Submission by the Synod of Victoria and Tasmania, Uniting Church in Australia, on Disability Discrimination Act 1992 Review Consultation

14 November 2025

The Synod of Victoria and Tasmania, Uniting Church in Australia, welcomes the opportunity to make a submission in response to the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 Review.

The Synod has sought to be inclusive of people with a disability, seeking to improve its response over time. Our position in response to the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 Review is informed by the resolutions adopted by the meetings of representatives of the Synod and our National Assembly. The 1998 meeting of hundreds of representatives of the Synod from across Victoria passed the following resolution:

98.5.4.5 The Synod resolved:

In keeping with the spirit of resolutions made in the International Year of Disability Persons, and in the light of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) (Cwth: 1992):

(a) To affirm its commitment to creating a Church that is for all people with disabilities (as defined in the DDA) and in all aspects of its life, free from discrimination.

(b) To appoint a Task Group to develop and implement an Action Plan under the DDA in compliance with Section 61 of that Act. The initial phase would be to undertake an audit of current practices within the life of the Church that may discriminate (including unintentionally) against people with a disability, including, but not limited to, physical or sensory barriers, informational or attitudinal barriers, and any other elements of proclamation, teaching, fellowship or service.

(c) That the Standing Committee be asked to appoint members of the Task Group.

(d) That the Task Group report to the 1999 Synod with its recommendations, including financial and staffing implications and a schedule of action.

The 2010 meeting of the Synod representatives passed the following resolution:

10.7.10.2.6 The Synod resolved:

While acknowledging that a balance needs to be struck between freedom to practise religious beliefs and the right not to be discriminated against in relation to certain characteristics in the areas of employment, education, provision of goods and services, and accommodation; and notwithstanding the Uniting Church’s support for religious liberty, its support for UN human rights treaties through the National Assembly Resolution Dignity in Humanity: Recognising Christ in Every Person 2006, and Synod resolution 93.5.1.1-3(c),

(a) (i) To support the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination in its assertion that “any doctrine of superiority based on racial differentiation is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous” and therefore to oppose all forms of harmful racial discrimination and all laws that legalise harmful racial discrimination, even when such discrimination is religiously motivated;

(ii) To recognise that all people are created in the image of God and therefore to oppose all forms of harmful discrimination against people with disabilities, even when religiously motivated, except where not discriminating would place unreasonable costs on a body to accommodate such persons and, in the area of employment, where a person with a disability is unable to fulfil the genuine inherent requirements of the role;

(iii) While noting that the current polity of the Uniting Church would not allow discrimination in ordination in any of the areas below, to oppose harmful discrimination and laws that accommodate harmful discrimination in education, clubs and club membership, sport, provision of goods and services, local government, accommodation, employment and employment-related areas, excluding ordination, on the grounds of:

age
breastfeeding
industrial activity
status as a carer
physical features
political belief or activity
parental status
pregnancy
gender identity
marital status
sex
sexual orientation

even where such discrimination is religiously motivated. The only exception to this opposition to discrimination on the above grounds is in the area of employment where, as a result of one of the above characteristics, the person is unable to fulfil the inherent requirements of the role.

(b) To write to the Victorian and Tasmanian Attorneys General and Shadow Attorneys General to inform them of this resolution.

The 2018 meeting of hundreds of Uniting Church representatives from across Australia adopted the following resolution:

The Assembly resolved:

18.18.01 to adopt the following ‘Statement of Access and Welcome’ as a starting point for further conversation and action regarding justice and equality for people with disability as it provides a basis for the Assembly and Synods to develop their particular response to this matter. In accordance with the Uniting Church Basis of Union, the Church is a fellowship of reconciliation, “a body within which the diverse gifts of its members are used for the building up of the whole, an instrument through which Christ may work, and bear witness to himself” (Paragraph 3). In light of this, the Uniting Church affirms that:

(a) Christ is most fully present when all people in the Body are unconditionally accepted as people of worth. All people are created in the image of God, including people with disability;

(b) along with all members, the faith, gifts, hopes and dreams of people with disability are to be valued and honoured; and

(c) God is a God of justice and peace who seeks reconciliation amongst all people.

In seeking to be a community of reconciliation, the Uniting Church acknowledges that for many people with disability its life and faith has not always borne witness to this vision. The Uniting Church seeks:

(a) to embody a community life that in its theology and practice is accessible to all people;

(b) to ensure that within its own life, people with disability are treated justly and have their hopes and rights realised; and

(c) to advocate for justice and equality for people with disability in the wider community.

18.18.02 to request the Standing Committee to develop disability access guidelines for use at all events and activities overseen by the Assembly and to encourage each Synod to develop similar disability access guidelines for use at Synod events and meetings;

18.18.03 to encourage each Synod to develop Disability Action Plans in accordance with the federal Disability Discrimination Act 1992, with the aim of eliminating access barriers pertaining to:

(i) Attitude/Theology and access and welcome;

(ii) Communication; and

(iii) Physical Environment.

18.18.04 to request the appropriate Standing Committee to arrange for the development of an appropriate liturgical response that acknowledges the historical exclusion experienced by many people with disability.

The Synod has demonstrated a commitment to inclusivity for people with disability, continually enhancing its approach through ongoing Disability Action Plans, the current Disability Action Plan (2023–2026) is the fourth plan developed by the Synod since its initial commitment to disability inclusion.

While this submission does not respond to all consultation questions, it highlights key issues of concern and priority for our church community.

1. How should disability be defined in the Disability Discrimination Act? & 2. What factors should be considered in developing a new definition of disability?

While the definition of disability in the Disability Discrimination Act is broad, it focuses on the person’s condition. We believe it should reflect explicitly the social model of disability as a more contemporary approach to understand the concept. Further, such a definition acknowledges that people are disabled not by a condition they have but by the interactions and barriers in society, such as the physical and digital environment and community attitudes.

The concept of disability must be explained and understood within the social environment and external factors impacting and excluding the individual.

Factors to consider updating the definition:

Australia is a signatory and State Party to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). As a party to the UNCRPD, Australia is obligated to promote, protect, and ensure the human rights of people with disability. The Convention does not explicitly define disability, but in its preamble and Article 1 provides guidance for the application of the concept:

“Disability” - The preamble states that “disability is an evolving concept and that disability results from the interaction between persons with

impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers that hinders their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others”.

“Persons with disabilities” - Article 1 states that “Persons with disabilities include those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others”

Disability is diverse, and each individual has unique experiences. Not everyone identifies as having a “disability” because of the stigma attached to it. Language that is not inclusive, such as “disorder or malfunction”, has contributed to the negative connotation of the disability definition. These terms reflect a medical model of disability, which focuses on deficits rather than diversity in human nature. For example, many neurodivergent individuals (such as people on the autism spectrum, those with ADHD or dyslexia) prefer terms like “difference” or “divergence” to describe their cognitive and processing styles.

Language is important not only for people with disability but for the community as well to understand disability inclusion. Therefore, the definition must have an approach to treat learning, cognitive and behavioural attributes within a framework that recognises human diversity, rather than starting from a position of disability as a deficit.

While the current definition of disability is broad, the overall language should be clear and easy to understand by anyone and include visible and invisible and episodic disability, which is characterised by fluctuating periods.

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

We agree that the DDA should be amended by allowing claims to be brought for multiple or combined protected attributes and removing the comparator test for the person with disability claiming discrimination.

This amendment will be in accordance with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) which explicitly mentions multiple forms of discrimination in the following:

The preamble of the CRPD cites the principle that “all human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated” and notes the importance of a “gender perspective,” which acknowledges the existence of multiple barriers to equality.
Article 6: Women with disabilities: This article explicitly states that “States Parties recognize that women and girls with disabilities are subject to multiple discrimination”.
Article 19 also addresses the right to live independently and participate in the community, which can be hindered by multiple forms of discrimination.

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

The current definition of direct discrimination should be amended to remove the comparator test and the burden of proof on the person with disability to prove the discrimination occurred.

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

We recommend that the DDA update the definition of direct discrimination, building from the burden of proof under the Fair Work Act, and providing further clarification on the following:

The type of evidence needed by the applicant. In some cases, it is very difficult to provide proof of unlawful discrimination, for example to prove discrimination, such as during a job recruitment process.
Intersectionality-sensitive frameworks that allow multiple grounds of discrimination to be considered together.
Objective justification and reasonable explanations from the respondent.
Requiring respondents to disclose relevant documents such as disability action plans or accessibility policies to prevent disability discrimination and how they have implemented them and monitored it .

7. How could the definition of indirect discrimination be amended to ensure that it is easy to understand and implement for people with disability and duty holders?

To ensure the definition of indirect discrimination is both understandable and actionable for people with disability and duty holders, we recommend simplifying the language and embedding practical examples to illustrate how indirect discrimination works. Further education and co-designed resources with people with disability will enhance clarity and compliance.

8. Should the reasonableness element in the definition of indirect discrimination be:

a) removed

b) retained and supplemented with a list of factors to consider

c) replaced by a legitimate and proportionate test (or another test)

d) other

We recommend option C, the reasonableness element to be replaced by the legitimate and proportionate test, as it strikes a balance between protecting disability rights and allowing for justified exceptions. This approach strengthens the DDA’s ability to address complex, modern forms of discrimination.

Advantages of this approach:

Aligns with international human rights law, including the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).
Encourages accountability, as respondents must justify their policies with evidence and reasoning.
Provides greater clarity and consistency in legal interpretation
Better suited to intersectional and systemic discrimination, where multiple layers of disadvantage exist.

The approach will require further legal reform and retraining for judicial officials in relevant courts and tribunals to ensure its proper implementation.

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

The referred language presents challenges to people with disability:

Being overly technical, making it difficult for complainants, especially those without legal representation, to understand what evidence they need to provide.
Focused on hypothetical compliance, which shifts attention away from the actual impact of the condition or requirement.
Creates ambiguity around whether the inability to comply must be total or partial, and whether future disadvantage is adequately captured.

The complexity undermines the accessibility and effectiveness of the DDA, particularly for people with cognitive, psychosocial, neurodivergent or communication related disabilities.

Examples of simpler and more inclusive language:

UK Equality Act 2010: Defines indirect discrimination as a provision, criterion, or practice that puts people with a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage.
UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD): focus on the impact of exclusion, not on the person with disability having to prove they are not able to comply with the requirement.

The current language in the DDA’s definition of indirect discrimination is outdated and misaligned with contemporary human rights standards. Therefore, we support removing the language “does not or would not comply, or is not able or would not be able to comply” to enhance clarity, improve access to justice, and better reflect the lived experiences of people with disabilities in Australia.

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

We support adding the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to the objects of domestic legislation, as this will strengthen support for people with disabilities against discrimination and be in alignment with our international obligations.

Uniting Church in Australia

SYNOD OF VICTORIA AND TASMANIA

The DDA 1992 is a law that protects people with disability from discrimination, but it doesn’t explicitly require interpretation in line with international human rights standards like the UN CRPD. Making this explicit would:

Ensure courts and tribunals interpret provisions with a rights-based lens.
Reinforce the DDA’s purpose as not just anti-discrimination, but pro-inclusion and accessibility.

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

We support that the DDA 1992 should be expressly required to be interpreted in a way that is beneficial to people with disability. Such a reform will reinforce the idea of the Act being person-centred and that the Act is for the benefit people with disability as recommended by the Disability Royal Commission¹.

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

We support the introduction of the positive duty in the Disability Discrimination Act, as relying only on complaints about discrimination against people with disability is insufficient to bring about the necessary society-wide change.

The positive duty on all duty holders recommended by the Disability Royal Commission is reasonable, considering that disability discrimination is a systemic issue and continues to happen broadly.

The Australian Human Rights Commission complaints stats 2023-2024 shows that the highest rated areas of complaints were in employment, good services and facilities, education and access to premises.²

The implementation of a positive duty requirement will require resources for duty holders, providing a clear definition of responsibility, guidelines and examples on how the duty holder needs to implement the positive duty in different areas. The Australian Human Rights Commission should be given compliance and enforcement powers over the implementation of the positive duty.

We also recommend that ongoing evaluation of the positive duty and monitoring of statistics of discrimination rates in all the proposed areas.

13. Are there lessons from the operation of the positive duty in the Sex Discrimination Act that could be incorporated into a positive duty in the Disability Discrimination Act?

1 Realising the Human Rights of People with Disability. Disability Royal Commission, Final Report, Volume 4, Chapter 4.

2 Australian Human Rights Commission 2023-2024 Complaint Statistics. Annual Report 2023-24 | Australian Human Rights Commission. Accessed 23 September 2025.

Uniting Church in Australia

SYNOD OF VICTORIA AND TASMANIA

The implementation of the positive duty under the Sex Discrimination Act offers important lessons that should be carefully considered for the DDA review. For instance, a recent survey by Our Watch revealed that 40% of workplace leaders are unaware of their new legal obligations to prevent workplace sexual harassment, and only 76% know that such harassment is unlawful. These findings underscore the urgent need for continued efforts across workplaces to raise awareness and drive the cultural and structural changes necessary to prevent sexual harassment.³ These findings also provide lessons about the efforts that would be required to effectively implement a positive duty in the Disability Discrimination Act.

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

The Synod believes that the creation of a stand-alone duty would likely better assist both people with disability and duty holders in understanding their rights and obligations. A stand-alone duty will improve clarity as currently duty holders often struggle to understand what constitutes a “reasonable adjustment” and when it must be provided. A stand-alone duty should be backed by practical guidelines, examples, and thresholds for compliance, helping employers, education and service providers meet their obligations more confidently.

An example of this is the Children and Young People with Disability Australia education survey 2024 -2025 found ongoing systemic failings, discrimination, dissatisfaction with the existing complaints processes and many parents and caregivers refrained from making complaints due to fear of negative repercussions.⁴

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

The scope of the duty should extend to other contexts where there has been evidence of discrimination. For example, in the conduct of research, people with disability are often excluded due to systemic factors like inaccessible research design, negative researcher attitudes, and misperceptions of them as “vulnerable” by ethics committees. This exclusion, which includes direct and indirect discrimination, compromises the quality and relevance of research findings and perpetuates inequality in health, employment, and independent living.

The exclusion of people with disability from research has weakened the evidence base needed to inform broader health system strengthening and to effectively address disability-related inequalities.⁵ Moreover, the need for research to be

3 Our Watch. Our Watch | New survey: A significant number of workplaces may not be…. Our Watch website accessed 24 September 2025.

4 Disillusion and Delay: CYDA’s survey of the learning experiences of children and young people with disability in 2024. https://cyda.org.au/educationreport/. Children and Young People with Disability Australia website, accessed 24 September 2025.

5 Bailie J, Fortune N, Plunkett K, Gordon J, Llewellyn G. A call to action for more disability-inclusive health policy and systems research. BMJ Global Health. 2023;8:e011561. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2022-011561

conducted by and with people with disability is not currently addressed by the Disability Discrimination Act, but could be supported through a stand-alone duty.

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

There are a few challenges with the current term “reasonable adjustments”:

The DDA does not define it directly and the lack of clarity has been to the detriment of people with disability.
Questions have also been raised about the quality of the “reasonable adjustments” where adjustments that don’t work will still be considered reasonable⁶ or error of judgement. For example, in education, there have been court cases where students with disability with “anti-social behaviour” now ask whether a student without “disability” (without any cognitive factors that may contribute to “anti-social behaviour”) would have been similarly punished for the same “anti-social behaviour” exhibited by the student with disability. If the courts infer the answer to be “yes”, they say there is no discrimination on the grounds of disability as the non-disabled student would have also been so punished.⁷
The term “reasonable adjustments” is not everyday language for many people with disability. It can sound formal or technical, which may lead to confusion especially for those unfamiliar with legal or policy frameworks. During the community forum for the review of the DDA held in Melbourne on 21 August 2025, several participants highlighted the importance of using plain language and alternative formats to provide clarity of definitions for people with disability.

Therefore, we support the removing the word “reasonable” and do not think there will be any unreasonable unintended consequences.

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

a. The disability Royal Commission amended proposed

b. A new definition of unjustifiable hardship

c. Other

We support option b for a new definition of unjustifiable hardship as it can support and address systemic barriers and not only the person with disability. The new

6 Disability Discrimination Legal Service Inc/ Villamanta Disability Rights Legal Service Inc – The Advocate Summer 2017, page 5, accessed 29 September 2025.

7 Starting with Julius. https://www.startingwithjulius.org.au/discrimination-law-is-an-ass/. Starting with Julius website, accessed 29 September 2025.

definition will limit the misuse of this term as an excuse to avoid making reasonable adjustments and undermining the rights of people with disabilities in general.

The new definition should include:

Consultation with the person with disability;
Benefits to the person and the community;
The rights and access needs of the person with disability; and,
Detriment and impact on all parties concerned and the financial cost on the party claiming unjustifiable hardship.

We recognise there may be circumstances where even if the benefit to the person with disability will be great, the cost of providing the benefit may be prohibitive on the entity being asked to provide the benefit.

20. What are your views on amending the DDA to consider the nature and extend of any adjustments made and encourage consultation between prospective or current employers and prospective or current employees before making employment decisions?

We support amending the DDA to explicitly require consideration of the nature and extent of adjustments made, and to mandate meaningful consultation between employers and prospective employees with disability prior to employment-related decisions. This will improve accountability, inclusion and accessibility in the workplace.

An example of this is temporary or short-term employment, where the absence of formal consultation with prospective employees with disability—such as a person who is blind and requires assistive technology—can often lead to exclusionary practices.

The Improving Disability Employment Study (IDES) published in the Journal of Social Inclusion (2023)⁸ provides evidence of systemic barriers faced by people with disability in employment settings. The study found that over half of participants accessing Australia’s Disability Employment Services (DES) reported experiencing discrimination during their employment journey. These findings highlight the need for early and transparent dialogue between employers and prospective employees with disability, as a means to reduce workplace exclusion and achieve more equitable outcomes. The research highlighted that without proactive engagement and consultation, individuals are more likely to encounter discriminatory practices, reinforcing the importance of embedding such obligations into legislative frameworks like the Disability Discrimination Act.

8 Dimov, S., Shields, M., Devine, A., Aitken, Z., & Kavanagh, A. (2023). Perceived Employment Discrimination Among People with Disability Accessing Australia’s Disability Employment Services (DES). Journal of Social Inclusion, 14. https://journalofsocialinclusion.com/articles/10.36251/josi311

23. Should the concepts of exclusion and exclusionary discipline be defined in the DDA?

Defining exclusion and exclusionary discipline within the Disability Discrimination Act is essential to promote clarity, consistency, and accountability—particularly given the varied interpretations and approaches across state and territory education systems.

Exclusion is frequently framed through a behavioural management lens rather than considering what additional supports a student might need to be able to remain in the education system, which contributes to the disproportionate suspension and expulsion of students with disability.

Disciplinary actions often stem from behaviours linked to unmet support needs. Findings from Children and Young People with Disability Australia’s (CYDA) 2024 Education Survey⁹ revealed that students with disability face enrolment gatekeeping and exclusionary practices throughout their schooling journey. Many of these practices are informal and therefore fall outside formal reporting mechanisms, with respondents also highlighting significant inconsistencies in how exclusion policies are implemented at the school level.

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

The circumstances for exemptions should be narrowly defined, otherwise it will legitimise discriminatory practices and misuse. It will be important the review of accommodations put in place and consultation prior exclusion. Often students are subject to exclusionary discipline due to the education system being unwilling to put in place the supports that would be needed to ensure the student can remain in the system while ensuring the safety of the student, other students and teaching staff.

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

State and territory provisions vary widely, and many still permit exclusionary practices that breach the Disability Standards for Education and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The definitions do not require the education system to provide supports that would allow the student to remain in the education setting. We are alarmed by reports that Departments of Education will cover-up discriminatory practices in schools rather than provide the supports that would overcome such practices.

Any model incorporated into the DDA must ensure transparent appeal processes, be subject to independent oversight and uphold the rights and dignity of students with disability.

A recent study published in The Australian Educational Researcher examining exclusionary discipline policies across Western Australia, South Australia, Victoria,

9 CYDA. Disillusion and Delay: CYDA’s survey of the learning experiences of children and young people with disability in 2024 - CYDA. CYDA website, accessed 2 October 2025.

and Queensland found that these frameworks frequently position the student as the problem, overlooking critical social factors such as poverty, disability, and trauma. The analysis revealed a limited focus on disability-specific impacts, with policies often prioritising institutional convenience over the rights and wellbeing of the individual.¹⁰

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

Exclusionary discipline in post-secondary education should be approached differently due to the adult status of most students and the diversity of learning environments.

Exclusionary discipline in TAFE and universities for students with disability can take subtle and systemic forms that significantly impact access to education such as staff may discourage or prevent students with disabilities from enrolling in certain courses or programs, students may be subtly excluded from group work, placements, and extracurricular activities, failure to provide necessary accommodations (e.g., assistive technology, flexible deadlines) can lead to academic penalties that function as disciplinary exclusion.

The impact on students and their families are interruptions in attendance or access to coursework that can derail progress, delay graduation, or lead to dropout. The lack of support and understanding can place an emotional burden on students with disability, making them feel judged, anxious, or left out.

We recommend tertiary education to prioritise engagement, universal design for learning, provide tailored accommodations, easy and transparent complaint process and mandatory training for staff (academic and professionals) to understand and support students better.

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

We support the recommendation of the Disability Royal Commission to better protect people with disability from offensive behaviour by including a prohibition on offensive behaviour because of a person’s disability, modelled on section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.

However, such a model needs to take into account that there will be people with a disability that will have less capacity to make use of a complaint mechanism. Thus, the Disability Discrimination Act should make it easier for a complaint to be lodged by an advocate, carer or representative body to address the offensive behaviour or

10 Tippett, N., Sullivan, A., Manolev, J. et al. How policies of school exclusion frame practice: a comparative analysis of Australian state education policies. Aust. Educ. Res. (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-025-00863-z

harassment compared to the mechanism contained within the Racial Discrimination Act.

Such a complaint mechanism is likely to deal with a small proportion of cases of offensive behaviour and harassment of people with disability where the behaviour is severe enough to motivate a complaint to be made and the person with disability has sufficient support for a complaint to be lodged by them or on their behalf. Such a mechanism should not lessen the much more important task of shifting community attitudes generally towards people with disability, so that such behaviour is reduced.

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

We support the recommendation of the Disability Royal Commission that a new provision to prohibit offensive behaviour and/or harassment would define such behaviour as:

an act that is reasonably likely, in all circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or group of people; and,
is done because of the disability of the other person or because some or all of the people in the group have or are perceived by the first person to have a disability.

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

Section 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act provides for the following exemptions:

Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:

(a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or

(b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or

(c) in making or publishing:

(i) a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or

(ii) a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment.

We find it hard to envisage a circumstance in which it would be reasonable to harass, humiliate or intimidate a person with disability reasonably and in good faith for a genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or for any other genuine purpose in the public interest. We believe there should be very limited exemptions to harassing, humiliating or intimidating persons with disability, such as a news report on such behaviour that is in the public interest.

We recognise that offending and insulting behaviour may be more contested. So, a greater level of exemption may be provided for behaviour that could be regarded as offensive or insulting towards a person with disability done reasonably and in good faith for the reasons outlined in section 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act.

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

The Synod strongly supports policing and the criminal justice system be included as a new and separate provision to prevent discrimination against people with disability who are victims/survivors of crime, witnesses or suspects. The NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research has found that people with disability were more than twice as likely to be victims of violent and domestic violence-related crime. However, they were less likely to have police take action on the crime they experienced.¹¹

Some of the lack of police action may be due to a systemic failure to adequately skill police officers to be able to support people with disability in the criminal justice system.

In addition, the Act should ensure that prison authorities do not discriminate against people with disability in their care. As recommended by the Royal Commission, “The DDA should be amended to clarify that custodial authorities have a duty to make reasonable adjustments for prisoners and detainees.”¹²

The Royal Commission found high rates of incarceration of people with disability was the result of unfair treatment.¹³ The problem is worse for First Peoples with cognitive disability who are more likely to be investigated, charged, and remanded in custody than non-First People.¹⁴

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

There are not specific circumstances or situations relating to policing or justice we are aware of that would justify policing or criminal justice being excluded from the application of the Disability Discrimination Act.

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

The Royal Commission raised concerns that the Migration Act 1958 is exempt from the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, which allows the Department of Home Affairs to exclude granting permanent visas to people with a disability where they believe the cost to the Australian Government budget of including the person in the

11 https://bocsar.nsw.gov.au/media/2022/mr-ndda-pilot-cjb252.html

12 Disability Royal Commission, “Criminal Justice and people with disability”, Final Report, 2023, 63.

13 Ibid.

14 Ibid., 124.

Australian community will be too great. Currently, a person with a disability will be denied a visa if the cost of supporting them will be higher than the average health and community services cost for an Australian by more than $86,000 over ten years.¹⁵The Royal Commission recommended that the Australian Government should look to change the law and migration practices to eliminate or minimise the discrimination.

Currently, if the visa is denied because the person has a disability, it is possible to apply for a waiver for some types of visas. A staff member of the Department of Home Affairs assesses the personal circumstances of the person, including the capacity of their family to cover the costs or if there are compassionate circumstances to waive the restriction and grant the visa. People on temporary visas for skilled workers are not able to seek a waiver for themselves or their family members.

Since 2012, refugees have not been denied a protection visa on the basis of having a disability. Further, in the 2022-2023 financial year, 60% of people initially denied a visa on the grounds of health costs in Australia, had the restriction waived and were granted the visa they applied for.

A review of the policy to not grant visas to people with a disability was conducted at the end of 2023 and completed in April 2024. The review report was released in July 2024. The review found that the threshold for exclusion was too low, with people living with stable and managed health conditions such as Crohn’s Disease and skin disorders are assessed as posing a significant cost to the Australian Government.

In 2018, the Canadian government reviewed migration health costs and determined that, contrary to widely held belief, the cost of admitting migrants with disability and health issues did not impact significantly on state budgets compared to the costs of other migrants and Canadian residents. The Canadian government consequently reviewed its migration health requirements in line with the rights of people with health and disability issues.

There was a positive development in October 2024, with the Public Interest Criteria 4005 and 4007 being amended so that a child visa applicant born and ordinarily resident in Australia is now exempt from certain health-related criteria that would have made them and their family members ineligible for a visa due to the potential cost of healthcare or community service.

The Synod strongly supports the modification of Section 52 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 that provides exemption to the Migration Act 1958, limiting it to matters related to the protection of public health.

15 https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/help-support/meeting-our-requirements/health/protecting-health-care-and-community-services

In addition, avenues of complaint and appeal should be created under the DDA for people with disability who experience discrimination under the Migration Act, Regulations or associated instruments, and by those implementing the Act.

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

The Synod supports the Australian Human Rights Commission having the ability to grant special measures certificates to help provide assurance to duty holders who may be reluctant to undertake special measures because they are concerned about breaching their obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act.

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

We support that special measures should be defined in the Disability Discrimination Act, in line with the definition contained in the Sex Discrimination Act, as measures “for the purpose of achieving substantive equality”.

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

To clarify protections for assistance animals in Australia for both people with disability and duty holders, we recommend national accreditation and minimum training standards, hygiene expectations, and a national ID card. This would make it easier for handlers to prove their dog’s status and for duty holders to verify it quickly and confidently.

When it comes to behaviour, we support a national framework that allows assistance animals in training to access public spaces. Community interaction is vital for the role they are meant to play. Having access to public spaces ensures animals in training are treated respectfully and given the opportunity to learn through real community experience.

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

The Synod believes minimum requirements are essential to ensure Disability Action Plans (DAPs) are meaningful, consistent, and accountable. In 2021, the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) developed the Disability Action Plan Guidelines, which are aimed at helping organisations develop strategic plans to eliminate disability discrimination and promote the rights of people with disability. However, many organisations are not using them due to factors such as a lack of awareness and understanding of the benefits of having a plan, challenges with implementation and the voluntary nature of the plans for private sector and non-government

organisations. Further, DAPs can lack of measurable goals or an integrated planning approach for diversity and inclusion that can lead to less targeted disability actions.

Minimum requirements for DAPs should include:

Co-design with people with disability;
Clear goals and measurable outcomes;
Alignment with broader strategies. The DAP should connect with the organisation’s internal goals and strategies and to the Australian Disability Strategy and other relevant frameworks;
Mandatory progress reports; and,
Evaluation reports, in line with Government provided guidance.

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

The Commission should have the authority to reject plans that do not meet minimum standards, as this would encourage transparency and ensure that DAPs are meaningful rather than symbolic. International examples show that giving oversight bodies the power to reject or enforce standards leads to stronger accountability and more inclusive outcomes.

Under the Accessible Canada Act (ACA), federally regulated organisations are required to publish Accessibility Plans and update them every three years. The plans must meet specific requirements, including consultation with people with disability. The Accessibility Commissioner has the authority to investigate complaints and enforce compliance, including issuing orders and penalties.¹⁶

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

The DAPs should be valid for a fixed period of three to five years, as this approach is widely supported across both domestic and international practice. A defined timeframe ensures that plans remain current, responsive to evolving needs, and alignment with national and state strategies. Having progress and evaluation reports also promotes continuous improvement and accountability.

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

We support the option of duty holders to include actions to report on their compliance with relevant disability standards as part of their DAPs and to consider disability inclusion and accessibility in all decision-making processes.

The Synod supports the Australian Human Rights Commission having increased powers to enforce compliance with the Disability Standards. The greater the range of

16 Government of Canada. https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/accessible-canada/act-summary.html , Government of Canada website, 2022-12-13, accessed 6 October 2025.

Uniting Church in Australia SYNOD OF VICTORIA AND TASMANIA

powers a regulator has the better they can tailor their response to achieve compliance from regulated entities. To that end, we would support the Commission to have the power to:

Issue compliance notices;
Impose infringement notices;
Enter into enforceable undertakings; and,
Apply to a court for civil penalties and injunctions.

redacted (She/Her)

Dr Mark Zirnsak

Disability Inclusion Advocate

Uniting Church in Australia

Synod of Victoria and Tasmania

Centre for Theology and Ministry

Senior Social Justice Advocate

Uniting Church in Australia

Synod of Victoria and Tasmania

Centre for Theology and Ministry

redacted

Phone: redacted

E-mail: redacted

Phone: redacted

Submission on Disability Discrimination Act 1992 Review

Submission by the Synod of Victoria and Tasmania, Uniting Church in Australia, on Disability Discrimination Act 1992 Review Consultation

1. How should disability be defined in the Disability Discrimination Act? & 2. What factors should be considered in developing a new definition of disability?

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

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

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

7. How could the definition of indirect discrimination be amended to ensure that it is easy to understand and implement for people with disability and duty holders?

8. Should the reasonableness element in the definition of indirect discrimination be:

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

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

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

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

13. Are there lessons from the operation of the positive duty in the Sex Discrimination Act that could be incorporated into a positive duty in the Disability Discrimination Act?

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

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

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

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

20. What are your views on amending the DDA to consider the nature and extend of any adjustments made and encourage consultation between prospective or current employers and prospective or current employees before making employment decisions?

23. Should the concepts of exclusion and exclusionary discipline be defined in the DDA?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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