Disability Discrimination Act Review

October 2025

Executive Summary

Hireup welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the Australian Government’s review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA). Three decades on, its language and mechanisms reflect an Australia that no longer exists. This review represents an important and long overdue opportunity to modernise one of Australia’s most significant pieces of human rights legislation and ensure that it reflects contemporary expectations of equality, inclusion and accountability.

The DDA was a landmark achievement that established essential protections for people with disability. However, the environment in which it operates has evolved substantially and so too has the way our society understands discrimination. We now recognise that discrimination extends beyond individual acts of unfair treatment to include the structural, systemic and everyday social barriers that limit participation and equality. The way people participate in work, education and community life has also changed, as have the social attitudes, technologies and policy frameworks that shape that participation.

In response to the Discussion Paper, this submission outlines reforms to enhance the clarity, consistency and practical application of the DDA. It examines opportunities to modernise the definition of disability, introduce proactive duties to prevent discrimination, and improve mechanisms for enforcement and compliance. Together, these reforms would align the DDA with contemporary expectations of equality and ensure it provides a clear and enforceable framework for inclusion.

The objective of this review is to ensure the DDA is fit for purpose, effective and responsive to the changing needs of society. This submission supports that goal and provides constructive recommendations and considerations to strengthen how the DDA operates in practice, ensuring it provides clear parameters for preventing discrimination and upholding fairness, participation and the equal dignity of all Australians.

About Hireup

At Hireup, our purpose is to enable people with disability to live the lives they choose. Founded on the principles of inclusion, connection and trust, our model places people at the centre, supporting meaningful relationships between participants and support workers that uphold dignity, safety and personal autonomy.

Today, Hireup is Australia’s largest NDIS-registered platform provider, supporting more than 11,000 people with disability and older Australians each year. Our workforce of over 14,400 directly employed support workers deliver more than three million hours of support each year.

Born from the personal experience of our founders and the belief that the disability support system could do better, Hireup has always stood for dignity, fairness and opportunity. Our values of trust, empathy, impact and curiosity shape how we work and how we listen to the people we support. We see the reform of Australia’s

anti-discrimination laws as essential not only for our community, but for all Australians who deserve to live free from discrimination.

This submission has been informed by the experiences and perspectives of the Hireup community. In September 2025, we invited people with disability, their families, support workers and allies to share their views through a national survey distributed via our community newsletter and social media channels. We also held in-depth discussions with our Community Advisory Group (CAG), a paid committee made up of Hireup clients, support workers and family members of people with disability, who generously shared their experiences and insights into how discrimination is experienced and understood.

The perspectives shared through these consultations have guided the feedback presented in this submission and reflect a shared commitment to an Australia that upholds equality, dignity and inclusion in every aspect of life.

What we heard: the everyday reality of discrimination

More than 30 years after the passage of the DDA, discrimination remains part of everyday life for many Australians with disability. While our collective language has shifted toward inclusion, discrimination too often hides in plain sight, and the daily reality for many people is still defined by barriers, assumptions and unequal treatment.

Through Hireup’s national survey and conversations with our CAG, individuals shared how discrimination continues to show up in everyday life, not only in overt exclusion but in everyday interactions that quietly deny people equal respect, dignity and opportunity. The stories shared reveal a pattern of exclusion that reaches across public, private and community life, from hospitals and workplaces to banks, transport and police services and throughout businesses and cafés.

Almost one in three respondents reported experiencing unfair treatment in the past year, and over half have witnessed it. The experiences described range from structural exclusion to deeply personal acts of discrimination. Some spoke of being refused entry to cafés or shops, denied access to taxis or accommodation because of an assistance animal, or charged higher fares for the same journey. A Deaf community member was prevented from using an Auslan interpreter at a bank, leaving them unable to understand important financial information. Others spoke of children being excluded from schools and social activities because of disability, or being unable to access buildings when lifts were out of service or, in fact, because there were no accessible entry points.

Many described experiences within systems that should have protected or supported them, but instead caused harm. In healthcare settings, people were spoken over, dismissed or not believed. One respondent described being bullied by a nurse who then entered false information into their medical record, a note that continues to shape their treatment. Another shared how their son, living with autism and mental health

challenges, was discharged from care after declining a particular medication, a decision made without consideration for his safety or the family’s request for a structured plan.

Others reflected on how discrimination can manifest in subtle but equally harmful ways. Participants described being underestimated, pitied or ignored, often through gestures, tone or silence rather than overt words. One person noted how assumptions about what they could or could not do resulted in being excluded from opportunities to participate in social activities. These interactions, while seemingly minor in isolation, create a persistent message that equality and respect remain conditional rather than inherent.

Several responses pointed to deeper systemic failures. One individual described a welfare check that escalated into an intimidating encounter with police, reflecting a lack of understanding of disability and mental health within law enforcement. Another detailed how the report of a non-verbal person who had experienced abuse was disregarded because authorities chose to believe the service provider rather than the person affected. These cases reveal the persistence of bias and structural disadvantage within institutions responsible for upholding safety and rights of people with disability.

Although the nature of discrimination varies, its consequences are consistent. Individuals raised a sense of diminished trust, loss of confidence and an enduring sense that equality remains conditional. For many, these were not isolated experiences but recurring patterns that shaped their interactions with systems, services and society.

The experiences shared through Hireup’s consultation represent only a small glimpse into the broader reality of discrimination faced by people with disability across Australia. They demonstrate that while legislative protections exist, in practice they currently remain uneven and precarious. This review provides a vital opportunity to close that grade and to ensure the Act functions not only as a legal safeguard but as a practical mechanism that prevents discrimination and promotes equality in everyday life.

1. Modernising the Definition of Disability

The current definition of disability in the DDA no longer reflects how disability is understood or experienced in contemporary Australia. It relies on terminology rooted in a medical view of disability, using words such as “malfunction”, “disorder” and “disturbed behaviour”. Many people in our community described this language as stigmatising and inconsistent with how they see themselves or others with disability. They shared that such terms reduce people to a diagnosis rather than recognising how barriers in attitudes, systems and environments create discrimination.

Across Hireup’s CAG discussions and national survey, people with disability, their families and support workers described this language as demeaning, inaccurate and

inconsistent with how people define themselves today. Several participants called for language that is person-centred, dignified and grounded in human rights. Some members expressed a clear desire for the DDA to reflect the principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, recognising disability as part of human diversity and shaped by the interaction between individual difference and social context.

“The language should focus on the individual rather than just their disability.”

Several respondents highlighted that the existing definition feels limited to physical or visible disabilities and does not adequately describe experiences of neurodivergence, psychosocial disability or fluctuating conditions. Others noted that the definition should reflect both congenital and acquired disabilities, recognising that people may experience disability at different stages of life.

There was strong agreement that words like malfunction, disorder and disturbance should be removed, with many describing them as “harsh,” “derogatory,” and “offensive.” Community members suggested alternatives such as impairment, restriction of participation or functional limitation, as these terms focus on the interaction between a person and their environment rather than implying personal deficiency. One participant noted that “disability is a word that labels a person to think they cannot do things,” calling for a definition that instead affirms capability and respect.

Participants also placed strong emphasis on the importance of precision and inclusivity in how disability is described. Some recommended clearer references to intellectual, psychosocial, neurological and sensory disabilities, and language that explicitly includes temporary and permanent impairments. Others suggested that the definition should reflect how disability can shape a person’s participation in community life, rather than being confined to physical or medical descriptions.

Some participants reflected on whether the term “disability” itself may evolve over time, noting that language should progress alongside social understanding. While there was general support for retaining the term within the current legal framework, they emphasised the need for it to convey pride, identity and belonging rather than deficit.

“Disability is a word that labels a person to think they cannot do things… it should be defined in a way that reflects what people can do and who they are, not just their diagnosis.”

“Disability is one aspect of human diversity. It should be treated like any other form of diversity, with respect and visibility, not as something that makes you less or sets you apart.”

(Note: The page contains stylized blue quote text formatted as blockquotes per layout instructions.)

Updating the definition of disability is a necessary step to ensure the law reflects the world we live in today. The definition sets the tone for how rights are understood, enforced and respected. The DDA cannot meet its purpose if its underlying definition of disability fails to reflect the reality of people’s lives. A modern, inclusive definition would signal genuine respect for people with disability and ensure the DDA can clearly identify, prevent and address discrimination wherever it occurs.

Recommendations

1. Remove outdated medical language such as malfunction, disorder and disturbed behaviour.
2. Adopt a rights-based, person-centred definition that reflects how disability is shaped by both individual experience and social and environmental barriers.
3. Clearly recognise the diversity of disability, including intellectual, psychosocial, neurological, sensory, physical, invisible and fluctuating conditions, as well as congenital and acquired disabilities.
4. Aligning the definition with contemporary human rights standards, including the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

2. Positive duty to eliminate discrimination

Participants across Hireup’s consultations consistently emphasised that the burden of identifying and reporting discrimination continues to fall almost entirely on people with disability. Many described the complaint process as complex, intimidating and emotionally draining, requiring individuals to navigate legal systems that are often unresponsive or inaccessible. For too many, the effort required to seek justice outweighs the likelihood of meaningful change.

Introducing a positive duty would shift this balance. It would require organisations, employers and service providers to take active steps to identify and eliminate discrimination, rather than waiting for individuals to prove harm after the fact. This approach recognises that preventing discrimination is not only a moral responsibility but a shared legal obligation.

“I fought for what is right, to make them change behaviour and I could not get more than: ‘we are looking at it’ and ‘we commit to try to do better’. If there is no enforcement the DDA is useless.”

Through the survey and discussions with the CAG, individuals expressed strong support for a system that holds organisations accountable for creating safe, inclusive environments from the outset. They noted that many forms of discrimination arise not from intent, but from neglect such as inaccessible information, rigid workplace policies, or systems designed without diverse users in mind. A positive duty would encourage these issues to be addressed proactively, embedding accessibility and

inclusion into everyday practice rather than treating them as exceptions or afterthoughts.

Participants also spoke about how a positive duty could help shift cultural attitudes toward disability. By placing responsibility on institutions, it reinforces that inclusion is not an act of goodwill but a legal and ethical standard. It would also ensure consistency across sectors, aligning the DDA with existing frameworks such as the Sex Discrimination Act and Fair Work Act, both of which recognise proactive obligations to prevent harm.

“Discrimination often happens quietly, through systems that forget we exist. This law should make remembering us the rule, not the exception.”

Introducing a positive duty would make the DDA a stronger and more effective instrument for equality. It would require governments, organisations and service providers to take active responsibility for preventing discrimination rather than relying on individuals to challenge it after harm has occurred. This reform would strengthen accountability across all sectors and make inclusion an expectation rather than an aspiration. It is a necessary step to ensure the law delivers on its purpose to eliminate discrimination and uphold the rights and dignity of people with disability in every part of Australian life.

Recommendations

5. Introduce a clear statutory positive duty requiring organisations, service providers and employers to take reasonable and proportionate steps to prevent discrimination before it occurs.
6. Provide regulatory guidance that sets out practical expectations, including model policies, examples of reasonable steps, and sector-specific benchmarks for accessibility and inclusion.
7. Establish a clear link to existing frameworks, ensuring consistency with the positive duties already recognised under the Sex Discrimination Act and the Fair Work Act, supporting coherence across the broader anti-discrimination system.
8. Support the implementation process, including education, training and capacity-building resources for employers, service providers and public authorities so that the duty is understood and achievable in practice.

3. Recognising intersectional discrimination

…You do not get judged for one thing at a time. It all lands at once.

Discrimination does not occur in neatly separated parts of a person’s life. For many people with disability, unfair treatment reflects the combined weight of disability and other aspects of identity such as race, gender, age, culture or sexuality. These experiences arise from the way different aspects of identity interact, creating forms of discrimination that cannot be attributed to a single cause.

From a legal perspective, this presents a fundamental challenge. The current DDA is structured around assessing discrimination on one ground at a time, relying on tests and comparisons that assume harms can be neatly separated. In practice, this is rarely how discrimination occurs. When multiple forms of bias intersect, the impact is cumulative and cannot be understood or addressed through a framework that treats each attribute as independent.

Feedback from Hireup’s consultations made this point clear. Two thirds of survey respondents supported the inclusion of explicit protections for intersectional discrimination. Community members described how unfair treatment intensifies when disability intersects with racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia or cultural stereotyping. Some explained how cultural assumptions compound the barriers they face. Others spoke about the heightened scrutiny, dismissal or risk experienced by women with disability and by LGBTQIA plus people with disability. Across all groups, participants stressed that the law must recognise the whole person rather than expect people to divide their identity into discrete legal categories.

“Being judged on disability is one thing, but when culture or gender is added, the treatment gets worse.”

“Racism and ableism show up together. You cannot pull them apart.”

These experiences were often described in practical, immediate terms. One participant noted that “people with more than one type of difference face more discrimination and more disadvantage,” capturing the cumulative nature of the harm. Another explained that the current system makes it harder to prove discrimination when several aspects of identity are involved, stating that “protections mean very little if the burden becomes heavier just because discrimination is happening in more than one way.” Others shared that they often had to decide which part of their identity to foreground in a complaint, even though the harm they experienced could not be traced to a single source.

Participants also emphasised the consequences of the current legal gap. They reported that decision makers do not consistently consider how multiple forms of discrimination interact, leading to outcomes that underestimate harm and fail to

provide meaningful redress. Many described intersectional discrimination as an everyday reality that increases the likelihood of exclusion from education, employment, policing, housing and essential services. For them, this is not an abstract concept but a defining feature of how discrimination is lived and understood.

The Issues Paper acknowledges that the DDA does not adequately address these realities. Strengthening the Act to recognise intersectional discrimination would bring Australian law into alignment with contemporary understandings of equality and with international human rights standards. It would allow investigations and complaints processes to consider the full context in which harm occurs and ensure that outcomes reflect the seriousness and interaction of multiple forms of discrimination.

While this review focuses on the DDA, many participants noted that true protection from intersectional discrimination requires coherence across Australia’s broader anti-discrimination framework. People do not experience discrimination in separate categories, and the law should not require them to pursue justice in fragmented ways. Over time, reforms to the Sex Discrimination Act, Racial Discrimination Act and Age Discrimination Act should also be considered to ensure consistent recognition of how multiple attributes interact to shape unfair treatment. Alignment across these statutes would help create a unified and effective human rights system that reflects the realities of people’s lives.

Recognising intersectional discrimination is essential to ensuring the DDA protects those most exposed to exclusion and harm. Without this change, the Act will continue to overlook the experiences of people whose discrimination is shaped by more than one part of their identity. With this reform, the DDA can become a more accurate, just and responsive tool that protects the full diversity of people with disability in Australia.

Recommendations

9. Introduce a statutory definition of intersectional discrimination that recognises how multiple forms of bias can combine and intensify harm.
10. Develop a complaints framework that allows people to bring multi-ground claims without requiring them to separate their identity into discrete legal categories.
11. Impose clear obligations on regulators, conciliators and courts to assess discrimination within its full social, cultural and contextual setting rather than evaluating each attribute in isolation.
12. Update guidance and training for organisations, employers and service providers to recognise, prevent and respond to intersecting forms of discrimination in practice.
13. Strengthen alignment across Australia’s anti-discrimination laws so that the DDA works consistently with other discrimination Acts. This will help ensure that intersectional discrimination is recognised and addressed across all protected attributes.

4. Strengthening the duty to provide adjustments

Adjustments are one of the most fundamental mechanisms through which the DDA is meant to guarantee equal access, yet in practice they remain one of the most inconsistently applied and least enforceable parts of the Act. Feedback across Hireup’s consultations revealed that people still face routine barriers because organisations either do not understand their obligations or rely on ambiguity to avoid taking action.

Community members described being denied interpreters, refused accessible formats, prevented from entering buildings, and unable to complete transactions because no alternative process was provided. These failures occurred not because adjustments were complex or costly, but because systems were not designed with disability in mind.

“Everything seems so secretive… the organisation decides what they will or won’t do, and we are left without options.”

These experiences reveal a structural flaw at the heart of the current duty to provide adjustments. The reliance on a “reasonableness” test creates ambiguity, inconsistency and, in practice, a mechanism through which adjustments can be refused without proper justification. It places a disproportionate burden on people with disability, who are repeatedly required to explain, justify and defend their needs across systems that should already be equipped to support them.

The Issues Paper acknowledges that the existing framework is not working and proposes modernising this duty, including the potential removal of the “reasonableness” framing altogether. This reform is essential. A contemporary DDA must establish an adjustment duty that is clear, proactive and enforceable, and that positions the responsibility for accessibility with organisations rather than individuals.

This reform would reshape expectations across every sector. It would place the onus squarely on organisations, services and governments to build accessibility into their systems and practices, rather than relying on individuals to fight for it. It would mark a shift from discretionary accommodation to a clear legal standard, replacing inconsistent judgments with consistent obligations.

For people with disability, this reform would transform how inclusion is understood and delivered. It would replace a system built on individual advocacy with one where access is built in as a basic expectation. People would not have to defend their needs or fight for adjustments every time they engage with a service. Instead, they could participate in work, community and daily life with the confidence that inclusion is assumed, respected and consistently provided.

Recommendations

14. Replace the “reasonableness” test with a clear, proactive duty that requires organisations to anticipate and meet common access needs as a standard obligation.
15. Require organisations to provide objective, evidence-based justification for any refusal of an adjustment.
16. Apply the strengthened duty consistently across all areas covered by the DDA, including employment, education, transport, government services, housing and community services.

5. Simplifying and strengthening the rules for proving discrimination

Across Hireup’s consultations, people with disability described the current rules for proving discrimination as one of the most significant barriers to justice within the Disability Discrimination Act. Many explained that the legal tests are complex, opaque and disconnected from how discrimination is actually experienced. Instead of supporting people to assert their rights, the existing framework often leaves them without a practical pathway to challenge unfair treatment.

“It shouldn’t be up to us to prove [discrimination] happened when the organisation holds all the information.”

Participants consistently told us that the burden of proof rests overwhelmingly on the person who has experienced harm. They spoke about the difficulty of gathering evidence when organisations control the relevant information, and the emotional toll of having to justify their experience in systems that frequently presume against them.

“If the claimant cannot prove it, they are effectively denied their rights under the Act.”

Many respondents also described the comparator test as unworkable. The requirement to show how a hypothetical person without disability would have been treated is widely seen as artificial and confusing, particularly in situations where discrimination arises from assumptions, inaccessible systems or unequal power dynamics rather than explicit, side-by-side treatment. Community members noted that this test often minimises the harm experienced and places excessive weight on technical distinctions rather than lived reality.

Similarly, participants highlighted that indirect discrimination remains difficult to prove because the central question of what is “reasonable” is vague and inconsistently

interpreted. They noted that organisations too often invoke “reasonableness” to justify practices that have discriminatory impacts, even when alternatives exist. This uncertainty leaves people without clarity about their rights and creates inconsistent outcomes across sectors and jurisdictions.

A stronger and more workable legal framework would shift the focus away from technical concepts that are difficult to apply in practice and toward principles that reflect the realities of discrimination, including power imbalance, institutional control of information and the cumulative impact of disadvantage. It would also rebalance responsibility so that organisations must demonstrate the fairness of their actions rather than requiring individuals to gather evidence they cannot reasonably access.

Above all, strengthening these rules is critical to ensuring that the DDA operates as a true rights-protection mechanism rather than a procedural barrier. If people cannot effectively prove discrimination, legal rights exist only in theory and the Act cannot fulfil its purpose of preventing discrimination and promoting equal participation.

Recommendations

17. Replace the comparator test with a direct assessment of whether a person has been treated unfavourably because of disability, not on hypothetical comparisons.
18. Replace the vague “reasonableness” standard with clearer criteria that focus on the impact of a rule or decision and whether less discriminatory options were available.
19. Shift the burden of proof so organisations must explain and justify their actions, rather than requiring people with disability to obtain evidence they often cannot access.
20. Require greater transparency from organisations by obliging them to provide relevant information during investigations and conciliation.
21. Ensure consistent interpretation across courts and tribunals through clearer statutory guidance.

6. Strengthening exemptions, action plans and assistance animal protections

The current exemptions within the Disability Discrimination Act, along with the limited effectiveness of Disability Action Plans and the inconsistent treatment of assistance animals, were raised repeatedly through Hireup’s consultations. Together, these issues create significant gaps in protection and contribute to the uneven application of rights across sectors.

Across the survey, participants expressed strong support for limiting or removing broad exemptions within the DDA. Many questioned why any setting or sector should be able to operate outside core protections against discrimination, noting that these

carve-outs create uneven rights depending on where a person happens to be. Participants emphasised that an exemption, in practice, means a person with disability may be treated differently not because of what they need, but because of the environment they are in. This was viewed as inconsistent with the purpose of the Act, which is to provide equal protection across all areas of public life.

Community members also highlighted concerns about the limited impact of Disability Action Plans. While Action Plans were intended to guide organisations to improve accessibility, participants noted that many plans are outdated, lack meaningful targets or are treated as administrative exercises rather than genuine commitments to inclusion. Several respondents called for stronger accountability, clearer standards and an expectation that Action Plans are co-designed with people with disability.

Assistance animal protections emerged as a major area of inconsistency. People described repeated refusals from cafés, taxis, rideshare services, shops and accommodation providers. They emphasised that although the law provides a basic right of access, confusion, reluctance and outdated practices continue to undermine that right. One participant noted that “taxis refuse to stop even when they see a guide dog,” while another described being told to sit outside a venue despite having a certified assistance animal. These experiences show how unclear rules and weak enforcement create barriers to daily life.

Participants also expressed frustration that when discrimination occurs against assistance animal users, the burden of complaint remains entirely with the person affected. Several emphasised the need for consistent identification systems, clearer guidance for businesses and stronger consequences for repeated or serious refusals.

The Issues Paper recognises that exemptions, Action Plans and assistance animal protections all require modernisation. Strengthening these areas would create a more coherent and reliable system of rights, reduce the frequency of preventable discrimination and ensure that the DDA operates consistently across different sectors and settings.

Recommendations

22. Remove exemptions so that protections apply consistently across all settings and sectors.
23. Strengthen Disability Action Plans by requiring regular review, meaningful consultation with people with disability, and transparent public reporting on progress.
24. Reinforce assistance animal protections to ensure consistent access requirements, clear identification processes and strong consequences for unlawful refusals.
25. Increase regulatory oversight and enforcement to ensure that exemptions are used only where strictly necessary and that breaches of access and inclusion obligations are addressed promptly.

Conclusion

This review presents an important opportunity to reshape the Disability Discrimination Act so that it reflects the Australia we live in today. The experiences shared by the Hireup community make clear that discrimination remains embedded in systems, attitudes and structures, and that the current Act does not yet provide the clarity, consistency or accountability required to prevent harm before it occurs. Modernising the definition of disability, introducing a positive duty, recognising intersectional discrimination, strengthening the duty to provide adjustments, improving the rules for proving discrimination and tightening exemptions are not technical refinements. They are essential reforms that determine whether the law can uphold the rights and dignity of people with disability in real and practical terms.

The views shared through this consultation deliver a clear and consistent message. People with disability want laws that reflect the realities of their lives, not frameworks that require them to repeatedly justify their right to participate. They want a system that places responsibility where it belongs, that expects institutions to prevent discrimination, and that recognises the full complexity of the identities people hold. Above all, they want pathways to justice that are accessible, fair and capable of delivering meaningful outcomes.

This legislative reform process is an opportunity to rebuild trust. It allows Australia to create a discrimination law that reflects the complexity of people’s lives and places responsibility with the institutions that hold power. A clear and enforceable DDA would not only strengthen rights, it would demonstrate that equality is a standard Australia upholds in practice, not merely in principle.