SubmissionSubmitted by: to the Review(onof behalfthe Disabilityof my son, Discrimination) Act 1992Date: 04 September 2025Note on completing the survey The survey is very in-depth but really hard to navigate for typical people. I have done mybest to answer the questions, but I also want to share our story in this submission. Thishelps make sure the real impacts are understood, not just the short survey answers.Personal story I am the plenary guardian for my son, . He has profound disability and very highneeds. Every part of his life depends on safe environments, clear protections, and systemsthat actually respond to his real risks. The Disability Discrimination Act is supposed to helpfamilies like mine, but too often it feels like the law is written in a way that lets services andgovernments hide behind technicalities instead of making adjustments that work.Problems with the current Act
• Adjustments feel optional. Too often people tell me “we can’t” or “that’s not how the policyworks,” even when the change is essential for safety.• The word “reasonable” confuses things. It makes people think they can decide what’s“reasonable” for us, instead of listening to what actually needs.• Indirect discrimination rules are too complex. Ordinary people don’t understand them,and service providers use them as an excuse.• Gaps in coverage. Disability inclusion should apply across all areas of life — not just thelimited ones in the Act.Real life example
We live on land contaminated with PFAS. For , who has severe PICA and eats soil andobjects, this is life-threatening. Government offers of “remediation” don’t work for him. Heneeds relocation. Yet because the law doesn’t clearly say adjustments must meet theperson’s disability needs, our fight drags on. We are pushed to fit their box, instead of themmeeting needs.Why reforms matter
- A stand-alone duty to provide adjustments would make it clear they are a right, not afavour.• Removing “reasonable” would stop the arguments and make the law match its true effect.
- Defining exclusion and exclusionary discipline would stop schools, workplaces, andservices quietly pushing people out.• A fairer test of unjustifiable hardship would make organisations consult properly beforesaying no.• National consistency would stop people with disability losing out depending on wherethey live.Recommendations
- Create a clear, stand-alone duty to provide adjustments.• Remove the word “reasonable” from “reasonable adjustments.”• Extend the duty across all areas of public life.• Define exclusion and exclusionary discipline as discrimination.• Strengthen the unjustifiable hardship test so consultation is required.• Adopt the strongest state/territory protections into the national Act.Closing My son’s life shows what happens when systems think about policy for “the many” insteadof real disability needs. The DDA must be strengthened so families like mine are not leftunprotected. Adjustments should never be negotiable when safety and dignity are at stake.Ideally, decisions should be made in a way that prevents harm to people with disabilityfrom the start. But when harm does occur, there must be a duty to act quickly and pivot towhat actually meets the person’s needs — not delay, not hide behind policy, and not imposewhat others think is best.Harm has already come to us, which is bad enough. But the fact that I cannot get anysupport to fix the situation is even worse. I am not disabled myself, yet even I struggle tofind support to protect my son. His human rights are not being met, and he is beingdiscriminated against. That is the brutal honesty of our story.