles:

The environment causes the barrier. The person is not the problem.

This framing must underpin the legal duty.

6. Protect against retaliation, penalisation, and subtle punishment Many neurodivergent people fear requesting adjustments because:

• we risk being labelled “difficult”
• performance ratings drop
• we are seen as “not resilient”
• advancement opportunities are withdrawn The Act must explicitly prohibit both direct and indirect reprisals.

7. Expand the scope of adjustments Adjustments must explicitly include:

• sensory regulation supports
• communication preference supports
• flexibility around meetings
• predictable work hours
• written instructions NeuroAccess 31

• asynchronous communication
• autonomy in workflow
• seating/lighting changes
• access to quiet spaces
• paced workloads
• trauma-informed interactions

8. Require universal design principles Organisations should be obligated to consider accessibility in all planning.

Question 10 — Should the DDA clarify what constitutes a reasonable adjustment?

Response

Yes — with a modern, expansive, flexible definition.

Clarity prevents misuse, loopholes, and weaponisation.

Key elements must include:

1. Reasonable = does not cause disproportionate hardship Not:

• inconvenience
• change
• effort
• discomfort
• preference for “how things have always been”
• cultural norms about “professionalism”
• managerial dislike
• unfamiliarity or uncertainty
• myths about “fairness”
• toxic productivity culture

2. Adjustments are not special treatment They are equalisation mechanisms.

3. Adjustments must consider:

• sensory needs
• cognitive load
• executive functioning NeuroAccess 32

• emotional regulation
• trauma history
• communication differences
• fluctuation and episodic disability

4. Adjustments must include access to psychological safety Neurodivergent people often need:

• clarity
• predictability
• compassionate communication
• reduced ambiguity
• supportive leadership
• trauma-informed interactions These are as important as physical changes.

5. No medical proof requirements Disability should not require professional certification.

6. Normalising adjustments for everyone Many adjustments improve productivity for the entire workforce.

Question 11 — Should the duty to provide adjustments be reframed as a proactive duty?

Response

Yes — absolutely

The reactive model is failing.

A proactive duty would:

• eliminate repeated self-advocacy
• reduce conflict
• support early intervention
• reduce burnout and trauma
• create cultural transformation
• align with the CRPD
• reduce harm to Autistic, ADHD, traumatised and chronically ill people NeuroAccess 33

Right now, organisations wait until people are struggling, underperforming, or burnt out before offering support — often too late.

A proactive duty is the only ethical approach.

Question 12 — Should the definition of unjustifiable hardship be amended?

Response:

Yes. It must be significantly tightened.

In practice, “unjustifiable hardship” is overused and poorly understood.

Current issues:

• too broad
• too open to interpretation
• used defensively to avoid adjustments
• based on cost, not rights
• influenced by unconscious ableism
• allows organisations to prioritise convenience and culture over access Reform needed:

1. Hardship must be significant and demonstrable Not hypothetical or based on discomfort, tradition, or fear.

2. Hardship must require high evidence Not assumptions.

3. Hardship must consider long-term benefits Accessible workplaces have:

• higher retention
• lower turnover
• better morale
• improved productivity

4. Hardship must never justify:

• sensory overload NeuroAccess 34

• inaccessible meetings
• rigid hours
• lack of flexibility
• inaccessible communication
• harmful disciplinary processes
• biased recruitment

5. Hardship must be weighed against human rights Not just financial factors.

Question 13 — Should the considerations for determining unjustifiable hardship be expanded or refined?

Response

Refinements needed:

1. Consideration of organisational size, resources, and creativity Large entities should be held to higher standards.

2. Requirement to prove alternatives were explored Organisations must show:

• they consulted with the disabled person
• they sought solutions
• they attempted multiple options
• they assessed work redesign
• they engaged accessibility expertise

3. Consideration of systemic discrimination patterns If an organisation repeatedly rejects adjustments, hardship claims should be scrutinised.

4. Consideration of cognitive and sensory environments Hardship should not be applied to:

• noise reduction
• lighting changes
• flexible timing
• communication accessibility
• workflow adjustments NeuroAccess 35

These are low-cost changes.

Question 14 — Should the DDA provide further guidance on determining the inherent requirements of work?

Response

Yes — urgently.

“Inherent requirements” is one of the most misused concepts in disability law.

As a lawyer and consultant, I see it weaponised to justify:

• inflexibility
• discrimination dressed as “job requirements”
• outdated work norms
• overemphasis on social performance
• unnecessary sensory or cognitive demands
• arbitrary “full-time” expectations
• unquestioned cultural norms Guidance must clarify that inherent requirements:

1. Are the core tasks — not the way tasks have traditionally been done.

E.g.:

• attending a meeting is not an inherent requirement
• contributing to a meeting’s purpose is

2. Must be analysed through a flexibility lens “What are the outcomes?”

not

“What is the usual way?”

3. Cannot include:

• resilience
• “culture fit” NeuroAccess 36

• “communication style”
• “professionalism” norms
• speed
• extroversion
• emotional neutrality
• masking
• multitasking
• “presence”

4. Must consider reasonable adjustments first A task is not inherent unless:

• it cannot be redesigned
• cannot be delegated
• cannot be shared
• cannot be accommodated

5. Must not include discriminatory barriers Especially norms built on neurotypical expectations.

Question 15 — What additional factors should employers consider when assessing whether a person with disability can perform inherent requirements?

Response

Employers must consider:

1. Whether the environment itself is disabling If a worker cannot function in:

• fluorescent lighting
• noisy open-plan offices
• unpredictable environments
• chaotic cultures the solution is environmental change, not exclusion.

2. Whether the barrier is organisational, not personal Often “inability” reflects:

• poor leadership NeuroAccess 37

• unclear expectations
• sensory overload
• inaccessible communication
• unrealistic deadlines

3. The benefits of neurodivergent strengths Autistic and ADHD workers bring:

• creativity
• systems thinking
• pattern recognition
• honesty
• innovation
• strategic analysis
• deep focus
• alternative perspectives

4. Fluctuation and episodic disability A person may meet requirements:

• on some days
• with support
• with pacing
• with autonomy

5. The impact of trauma and shame Many disabled people have experienced prolonged workplace harm that affects confidence and performance.

6. Anti-discrimination principles Employers must interpret inherent requirements through a rights-based lens.

Question 16 — Should the DDA include specific protections relating to exclusionary discipline and suspension?

Response

Yes.

NeuroAccess 38

Disabled children — especially Autistic, ADHD, intellectually disabled, traumatised and dysregulated children — are suspended at dramatically higher rates.

This is a human rights violation.

Suspensions often reflect:

• sensory dysregulation
• unmet access needs
• trauma responses
• executive function overwhelm
• communication differences
• lack of teacher training
• inaccessible classrooms
• rigid behavioural expectations
• systemic ableism Not “wilful” misconduct.

The DDA must prohibit:

• behaviour-only interpretations of disability

• punishment for disability-related behaviours

• exclusion as a first response

• disciplinary action without reasonable adjustments

• humiliation-based behaviour management

• “zero tolerance” policies that reinforce trauma Schools must be required to:

• implement positive behaviour support

• use trauma-informed approaches

• provide sensory supports

• include neurodiversity-affirming practices

• adjust expectations

• consult parents and students

• collect data on exclusions

• be audited if exclusion rates are high Question 17 — What changes could be made to better protect students with disability from suspension and exclusion?

Response

NeuroAccess 39

1. Mandatory neurodiversity-affirming, trauma-informed training for all educators

Punishment-first approaches harm disabled children.

2. Require schools to exhaust adjustments before considering exclusion

Suspension cannot be the first step.

3. Require documented evidence of adjustments trialled Schools must show they tried:

• sensory supports
• predictable routines
• communication supports
• breaks
• reduced workload
• safe rooms
• flexible expectations
• trauma-informed response
• positive behaviour support

4. Ban suspensions for disability-related behaviours Including:

• meltdowns
• shutdowns
• sensory overwhelm
• dysregulation
• impulsivity
• communication differences
• fidgeting
• stimming

5. Require co-designed support plans Students, families, and specialists must be involved.

6. Independent oversight and reporting Schools with high disability exclusion rates must be investigated.

7. Protect students from stigma and ableist attitudes Students must not be labelled “disruptive,” “defiant,” or “too complex.”

NeuroAccess 40

8. Embed rights-based frameworks Children must learn in environments where dignity and inclusion are protected.

NeuroAccess 41

PART 4: RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS 18–22

Improving Access to Justice

Question 18 — Should the Disability Discrimination Act include protections against disability vilification?

Response

Yes — this is urgently needed.

Disability vilification is widespread in Australia, yet currently not explicitly unlawful under the DDA.

As a disabled, neurodivergent woman with intersecting identities — and as someone who supports thousands of disabled and neurodivergent adults — I see constant examples of:

• online harassment
• mocking of autistic or ADHD traits
• fatphobic ableism masquerading as “health concern”
• dismissal of cognitive or communication differences
• derogatory memes
• dehumanising language
• ridicule and bullying in workplaces
• slurs
• infantilisation
• denial of credibility due to disability
• sensationalised media coverage
• “inspiration porn” narratives
• depictions of disabled people as burdens
• blaming disabled people for needing accommodations The lack of legal consequences has normalised this abuse.

Vilification causes real harm:

• trauma
• fear of disclosure
• masking
• self-silencing
• social isolation
• mental health deterioration
• withdrawal from work, education, and public life
• internalised ableism NeuroAccess 42

• physical health impacts through chronic stress Vilification contributes to discrimination.

It shapes public attitudes, workplace culture, and institutional behaviour.

Why explicit protections are essential:

• Disabled people experience higher rates of abuse than any other minority group.

• Neurodivergent people are regularly mocked for behaviours they cannot control.

• Fat disabled people face rampant dehumanisation.

• Disabled people of colour are targeted at intersectional margins.

• Women and gender diverse disabled people face uniquely gendered vilification.

• Online environments amplify abuse without consequence. The Act must prohibit:

• public acts that incite hatred

• public acts that incite ridicule, contempt, or severe mockery

• online vilification

• workplace-based ridicule

• demeaning representations in media and public discourse

• repeated behaviours creating a hostile environment This aligns with protections already afforded for:

• race

• religion

• sexuality Disabled people deserve equal protection.

Question 19 — Should the Act include provisions against offensive behaviour based on disability?

Response

Yes. Offensive behaviour protections are critical.

“Offensive behaviour” should capture conduct that:

• humiliates
• degrades NeuroAccess 43

• belittles
• intimidates
• singles out disability
• targets disability-related traits
• mocks movement, speech, or sensory differences
• weaponises diagnostic labels
• uses demeaning stereotypes
• utilises inappropriate or coercive “jokes”
• exposes disabled people to public embarrassment
• creates unsafe or hostile environments This is not about policing hurt feelings — it is about protecting human dignity.

Examples from lived experience and client accounts:

• Workplace managers mocking ADHD forgetfulness

• Teachers imitating autistic students’ stimming or tone

• Colleagues calling disabled workers “fragile,” “dramatic,” “too sensitive,” or “not resilient”

• Staff describing accommodations as “special treatment”

• Health practitioners openly rolling their eyes at pain complaints

• Supervisors telling neurodivergent employees to “just try harder” or “stop being difficult”

• Online mockery of meltdowns or sensory sensitivities

• Public shaming of disabled people using mobility devices Neurodivergent and invisible disabilities are particularly targeted because traits are misunderstood and moralised.

Disability-based offensive behaviour should be explicitly unlawful because:

• It contributes to systemic exclusion
• It harms workplace culture
• It reinforces stigma
• It causes self-protective masking (which is harmful)
• It undermines mental health
• It discourages help-seeking
• It leads to poorer life outcomes A modern Act must recognise that access to dignity is a human right.

Question 20 — How should these protections be framed to balance freedom of speech and protection from harm?

Response

NeuroAccess 44

The correct balance focuses on harm, not disagreement.

Freedom of speech does not include:

• harassment
• intimidation
• hate
• bullying
• humiliation
• targeted demeaning conduct
• public incitement of contempt
• conduct that foreseeably harms health and safety A balanced framework should:

1. Require conduct to be public, targeted, and harmful This aligns with other anti-vilification laws.

2. Exclude:

• academic debate
• discussion of public policy
• disagreement about funding or policy directions
• neutral or factual commentary
• good-faith communication

3. Focus on:

• intent or effect
• foreseeable harm
• patterns of conduct
• the reasonable person test
• context (power imbalance, history of discrimination)

4. Require that protections be interpreted through lived experience Disabled people are the experts on what harms us.

5. Apply the standard equally across attributes Disability should not be treated as less worthy of protection.

6. Protect autistic and neurodivergent communication styles NeuroAccess 45

Sometimes our speech is direct, literal, or blunt. This must not be misinterpreted as offensive behaviour by us. The law should protect disabled people as targets, not identify us as perpetrators for being disabled.

Question 21 — Should the definition of “services” be amended to clarify that services provided by police officers are covered?

Response

Yes. This is essential and non-negotiable.

Disabled people face disproportionate harm in policing contexts.

As a human rights lawyer and disability advocate, I see the same patterns across Australia:

• Autistic people misunderstood as “non-compliant”

• ADHD impulsivity interpreted as aggression

• sensory overload triggering panic responses that escalate police intervention

• mental health crises met with force, not care

• disabled people restrained unsafely

• people with chronic illness dismissed

• fat disabled people stereotyped as resistant or aggressive

• people in pain treated as drug-seeking

• communication differences misinterpreted as defiance

• people with POTS, collapses, or fainting perceived as “dramatic”

• disability-related distress treated as threat The consequences are often:

• injury

• trauma

• hospitalisation

• criminalisation

• fatal outcomes The law must explicitly state that:

Police and emergency responders provide “services” and are fully subject to the DDA.

Why explicit clarity is required:

NeuroAccess 46

• Police often argue they are exempt due to “operational decisions”
• Disabled people fear contacting police for help
• Complaints are routinely dismissed
• Police training on disability is inadequate
• The Disability Royal Commission findings demand reform
• Intersectional harm (e.g., disabled First Nations people) is severe and well- documented

Clarifying that policing is subject to anti-discrimination law would save lives.

Question 22 — How should the Act address discrimination in policing contexts?

Response

1. Explicit coverage of police as service providers This ensures disabled people can bring complaints, seek remedy, and access justice.

2. Mandatory disability and neurodiversity training for all police Training must include:

• autism
• ADHD
• intellectual disability
• sensory overload
• communication differences
• trauma responses
• mental health crises
• fatigue and chronic illness
• de-escalation techniques
• intersectional discrimination
• fat bodies and disability realities
• unconscious bias

3. Use-of-force policies must incorporate disability considerations Officers must be trained to identify:

• shutdowns
• meltdowns
• panic attacks
• dissociation
• freeze responses NeuroAccess 47

• auditory processing delays
• chronic pain collapses
• non-verbal communication
• fatigue or medical episodes

4. Independent oversight for police disability discrimination Complaints should not be internally investigated by the same institution accused of harm.

5. Prohibit criminalisation of disability-related behaviours Examples:

• stimming
• pacing
• rocking
• non-compliance due to overwhelm
• collapse from medical conditions
• slow or delayed responses
• inability to interpret commands under sensory overload

6. Require reasonable adjustments in policing interactions This includes:

• lowering volume
• reducing sensory stimuli
• allowing extra processing time
• avoiding physical contact unless absolutely necessary
• providing quiet spaces
• adapting communication style
• ensuring support persons or advocates are present

7. Data collection and transparency Police forces should collect and publish:

• disability-related incidents
• complaints
• outcomes
• use-of-force statistics
• training compliance rates

8. Codify a duty to preserve dignity Disability justice must be foundational to policing, not incidental.

NeuroAccess 48

PART 5: RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS 23–37

Exemptions — Why They Are Failing Disabled People, and How They

Must Be Reformed

This section is critical, because exemptions are where the DDA is most routinely undermined, misapplied, and used to justify discrimination.

Question 23 — Should permanent exemptions be removed from the DDA?

Response

Yes — permanent exemptions should be removed.

Permanent exemptions:

• undermine the purpose of the Act
• entrench assumptions that certain sectors are above accountability
• enable systemic discrimination
• contradict the CRPD
• send a public signal that disabled people do not deserve full protection
• create gaps where harm can flourish
• disproportionately affect those with invisible, complex, fluctuating or neurodivergent disabilities

Permanent exemptions create a two-tier system of rights:

1. Rights that can be relied upon.
2. Rights that can be overridden. Disabled people consistently fall into the second category.

Why they must go:

• “Permanent” suggests disabled people will forever be treated as exceptions
• Exemptions are used to justify outdated practices
• They reduce public trust in the policy and justice system
• They contradict Australia’s obligations under international law
• They harm those already marginalised Removing permanent exemptions will strengthen accountability, compliance and cultural change.

NeuroAccess 49

Question 24 — Should temporary exemptions be retained? If so, under what conditions?

Response

Yes — but with strict limits, strong oversight, and clear justification.

Temporary exemptions may be appropriate only when:

• they facilitate innovation
• they support transition to new systems
• they allow time for organisations to become compliant
• they are short-term
• they require clear evidence
• they include strict conditions
• they do not reduce human rights Temporary exemptions must:

1. Be genuinely temporary Maximum timeframe: 2 years, renewable only once with strict justification.

2. Require a detailed accessibility impact assessment Organisations must demonstrate:

• why the exemption is necessary
• what alternatives were explored
• how disabled people were consulted
• how harm will be mitigated

3. Be reviewed by the AHRC with lived experience input Decisions must be shaped by the people impacted.

4. Be publicly reported and transparent Disabled people should not unknowingly engage with inaccessible or exempt services.

5. Not undermine core disability rights Some rights must be non-derogable.

NeuroAccess 50

Question 25 — Should the DDA require a more rigorous approach to granting exemptions?

Response

Yes, the current process is far too relaxed and permissive.

A more rigorous approach must include:

1. Burden of proof on the applicant Organisations must provide substantial evidence, not assumptions or convenience based arguments.

2. Demonstration of good-faith attempts to comply They must show:

• attempts at universal design
• trialling adjustments
• redesigning practices
• consulting disabled people
• falling short only due to genuine barriers

3. Mandatory accessibility impact assessment Applicants must assess:

• short- and long-term harm
• disproportionate impact on neurodivergent and invisible disabilities
• intersectionality
• safeguards

4. Public consultation Impacted communities must have the chance to respond.

5. Strict time limits No open-ended exemptions.

6. Lived experience representation in decisions Disabled people must have influence in outcomes.

NeuroAccess 51

Question 26 — Should the process for granting exemptions be more transparent? How?

Response

Yes, full transparency is essential.

Disabled people cannot navigate systems they cannot see.

Transparency mechanisms must include:

1. Public listing of all exemptions Including:

• applicant
• reason
• duration
• scope
• limitations
• conditions
• accessibility impact assessment
• lived experience input

2. Notification to affected communities Exemptions should be communicated through:

• disability organisations
• advocacy networks
• relevant stakeholders

3. Annual reporting The AHRC should publish:

• total exemptions granted
• reasons
• sectors
• compliance with conditions
• outcomes

4. Independent review Annual audit of decision-making.

Transparency protects rights, builds trust, and prevents abuse.

NeuroAccess 52

Question 27 — Should specific permanent exemptions continue? If so, which?

Response

None should continue as they currently stand.

Permanent exemptions severely weaken the DDA.

However, some areas may require carefully limited carve-outs ONLY where:

• the exemption protects a legitimate competing right

• the exemption is aligned with human rights principles

• the exemption is necessary and proportionate

• the exemption includes safeguards

• the exemption does not enable systemic discrimination Examples of areas requiring careful balancing:

• religious freedoms (but NOT at the expense of disabled children or adults)

• health and safety (but NOT vague “risk-based” justifications used to exclude disabled people)

• insurance (but NOT discriminatory actuarial generalisations) Current exemptions are far too broad and misused. They must be:

• rewritten

• limited

• subject to oversight

• tied to evidence

• regularly reviewed Disabled people deserve more than blanket exclusions.

Question 28 — Should any existing permanent exemptions be limited in scope or subject to safeguards?

Response

Yes.

Permanent exemptions requiring major limitation include:

NeuroAccess 53

1. Employment-related exemptions Often used to:

• justify not hiring disabled people

• avoid providing adjustments

• cite safety concerns without evidence

• misuse inherent requirements Safeguards needed:

• evidence-based risk assessments

• documentation of attempted adjustments

• oversight by the AHRC

2. Insurance exemptions Currently allow actuarial discrimination based on generalities.

Safeguards needed:

• require individualised assessment

• prohibit assumptions about neurodivergence, fatness, mental health, chronic illness

• require disclosure of actuarial data when citing risk

3. Religious exemptions These often harm disabled students, staff, and service users.

Safeguards:

• cannot be used to justify exclusion of disabled people
• cannot override safety or wellbeing
• require harm-minimisation plans

4. Migration exemptions The Migration Act allows discrimination on the basis of disability.

This is one of Australia’s most shameful practices.

Safeguards:

• must align with the CRPD
• cannot exclude disabled migrants on cost grounds alone
• require human rights assessments NeuroAccess 54

Question 29 — What reforms are needed to ensure exemptions are not misused?

Response

1. High evidence threshold Assumptions and stereotypes should never justify an exemption.

2. Explicit prohibition on discriminatory motives No exemption may be used to:

• avoid costs
• preserve tradition
• maintain convenience
• protect biased cultural norms
• sustain shame-based compliance cultures

3. Mandatory consultation with disabled people Nothing about us without us.

4. Regular time-limited review Every exemption must expire unless renewed with strict evidence.

5. Public accountability mechanisms Sunlight prevents misuse.

6. Alignment with CRPD International human rights standards must guide decisions.

7. Prohibit exemptions that disproportionately harm marginalised groups

Including:

• neurodivergent people
• fat disabled people
• First Nations and BIPOC disabled people
• chronically ill people
• gender-diverse disabled people

8. Cultural and systemic analysis NeuroAccess 55

Exemptions must not reinforce systemic ableism.

Question 30 — Should the Act include a requirement that any exemption must be consistent with the objects of the Act?

Response

Yes.

It is illogical and unethical to allow exemptions that contradict the Act’s purpose.

Requiring consistency with:

• equality
• accessibility
• non-discrimination
• full participation
• dignity
• autonomy ensures the Act remains coherent and principled.

Question 31 — Should religious bodies continue to receive exemptions from disability discrimination law?

Response

Not in their current form.

Religious exemptions currently allow:

• exclusion of disabled students
• refusal to enrol neurodivergent or chronically ill children
• discriminatory employment practices
• withholding of reasonable adjustments
• harmful behaviour justified by “belief”
• forced withdrawal due to inadequate support
• shame-based messaging This is incompatible with:

NeuroAccess 56

• human rights

• the CRPD

• modern community expectations

• lived experience evidence

• trauma-informed principles Religious bodies may only receive exemptions when:

• they can demonstrate genuine doctrinal necessity

• the exemption does not harm disabled children or adults

• access needs are still met

• adjustments are still provided

• the exemption is narrow, time-limited, and subject to oversight Children’s rights must always supersede institutional preference.

Question 32 — Should the religious bodies exemption be removed entirely?

Response

Ideally, yes.

A human rights system must not allow discrimination against disabled people on the basis of religious doctrine.

However, if an exemption remains:

• it must be extremely narrow

• it must not affect access to education, healthcare, employment, or essential services

• it must not justify refusal of accommodations

• it must not enable exclusionary discipline

• it must protect disabled LGBTQIA+ individuals

• it must be regularly reviewed

• it must require harm minimisation Question 33 — Should there be specific limitations on the religious exemption to protect disabled people?

Response

NeuroAccess 57

Yes. Specific, strong, enforceable limitations.

Protections must include:

1. No discrimination in education Disabled children must be safe and included.

2. No discrimination in employment Disabled teachers, staff or volunteers must be protected.

3. No refusal of adjustments Religion cannot override access needs.

4. No discriminatory enrolment practices No more excluding Autistic or ADHD children because they require “too much support.”

5. No harmful behavioural expectations Neurodivergent behaviours must not be punished under the guise of doctrine.

6. No humiliation or shame-based discipline Particularly important for trauma survivors.

Question 34 — Should insurance exemptions be changed? How?

Response

Yes. The insurance exemption is outdated, harmful, and discriminatory.

Insurers routinely discriminate against:

• Autistic people
• ADHDers
• fat people
• people with chronic illnesses
• people with mental health conditions NeuroAccess 58

often with no actuarial basis.

Reforms needed:

1. Require evidence-based assessment Insurers must provide data when citing risk.

2. Prohibit blanket exclusions Each person must be assessed individually.

3. Restrict use of diagnosis as a proxy A label is not a risk.

4. Prohibit discrimination based on size, neurodivergence, mental health or chronic illness without strong actuarial justification

5. Provide appeals and oversight AHRC oversight is essential.

Question 35 — Should the insurance exemption be removed entirely?

Response

Yes, unless the industry can prove that discrimination is scientifically necessary.

Most current insurance discrimination is:

• arbitrary
• outdated
• based on stigma
• rooted in fatphobia
• rooted in mental-health stigma
• based on assumptions about autism and ADHD
• not aligned with current research The default should be protection, not exemption.

NeuroAccess 59

Question 36 — Should there be exemptions relating to migration decisions?

Response

No.

Disabled people should not be considered:

• burdens

• costs

• liabilities

• undesirable This violates:

• the CRPD

• basic human rights

• dignity

• modern values

• evidence about our contributions Discrimination in migration harms:

• disabled migrants

• disabled children

• culturally diverse communities

• families

• Australia’s international reputation Question 37 — Should migration exemptions be modified or restricted? If so, how?

Response

Yes. Until removal is achieved, strict safeguards are necessary.

Safeguards include:

• no exclusion based solely on diagnosis
• no cost-based exclusions
• require human rights assessments
• require lived experience consultation NeuroAccess 60

• require evidence-based justification
• require transparency
• prohibit discrimination against disabled children
• allow appeals with advocacy support
• ensure decisions align with the CRPD NeuroAccess 61

PART 6: RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS 38–46

Modernising the DDA — Assistance Animals, Action Plans, Digital

Accessibility & Disability Standards

Question 38 — Should the definition of “assistance animal” be updated? If so, how?

Response

Yes. The definition must be modernised, expanded, and aligned with lived experience.

The current definition is:

• outdated
• overly narrow
• medically gatekept
• inconsistently interpreted
• discriminates against people with non-physical disabilities
• disadvantages neurodivergent people
• excludes legitimate assistance animals trained outside traditional programs A modern definition must:

1. Recognise psychiatric, sensory, cognitive & neurological disabilities

Under the current system, many Autistic, ADHD, PTSD, chronic illness, and psychiatric disabled people are excluded simply because their access needs are not physical.

Neurodivergent people often rely on assistance dogs for:

• emotional regulation
• sensory regulation
• panic interruption
• mobility support
• executive function support
• meltdown prevention
• dissociation interruption
• chronic pain support
• medical alerts NeuroAccess 62

These should be recognised as legitimate.

2. Remove the requirement for “certification” Certification pathways are:

• inconsistent between states
• inaccessible
• expensive
• lacking national standards
• often biased against mental health and neurodivergent needs Instead, the Act should ask:

Is the animal trained to perform specific disability-related tasks that mitigate functional impairment?

3. Recognise multiple types of animals and training pathways Many disabled people train their own dogs with professional support because fully trained assistance dogs cost $40,000+.

The DDA should explicitly allow:

• self-trained assistance animals
• collaboratively trained animals
• multiple recognised training pathways
• individualised plans

4. Introduce a national, unified standard for assessment (NOT certification)

Assessment should be:

• behaviour-based
• task-based
• disability-inclusive
• trauma-informed
• nationally consistent
• focused on safety, not bureaucracy

5. Protect handlers from discrimination Handlers must not be:

• questioned excessively
• required to prove diagnosis
• denied access due to ignorance
• asked intrusive or humiliating questions NeuroAccess 63

6. Clarify obligations for businesses and public agencies They must allow access unless there is a clear, demonstrable, evidence-based safety risk, not vague discomfort or preference.

Question 39 — Should the DDA require a national framework for recognising assistance animals? What should it include?

Response

Yes, a national framework is essential.

Currently, Australia has a confusing patchwork of state and territory laws. This creates:

• public misunderstanding
• inconsistent access
• barriers for travellers
• discrimination in housing, transport and workplaces
• additional stress for disabled people A national framework should include:

1. A clear, inclusive definition Recognising:

• psychiatric assistance animals
• sensory assistance animals
• mobility support
• executive-function support
• episodic disability support
• medical alert and medical response tasks

2. A uniform behavioural and task-based assessment Assess Safety + Task Relevance, NOT handler diagnosis.

3. Trauma-informed, neurodivergence-affirming assessors Many current assessors lack training in autism, ADHD, trauma, or psychiatric disability.

4. Privacy protections NeuroAccess 64

Handlers must not be forced to disclose disability details.

5. Strong anti-discrimination protections Penalties for:

• refusing access
• harassing handlers
• demanding proof beyond what the law requires

6. National identification that is standardised, not medicalised Simple, accessible, low-cost.

7. Housing protections Ban discriminatory clauses in rentals and strata.

8. Workplace protections Require reasonable adjustments for employees with assistance animals.

Question 40 — Should disability action plans (DAPs) remain voluntary or become mandatory for certain sectors?

Response

DAPs should be mandatory for all large public facing organisations and government agencies.

Voluntary participation has not worked.

The majority of organisations:

• do not have DAPs
• do not follow them
• do not update them
• treat them as performative paperwork
• fail to consult disabled people
• ignore cognitive and sensory access
• do not integrate neurodiversity into planning DAPs should be mandatory in:

NeuroAccess 65

• government agencies
• public transport systems
• schools and universities
• police, justice and courts
• hospitals and healthcare services
• large workplaces (250+ employees)
• large retailers
• major events and venues Why?

Because these sectors:

• shape cultural norms

• enact the majority of disability discrimination

• affect public life

• hold systemic power

• impact safety, mobility, employment and wellbeing Mandatory DAP requirements must include:

• annual reporting

• consultation with disabled and neurodivergent people

• universal design

• cognitive and sensory accessibility

• proactive accessibility planning

• workforce training

• complaint data tracking

• leadership accountability Question 41 — What improvements should be made to the DAP framework?

Response

1. Require detailed action, not vague commitments Many current plans contain ambiguous goals like “explore accessibility improvements.”

Plans must specify:

• WHAT will be done
• HOW it will be done
• WHEN
• WHO is responsible NeuroAccess 66

2. Mandatory consultation with lived-experience experts Not just disability organisations — disabled people themselves.

3. Include metrics for:

• sensory access
• cognitive access
• digital accessibility
• neuroinclusive leadership
• accessibility of internal processes (e.g., meetings, evaluations, workplace norms)

4. Require reporting of discrimination incidents Track patterns in:

• complaints
• adjustments
• refusals
• staff turnover
• sick leave
• burnout

5. Integrate NeuroNeutrality principles DAPs should commit to:

• access-needs-based language
• non-stigmatising communication
• cultural safety
• reducing shame-based systems

6. Require leadership training Especially for:

• managers
• HR
• frontline staff
• educators
• police
• healthcare professionals

7. Enforce consequences for non-compliance DAPs mean nothing without enforcement.

NeuroAccess 67

Question 42 — Should the DDA encourage or require co design with people with disability?

Response

Yes. This should be a requirement, not a suggestion.

Co-design is not optional.

Why?

Because disabled people understand:

• barriers
• sensory load
• cognitive load
• power dynamics
• trauma
• stigma
• masking
• lived harm in ways that organisations cannot.

Co-design must:

• involve disabled people from the beginning
• be compensated
• involve people with diverse disabilities
• include neurodivergent voices
• be trauma-informed
• be culturally safe
• include intersectional representation
• influence decisions, not just “consultation theatre” Question 43 — Are the current disability standards adequate?

Response

NeuroAccess 68

No, the current standards are outdated and deeply inadequate.

Key issues:

1. They focus on physical and sensory access — not cognitive or neurocognitive access

But the majority of disabled people face:

• sensory overload
• cognitive fatigue
• executive dysfunction
• information processing barriers Current standards ignore this.

2. They do not reflect modern understandings of neurodiversity They assume a narrow “typical” user.

3. They are not trauma-informed Many disabled people experience trauma in education, healthcare, policing, public spaces, and workplaces.

4. Enforcement is weak Organisations routinely ignore standards with little consequence.

5. They fail to address systemic discrimination Focusing on physical ramps — while important — ignores broader cultural and structural barriers.

Question 44 — What new or updated standards might be needed?

Response

Australia urgently needs new standards including:

1. Neurodiversity & Cognitive Accessibility Standards NeuroAccess 69

Covering:

• sensory environments
• predictable processes
• communication accessibility
• low-demand service design
• trauma-informed approaches
• universal design for learning
• workplace neuroinclusion
• cognitive load reduction This standard alone would revolutionise access.

2. Digital Accessibility Standards (updated) Many current sites are not WCAG compliant.

Additionally, they must include:

• plain language
• low cognitive load layouts
• alternative formats
• predictable navigation
• accessible forms and portals

3. Healthcare Accessibility Standards Including:

• no-fatphobia policies
• chronic illness access
• trauma-informed care
• sensory accessibility
• communication supports
• accessible appointment systems

4. Workplace Accessibility Standards Covering:

• flexible work by default
• sensory-friendly offices
• alternative communication pathways
• accessible recruitment
• neuroinclusive leadership practices

5. Education Standards update Addressing:

NeuroAccess 70

• inclusive practice
• removal of punitive behaviour systems
• sensory supports
• trauma-informed classroom strategies
• adjustments for executive function

6. Public Transport & Built Environment (updated) Needs stronger enforcement and alignment with universal design.

Question 45 — Should existing standards be updated more regularly?

Response

Yes.

Technology, research, and community understanding evolve rapidly.

Standards should be:

• reviewed every 3 years
• co-designed with disabled people
• aligned with international guidelines
• responsive to new evidence
• adaptable
• enforceable Question 46 — Should the DDA encourage or require certain sectors to develop their own accessibility standards?

Response

Yes.

Certain sectors have unique needs and high discrimination risk, including:

• police and justice
• healthcare
• education
• employment NeuroAccess 71

• housing
• transport
• digital services
• events and entertainment
• higher education
• government service delivery However:

Sector-led standards must NOT replace national standards — they must build on them.

Requirements for sector standards:

• co-designed with lived experience
• overseen by the AHRC
• enforceable
• public
• regularly reviewed
• aligned with universal design
• accessible to people with cognitive disabilities
• trauma-informed
• intersectionally inclusive NeuroAccess 72

PART 7: RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS 47–51

Future Reform: The Next Era of Disability Rights, Systemic

Transformation & Neurodiversity-Inclusive Policy

Question 47 — What other changes could improve the effectiveness of the DDA?

Response

The DDA needs a structural transformation, not just incremental updates.

Australia’s disability discrimination system is currently:

• reactive
• individualised
• medicalised
• traumatising
• inaccessible
• slow
• biased toward organisations
• reliant on complaint-driven enforcement
• rooted in outdated understandings
• not aligned with CRPD obligations To be effective, the DDA must undergo a paradigm shift.

A. Shift from a reactive model to a preventative model

The DDA should operate like:

• workplace health and safety law
• consumer law
• anti-corruption frameworks Prevent harm before it occurs.

NeuroAccess 73

B. Embed a Positive Duty across the entire Act Not only in particular sections — the entire DDA should be grounded in proactive obligations similar to the Sex Discrimination Act positive duty.

C. Make disability a core policy consideration across government

All legislation and policy should be disability-impact assessed, including:

• education
• justice
• health
• transport
• employment
• digital policy
• housing
• climate change
• migration Disabled people are everywhere. Policy rarely reflects this.

D. Recognise neurodiversity and cognitive disability explicitly

This is the biggest missing piece in the DDA.

The law must recognise:

• sensory needs
• cognitive load
• executive functioning
• autistic communication
• ADHD impulsivity
• dyslexia
• dyscalculia
• processing delays
• fluctuating capacity
• trauma responses And treat these access needs as equally legitimate as physical access.

NeuroAccess 74

E. Introduce strong remedies and deterrents Current remedies are:

• weak
• slow
• inaccessible
• private
• low-consequence This creates no deterrent effect for organisations.

Remedies must include:

• civil penalties
• enforceable undertakings
• binding compliance orders
• public reporting
• broader damages (including trauma and systemic harm)
• orders for organisational reform F. Establish a Disability Rights Tribunal The complaints system is not fit for purpose.

A specialised tribunal would be:

• faster
• trauma-informed
• accessible
• consistent
• culturally safe
• lower cost
• neurodivergent-affirming G. Establish a national Disability Accessibility

Commissioner

With powers over:

• compliance
• standards
• audits
• systemic investigation NeuroAccess 75

• emergency response

• digital accessibility

• enforcement H. Data transparency Require organisations to report:

• accessibility improvements

• discrimination trends

• access adjustment metrics

• staff disability representation

• intersectional data I. Trauma-informed systems embedded across the

Act

The current system replicates harm:

• adversarial processes
• retraumatisation
• power imbalances
• lack of cultural safety All procedures must be trauma-informed and neurodiversity-affirming.

J. Strengthen digital accessibility and emerging technologies

Technology is now the primary interface between disabled people and society.

The DDA must explicitly regulate:

• websites
• apps
• online services
• AI decision-making systems
• algorithmic hiring tools
• automated welfare systems (e.g., prevent a future RoboDebt)
• digital public services NeuroAccess 76

Digital discrimination is the new frontier.

Question 48 — Should the DDA address algorithmic decision-making and AI? If so, how?

Response

Yes. AI and algorithmic systems already discriminate against disabled people every day.

As a technologist, disability advocate, and neurodivergent leader, I see three core problems:

A. AI is trained on biased data Current systems disproportionately harm:

• autistic people
• ADHDers
• mentally ill people
• fat disabled people
• chronic illness communities
• non-speaking people
• people with non-normative communication styles
• women and people of colour with disabilities B. AI amplifies existing systemic ableism Examples include:

1. Algorithmic hiring tools Reject candidates because of:

• speech patterns
• eye contact
• vocal tone
• facial expression
• pauses
• “energy level”
• atypical communication NeuroAccess 77

• spelling, punctuation or formatting differences
• gaps in employment
• disability-coded language

2. Automated welfare and insurance systems Use biased logic to:

• deny claims
• flag disabled people as “high risk”
• assume fraud
• misinterpret fluctuating disability

3. Predictive policing Targets disabled people experiencing mental health crises or sensory overload.

C. AI systems do not understand context For neurodivergent people, context is everything:

• sensory load
• processing delays
• disability flare days
• communication differences
• executive functioning variability
• fatigue AI cannot account for these — and therefore misclassifies us.

The DDA must regulate AI by requiring:

1. Accessibility and anti-discrimination audits of AI systems Before deployment.

2. Human rights impact assessments Mandatory for:

• government agencies
• large employers
• health systems
• justice systems NeuroAccess 78

3. Prohibition on algorithmic decision-making without human review Especially in:

• welfare
• healthcare
• recruitment
• education
• policing

4. Transparency requirements Disabled people must know:

• how decisions were made
• whether AI was used
• what data was relied upon
• how to challenge decisions

5. Right to explanation and appeal A disabled person should never be denied a job or service by an algorithm with no recourse.

6. Disability inclusion in AI training data Neurodivergent communication, movement, and behaviour must be included so AI does not simply treat us as “errors.”

7. Ban against AI systems that penalise neurodivergent traits Especially in hiring and policing.

8. Prohibition on automated medical risk scores based on stigma E.g., fatphobia baked into triage algorithms.

Question 49 — How should digital accessibility be strengthened under the DDA?

Response

We need a full digital accessibility revolution.

A. Make WCAG compliance mandatory across: NeuroAccess 79

• government
• healthcare
• education
• justice
• public-facing services
• major employers B. Expand standards to cover cognitive accessibility This is the missing piece.

Include:

• plain language
• predictable navigation
• low cognitive load layouts
• visual simplicity
• quiet backgrounds
• non-distracting design
• flexible content delivery
• multiple formats
• options for slower processing C. Require user testing by diverse disabled people Not just “checking a box” — real-world testing.

D. Introduce penalties for inaccessible digital services Currently there are none.

E. Require accessible alternatives for:

• CAPTCHAs

• autofill tools

• identity verification

• security checks

• digital forms

• online-only government systems F. Enforce accessibility of appointments and service portals Many disabled people cannot:

• navigate online booking

• complete complex forms

• understand unclear instructions

• remember multiple passwords

• process confusing layout NeuroAccess 80

Digital exclusion is now a primary form of discrimination.

Question 50 — Should the DDA encourage improved data collection about disability?

Response

Yes, but with strict safeguards, trauma-informed approaches, and community governance.

Disabled people have been harmed by data misuse — especially:

• welfare systems
• predictive policing
• insurance algorithms
• child protection
• health systems
• migration Therefore, data reform must be human-rights centred.

A. Data must be:

• voluntary
• de-identified
• consent-based
• transparent
• used only for beneficial purposes B. Data should improve:
• policy
• service design
• accessibility planning
• anti-discrimination enforcement
• resource allocation
• identification of systemic barriers
• intersectional understanding C. Data must NEVER be used to:
• means-test people
• flag “risk”
• deny services
• increase surveillance NeuroAccess 81

• inform punitive systems
• profile neurodivergent or mentally ill people D. Governance must include disabled people Disabled-led oversight is essential.

E. Include neurodivergent categories thoughtfully Neurodivergent people often resist diagnostic systems, so data collection must allow:

• self-identification
• access-needs-based categories
• autonomy
• non-medical framing Question 51 — Are there other issues the DDA Review should consider?

Response

Yes. The most significant missing issue is cultural ableism, especially shame-based systems.

As someone leading national conversations about NeuroNeutrality and systemic barriers, I believe the DDA must address:

A. The role of shame in sustaining discrimination Disabled and neurodivergent people face:

• shame for needing support
• shame for speaking differently
• shame for communicating “incorrectly”
• shame for sensory needs
• shame for fatigue
• shame for inconsistency
• shame for taking leave
• shame for being honest
• shame for asking for help
• shame for not being resilient enough
• shame for being inconvenient NeuroAccess 82

Shame is a structural tool used by:

• employers
• educators
• health professionals
• governments
• systems of power to keep disabled people quiet, compliant and invisible.

The DDA must explicitly recognise:

• dignity

• psychological safety

• cultural harm

• trauma

• internalised ableism

• environmental triggers B. Recognition of neurodivergence-specific discrimination Australia has no legal recognition of:

• masking pressure

• sensory overload harm

• executive functioning discrimination

• decision fatigue

• autistic burnout

• ADHD burnout

• communication-style discrimination

• rejection sensitivity

• trauma-linked disability

• emotional dysregulation contexts These must be written into:

• guidance

• action plans

• standards

• training

• regulations

• enforcement C. Fat discrimination within disability discrimination Fat people (or people in larger bodies/higher weight) with disability face:

NeuroAccess 83

• medical neglect
• delayed diagnoses
• refusal of care
• moral judgement
• exclusion from services
• assumptions of personal failure
• attribution of all symptoms to weight
• inaccessible equipment The DDA must explicitly prohibit weight-based discrimination where it intersects with disability.

D. Trauma-informed rights protections Disability discrimination is often intertwined with:

• complex trauma

• medical trauma

• school trauma

• workplace bullying

• internalised shame

• lifelong invalidation The law must require all processes to be:

• safe

• predictable

• compassionate

• accessible

• affirming E. A national definition of neuroaccessibility The DDA should adopt neuroaccessibility principles:

• sensory access

• cognitive access

• communication access

• pacing and energy access

• emotional regulation safety

• predictable environments

• non-coercive interaction

• trauma-informed practice NeuroAccess 84

F. A Neurodiversity-Affirming Standard Just as we have autism standards in some sectors, we need national standards for:

• Autistic people

• ADHDers

• people with psychosocial and cognitive disabilities

• people with executive function disabilities G. Protection from coercive wellness and “resilience culture” These systems punish disabled people for:

• needing breaks

• setting boundaries

• saying no

• declining social interactions

• requiring predictability Resilience is not an inherent requirement.

H. Expanded definition of discrimination to include:

• cultural ableism
• shame-based practices
• bureaucratic inaccessibility
• algorithmic bias
• emotional labour expectations
• sensory overload environments
• lack of cognitive access
• inaccessible communication
• workplace retaliation NeuroAccess 85

CONSOLIDATED RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Adopt a CRPD-Aligned, Modern Definition of Disability

• Recognise disability as the interaction between individuals and societal, systemic, cultural, sensory, digital and attitudinal barriers.

• Explicitly include neurodivergence, sensory disability, cognitive disability, psychosocial disability, and fluctuating/episodic disability.

• Remove reliance on diagnosis, permanence, or medical proof.

• Centre access needs and intersectional factors.

2. Introduce a Strong Positive Duty to Prevent Disability

Discrimination

• Require organisations to proactively identify, remove, and prevent systemic barriers.

• Embed universal design, anticipatory accessibility, and lived-experience consultation.

• Make leadership accountable for accessibility and inclusion outcomes.

• Align with the Sex Discrimination Act model of proactive duties.

3. Strengthen and Modernise Reasonable Adjustments

• Make adjustments anticipatory, timely, and access-needs-based.
• Remove medical documentation requirements.
• Protect disabled and neurodivergent employees and students from retaliation.
• Clarify that “inherent requirements” cannot include discriminatory norms such as rigid hours or neuronormative communication expectations.

4. Protect Disabled Students from Punitive Behavioural Systems

• Ban suspensions/exclusions for disability-related behaviours.

• Require trauma-informed, neuroaffirming practice and Positive Behaviour Support.

• Mandate evidence that adjustments were attempted before discipline.

• Require data reporting on restraint, exclusion, and suspension.

5. Regulate Policing and Justice Systems to Prevent Disability Harm NeuroAccess 86

• Explicitly define policing as a “service” under the DDA.

• Mandate disability and neurodiversity training, trauma-informed de-escalation, and adjustments in policing interactions.

• Prohibit criminalisation of disability behaviours.

• Require independent oversight and transparent data reporting.

6. Overhaul the Exemptions Framework

• Remove all permanent exemptions.

• Strictly limit temporary exemptions with evidence, transparency, and lived experience oversight.

• Ban exemptions that harm disabled children.

• Restrict insurance and migration-related disability discrimination.

• Require accessibility impact assessments and public reporting.

7. Modernise Assistance Animal Protections

• Create a unified national, task-based, behaviour-based standard.

• Recognise psychiatric, sensory, cognitive, neurological, and executive- function support roles.

• Recognise self-trained dogs.

• Remove burdensome certification schemes.

• Strengthen protections for handlers across states and sectors.

8. Make Disability Action Plans (DAPs) Mandatory for Large

Organisations

• Require DAPs in government, transport, health, justice, education, and large employers.

• Include sensory, cognitive, digital, and neurodiversity-specific accessibility.

• Mandate lived-experience co-design, annual reporting, and leadership accountability.

9. Create New National Accessibility Standards

• Neurodiversity & Cognitive Accessibility Standard
• Digital Accessibility Standard (expanded beyond WCAG)
• Workplace Accessibility Standard
• Healthcare Accessibility Standard These must be enforceable and regularly updated.

NeuroAccess 87

10. Regulate AI & Algorithmic Decision-Making

• Require human rights impact assessments.
• Require disability-inclusive training data.
• Mandate transparency of automated decisions and human review.
• Ban AI systems that penalise neurodivergent communication, embodiment, movement, or sensory differences.

11. Strengthen Digital Accessibility, Privacy & Data Governance

• Mandate cognitive accessibility requirements for all public-facing digital systems.

• Require plain language, accessible authentication, alternative formats, and trauma-informed data handling.

• Ensure disabled-led governance of digital systems.

12. Address Cultural Ableism, Shame-Based Systems & Internalised

Harm

• Recognise and address cultural and organisational harms: masking pressure, retaliation, shame-based norms, sensory punishment, and trauma.

• Include explicit protections against fatphobia/weight-based discrimination.

• Embed psychological safety, trauma-informed practice, and intersectional protections in the DDA.

NeuroAccess 88

CONCLUSION

Australia stands at a critical juncture. More than thirty years after the passage of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) (DDA), disabled and neurodivergent people continue to navigate systems that are unintentionally hostile, structurally inaccessible, culturally unsafe, and deeply shaped by outdated assumptions about disability, capacity, behaviour, and worth. The DDA remains a vital piece of legislation, but in its current form it is no longer capable of responding to contemporary understandings of disability, the realities of modern service delivery, or the rapidly changing technological and social landscape.

Throughout this submission, I have outlined—informed by my lived experience as a multiply neurodivergent, chronically ill and physically disabled woman, and by my professional expertise as a human rights lawyer and professional advocate—the profound structural limitations of the existing Act. These limitations are not merely theoretical: they manifest as barriers to education, policing harm, workplace exclusion, inaccessible digital systems, punitive behavioural frameworks, and cultures of shame that continue to silence, punish, or erase disabled people every day.

For the DDA to meet this moment, reform must be bold, evidence-based, future facing, and unapologetically grounded in human rights. Incremental adjustments will not fix legislation built on outdated paradigms. A modern DDA must:

• adopt a CRPD-aligned definition of disability

• embed a strong positive duty so that organisations prevent discrimination before it occurs

• modernise reasonable adjustments and inherent requirements to reflect contemporary workplaces

• protect disabled children from exclusionary school practices

• ensure policing is truly accessible, accountable, and safe

• remove and restrict exemptions that undermine fundamental rights

• recognise and regulate assistance animals through a unified national standard

• mandate Disability Action Plans across high-impact sectors

• create enforceable neurodiversity, cognitive, digital, workplace and healthcare accessibility standards

• robustly regulate AI and algorithmic decision-making

• strengthen digital accessibility, privacy, and trauma-informed data governance

• and address the cultural dimensions of discrimination, including shame, masking pressure, fatphobia, trauma, and internalised harm.

These reforms are not aspirational, they are necessary. They reflect the lived reality of millions of disabled Australians who continue to carry the burden of inaccessible systems, and they reflect global best practice in modern human rights legislation. They recognise that discrimination is rarely the result of individual malice—rather, it is the predictable outcome of systems designed without us.

NeuroAccess 89

A modernised DDA must move Australia from a reactive, complaints-driven model to a proactive, preventative, accessible human rights framework—one that removes barriers before they cause harm, one that centres dignity and psychological safety, and one that acknowledges disability as a normal and valued part of human diversity.

The opportunity before the Review Panel is immense. By embracing structural reform—rooted in lived experience, universal design, and intersectional human rights principles—Australia can build a legislative framework that finally reflects what disabled people have long known: inclusion is not a favour, access is not an exception, and dignity is not negotiable.

It is my hope that this Review marks the beginning of a new era of disability rights in Australia—one in which disabled, neurodivergent, chronically ill and mentally ill people are not forced to self-advocate at personal risk, navigate inaccessible systems, or carry the weight of institutional resistance, but instead live in a society where accessibility is assumed, barriers are proactively dismantled, and every person’s right to participate fully and safely is upheld.

Thank you for considering this submission. | welcome the opportunity to contribute

further to co-design, implementation, and policy development as Australia builds the next generation of disability rights law.

Yours sincerely,

Annie Crowe

Human Rights Lawyer | Neurodiversity Advocate | Disability Consultant

Founder & Director, NeuroAccess

www.neuroaccess.com.au

NeuroAccess 90