Response ID BHLF-NT3M-UNKR-2
Submitted to Disability Discrimination Act Review – Issues Paper
Submitted on 2025-08-06 15:59:56
Consent to participate in our consultation
Do you consent to participate in our consultation?
Yes – I consent to participate in this consultation. I understand that I do not need to provide my personal or sensitive information to participate in this consultation.
If you are aged under 15, do you have consent from a parent or guardian to participate in our consultation?
Yes – I am aged under 15 and have my parent/guardian’s consent to participate.
Publishing your submission
Do you give permission for your response to be published?
Yes – I give permission for my response/submission to be published.
What is your name?
Name:
If you provided your name in response to the previous question, do you consent for your name to be published with your submission?
No
Are you making this submission on behalf of:
Yourself
Please specify the name of the organisation:
What is your email address?
Email:
Questions about you
Which of the following best describes your interests in the department’s review of the Disability Discrimination Act?
I am a person with disability
Please specify:
If you are making a submission in a professional capacity or as part of your work, please select the industry or industries that best apply to you:
Please specify:
How do you describe your gender?
Please specify:
Do you identify with any of the following groups?
What type of area are you or your organisation located?
Where are you or your organisation based?
Part 1 – Updating understandings of disability and disability discrimination
1 How should disability be defined in the Disability Discrimination Act?
2 What factors should be considered in developing a new definition of disability?
3 Would the Disability Discrimination Act be strengthened by expressly allowing claims to be brought for multiple or combined protected attributes?
4 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?
5 What test should be used to ensure that the definition of direct discrimination is easy to understand and implement for both duty holders and people with disability, and why?
6 How should the burden of proof be addressed in the Disability Discrimination Act?
7 How should the definition of indirect discrimination be amended to ensure that it is easy to understand and implement?
Discrimination can take many forms, unfortunately many are invisible to the victim/target. I put it to you, what can be done after a target becomes aware of wrong doing? This is well and good however, what can be put in place so those being discriminated against are aware of it? I was openly discriminated against for 10+ years and as my employment always seemed like a ‘favour paid’ at best, I remained blithely unaware of it
8 Should the reasonableness element in the definition of indirect discrimination be:
9 Should the language of ‘does not or would not comply, or is not able or would not be able to comply’ be removed from the definition of indirect discrimination?
10 Should the Disabilities Convention be included in the objects provision of the DisabilityDiscrimination Act?
11 Should the Disability Discrimination Act be expressly required to be interpreted in a way that is beneficial to people with disability, in line with human rights treaties?
Part 2 – Positive duty to eliminate discrimination
12 If there was a positive duty in the Disability Discrimination Act, who should it apply to?
13 Are there lessons from the operation of the positive duty in the Sex Discrimination Act that could be incorporated into a positive duty in the Disability Discrimination Act?
14 What costs and other impacts would duty holders experience in meeting a positive duty under the Disability Discrimination Act?
15 Should there be exceptions or limits to the application of a positive duty?
Part 3 – Encouraging inclusion of people with disability in employment, education and other areas of public life
16 Would the creation of a stand‑alone duty to provide adjustments better assist people with disability and duty holders to understand their rights and obligations?
Unsure
This question is difficult to understand. What is a stand-alone duty? Is that a separate body? A government organisation? Or is it merely an optional extra? What could I have done - how could I have known how blatant the disregard and humiliating the treatment practiced to my face for over 10 years! Could I have gone to an objective party to show my history and capabilities before I acquired a disability that somehow could have seen how shoddily I was being treated after I acquired a disability? Sure, I couldn’t dance to the same standard as I could before but my cognitive capabilities were not hindered, I was just as motivated and creative as before. In this respect a stand-alone department tasked with being an advocate for the rights of employed disabled people could be a good thing.
17 Should the scope of the duty to provide adjustments apply only to the existing areas of public life covered by the Disability Discrimination Act, or extend to other contexts?
Discrimination should not be practiced at all however having been a high functioning performer before I acquired my disability gives me a remarkable view. One that is quite blatant in the ability to prove the disregard and low expectations of the disabled in Australia. If there is the capability for the measurements and protections to be shared across sectors/sections of public life, of course it should extend to them.
18 Would removing the word ‘reasonable’ from the term ‘reasonable adjustments’ to align the language with the legal effect create any unintended consequences?
19 What is your preferred approach to achieving greater fairness and transparency in claims of unjustifiable hardship?
20 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?
Consultation should always be encouraged however the wording of this question does not bode well. Is this saying that the nature and extent of accessibility adjustments might be grounds for discouragement of employment? These questions are way too complex in structure and meaning to be simply understood.
21 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?
Speaking from my personal perspective, I have a document outlining as much of my work history as I can remember and this goes back to when I was 15 years old. I am now 49. Any objective party could look at the document and verify numerous proven capabilities, skills and talents and yet acquisition of a disability suddenly rendered me an apprentice all over again. This is understandable, to an extent. After 20 years assiduously working in the national disability arts and advocacy sectors (with a brief break for stage 4 cancer in 2009) I found myself not much further along. When I heard from the former CEO of Arts Access Victoria, where I’d worked for 10 years, I had been treated as a brain injury and not as someone who was capable of maintaining 7 positions during lockdowns whilst also consulting at a national level… suddenly it all made sense. How was I to know? I was grateful to be employed. Paid peanuts when before the injury I made up to $840US a week…. in 1998! If this document was given to any employer, should they not be honour bound to pay it due creed and give me the respect to which I am deserving?
22 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?
23 Should the concepts of exclusion and exclusionary discipline be defined in the Disability Discrimination Act?
24 Should there be exceptions or limits on when exclusion is unlawful?
25 Should any of the state and territory provisions relating to exclusionary discipline be adopted in the Disability Discrimination Act?
26 Would a different approach to exclusionary discipline be more appropriate in the higher education and vocational education and training sectors?
Part 4 – Improving access to justice
27 How could the Disability Discrimination Act be amended to protect people with disability from offensive behaviour and/or harassment?
28 If the Disability Discrimination Act were to prohibit offensive behaviour and/or harassment, how should these terms be defined?
29 Should there be exemptions for any behaviour, similar to the Racial Discrimination Act?
30 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?
31 How could the Disability Discrimination Act be amended to ensure that it covers policing?
32 Are there any specific circumstances or situations relating to policing or justice that should be excluded from the application of the Disability Discrimination Act?
Part 5 – Exemptions
33 Could any of the permanent exemptions be narrowed or updated, while balancing other policy considerations?
34 Should the Australian Human Rights Commission be given the power to grant special measures certificates?
35 Should a definition for special measures be added to the Disability Discrimination Act?
36 Should a definition for temporary exemptions be added to the Disability Discrimination Act?
37 Would you recommend any changes to the legislative process of granting temporary exemptions?
Part 6 – Modernising the Disability Discrimination Act
38 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?
39 Would legislative amendments or guidance materials be helpful to balance flexibility and certainty, or a mixture of both?
40 Should specific training organisations be prescribed under the Disability Discrimination Regulations?
41 Should there be minimum requirements for action plans (such as through guidelines) and what should the minimum requirements cover?
42 Should the Australian Human Rights Commission be able to reject action plans that fail to meet these requirements?
43 Should there be a set period of time for which an action plan is valid?
44 Are there any other changes to the action plan process that you would recommend?
45 How could compliance with and enforcement of the Disability Standards be improved?
46 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?
47 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?
Part 7 – Further options for reform
48 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?
49 What additional guidance materials should be provided to the community, including duty holders, about the operation of the Disability Discrimination Act or specific amendments proposed in this paper?
50 How can we ensure the Disability Discrimination Act remains fit-for-purpose into the future?
Every 5 years or so hold a publicly advertised and paid consultation from as wide ranging collection of current and past employees from just as wide range of sectors. In this way the commission remains modern and current facing.
51 Are there any other issues with the Disability Discrimination Act that should be considered as part of this review?
Yes! The language is overly complex, the concepts murky and the questions unclear. I understand there are many stakeholders reading this document but why can’t plain language be used? This way no one is excluded from providing their experiences of discrimination. After all, isn’t that what you are seeking? If the language used made this law easier to access, the first step to discrimination could be overcome.
Document upload
Document upload
Upload your attachment: No file uploaded