Experiences of intersectional discrimination as a neurodivergent woman | External submission

How should disability be defined in the Disability Discrimination Act? Enter your response here:

The definition of disability in the DDA should be updated to a human rights and social model, recognising that disability comes from the interaction between a person’s condition and barriers in society. As a neurodivergent nurse with a mild intellectual disability, ADHD, dyslexia, dysgraphia, Irlen Syndrome, and anxiety, I have seen how the current deficit-based definition allows workplaces to exclude and discriminate instead of providing support. The definition should explicitly include neurodivergent conditions, recognise that disability can be permanent, temporary, episodic, fluctuating, or co-occurring, and protect people who are perceived to have a disability. Using inclusive, strengths-based language would better reflect lived experiences like mine, reduce stigma, and bring the Act in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

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

A new definition of disability should be inclusive of all types of disability, including physical, sensory, intellectual, psychosocial, cognitive, neurological, learning differences, and neurodivergence. It should focus on barriers rather than diagnoses, acknowledging that disability often arises from social and environmental obstacles. The definition must also recognise fluctuating and invisible conditions, protect people regardless of severity, and ensure alignment with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It should explicitly cover workplace and education settings, and recognise intersectionality, where disability discrimination is compounded by gender, age, culture, or other factors. Recognise intersectionality, as people may face compounded discrimination due to gender, age, cultural background, or other factors alongside disability.

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

The Disability Discrimination Act should allow claims for intersectional discrimination, where disability overlaps with gender, age, race, or cultural background. As a neurodivergent woman from a culturally diverse background, I have faced discrimination that cannot be

addressed when each factor is treated in isolation. Recognising intersectional discrimination would reflect real experiences, close legal gaps, and align Australia’s laws with international human rights standards.

Could any other changes be made to the Disability Discrimination Act to recognise and provide protection for people with disability who have intersecting identities, or addressing compounding discrimination?

The DDA should be updated to explicitly recognise intersectionality, as many people face discrimination not only due to disability but also because of gender, age, race, or cultural background. As a neurodivergent woman with German heritage, I have experienced compounded discrimination that the current Act does not adequately address. The law should include a clear definition of intersectional discrimination, allow single claims covering multiple attributes, and guide courts and employers on how to assess these cases. Remedies must account for the added harm caused by intersecting biases, and workplaces should be trained to identify and prevent this type of discrimination. The Act should also enforce stronger employer accountability for reasonable adjustments, with penalties, time limits, and oversight, so that disabled and neurodivergent workers are not left without support or pushed out of employment.

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?

I support the detriment test. The comparator test is complex and unrealistic, as it requires proving how a “person without disability” would be treated. In my experience as a nurse, this made it harder to show discrimination when I was denied reasonable adjustments and placed on leave. The detriment test is clearer and fairer. It focuses on whether a person was treated unfavourably because of their disability, making it easier to apply and more reflective of lived experience. The Disability Discrimination Act should recognise intersectional discrimination. Many people face unfair treatment because of both disability and other factors such as gender, age, or cultural background. As a neurodivergent woman with German heritage, I have experienced discrimination that cannot be explained by disability alone. An express provision would reflect these real experiences, close legal gaps, and ensure stronger

protections. It would also bring Australia in line with international human rights standards.

How should the definition of indirect discrimination be amended to ensure that it is easy to understand and implement?

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

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 definition of indirect discrimination should be simplified to focus on its impact, rather than its intent. From my experience as a neurodivergent graduate Registered Nurse, workplace rules and lack of support, such as denying supervision or refusing reasonable adjustments, caused serious disadvantage even without intent to harm. The law should make it clear that employers must provide reasonable adjustments, recognise intersectional disabilities, and use simple, practical criteria. Including real-world examples would make the Act clearer, more enforceable, and more effective in protecting disabled Australians. The definition of indirect discrimination should keep “reasonableness” but include clear factors, such as employer size, resources, impact on the person with disability, and availability of alternatives. From my experience as a neurodivergent nurse, workplace rules and lack of support, such as denial of supervision and reasonable adjustments, caused significant disadvantage. Clear guidance would make the law easier to apply, prevent avoidance by employers, and ensure fair outcomes for people with disability.

Should the Disabilities Convention be included in the objects provision of the Disability Discrimination Act?

Including the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. (CRPD) . The objects of the Disability Discrimination Act would formally recognise Australia’s international human rights obligations. From my experience as a neurodivergent healthcare professional, embedding the CRPD would reinforce that reasonable adjustments are a human right, strengthen protections against systemic ableism, and provide guidance for courts, tribunals, and employers to apply the law consistently with principles of inclusion, equality, and accessibility. This would ensure the Act better protects people with disability and aligns with international best practices.

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, it should be removed.

The current wording “does not or would not comply or is not able or would not be able to comply” is confusing and overly technical. It creates uncertainty and allows employers to evade accountability. From my experience as a neurodivergent Registered Nurse, vague language made it difficult to assert my rights when reasonable adjustments or

supervision were denied. Replacing it with plain language that focuses on actual disadvantage would make the law easier to understand, increase employer accountability, and strengthen protections for disabled workers.

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 Disability Discrimination Act should be expressly required to be interpreted in a way that benefits people with disability, consistent with human rights treaties. This ensures legal protections are applied in favour of disabled people, aligns the Act with international standards such as the CRPD, and guides courts, tribunals, and employers to consider the lived experience of people with disability, including neurodivergent and intersectional identities. From my experience as a neurodivergent healthcare professional, this approach would make the law more effective, practical, and fair, and support the proactive enforcement of reasonable adjustments and workplace inclusion.

Part 2 — Positive duty to eliminate discrimination

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

A positive duty should apply to all employers, education providers, government agencies, and service providers, regardless of size or sector. From my experience as a graduate Registered Nurse with a mild

intellectual disability, ADHD, dyslexia, and Irlen Syndrome, | requested

reasonable adjustments but was placed on unpaid leave and ultimately terminated, despite having over 13.5 years of experience as an Assistant in Nursing. Rather than proactively supporting me, my employer relied on reactive measures, leaving me without the

adjustments | needed to succeed. Employers should have this duty

because workplaces are where systemic exclusion often occurs.

WE did not provide consistent support during my graduate program and created barriers that undermined my development. A positive duty would require proactive steps to embed inclusion, review recruitment, training, supervision, and performance management, and ensure staff with disabilities can thrive. Education providers should also be bound by a positive duty, as barriers frequently start during training. Proactive

obligations would ensure reasonable adjustments are identified and implemented, creating equal opportunities for students with disabilities to complete studies and enter the workforce. Government bodies and regulators must be included because they shape and enforce systems. A positive duty would require them to ensure policies, oversight, and decision-making do not reinforce systemic ableism or exclude people with disabilities from professional participation.

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?

Yes. A key lesson from the Sex Discrimination Act is that a positive duty must be proactive, enforceable, and supported by oversight. It works best when organisations are required to prevent discrimination before it occurs, rather than relying on individuals to lodge complaints. In my case, as a graduate Registered Nurse, a proactive duty, combined with clear guidance and accountability, could have prevented the lack of

adjustments and eventual termination | experienced. The Disability

Discrimination Act should adopt the same preventative and enforceable approach. A government body should be empowered to enforce reasonable adjustments, as relying on individuals to complain places too much burden on people with disabilities. Proactive monitoring and accountability would ensure employers, education providers, and services take their obligations seriously, rather than leaving workers like me unsupported.

What costs and other impacts would duty holders experience in meeting a positive duty under the Disability Discrimination Act?

The costs for duty holders in meeting a positive duty under the Disability Discrimination Act would mainly involve providing reasonable adjustments, staff training, and updating policies or systems to be inclusive. In practice, most adjustments are low-cost or no-cost, such as flexible rostering, clearer communication, or simple assistive tools. Even where adjustments require some investment, the long-term benefits outweigh the costs. Inclusive practices improve staff retention, reduce complaints and legal risks, and create safer, more productive workplaces. In my own experience as a graduate Registered Nurse, the Hospital chose to place me on unpaid leave and later terminate my employment rather than provide adjustments. This approach not only caused me personal harm but also cost the health system in terms of wasted training investment, recruitment, and lost workforce potential. A

positive duty would shift the focus to early and proactive support, which is ultimately more cost-effective and beneficial for both organisations and individuals.

1. Should there be exceptions or limits to the application of a positive duty?
No. | believe there should be no exceptions or limits to the application of

a positive duty. People with disabilities should be entitled to proactive support and inclusion in all workplaces, education settings, government services, and service providers, regardless of the context. My own experience as a graduate Registered Nurse shows why limits can be harmful: despite disclosing my disabilities and requesting reasonable

adjustments, | was placed on unpaid leave and ultimately terminated,

rather than being supported to succeed. Any exceptions or limits risk leaving people like me without protection and allowing organisations to avoid their responsibility to create accessible and inclusive environments. A universal positive duty ensures that inclusion is treated as a Standard, not an optional extra. In my case, the hospital’s response to supervision requirements appeared to be driven by cost rather than genuine support. Instead of providing the additional supervision or adjustments needed to help me succeed and improve in my role, no

alternative job opportunities were explored. | was ultimately terminated

on medical grounds, as if my disabilities automatically made me a risk. This reflects professional ableism and effectively excluded me from continuing in the industry, rather than addressing barriers or creating an inclusive work environment.

Part 3 — Encouraging inclusion of people with disability in employment, education and other areas of public life

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?

Creating a stand-alone duty to provide adjustments would significantly help both people with disabilities and duty holders understand their rights and obligations. In my experience as a graduate Registered Nurse, the lack of clarity around “reasonable adjustments” contributed to confusion, inconsistent support, and ultimately my termination. A clear, standalone duty would make it explicit that adjustments are a proactive, ongoing responsibility, not something that can be ignored or deferred. This would guide employers, education providers, and service

organisations to engage with individuals, explore all options, and implement adjustments early, reducing barriers and preventing exclusion from work, study, or public life. Clear obligations and guidance would also empower people with disabilities to assert their rights without fear of being dismissed or penalised. In my case, the hospital’s response to supervision requirements appeared to be driven by cost rather than genuine support. Instead of providing the additional supervision or adjustments needed to help me succeed, no alternative job opportunities

were explored. | was ultimately terminated on medical grounds, as if my

disabilities automatically made me a risk. The conditions placed on nurse registrations further make it difficult for people with disabilities to meet requirements while maintaining employment, and they restrict job opportunities. When staff leave the industry due to these barriers, it creates a loss of skilled and experienced workers. There needs to be clear pathways that allow nurses with disabilities to remain in the healthcare field, with appropriate support and reasonable adjustments, so that staff can continue contributing rather than being excluded because of systemic ableism.

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?

| believe the duty to provide adjustments should extend beyond the

existing areas of public life covered by the Disability Discrimination Act. Limiting the duty to current contexts leaves people with disabilities exposed to discrimination in many everyday areas, including workplaces, training programs, healthcare services, and community participation. My experience as a graduate Registered Nurse shows the

consequences of narrow application: | was denied adjustments in a

professional setting, which led to exclusion from my role and the healthcare industry. Extending the scope would ensure that reasonable adjustments are consistently applied wherever people with disabilities seek to participate, promoting genuine inclusion across all aspects of life.

Would removing the word ‘reasonable’ from the term ‘reasonable adjustments’ to align the language with the legal effect create any unintended consequences?

Removing the word “reasonable” could create unintended consequences by making the duty to provide adjustments appear absolute, without

consideration for practical limitations. While the intention is to clarify that duty holders must provide adjustments wherever possible, it could expose employers, education providers, and service providers to legal risk for situations beyond their control, such as limited resources or safety constraints. At the same time, keeping “reasonable” allows for flexibility while still obliging duty holders to actively engage with the person with a disability, explore options, and implement adjustments wherever feasible. In my own experience as a graduate Registered Nurse, a clear understanding of obligations balanced with flexibility would have helped ensure I received support without creating unnecessary legal ambiguity for my employer.

What is your preferred approach to achieving greater fairness and transparency in claims of unjustifiable hardship?

A new, clear definition of unjustifiable hardship would provide greater fairness and transparency by outlining exactly what factors can be considered when an organisation claims an adjustment is too difficult or costly. My experience as a graduate Registered Nurse highlights why this is needed: used cost and supervision requirements as grounds to avoid providing adjustments, ultimately excluding me from my role and the healthcare industry. A clear, transparent definition would ensure that duty holders must genuinely explore all options and consult with the person with a disability before claiming hardship, preventing organisations from using vague or subjective criteria to deny reasonable adjustments. This approach would also give people with disabilities confidence that their rights are protected and that claims of hardship are assessed consistently and fairly.

What are your views on amending the Disability Discrimination Act to consider the nature and extent of any adjustments made and encourage consultation between prospective or current employers and prospective or current employees before making employment decisions?

Amending the Disability Discrimination Act to explicitly consider the nature and extent of adjustments and require consultation between

employers and employees would be a significant step toward fairness and inclusion. In my experience as a graduate Registered Nurse, decisions about my employment were made without meaningful consultation about the adjustments. I needed, and the adjustments I requested were not implemented. If employers were required to actively consult and consider all feasible adjustments before making employment decisions, it would prevent people with disabilities from being excluded due to assumptions about risk or capability. This approach would also encourage workplaces to plan proactively, embed inclusion in decision making, and retain skilled staff rather than losing experienced workers due to systemic ableism. Requiring consultation and consideration of adjustments would ensure decisions are based on actual support needs, not assumptions about a person’s capability. This would help prevent skilled staff from being pushed out of the industry while still allowing employers to fairly assess genuine hardship.

Are there other amendments to the Disability Discrimination Act that could support engagement between prospective or current employers and prospective or current employees to better understand the inherent requirements of a role?

Yes. The Act could include provisions that require employers to actively consult with employees or prospective employees about adjustments and support needs before making decisions about recruitment, promotion, or termination. It could also require employers to document how they have considered the inherent requirements of a role and explored all reasonable adjustments, ensuring transparency and accountability. In my experience as a graduate Registered Nurse, lack of consultation and assumptions about my capabilities led to exclusion from my role; clearer obligations in the Act would help prevent similar outcomes and support retention of skilled staff with disabilities. There should be a government body responsible for monitoring and ensuring that employers provide reasonable adjustments for staff with disabilities. This would ensure accountability, prevent exclusion, and make sure that workplaces actively support employees rather than relying on complaints after discrimination occurs.

Should any other amendments be made to the definition of inherent requirements, including factors that should be considered when deciding whether a person could carry out the inherent requirements of a job?

The definition of inherent requirements should include factors such as the availability of reasonable adjustments, consultation with the employee, and provision of training or support to enable them to perform the role. My experience as a graduate Registered Nurse shows the dangers of a narrow interpretation: I was placed on a performance improvement plan and effectively pushed out of my role, without meaningful support or adjustments, which led to exclusion from the industry. Expanding the factors considered would ensure employers focus on actual capabilities and support needs, rather than using management processes to remove staff with disabilities, and would promote fair and inclusive workplaces.

Should the concepts of exclusion and exclusionary discipline be defined in the Disability Discrimination Act?

The concepts of exclusion and exclusionary discipline should be explicitly defined in the Disability Discrimination Act to prevent misuse and ensure clarity for both employees and employers. My experience as a graduate Registered Nurse shows how exclusionary practices, such as unpaid leave or suspension without meaningful support, can be used to push staff out rather than address barriers or provide reasonable adjustments. Clear definitions would ensure that exclusion is only used as a last resort, promote accountability, and protect employees with disabilities from being unfairly removed from their roles. The concepts of exclusion and exclusionary discipline should be explicitly defined in the Disability Discrimination Act to prevent misuse and ensure clarity. In my experience as a graduate Registered Nurse, I was placed on unpaid leave and eventually terminated without any alternative pathways offered, despite being willing and able to continue with adjustments. The process took almost two years, with prolonged delays and a lack of proactive support, highlighting how unclear rules around exclusion allow systemic ableism to push people out of roles instead of providing fair opportunities to succeed. Clear definitions would ensure exclusion is only used as a last resort and protect employees from being unfairly removed.

Should there be exceptions or limits on when exclusion is unlawful?

There should be no exceptions or limits on when exclusion is unlawful. My experience as a graduate Registered Nurse shows how allowing any exceptions can be misused to push staff out of their roles rather than providing meaningful support or adjustments. I was placed on unpaid leave and ultimately terminated without alternative pathways or sufficient support over a two-year process, demonstrating how “exceptions” can be applied in ways that reinforce systemic ableism. A clear rule that exclusion is only permissible as a last resort, with no loopholes, would ensure employees with disabilities are genuinely protected and included in workplaces.

Should any of the state and territory provisions relating to exclusionary discipline be adopted in the Disability Discrimination Act?

Certain state and territory provisions relating to exclusionary discipline should be adopted in the Disability Discrimination Act to provide clarity, consistency, and stronger protections across Australia. My experience as a graduate Registered Nurse demonstrates the need for this: I was placed on unpaid leave and eventually terminated without alternative pathways or meaningful support, over a two-year process that exposed me to systemic ableism. Adopting consistent provisions would ensure that exclusionary discipline is only used as a last resort, provide clear guidance to employers, and protect employees with disabilities from being unfairly removed from their roles.

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

A different approach to exclusionary discipline is needed in higher education and vocational education and training (VET) sectors, because the current practices can disproportionately disadvantage students with disabilities. My experience as a graduate Registered Nurse shows that prolonged processes, lack of alternative pathways, and minimal support can push individuals out of education or professional training programs, ultimately limiting their career opportunities. In these sectors, exclusion should only be used as a last resort, with mandatory consultation, reasonable adjustments, and clear pathways for students to continue

their studies or training while receiving support, ensuring fair and inclusive outcomes.

Part 4 – Improving access to justice

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

The Disability Discrimination Act should be amended to explicitly define offensive behaviour and harassment, including online spaces, and make these behaviours unlawful based on disability. Protections should cover interactions in workplaces, education, public spaces, and digital platforms, and clearly outline the responsibilities of both individuals and organisations. In my experience, people with disabilities are often subjected to discrimination, exclusion, or targeted behaviour without clear legal recourse. Clear definitions and legal obligations would allow victims to seek justice more effectively and hold perpetrators accountable, while also encouraging proactive prevention and inclusive practices.

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

Offensive behaviour and harassment should be defined as any action, conduct, or communication that targets a person based on their disability, causing distress, humiliation, or fear, or creating a hostile, intimidating, or exclusionary environment. This should include both physical and online interactions across workplaces, education settings, public spaces, and digital platforms. Definitions should clearly hold individuals and organisations accountable while allowing reasonable context, such as freedom of expression, without compromising the safety and dignity of people with disabilities.

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

Similar to the Racial Discrimination Act, there could be narrowly defined exemptions for behaviour that is reasonably intended for artistic, academic, journalistic, or public interest purposes, provided it is not motivated by malice or meant to target or humiliate a person with a disability. Exemptions should be limited and clearly defined to avoid

misuse, ensuring that people with disabilities remain protected from harassment, vilification, or offensive behaviour. Without careful boundaries, broad exemptions could allow discriminatory behaviour to go unchecked, undermining the purpose of the protections. I have experienced gaslighting and offensive comments suggesting that issues in aged care or disability services were my “fault” or my responsibility, including statements implying that my dad, as a carer, should handle problems. Disabled staff, including neurodiverse employees, are at risk of being unfairly judged, excluded, or treated as less capable, which can create a culture of fear and limit their participation in the workforce. Clear protections and proactive adjustments are needed to ensure they are supported, included, and able to contribute fully without fear of discrimination or exclusion. These comments are distressing and undermine trust, dignity, and confidence, and they highlight why clear protections against harassment and offensive behaviour are essential.

Given the recent legislative developments, are there any further gaps in the legislative framework that could be addressed by amendments to the Disability Discrimination Act to protect people with disability from vilification?

There are still gaps in the legislative framework that leave people with disabilities vulnerable to vilification, particularly in online spaces and public commentary. Current protections do not clearly cover digital platforms or social media, were harmful, targeted, or humiliating content can spread quickly. My experience shows that people with disabilities can be blamed, gaslit, or publicly criticised for systemic issues, such as in aged care or healthcare settings, which has a real impact on mental health and inclusion. Amendments should explicitly extend vilification protections to cover online environments, ensure accountability for individuals and platforms, and provide clear avenues for redress to protect the dignity and safety of people with disabilities. There are still gaps in the legislative framework that leave people with disabilities, especially neurodiverse individuals, in healthcare, vulnerable to vilification. Current protections do not clearly cover online spaces or professional settings where harmful or discriminatory comments can occur. In my experience as a neurodiverse graduate Registered Nurse, I faced blame, gaslighting, and exclusion, which were distressing and undermined my ability to participate in the workforce. Amendments should explicitly extend vilification protections to professional and online environments, ensure accountability for individuals and platforms, and provide clear avenues for redress to protect the dignity and safety of neurodiverse people and others with disabilities.

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

The Disability Discrimination Act could be amended to explicitly include policing and interactions with law enforcement within its scope, ensuring that people with disabilities are protected from discrimination, harassment, or exclusion in all engagements with the police. This could include stops, questioning, use of force, custody, or access to police services, with clear obligations for officers to make reasonable adjustments and for oversight bodies to monitor compliance. In my experience and for neurodiverse people in healthcare and other sectors, a lack of explicit protections leaves individuals vulnerable to being treated unfairly or excluded from necessary services. Including policing explicitly would provide clarity, accountability, and avenues for redress when rights are violated. Disabled staff, including neurodiverse employees, are at risk of being unfairly judged, excluded, or treated as less capable, which can create a culture of fear and limit their participation in the workforce. Clear protections and proactive adjustments are needed to ensure they are supported, included, and able to contribute fully without fear of discrimination or exclusion.

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 should be no exclusions for policing or justice in the application of the Disability Discrimination Act. People with disabilities, including neurodiverse individuals, must be protected from discrimination, harassment, or exclusion in all interactions with law enforcement or the justice system. Exemptions could allow unfair treatment, reduced accountability, or unsafe practices, undermining the Act’s purpose. Clear and consistent protections are necessary to ensure that all individuals can access justice and police services safely and equitably.

Part 5 – Exemptions

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

Some permanent exemptions in the Disability Discrimination Act could be narrowed or updated to better balance protections for people with disabilities while maintaining necessary policy objectives. Broad or outdated exemptions can allow organisations to avoid providing reasonable adjustments or create loopholes that perpetuate exclusion. My experience as a graduate Registered Nurse shows how systemic ableism can be reinforced when exemptions are applied without scrutiny, leaving skilled staff unsupported or pushed out of roles. Updating exemptions to ensure they are necessary, clearly defined, and time limited where possible would strengthen inclusion and accountability while still allowing government and other policy objectives to be met.

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

The Australian Human Rights Commission should have the power to grant special measures certificates to support proactive inclusion and reasonable adjustments for people with disabilities. These certificates can provide legal clarity and protection for organisations implementing measures designed to address historical or systemic disadvantage. My experience as a graduate Registered Nurse highlights the need for clear mechanisms that allow employers and education providers to implement supportive measures without fear of legal challenge, ensuring that people with disabilities receive the adjustments and opportunities they need to succeed.

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

A clear definition of special measures should be added to the Disability Discrimination Act to ensure consistency, transparency, and legal certainty. My experience as a graduate Registered Nurse shows that without a clear definition, organisations may be unsure about what measures are lawful, or may fail to implement proactive support, leaving people with disabilities excluded or unsupported. Defining special measures would clarify the types of actions and adjustments that are permitted to address disadvantage, promote inclusion, and protect individuals from systemic discrimination. A clear definition of special measures should be added to the Disability Discrimination Act to ensure consistency and legal certainty. For example, in healthcare, indirect

policies or practices can result in discrimination against staff with disabilities rather than supporting them. Defining special measures would clarify what proactive actions are lawful, helping employers provide meaningful support, address systemic disadvantage, and prevent staff from being unfairly excluded or pushed out of their roles.

Should a definition for temporary exemptions be added to the Disability Discrimination Act?

A clear definition for temporary exemptions should be added to the Disability Discrimination Act to provide transparency and accountability. For example, in my experience as a graduate Registered Nurse, temporary exemptions could have been used appropriately to allow adjustments while processes around my employment were being assessed. Without clear limits, temporary exemptions risk being extended indefinitely, leaving people with disabilities unsupported or excluded. Defining them would ensure exemptions are genuinely short term and monitored, protecting staff while allowing necessary flexibility.

Would you recommend any changes to the legislative process of granting temporary exemptions?

The legislative process for granting temporary exemptions should be made more transparent, time-limited, and subject to oversight. For example, in my experience as a graduate Registered Nurse, a temporary exemption could have allowed adjustments to my supervision requirements while my employment situation was being reviewed. Without clear timeframes and accountability, such exemptions risk being extended indefinitely, leaving staff unsupported or excluded. Clear documentation, justification, and regular review would ensure temporary exemptions are used appropriately and protect the rights of nurses with disabilities. There is a lack of neurodiversity leadership in the healthcare field, which contributes to systemic ableism and insufficient support for staff with disabilities. Greater representation of neurodiverse leaders would help create inclusive policies, ensure reasonable adjustments are implemented effectively, and improve retention and career progression for neurodiverse healthcare professionals.

How could the protections for 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 place?

Protections for assistance animals should be clarified to ensure healthcare staff with hidden disabilities, including neurodiverse staff, can use their animals to support their wellbeing and work performance. Clear rules on training, hygiene, and behaviour in public spaces would help employers balance safety and accessibility while preventing discrimination, ensuring staff with hidden disabilities are supported and included in the healthcare workplace.

Would legislative amendments or guidance materials be helpful to balance flexibility and certainty, or a mixture of both?

Legislative amendments provide clear, enforceable rights and obligations, ensuring accountability and protection for people with disabilities, including neurodiverse healthcare staff. Guidance materials can provide practical advice and flexibility for employers, education providers, and service providers on how to implement these rights in diverse settings. My experience as a graduate Registered Nurse shows that without both clarity and practical guidance, organisations can misinterpret obligations or fail to provide reasonable adjustments, leaving staff unsupported and excluded. A combination of both would ensure legal certainty while enabling adaptable, inclusive practices.

Should specific training organisations be prescribed under the Disability Discrimination Regulations?

Specific training organisations should be prescribed under the Disability Discrimination Regulations to ensure consistent, high-quality education for staff, employers, and service providers on disability inclusion and obligations under the Act. In healthcare, clear and standardised training would help supervisors and colleagues understand how to support neurodiverse and other staff with hidden disabilities, provide reasonable adjustments, and prevent discrimination or exclusion. Prescribing training organisations would promote accountability, consistency, and better workplace outcomes for people with disabilities. Specific training organisations should be prescribed under the Disability Discrimination Regulations to ensure consistent, high-quality education on disability inclusion. For example, in hospitals, prescribed training could help nurse unit managers and supervisors understand how to support neurodiverse

staff, implement reasonable adjustments, and prevent discrimination or exclusion, improving retention and workplace culture.

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

Minimum requirements for disability action plans should be established through guidelines to ensure they are meaningful, consistent, and enforceable. In healthcare, these requirements could cover proactive identification of barriers, clear processes for requesting and implementing reasonable adjustments, timelines for action, responsibilities of supervisors and management, and mechanisms for monitoring and reporting outcomes. My experience as a graduate Registered Nurse shows that without clear minimum standards, action plans can be vague or ineffective, leaving neurodiverse and other staff with hidden disabilities unsupported and at risk of exclusion. Clear, enforceable requirements would promote accountability, inclusion, and better workplace outcomes.

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

The Australian Human Rights Commission should have the power to reject action plans that fail to meet minimum requirements to ensure accountability and meaningful implementation. For example, in hospitals, an action plan that does not include clear processes for providing reasonable adjustments or supporting neurodiverse staff could leave graduate nurses or other staff with hidden disabilities unsupported. Allowing the Commission to review and reject inadequate plans would ensure that healthcare workplaces take practical steps to include and retain staff with disabilities. Employers should not place staff on performance improvement plans (PIPs) if they require reasonable adjustments to do their job. In healthcare, using PIPs instead of providing necessary supports for neurodiverse or other staff with hidden disabilities unfairly penalises them and can push capable employees out of the workforce. In my experience as a graduate Registered Nurse, I was effectively punished through suspension and being placed on a performance improvement plan (PIP) because I did not receive reasonable adjustments and required additional supervision. This

demonstrates how the system can unfairly penalise staff with disabilities instead of providing the support they need to succeed.

Should there be a set period of time for which an action plan is valid? There should be a set period of time for which an action plan is valid to ensure that commitments are regularly reviewed, updated, and monitored for effectiveness. In healthcare, for example, without a defined timeframe, plans to support neurodiverse staff or those with hidden disabilities can remain outdated or unimplemented, leaving staff unsupported. Setting a validity period would promote accountability, ensure that adjustments and initiatives remain relevant, and allow organisations to respond to changes in staff needs or workplace conditions.
Are there any other changes to the action plan process that you would recommend?

I would recommend that the action plan process include mandatory consultation with the staff member or student with a disability, clear timelines for implementing adjustments, and regular monitoring and reporting of progress. In healthcare, for example, this would ensure that neurodiverse staff or those with hidden disabilities receive timely support, supervision, and reasonable adjustments, rather than being set up to fail or excluded. The process should also include accountability measures so that managers and organisations are responsible for following through on commitments, creating a workplace culture that genuinely values inclusion.

How could compliance with and enforcement of the Disability Standards be improved?

Compliance with and enforcement of the Disability Standards could be improved by strengthening oversight, accountability, and regular audits. For example, in hospitals, ensuring that neurodiverse nurses and other staff with hidden disabilities receive reasonable adjustments, supervision, and support would prevent exclusion or being unfairly pushed out of roles. Enforcement could include mandatory reporting, penalties for non-compliance, and clear guidance for managers, creating a safer and more inclusive healthcare workplace. Compliance with and enforcement of the Disability Standards could be improved by strengthening oversight, introducing clear accountability measures, and

providing regular audits of workplaces and education providers. In healthcare, for example, ensuring that hospitals and training institutions are monitored for implementing reasonable adjustments and supporting neurodiverse or other staff with hidden disabilities would prevent systemic exclusion. Enforcement could also include mandatory reporting, penalties for non-compliance, and guidance on best practice, ensuring that organisations are not only aware of their obligations but actively meet them to create inclusive, safe, and equitable environments.

Should the Disability Discrimination Act be amended to encourage relevant duty holders to self-report on their compliance with the Disability Standard(s) in disability action plans?

The Disability Discrimination Act should be amended to encourage duty holders to self-report on their compliance with the Disability Standards in action plans. In healthcare, for example, hospitals and training institutions could report on how they are providing reasonable adjustments, supporting neurodiverse staff, and implementing inclusive practices. Self-reporting would promote transparency, accountability, and continuous improvement, ensuring that organisations actively monitor and address barriers rather than waiting for complaints to arise.

Could the Australian Human Rights Commission provide additional guidance to duty holders regarding how to self-report on the Disability Standards in disability action plans?

The Australian Human Rights Commission could provide additional guidance to duty holders on how to self-report on compliance with the Disability Standards in action plans, including clear templates, examples, and timelines. In healthcare, this guidance would help hospitals and supervisors understand how to report on reasonable adjustments, support for neurodiverse staff, and inclusion initiatives, ensuring consistency and transparency. Clear guidance would also encourage proactive compliance, making it easier for organisations to identify gaps and take corrective action before discrimination or exclusion occurs.

Part 7 – Further options for reform

Are there examples of legislative provisions in Commonwealth or state and territory anti-discrimination law that could be drawn on to modernise or strengthen the Disability Discrimination Act?

Provisions from Commonwealth and state anti-discrimination laws,

including the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, Racial Discrimination Act

1975, Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW), Work Health and Safety Act 2011, and the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986, could inform reforms to modernise and strengthen the Disability Discrimination Act. For example, the positive duty in the Sex Discrimination Act and the oversight and complaint-handling powers in the Human Rights Commission Act could require healthcare employers to proactively prevent discrimination and provide reasonable adjustments for neurodiverse and other staff with hidden disabilities. Including vilification and harassment protections from these Acts would also ensure workplaces and public spaces are safer and more inclusive, with clear obligations and accountability for duty holders. For example, in hospitals, positive duty provisions could require managers to proactively provide reasonable adjustments, supervision, and support for neurodiverse nurses or other staff with hidden disabilities, preventing exclusion or unfair termination. Similarly, harassment and vilification protections from these Acts could ensure safe and inclusive workplace environments for all healthcare staff.

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?

Additional guidance materials should include plain-language resources, practical examples, and templates for duty holders in healthcare. For example, hospitals could use guidance on how to provide reasonable adjustments for neurodiverse nurses, implement supervision requirements fairly, manage performance without penalising staff who need support, and prevent harassment or vilification in the workplace and online. These resources would help ensure inclusion, compliance, and safer, more supportive healthcare environments.

How can we ensure the Disability Discrimination Act remains fit-for- purpose into the future?

To ensure the Disability Discrimination Act remains fit-for-purpose, it should include regular reviews, mechanisms for updating definitions and standards, and guidance on emerging issues such as digital accessibility and neurodiversity in the workplace. In healthcare, for example, this could mean updating obligations to reflect new supervision models, technology-enabled adjustments, and evolving understanding of hidden disabilities. Additionally, embedding positive duties, clear enforcement

mechanisms, and ongoing consultation with people with disabilities will ensure the Act continues to protect rights, promote inclusion, and respond to changes in society, workplaces, and education.

Are there any other issues with the Disability Discrimination Act that should be considered as part of this review?

The Disability Discrimination Act does not adequately protect neurodiverse staff and those with hidden disabilities in healthcare, where systemic ableism, lack of supervision, and exclusionary practices such as suspension or performance improvement plans can push capable staff out. Weak enforcement, limited oversight, and loopholes allowing employers to claim unjustifiable hardship mean reasonable adjustments are often not provided, and staff are judged on capability rather than supported, leaving them at risk of exclusion from the workforce. In healthcare, the Disability Discrimination Act has several issues, including inadequate protection for neurodiverse and hidden disabilities, weak enforcement and oversight, exclusionary practices such as suspension or performance improvement plans, loopholes allowing employers to claim unjustifiable hardship to avoid providing adjustments, and a tendency to judge staff capability rather than provide support, leaving staff at risk of being pushed out of the workforce.

No machine-readable text was extracted from this page.