10 November 2025

Disability Council’s Response: Disability Discrimination Act 1992 Review

Delivered by email to: DDAReview@ag.gov.au

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback to the review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.

The Disability Council NSW (the ‘Council’) is a statutory body that provides independent advice to the Minister for Disability Inclusion on matters that affect people with disability in NSW, as well as their families and carers.

This document provides a structured framework for responding to the consultation questions posed in the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 Review Issues Paper.

1. How should disability be defined?

The definition of disability in the DDA should be revised to reflect contemporary understandings grounded in the human rights model of disability. This model, as articulated in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), recognises disability as a social construct arising from the interaction between individuals with impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers that hinder their full and effective participation in society. The current definition, while broad, retains deficit-based language such as “malfunction” and “disturbed behaviour,” which perpetuates outdated medicalised conceptions of disability. A revised definition should adopt inclusive and affirming language that acknowledges disability as part of human diversity and dignity. It should also be sufficiently flexible to encompass emerging understandings of disability, including neurodiversity and psychosocial disability, and be consistent with definitions used in other jurisdictions and international instruments.

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

In developing a new definition of disability, the following factors must be considered:

a) The definition should align with Australia’s obligations under the CRPD and reflect the human rights model of disability.
b) It should be inclusive of the diverse experiences and identities of people with disability, including those with multiple and intersecting forms of disadvantage.
c) The language used must be respectful, non-stigmatising and free from deficit-based terminology.
d) The definition should be adaptable to future developments in disability theory, practice, and policy, including technological and societal changes.
e) It should provide clarity for legal interpretation and practical application, ensuring that duty holders and individuals alike can understand and apply the definition consistently.
f) The definition should be harmonised with other relevant legislation, such as the Fair Work Act and state and territory anti-discrimination laws, to promote coherence across Australia’s legal framework.

Before finalising a new definition, the proposed change needs to be thoroughly tested with and by people with lived experience of disability.

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

Introducing a provision for enabling people to bring claims addressing multiple or combined protected attributes would provide many benefits, including:

Enabling full clarity of a claim where an individual has experienced discrimination across more than one area of the DDA and where a claim may fall under more than one protected attribute, and acknowledging the intersectionality of other protected attributes, such as age, gender, or ethnicity.
A provision to submit a single claim across multiple protected attributes also reduces the administrative impact for both the claimant and the administrative body receiving the claim. Importantly, this minimises the burden of needing to repeat telling the story for the claimant and therefore minimises the emotional impact or trauma if a claim needs to be submitted multiple times by the same person across multiple attributes.

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

The DDA must be amended to explicitly recognise and protect people with disability who experience compounding discrimination due to intersecting identities. The current framework does not adequately address the layered and cumulative nature of discrimination faced by individuals who, for example, are both disabled and Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, or disabled and part of the LGBTIQA+ community. Without explicit recognition, the law fails to reflect the lived realities of many Australians, risking the perpetuation of systemic exclusion. A legislative provision that acknowledges intersectionality would ensure the DDA is responsive to the complex ways in which discrimination manifests and aligns with international human rights obligations under the CRPD.

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 definition of direct discrimination in the DDA should be guided by a detriment-based test, which focuses on whether a person has experienced disadvantage or harm because of their disability, regardless of how others might have been treated. This approach is more accessible and intuitive, especially for people with disability and duty holders who may not have legal expertise. It shifts the emphasis from abstract comparison to the lived experience of discrimination, making it easier to identify and address unfair treatment. The detriment-based model protects individuals from harm.

Q6. How should the burden of proof be addressed in the DDA?

To make the burden of proof more practical and fairer for people with disability, the DDA could adopt a two-step process. First, the complainant would need to show that they experienced unfavourable treatment and that their disability was a factor in that treatment. This initial threshold could be low and based on the person’s account, along with any supporting evidence they can reasonably provide. Once this is established, the burden would shift to the duty holder to explain and justify their actions. This approach recognises the reality that people with disability often lack access to the documentation, witnesses, resources or institutional knowledge needed to prove discrimination in full. It also acknowledges the power imbalance between individuals and organisations, and encourages duty holders to maintain transparent, accountable practices. By reducing the evidentiary pressure on complainants and requiring duty holders to demonstrate compliance, the Act would become more accessible, more just and more effective in protecting rights.

Q7. 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?

As in Q5 regarding direct discrimination, the definition of indirect discrimination in the DDA should be guided by a detriment-based test, which focuses on whether a person has experienced disadvantage or harm because of their disability, regardless of how others might have been treated. This approach is more accessible and intuitive, especially for people with disability and duty holders who may not have legal expertise. It shifts the emphasis from abstract comparison to the lived experience of discrimination, making it easier to identify and address unfair treatment. The detriment-based model protects individuals from harm.

There also must be an appendix or guidance document that attaches to the DDA to provide examples of Direct and Indirect discrimination, with particular focus on using examples where complaints are most received, to ensure this updated approach is clear and easy to interpret.

Q8. 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

d. other

The Disability Council is of the opinion that the reasonableness element should be removed. This removes an area of judgement that is widely open to individual interpretation of what is reasonable.

Options b or c require an element of the claimant needing to prove what may be deemed ‘reasonable’ or to undergo a test that, like option b, would be formed on a set of criteria or a list of what may be deemed reasonable or not.

Should changes be made to other sections of the DDA (refer to Q 3 regarding claiming across multiple attributes of discrimination), defining what is reasonable would need much further scrutiny.

The review should also reconsider the operation of the unjustifiable hardship defence. While originally intended to balance rights and costs, it has too often been relied upon to deny people with disability equal access, particularly in education and transport. Narrowing the scope of this defence, and requiring rigorous evidence and time-limited application, would ensure it is not used as a blanket exemption from obligations.

Q9. 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?

Yes. This language is unnecessarily complex and places the burden on the person with disability to demonstrate compliance or non-compliance with an often-arbitrary requirement. Removing it would simplify the Act and make the definition more accessible, and rights based. The focus should remain on whether the condition, requirement, or practice creates a barrier or disadvantage for people with disability, rather than on abstract compliance wording that can be used defensively by duty holders.

Q10. Should the CRPD be included in the objects provision of the DDA?

Yes. Including the CRPD in the objects provision of the Disability Discrimination Act is essential to ensuring that Australia’s domestic legal framework is fully aligned with its international human rights obligations. This inclusion would not only reinforce the Act’s purpose as a tool for promoting equality and eliminating discrimination but also provide courts and duty holders with a clear interpretive anchor that reflects contemporary understandings of disability as a social and rights-based issue. Embedding the CRPD in the Act’s objects would strengthen the normative foundation of the legislation, support a more consistent and purposive application of its provisions, and affirm Australia’s commitment to fostering a society in which people with disability can participate fully, equally and with dignity.

Q11. Should the DDA be expressly required to be interpreted in a way that is beneficial to people with disability, in line with human rights treaties?

Yes. This would:

Ensure consistency with international obligations.
Promote proactive inclusion and equity.
Strengthen legal protections and access to justice.

The DDA must evolve beyond its current limitations to become a more effective instrument of justice and inclusion. By expressly requiring that the DDA be interpreted in a manner that benefits people with disability and is consistent with international human rights treaties, Australia can reaffirm its commitment to the principles of dignity, equality, and non-discrimination. Such a reform is a moral imperative.

Q12. If there was a positive duty in the DDA, who should it apply to?

If a positive duty were to be introduced into the DDA, it should apply comprehensively to all entities and individuals whose actions or omissions materially affect the rights and lived experiences of people with disability. This includes, but is not limited to, employers, service providers, educational institutions, and public authorities. Each of these actors occupies a position of structural influence and operational control over environments that must be made accessible, inclusive, and non-discriminatory.

The imposition of a positive duty would mark a paradigmatic shift from a model of reactive compliance to one of proactive responsibility. It would signal that inclusion is not merely a legal obligation but a societal imperative, and that the burden of achieving equity should not rest solely on individuals with disability but be shared by those with the power to effect systemic change.

Q13. 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 DDA?

Yes. The experience of the Sex Discrimination Act shows the importance of:

Clear guidance and education for duty holders, so they understand proactive obligations

Strong enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance, including the power for regulators to investigate systemic issues
Transparency and reporting requirements to track progress
Embedding lived experience in monitoring, co-design and evaluation processes

These lessons highlight that a positive duty in the DDA must be accompanied by resources, enforcement, and cultural change measures — otherwise it risks being symbolic.

Q14. What costs, benefits and other impacts would duty holders experience in meeting a positive duty under the DDA? If you are an existing duty holder under the DDA, please specify how you think meeting a positive duty would impact you.

Costs: Initial investments in accessibility, staff training, system redesign, and inclusive practices
Benefits: Greater workforce participation, improved service reach, reduced complaints, stronger community trust, and compliance certainty. Inclusion leads to innovation and productivity gains
Other impacts: A shift in organisational culture towards proactively identifying and removing barriers, rather than reacting to complaints. The costs are outweighed by long-term social and economic benefits.

Q15. Should there be exceptions or limits to the application of a positive duty?

No broad exceptions should be allowed. Any exceptions risk undermining the principle of equal rights. Where specific limitations are necessary, they must be narrowly defined, time-limited, and subject to regular review. Duty holders should instead be supported with guidance and resources to meet their obligations, rather than provided with opt-outs.

Q16. Would the creation of a standalone duty to provide adjustments better assist people with disability and duty holders to understand their rights and obligations?

The creation of a standalone duty to provide adjustments would better assist people with disability and duty holders to understand their rights and obligations.

This approach would remove fear of doing the wrong thing for duty holders and

encourage them to better engage with people with disability to ask what support or adjustments may be required or beneficial.

This approach also opens itself to greater awareness building and encourages open conversations between individuals with disability and duty holders and creates an opportunity and environment for learning.

Note: This response also links to Q20 in the context of employment. A stand-alone duty would require employers to continue to do the right thing and provide adjustments; however, it opens an opportunity for discussion, negotiation and for enabling employers time to learn about obligations they have and the opportunity to approach adjustments from a provision of supports and resources to support an employee, rather than an obligation approach.

Note: This question also relates to Questions 5 and 7 regarding direct and indirect discrimination, and it is suggested that an accompanying document provide examples of the most commonly received areas of complaints under each category, with adjustments linked to this provision.

Q17. Should the scope of the duty to provide adjustments apply only to the existing areas of public life covered by the DDA, or extend to other contexts?

The duty should extend beyond the current areas of public life. Barriers to participation occur in many contexts, including digital platforms, emerging technologies, private membership organisations, and other areas not fully captured by the current Act. Extending the scope ensures people with disability are protected wherever exclusion occurs and future-proofs the legislation.

The DDA must explicitly address the risks of discrimination arising from emerging digital technologies, including artificial intelligence, algorithmic decision-making and automated systems (for example, in recruitment, policing, or service delivery). Without explicit coverage, people with disability risk exclusion in digital environments that are increasingly central to participation in public life.

Q18. Would removing the word ‘reasonable’ from the term ‘reasonable adjustments’ to align the language with the legal effect create any unintended consequences?

Removing the reference to ‘reasonable’ regarding ‘reasonable adjustments’ will remove the need for a duty holder to interpret what is or is not ‘reasonable’. The positive consequence of this approach is that requests for adjustments are viewed on the merit of ‘need’.

Q20. What are your views on amending the DDA 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?

An outcome of a potential employment offer should not be linked to considering the nature and extent of any adjustments needed by a potential employee. Introducing this element would provide the duty holder (an employer or recruiter) with an opportunity to retract a job offer based on disability and the need for adjustments. Employment decisions need to be based on merit and demonstrated ability to meet job criteria. The provision of adjustments is a component of working arrangements and should not be a factor that employers can use in the recruitment or selection process.

Consultation between prospective or current employers and prospective or current employees regarding adjustments should happen after the formal selection process is complete to avoid adjustments for a candidate with disability being a factor in a person not being a suitable candidate.

Q21. Are there other amendments to the DDA that could support engagement between prospective or current employers and prospective or current employees to better understand the inherent requirements of a job?

Provision of clarity of what ‘inherent requirements’ means within the Act would be an advantage. As noted in Q 5 and Q7, provision of an appendix or explainer document for the DDA would be beneficial to provide definitions and examples of terms being used. For example, often a job requirement is ‘a driver’s license is essential’; however the ability to drive is often not a requirement but rather ‘an ability to travel’.

Q22. 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?

A consideration should be that employers be required to provide evidence where they believe an employee or potential employee is unable to undertake the inherent requirements of a job. Therefore, adding a ‘positive’ approach to employment and an assumption that with any adjustments required, a person could perform the inherent requirements of the job.

Q23. Should the concepts of exclusion and exclusionary discipline be defined in the DDA?

Yes, the concepts of exclusion and exclusionary discipline should be included. This will make it clear to duty holders what Exclusion means and, importantly, the consequences if they do exclude a person because of disability.

Q24. Should there be exceptions or limits on when exclusion is unlawful?

Rather than limits or exceptions, there needs to be clear guidance in determining what an exclusion is and the impact or consequences of excluding a person with disability.

Note: This could be provided in an appendix or explainer documents as indicated in some of the previous questions.

Q25. Should any of the state and territory provisions relating to exclusionary discipline be adopted in the DDA?

In review of the DDA, there is an opportunity to align state and territory provisions relating to exclusionary discipline, and other areas of the respective Discrimination Acts, to be aligned for consistency.

Q26. Would a different approach to exclusionary discipline be more appropriate in the higher education and vocational education and training sectors?

Yes. Exclusion in education, especially higher education and VET, can have lifelong impacts on employment and participation. Instead of exclusion, there should be a requirement for institutions to demonstrate they have exhausted all reasonable adjustments and inclusive practices before exclusion is considered. Alternative supports (e.g., tailored learning plans, flexible delivery, assistive technology) should be mandated first.

Q27. How could the DDA be amended to protect people with disability from offensive behaviour and/or harassment?

There is an opportunity to consider a provision within the DDA for a penalty to be applied for persons being found to be using offensive behaviour, including language, or harassing a person with disability.

Q28. If the DDA were to prohibit offensive behaviour and/or harassment, how should these terms be defined?

Offensive behaviour and/or harassment should be defined using examples of behaviours or language that are not accepted or tolerated. There should be a ‘no tolerance’ approach.

Note: There should be examples in an appendix or an explainer document that is attached to the DDA. This should provide clear examples of what is not acceptable and the consequences of not following the guidance that underpins the DDA.

Q29. Should there be exemptions for any behaviour, similar to the Racial Discrimination Act?

No. Exemptions for offensive behaviour or harassment risk legitimising discrimination against people with disability. A no-tolerance approach, backed by clear definitions and guidance, should apply consistently.

Q30. Given the recent legislative developments, are there any further gaps in the legislative framework that could be addressed by amendments to the DDA to protect people with disability from vilification?

Yes. The DDA should explicitly prohibit the vilification of people with disability across all public domains, including online and digital spaces where abuse is prevalent. Current laws do not adequately protect against targeted online harassment, disinformation, or hate campaigns directed at people with disability. Stronger protections and remedies are needed.

Q31. How could the DDA be amended to ensure that it covers policing?

The DDA should explicitly state that policing is a service and is covered by the Act. This ensures people with disability are protected in all interactions with police, including arrest, custody, and service provision. Guidance should also clarify obligations for reasonable adjustments in policing contexts (e.g., communication supports, alternatives to restraint, disability awareness training).

Q32. Are there any specific circumstances or situations relating to policing or justice that should be excluded from the application of the DDA?

No. Exclusions would create loopholes that undermine rights. Instead, clear operational guidance should be developed to support police and justice officials in meeting their obligations under the DDA.

Q34. Should the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) be given the power to grant special measures certificates?

No. There should be a proactive and positive approach to accepting and including people with disability into the community, providing opportunities for employment and for the provision of services. By introducing ‘special measure certificates’ it provides an opportunity for duty holders to find justification to discriminate.

Q35. Should a definition for special measures be added to the DDA?

No.

Q36. Should a definition for temporary exemptions be added to the DDA?

Yes. A clear and narrow definition would ensure temporary exemptions are truly temporary, used only in exceptional circumstances, and subject to strict time limits and review. Without a clear definition, exemptions risk misuse or indefinite extension.

Yes. The process should:

Require meaningful consultation with people with disability and DPOs before granting
Be transparent, with public reasons for decisions
Include strict timeframes and mandatory review points
Limit repeat applications to prevent exemptions from becoming de facto permanent.

Q38. 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?

There needs to be clarification of what an assistance animal is in the first instance. There also needs to be an agreed National approach towards registration or recognition of what defines an ‘assistance animal’, including training provided, regular assessments that the animal is still meeting standards and for there to be clear protocols or expectations for the user of the animal when it comes to maintaining health and hygiene

Note: Examples should be provided in an appendix/guidance document.

Q39. Would legislative amendments or guidance materials be helpful to balance flexibility and certainty, or a mixture of both?

Yes. As above, providing guidance documents would be an advantage and make this area much clearer.

Q40. Should specific training organisations be prescribed under the Disability Discrimination Regulations?

Rather than specific training organisations, there should be clear information on what training and topics within training would be required.

Q41. Should there be minimum requirements for action plans (such as through guidelines), and what should the minimum requirements cover?

Introducing minimal requirements would be beneficial. Some criteria to consider would be:

Access to premises and the built environment
Provision of accessible information, i.e. information being provided in a range of formats including easy-read, accessible digital versions for screen-reader users, etc
Accessible digital platforms and information to comply with WCAG 2.2
Products and services to be usable and accessible for customers and the broader community
Employment practices.

Q42. Should the AHRC be able to reject action plans that fail to meet these requirements?

Yes. This would bring consistency into areas that are required, standardising plans and improving access for all.

Q43. Should there be a set period of time for which an action plan is valid?

Yes. This would ensure organisations are constantly reviewing progress and updating their plans accordingly. It also demonstrates a commitment to continual improvement and to include any legislative changes or new practices. Most organisations develop a plan for 2–3 years. Introducing a new plan at least every five years would be a reasonable requirement.

To demonstrate a commitment to achieving plans and maintaining accountability for their implementation, there should be consideration given to reporting on the progress of plans and where this is publicly reported.

Q45. How could compliance with and enforcement of the Disability Standards be improved?

Introduce mandatory compliance reporting by duty holders.
Empower the AHRC to monitor and enforce compliance, including systemic investigations.
Provide funding for independent audits and reviews led by individuals with lived experience.
Establish penalties for serious or repeated breaches.
Require accessibility reporting as part of broader corporate and government accountability frameworks.

Q46. Should the DDA be amended to encourage relevant duty holders to self-report on their compliance with the Disability Standard(s) in disability action plans?

Yes. Self-reporting builds accountability and transparency. To be effective, it must be paired with external oversight, public reporting, and consequences for non-compliance.

Q47. Could the AHRC provide additional guidance to duty holders regarding how to self-report on the Disability Standards in disability action plans?

Yes. The AHRC should provide templates, examples of good practice, and sector-specific guidance. Training and resources should be co-designed with people with disability to ensure clarity and effectiveness.

In addition, the AHRC should be equipped with enhanced regulatory powers, including own-motion investigation powers, the capacity to initiate systemic inquiries, and the establishment of a dedicated Disability Discrimination Commissioner role. Without stronger enforcement capacity, many of the proposed reforms risk being symbolic rather than transformative.

Q48. 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 DDA?

Yes. For example:

The positive duty in the Sex Discrimination Act
Intersectionality provisions in the ACT and Tasmanian disability laws
The compliance and enforcement framework under the Respect at Work reforms.

Alignment is also needed with related federal laws, including the Fair Work Act (employment), the Migration Act (visa health requirements), and insurance regulation, all of which continue to permit discrimination against people with disability. Harmonisation across these frameworks, and with state and territory discrimination statutes, would ensure coherence and close current loopholes.

49. What additional guidance materials should be provided to the community, including duty holders, about the operation of the DDA or specific amendments proposed in this paper?

Easy Read and multilingual resources, including Auslan
Sector-specific guidance (employment, education, health, policing, housing)
Practical case studies and examples of direct/indirect discrimination
Plain-language explainer documents with definitions of key terms
Training packages co-designed with people with disability.

Q50. How can we ensure the DDA remains fit for purpose into the future?

Regular statutory reviews (every 5–7 years)
Ongoing co-design with people with disability and DPOs
Embedding flexibility to adapt to emerging technologies and societal changes
Stronger systemic oversight, not just complaint-driven mechanisms
Transparent data collection and public reporting on discrimination trends – public-facing dashboard.

Q51. Are there any other issues with the DDA that should be considered as part of this review?

Yes.

Strengthen remedies — compensation should be accessible, timely, and sufficient to act as a deterrent
Improve accessibility of the complaints process — legal assistance, advocacy, and trauma-informed approaches must be built in
Address structural discrimination in systems such as migration, insurance, and education
Ensure cultural safety for First Nations people with disability.
Expand the existing point on remedies: Access to justice also requires a strengthened remedy framework. This should include publicly funded legal assistance for discrimination matters; the ability for representative and systemic test cases to proceed; and compensation that is timely, accessible, and of sufficient scale to deter future discrimination. The current system is under-resourced and relies too heavily on individuals pursuing complex litigation.

Thank you once again for the opportunity to provide this submission.

Yours faithfully

redacted
redacted
redacted
Chair
Deputy Chair
redacted
https://dcj.nsw.gov.au/community-inclusion/advisory-councils/disability-council-nsw 16

Disability Council’s Response: Disability Discrimination Act 1992 Review

Disability Council’s Response: Disability Discrimination Act 1992 Review

1. How should disability be defined?

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

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

4. Could any other changes be made to the DDA to recognise and provide protection for people with disability who have intersecting identities, or addressing compounding 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?

Q6. How should the burden of proof be addressed in the DDA?

Q7. 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?

Q8. Should the reasonableness element in the definition of indirect discrimination be:

Q9. 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?

Q10. Should the CRPD be included in the objects provision of the DDA?

Q11. Should the DDA be expressly required to be interpreted in a way that is beneficial to people with disability, in line with human rights treaties?

Q12. If there was a positive duty in the DDA, who should it apply to?

Q13. 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 DDA?

Q14. What costs, benefits and other impacts would duty holders experience in meeting a positive duty under the DDA? If you are an existing duty holder under the DDA, please specify how you think meeting a positive duty would impact you.

Q15. Should there be exceptions or limits to the application of a positive duty?

Q16. Would the creation of a standalone duty to provide adjustments better assist people with disability and duty holders to understand their rights and obligations?

Q17. Should the scope of the duty to provide adjustments apply only to the existing areas of public life covered by the DDA, or extend to other contexts?

Q18. Would removing the word ‘reasonable’ from the term ‘reasonable adjustments’ to align the language with the legal effect create any unintended consequences?

Q20. What are your views on amending the DDA 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?

Q21. Are there other amendments to the DDA that could support engagement between prospective or current employers and prospective or current employees to better understand the inherent requirements of a job?

Q22. 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?

Q23. Should the concepts of exclusion and exclusionary discipline be defined in the DDA?

Q24. Should there be exceptions or limits on when exclusion is unlawful?

Q25. Should any of the state and territory provisions relating to exclusionary discipline be adopted in the DDA?

Q26. Would a different approach to exclusionary discipline be more appropriate in the higher education and vocational education and training sectors?

Q27. How could the DDA be amended to protect people with disability from offensive behaviour and/or harassment?

Q28. If the DDA were to prohibit offensive behaviour and/or harassment, how should these terms be defined?

Q29. Should there be exemptions for any behaviour, similar to the Racial Discrimination Act?

Q30. Given the recent legislative developments, are there any further gaps in the legislative framework that could be addressed by amendments to the DDA to protect people with disability from vilification?

Q31. How could the DDA be amended to ensure that it covers policing?

Q32. Are there any specific circumstances or situations relating to policing or justice that should be excluded from the application of the DDA?

Q34. Should the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) be given the power to grant special measures certificates?

Q35. Should a definition for special measures be added to the DDA?

Q36. Should a definition for temporary exemptions be added to the DDA?

Q37. Would you recommend any changes to the legislative process of granting temporary exemptions?

Q38. 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?

Q39. Would legislative amendments or guidance materials be helpful to balance flexibility and certainty, or a mixture of both?

Q40. Should specific training organisations be prescribed under the Disability Discrimination Regulations?

Q41. Should there be minimum requirements for action plans (such as through guidelines), and what should the minimum requirements cover?

Q42. Should the AHRC be able to reject action plans that fail to meet these requirements?

Q43. Should there be a set period of time for which an action plan is valid?

Q44. Are there any other changes to the action plan process that you would recommend?

Q45. How could compliance with and enforcement of the Disability Standards be improved?

Q46. Should the DDA be amended to encourage relevant duty holders to self-report on their compliance with the Disability Standard(s) in disability action plans?

Q47. Could the AHRC provide additional guidance to duty holders regarding how to self-report on the Disability Standards in disability action plans?

Q48. 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 DDA?

49. What additional guidance materials should be provided to the community, including duty holders, about the operation of the DDA or specific amendments proposed in this paper?

Q50. How can we ensure the DDA remains fit for purpose into the future?

Q51. Are there any other issues with the DDA that should be considered as part of this review?