Aboriginal
Legal
Rights
Movement
To: Attorney General’ Department
From: Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement (ALRM)
Re: Disability Discrimination Act 1992 Review
Date: 14 November 2025
Acknowledgement of Country
Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement (ALRM) acknowledges the Kaurna people as the custodians of the greater Adelaide region, from which this submission is being forwarded.
ALRM recognises that the cultural and heritage beliefs are still as important to the living Kaurna people today and pays tribute to elders and leaders past, present and emerging.
We pay our respects to the cultural authority of Aboriginal people from other lands & waters of South Australia and Australia.
About the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement
Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement is an independent Aboriginal community controlled organisation governed by our all Aboriginal Board. ALRM is also a law practice for the purposes of the Legal Practitioners Act of South Australia and this submission is informed by the work of our various law practices.
Introduction to this Submission:
Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement (ALRM) makes this submission in response to selected recommendation questions from the public consultation on the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) and provides further suggestions for inclusion in the DDA.
We strongly support reforms that build on the findings of the Disability Royal Commission and align with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. As part of this process, we urge the inclusion of:
- Clear references to cultural safety for First Nations people.
- A standalone duty to make culturally appropriate adjustments.
- Explicit recognition of intersectional discrimination.
These changes are essential to ensure the Act protects ail Australians with disability, especially those experiencing compounded disadvantage. ^1
Aboriginal Lega Rights Movement (ALR) further recognises that the DDA Review discussion paper has considered both the Australian Human Rights Commission’s National Anti-Racism Framework 2024 (NARF) and the Disability Royal Commission (DRC). We believe the NARF and the DRC provide insights into issues specific to First Nations people living with disability.
ALRM supports reforms to the DDA and considers that it should incorporate both the International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Incorporating these instruments would help ensure self-determination for Aboriginal people, who are often subject to paternalistic or racist attitudes and to the same forms of discrimination faced by non-Aboriginal people with disabilities. The following questions, as outlined in the discussion paper, are addressed by ALRM below:
Q 3. Would the Disability Discrimination Act be strengthened by expressly allowing claims to be brought for multiple or combined protected attributes?
In ALRM’s view it would. From both the Disability Royal Commission and our experience, we see Aboriginal people who are subject to oppressive racism coupled with disability discrimination. People who are subject to such disadvantage should not have to overcome hurdles to choose which form or discrimination they pursue. We consider there should be a ‘no wrong door’ principle. This would enable people with intersecting protected attributes to make claims for all forms of discrimination within one claim.
The DDA should expressly recognise that people with disability may experience discrimination on multiple and intersecting grounds, including race, gender, age, and cultural identity. First Nations people with disability are particularly vulnerable to compounded forms of discrimination and it is recommended that the law reflect this reality.
Q 4. Could any other changes be made to the Disability Discrimination Act to recognise and provide protection for peopte with disability who have intersecting identities, or addressing compounding discrimination?
ALRM recommends that the DDA be amended to expressly recognise intersectional discrimination by allowing claims to be brought based on multiple or combined protected attributes. This reform is consistent with the Disability Royal Commission’s Findings and would strengthen protections for First Nations people living with disability, whose experiences of discrimination are compounded by both race and disability and often intersect with gender, socio economic status, and other identity markers ^1 (Commission A. H., 2024).
Another issue is the assessment and treatment for Aboriginal people v with disabilities, in particular cognitive disabilities and mental health issues.
In 1991, the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody made a recommendation on this issue in relation to people in prison. Recommendation 151 says:
That, wherever possible, Aboriginal prisoners or detainees requiring psychiatric assessment or treatment should be referred to a psychiatrist with knowledge and experience of Aboriginal persons.
The Commission recognises that there are limited numbers of psychiatrists with such experience. The Commission notes that, in many instances, medical practitioners who are or have been employed by Aboriginal Health Services are not specialists in psychiatry but have experience and knowledge which would benefit inmates requiring psychiatric assessment or care.
More recently, it has become well known that many assessment tools used for assessing Aboriginal people and treatment plans are not validated for use with Aboriginal people and in fact have caused harm. Recognising this, in 2016 the Australian Psychological Board formally apologised to Aboriginal people for assessments and treatments that have caused harm. The apology included:
-
‘The inappropriate use of assessment techniques and procedures that have conveyed misleading and inaccurate messages about the abilities and capacities of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people’.
-
Developing and applying treatments that have ignored Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander approaches to healing and that have, both implicitly and explicitly, dismissed the importance of culture in understanding and promoting social and emotional wellbeing’
(see APS apology at: psychology.org.au/community/reconciliation-and-the-aps/aps-apology)
Invalidated and inappropriate assessments and treatments have exacerbated the high rates of removal of Aboriginal children from their families and high rates of incarceration of Aboriginal people, causing grave injustice.
It is of utmost importance that diagnosis and assessment tools used, and adjustments considered and used for Aboriginal people with disabilities are validated for use with Aboriginal people and are both culturally safe and sensitive.
ALRM therefore seeks amendments that are clear that assessments of Aboriginal people, must be validated for use with Aboriginal people to ensure they are culturally appropriate for the Aboriginal person with the disability.
These issues could also be incorporated into the Disability Standards.
As an example, ALRM have partnered with the Magnolia Project to produce a practice guide for preparing mental health pre-sentence reports with Aboriginal people in culturally safe ways.
(see The Culturally Safe Practice Guide, with ALRM - The Magnolia Project At: magnoliaproject.com.au/our-projects/the-culturally-safe-practice-guide-with-alrm).
ALRM are also aware that there are other tools designed and led by Aboriginal peoples for use in other fields.
10. Should the Disabilities Convention be included in the objects provision of the Disability Discrimination Act?
Yes, in ALRM’s view it should.
ALRM also considers the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples should be incorporated, given the intersectionality found.
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?
Yes. The DDA should be interpreted in a way that benefits people with disability, consistent with Australia’s human rights obligations.
12. If there was a positive duty in the Disability Discrimination Act, who should it apply to?
ALRM supports the Disability Royal Commission’s Recommendation of the introduction of a positive duty under the DDA that requires government agencies, businesses, and organisations to take proactive steps to prevent systemic and structural discrimination against First Nations people with a disability ^2 (Commission A. H., 2024).
ALRM considers that amongst others, a positive duty should apply to police, prison/ corrections officers, juvenile justice/ correctional officers, child protection workers and teachers.
The Disability Royal Commission mirrors ALRM’s experience, that we are indeed in a ‘national crisis’ in relation to policing and imprisonment of Aboriginal people with a disability. ALRM agree that this includes overcharging, remand in custody and imprisonment of Aboriginal people with a disability and the misidentification of Aboriginal women with a disability as being perpetrators of violence when in fact, they are the ones who have experienced the violence. (page 71 Disability Discrimination Act 1992 Review taken from Disability Royal Commission ‘Criminal justice and people with a disability, Final Report volume 8).
The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody recommended that ‘governments ensure that: Police Services, Corrective Services, and authorities in charge of juvenile centres recognise that they owe a legal duty of care to persons in their custody’ (Recommendation 122(a)). In our report, Unfinished Business, Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, 2025, we found that after 34 years, this recommendation continues to be unimplemented.
Extending a positive duty to police and corrections officers — both at adult and juvenile facilities, would in our view, go some way to implementing this recommendation. It would at least assist the high percentage of Aboriginal people subject to police investigation, charge, remand and to incarceration, being afforded a small measure of protection.
It is police, corrections officers/ prison officers/ juvenile detention officers and child protection workers that have some of the most profound interactions with Aboriginal peoples and the most power over their lives. These powers include to take away or limit Aboriginal people’s liberty and to take away their children. Yet these officers have little by way of requirement to ensure any disabilities are taken into account or accommodated.
ALRM see this happen in police interviewing suspects without communication assistants, with police, prison officers and child protection workers saying things to Aboriginal people with cognitive disabilities or mental health illnesses in a way that ‘pushes their buttons’, causing reactions which lead to imprisonment or further punishment in prison or non-compliance with requirements that lead to further disadvantage.
We also see many examples of requirements put on Aboriginal people with a disability that they cannot possibly meet due to their disability. For example, in prisons in South Australia, prisoners are expected to put their requests for medical treatment, support or other services through an online system called ‘Kiosk Exchange System’. This does not work for many prisoners, but especially those with disabilities.
Prisoners are subject to isolation/ segregation in conditions that have been termed ‘claustrophobic, restricted and oppressive’. (Fyfe v Bordoni and Ors [1998] SASC 6860 (at 21) In ALRM’s experience, prisoners with disabilities can be subject to isolation for reacting or behaving in a way that is consistent with their disability when taunted. Many tell ALRM staff that officers know their weak points and taunt them. They tell ALRM staff, that despite trying to contain themselves they react. Their experience of isolation is particularly harsh and there is little if any consideration of the cause of their behaviour, appropriate calming mechanisms and the impact of isolation/ segregation on them.
ALRM are also aware of prisoners who have not been given access to medication required who suffer episodes due to this.
As stated, the consequences for Aboriginal people with disabilities, their families and communities are enormous. These include; removal of liberty, additional punishments (including in extending their removal of liberty) and removal of children.
We consider that positive duties must extend to police, prison officers, juvenile correctional officers and child protection workers. This will go some way to meeting their duties of care and to Closing the Gap.
Q 15. Should there be exception or limits to the application of a positive duty?
Any exceptions or limits to a positive duty should be narrowly defined to avoid undermining its purpose.
Q 17. Should the scope of duty to provide adjustment apply only to the existing areas of public life covered by the Disability Discrimination Act, or extend to other contexts?
The legislation should create a distinct and enforceable duty for duty holders to make adjustments that ensure culturally safe environments and practices for First Nations people. It is recommended that this duty be informed by community consultation and First Nations-led frameworks.
Public life may need to be extended to ensure that people in prison, police custody and under child protection — including in residential care homes are protected.
27. How could the Disability Discrimination Act be amended to protect people with disability from offensive behaviour and/or harassment?
ALRM’s clients who suffer a disability often tell us that police or prison officers deliberately ‘push their buttons’, knowing that physical touch or certain words or taunts will cause them to react. Unfortunately, they do react, causing them to respond in a way that brings them punishment.
The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody addresses this. For example, Recommendation 182 requires correctional officers to interact with prisoners in a manner that is humane and courteous, with a serious breach of discipline for an officer to speak to a prisoner in a deliberately hurtful or provocative manner.
We therefore suggest that the term ‘offensive behaviour/ harassment’ should incorporate ‘deliberately hurtful and provocative’ within its definition.
28. If the Disability Discrimination Act were to prohibit offensive behaviour and/or harassment, how should these terms be defined?
As above in question 27, we consider the definition should include ‘deliberately hurtful and provocative behaviour’.
31. How could the Disability Discrimination Act be amended to ensure that it covers policing?
As set out previously in the response to question 12, we agree with the Disability Royal Commission’s assertion that we are in a national crisis concerning charging and imprisoning of Aboriginal people with disabilities.
We therefore consider there is a need to expand the positive duty to all aspects of policing. To ensure this occurs, there needs to be a standalone provision so that there is no need to limit policing to what may be termed as ‘service’.
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?
Police should be excluded from obligations relating to discrimination whilst in the act of protecting life.
40. Should specific training organisations be prescribed under the Disability Discrimination Regulations?
Given the disproportionate number of Aboriginal people with a disability and the intersectionality with racism experienced by Aboriginal people, along with the Closing the Gap targets that are not being met, we consider that Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations be both prescribed and resourced to augment training.
41. Should there be minimum requirements for action plans (such as through guidelines) and what should the minimum requirements cover?
Action plans must include input by Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations to ensure they meet the needs of Aboriginal people impacted.
42. Should the Australian Human Rights Commission be able to reject action plans that fail to meet these requirements?
Yes, The Australian Human Rights Commission should have the authority to reject action plans that fail to meet the required standards.
45. How could compliance with and enforcement of the Disability Standards be improved?
Compliance should be considered by people with lived experience and by Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations, including First Nations Disability Network and in South Australia, InComPro. Both of these groups should be specified within the legislation referring to groups considering compliance and enforcement.
49, What additional guidance materials should be provided to the community, including duty holders, about the operation of the Disability Discrimination Act or specific amendments proposed in this paper?
Clear and accessible guidance material are essential to ensure the effective operation of the DDA and any proposed amendments. These resources should help both the community and duty holders understand their rights and obligations in practice. For Aboriginal people, these should be designed by Aboriginal people.
Practice materials such as plain-language guides, fact sheets and explanatory notes on amendments would assist the community in navigating the DDA. For duty holders, toolkits, compliance check lists, and case studies would provide clarity on expectations and encourage best practice.
50. How can we ensure the Disability Discrimination Act remains fit for purpose into the future?
There should be reviews at reasonable intervals.
All reviews should be required to include people with lived experience and Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations, including the First Nations People Disability Network and in South Australia ‘InComPro’.
51. Are there any other issues with the Disability Discrimination Act that should be considered as part of this review?
The Act should expressly recognise the needs for culturally safe environments and practices, particularly for Aboriginal people with disability, and address the intersection of disability with other forms of discrimination.
These reforms are essential to ensure that the DDA protects all Australians, especially Aboriginal people, and upholds the principles of dignity, equity, and justice.
We thank you for considering this submission. You are welcome to contact our policy and advocacy unit if you have any questions via email at redacted: s47F - personal privacy
Signed
redacted: s47F - personal privacy
Chief Executive Officer
Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement
- Australian Human Rights Commission - The National Anti-Racism Framework: A roadmap to eliminating racism in Australia.
- Australian Human Rights Commission - The National Anti-Racism Framework: A roadmap to eliminating racism in Australia.