Submission on adjustments for people with disability | External submission

PUBLIC

Alexandra Bignell

Disability Inclusion Advisor | Advocate | Proud Autistic Woman

Submission to the Review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)

Prepared by Alexandra Bignell

October 2025

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

Better outcomes for employment through adjustments

Introduction

The focus of this submission will be on Part 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) Review Issues Paper - Encouraging inclusion of people with disability in employment, education and other areas of public life (employment). This is a personal submission, reflecting my experience as a Disability Inclusion Advisor in local government, having supported employees with disability, and as a woman with disability, who has struggled to negotiate adjustments herself.

Workplace accommodations, or adjustments, are the cornerstone to achieving inclusion in employment settings, yet they are approached by employers with trepidation, suspicion or avoided altogether1. People with disability are uncertain about what to ask for, fear negative attitudes and discrimination and end up not disclosing their disability, missing out on support2. This is largely driven by the current framing of ‘reasonable adjustments’ within both the DDA and the flow on effects within the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FWA), which privilege employers over employees, leaving the onus on people with disability and providing easy escape for employers.

Research suggests that almost all people with disability will require an adjustment at some time in their working lives3, suggesting that effective legislative oversight is non negotiable for people with disability to participate successfully in the workforce. Providing adjustments reflects the Minority Rights model, which recognises people with disability are a distinct minority group that require extra support to participate on an equal basis as others4. Treating everyone the same does not achieve equality, because not everyone starts from the same position5. For substantive equality to be achieved,

1 Australian Human Rights Commission. (2016). Willing to work: National inquiry into employment discrimination against older Australians and Australians with disability. https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/disability-rights/publications/willing-work-report-2016. 2 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2020). People with disability in Australia 2020. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/disability/people-with-disability-in-australia-2020. 3 Australian Network on Disability. (2022). Workplace adjustments: A practical guide for employers. https://www.and.org.au/resources; JobAccess. (2025). Making workplace adjustments. Australian Government, Department of Social Services. https://www.jobaccess.gov.au/. 4 Conway, M. A. (2018). Embodying the law: Negotiating disability identity and civil rights. In A. Sarat (Ed.), Special issue: Law and the imagining of difference (Studies in Law, Politics and Society, Vol. 75, pp. 43–78). Emerald Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1059-433720180000075002 5 Lawson, A. (2019). Substantive equality and the European Court of Human Rights: Shifting boundaries. Human Rights Law Review, 19(1), 85–110. https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngy044. 2

marginalised groups, including people with disability, require targeted supports like ‘reasonable’ adjustments.

This submission supports:

Removal of word ‘reasonable’ and strengthening of the DDA to protect the rights of people with disability to receive adjustments in employment settings and other sectors.
Replacing the current hardship test with a rights-based definition that makes hardship truly exceptional. Employers should be required to demonstrate that they consulted the person with disability, explored all feasible alternatives, and genuinely exhausted available supports before claiming hardship.
Redefining “inherent requirements” as the essential outcomes of a role that cannot be achieved even after adjustments or redesign. Employers should be required to consider adjustments first, provide written reasons when exclusion is based on inherent requirements, and review these definitions regularly as technology and work practices evolve.
Establishing explicit alignment between the DDA and the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), recognising a statutory right to workplace adjustments and ensuring failure to provide adjustments can be challenged through the Fair Work Commission.

Together, these changes will support people with disability to gain and maintain employment on an equal basis with others.

Current Context – Employment and Adjustments

The rate of employment of people with disability has remained persistently low6 with the Australian Human Rights Commission’s (AHRC) Willing to Work Inquiry observing that labour force participation for people with disability had changed little over the last two decades7. When they do get employed, people with disability are more likely to experience discrimination8, with nearly half experiencing unfair treatment or discrimination from their employer in the past 12 months9, impacting recruitment,

6 Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2019, October 24). Disability, ageing and carers, Australia: First results, 2018 (Cat. no. 4430.0.10.001). https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/health/disability/disability-ageing-and-carers-australia-first-results/latest-release. 7 Australian Human Rights Commission. (2016). Willing to work: National inquiry into employment discrimination against older Australians and Australians with disability. https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/disability-rights/publications/willing-work-national-inquiry-employment-discrimination. 8 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2024, June 25). People with disability in Australia 2024: Employment – Disability discrimination in the workplace. Australian Government. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/disability/people-with-disability-in-australia/contents/employment/disability-discrimination-in-the-workplace. 9 Australian Human Rights Commission. (n.d.). Employment for people with disability in Australia. https://humanrights.gov.au/our work/disability-rights/employment-for-people-with-disability-Australia. 3

retention, and promotion opportunities10. As a result, many people do not disclose their disability to employers to fear of losing career opportunities or being forced to work below their capability11. For instance, Amaze reports that over half of employed autistic Australians say their roles are less demanding than they are capable of, and 45 % report their skills exceed their job’s requirements12. This indicates systemic failure to provide support to employees with disability through workplace adjustments.

Adjustments remove barriers and instil confidence in both employees and employers to work together. In 2021 the National Disability Employment Strategy consultation found that the biggest barrier to employment of people with disability was employer confidence. While most were open to hiring people with disability, many failed to do so due to a reluctance to have person-centred conversations or ask questions for fear of being discriminatory or intrusive13. This signals a lack of clear policy to empower employers to hire and maintain employees with disability.

The Disability Royal Commission (DRC) was clear; Australia should make adjustments routine and easy to get14. Currently, the process of asking for, deciding on, and implementing workplace adjustments is complex and slow, resulting in many employers losing confidence or avoiding the duty altogether. Clear guidance is missing, and that gap has become a barrier. Providing adjustments isn’t a single decision; it’s a practical and complex process where employers are weighing multiple, moving parts, including:

Lived experience of the employee: Employers rely on employees to recognise and articulate their needs, and sometimes to propose solutions. That isn’t always possible, which leaves both sides stuck.
Risk and safety: Employers try to balance individual needs with the needs of the team. If a solution for one person may impact another person, negotiations stall and nothing is done.
Cost and resourcing: Most workplaces don’t hold a dedicated budget for adjustments, which makes even low-cost changes feel risky or discretionary.
Attitudes and culture: Without training and awareness, colleagues can see adjustments as “special treatment,” fuelling stigma and, ultimately, discrimination.

10 Dimov, S., Shields, M., Devine, A., Aitken, Z., & Kavanagh, A. (2023). Perceived employment discrimination among people with disability accessing Australia’s Disability Employment Services (DES). Journal of Social Inclusion, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.36251/josi311. 11 Diversity Council Australia. (2024, April 17). New report offers keys to disability inclusion at work. https://www.dca.org.au/news/media-releases/new-report-offers-keys-to-disability-inclusion-at-work. 12 Amaze. (n.d.). Autism and employment in Australia. https://www.amaze.org.au/creating-change/research/employment/. 13 Department of Social Services. (2021). National Disability Employment Strategy: Consultation paper, April 2021. Australian Government. https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/04 2021/ndes-consultation-paper.pdf. 14 Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. (2023). Final report (Vols. 1–12). Australian Government. https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au/publications/final-report.

Portability and continuity: Adjustments often don’t follow a person when they change roles or managers, and co-workers are frequently unaware of what’s in place, so supports drop off and people have to start again.

The DRC recognised the need for clear standardised procedures, policies and processes, including, timeframes for responding to adjustment requests, clarity around review and appeal mechanisms and confidentiality safeguards. It also recommended the idea of the workplace adjustment ‘passport’, so adjustments move with workers between roles or managers, ensuring the process is continuous15. However, these recommendations aren’t enough to make a significant impact for workers with disability. Employers need guidance and support to understand their obligations and set up systems that work for all parties. Even if the DDA strengthens the obligation to provide adjustments, defined entities under the Act will still not have the oversight and guidance to successfully implement them, including:

National Register of Adjustments: Australia needs a central, practical register of workplace adjustments, like the U.S. Job Accommodation Network (JAN) website16. This would give employers and employees real-world examples of adjustments by disability type, with step-by-step implementation guidance, typical costs, benefits for productivity and wellbeing, and any relevant risk notes. A resource like this would demystify adjustments and counter the assumption that adjustments are expensive or complicated.
Model workplace adjustments policy: the AHRC could publish a model policy that any organisation can adapt. It would set out a clear process for requesting and providing adjustments, including response timeframes, privacy and confidentiality safeguards, and transparent review or appeal mechanisms. This would help employers avoid ad-hoc decisions and build consistency across sectors.
Guidance for managers and HR: employers need guidance on how to integrate adjustments into the workplace. This should include advice on monitoring effectiveness and framing adjustments as tools to increase productivity, improve retention, and support staff wellbeing. Practical guidance would also help managers avoid treating adjustments as discretionary.
Training packages (co-designed, neuro-affirming): training is essential to build confidence and cultural change. Short, accessible modules should be co designed with people with disability and cover disability rights, lived experience, neurodiversity-affirming practice, and inclusive leadership. These should be

15 Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. (2023). Final report (Vols. 1–12). Australian Government. https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au/publications/final-report. 16 Job Accommodation Network. (n.d.). Job Accommodation Network (JAN). U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy. https://askjan.org/.

available as ready-to-use materials for induction, team briefings, and leadership development.

Adjustment “passport”: standardised workplace adjustment passports would allow adjustments follow employees across roles, managers, and even employers. This would stop people from having to “start from scratch” every time they change jobs.
Reporting and oversight: large employers or defined entities could report annually to the AHRC on adjustment requests, approvals, refusals, and systemic barriers. Oversight would be light-touch and improvement-focused, not punitive. This would build an evidence base while signalling to employers that providing adjustments is a core compliance and inclusion responsibility.
Privacy and confidentiality standards: clear limits should be set on the amount of medical information employers can demand. The starting point should be that lived-experience evidence from the employee is sufficient, with specialist input required only in exceptional cases. Confidentiality safeguards are essential to reduce stigma and build trust in the process.
Data and evaluation framework: a national framework could require collection and publication of anonymised data on adjustments. This would track requests, approvals, refusals, and outcomes, helping to identify systemic issues and highlight best practice. Continuous evaluation would ensure that the system keeps improving over time.

The AHRC Willing to Work Inquiry (2016) found that people with disability were willing to work, but were unable to because of systemic barriers, discrimination and inaccessible workplaces17. In my experience supporting and advocating for employees with disability, a key reason they fail to succeed is because workplace adjustments are almost impossible to achieve. While some employers are willing to provide adjustments, often negotiation breaks down on both sides as employers cite unhelpful legislation (i.e., DDA and Fair Work Act), and employees, fearing further discrimination, decide the price of self-advocacy is too high. We now have a significant opportunity to right this wrong. In the following section I will outline key issues with the word “reasonable”, barriers caused by the framing of “unjustifiable hardship” and “inherent duties”, and the role of the Fair Work Act 2009 has played in making workplaces unfair for people with disability.

17 Australian Human Rights Commission. (2016). Willing to work: National inquiry into employment discrimination against older Australians and Australians with disability. https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/disability-rights/publications/willing-work-national-inquiry-employment-discrimination. 6

Recommendations

This section proposes statutory changes: removing “reasonable,” redefining unjustifiable hardship, clarifying inherent requirements, and aligning the DDA with the Fair Work Act, to make this practical system workable in law.

Issues with the current framing of “reasonable adjustments” The concept of reasonable adjustments in the DDA is central to workplace inclusion. However, the framing of the word “reasonable” has created uncertainty and placed unintended burdens on people with disability. Instead of clarifying rights and obligations, it has left space for subjective interpretation by employers, managers, and Human Resource (HR) departments. This section outlines key issues with the current framing, including:

Onus to disclose: the word “reasonable” creates an expectation that employees must disclose disability and justify their request to meet an undefined standard of reasonableness. Research shows the disclosure process is “daunting,” with many employees fearing stigma or being labelled as “difficult” if they ask for adjustments18.
Excessive information demands: employers often use the framing of reasonableness to insist that medical evidence is necessary before adjustments are considered. This compels employees to disclose diagnoses and personal medical details to HR departments, even when lived experience would suffice. The assumption is that without medical validation, requests are not “reasonable.”
Devaluation of lived experience: by privileging the voices of doctors and specialists, workplaces undermine employees’ own expertise in articulating their support needs. This perpetuates the idea that only medical authority can establish what is “reasonable,” ignoring disability rights principles and employee self-advocacy.
Perception of adjustments as favours: Because “reasonable” is vague, some managers treat adjustments as discretionary or an act of goodwill, despite a legal duty under the DDA to provide them. Recent Australian evidence shows why this persists: many employees fear negative treatment if they ask (56% report this),

18 Kalfa, S., Branicki, L., & Brammer, S. (2021). Organizational accommodation of employee mental health conditions and unintended stigma. International Journal of Human Resource Management. 7

and many employers lack know-how (72% didn’t know how to set up adjustments), which reinforces a discretionary, non-compliance mindset19.

Adjustments seen as discretionary favours: Because “reasonable” is framed as a balance against “unjustifiable hardship,” some employers treat adjustments as optional acts of goodwill rather than a legal duty, leading to inconsistent application in practice20. For example, Autistic workers frequently report that requests are delayed, require sustained negotiation, or are not implemented at all21.

Consultation Questions

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?

Yes. A stand-alone duty would create much-needed clarity and shift the conversation away from whether an adjustment is reasonable to recognising it as a right. At present, the obligation to provide adjustments is buried within anti-discrimination law and only triggered after harm occurs, requiring an individual complaint to the AHRC. This is adversarial, burdensome and ineffective for many employees with disability who fear retaliation if they pursue legal remedies. A clear, positive duty would put the onus on employers to act proactively, supported by guidance, training and resources. This is consistent with the DRC’s call for adjustments to be more routine, timely and embedded in workplace practice.

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?

The duty should extend beyond the existing scope of the DDA. Disability inclusion is not limited to the workplace, classroom, or service counter, it is about equal participation in all aspects of public and civic life. This includes volunteering, board membership, political participation, housing, emergency management, and digital environments. People with disability encounter barriers in these contexts every day, and the same logic that supports adjustments in employment applies equally here. A broader scope would

19 Australian Disability Network. (2024). Getting workplace adjustments out of the “too hard basket” (Accessible PDF). https://australiandisabilitynetwork.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/WorkplaceAdjustmentsResearchReportAccessiblePDFVersion.pdf; JobAccess. (2025, June 30). Guidelines on reasonable adjustment. Australian Government. https://www.jobaccess.gov.au/i-am-an-employer/know-rights-responsibilities/guidelines-reasonable-adjustment. 20 JobAccess. (2025, June 30). Guidelines on reasonable adjustment. Australian Government. https://www.jobaccess.gov.au/i-am-an-employer/know-rights-responsibilities/guidelines-reasonable-adjustment; Martin, N., Lifshitz, R., Shuttleworth, E., & Williams, T. (2021). Workplace adjustments for autistic employees: What is “reasonable”? Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 51(10), 3710–3726. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10803-021-05413-x. 21 den Houting, J., Attwood, T., Jellett, R., Dissanayake, C., & Ugljevik, M. (2022). Autistic adults’ views and experiences of requesting and receiving workplace adjustments. PLOS ONE, 17(8), e0272420. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0272420 PLOS. 8

reflect the CRPD’s principle of full participation and inclusion in society (United Nations, 2006, Articles 3, 5 & 9) and ensure consistency across policy settings.

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

The word reasonable must go. The term has created confusion, given employers leverage it to demand unnecessary medical evidence, delay decisions, or treat adjustments as optional. In practice, “reasonableness” is already balanced by the separate concept of unjustifiable hardship, which adequately protects duty holders. The effect of removing reasonable would be to restore focus on the right of people with disability to access the supports they need, not on whether an employer thinks their request is justified.

An unintended consequence of this change may be that some duty holders feel anxious about an open-ended obligation. This can be addressed through statutory guidance, model policies, and resources (for example, a centralised register of accommodations and case studies). Removing the word reasonableness aligns better with a rights-based approach and sends a clearer signal that adjustments are not discretionary favours, they are necessary supports. In addition, proportionate oversight, including periodic reporting, sample audits, and anonymised data collection, would strengthen compliance, build confidence, and support continuous improvement.

Issues with the current framing of “unjustifiable hardship” The concept of unjustifiable hardship is intended as a safeguard for employers, but in practice it has become a broad loophole that undermines the right of people with disability to participate equally. Instead of providing balance, it tips the scales towards employers by focusing almost entirely on cost and organisational burden, with little consideration of human rights, dignity, or the benefits of participation. This section outlines key issues with the current framing, including:

Employer-focused test: The current hardship test centres on business cost and financial viability, giving little weight to human rights or equal participation. The Willing to Work Inquiry found that employers frequently cited financial hardship to deny adjustments, despite low actual costs22.
Cost overstated, benefits ignored: Research consistently shows most workplace adjustments are low-cost or cost-neutral, typically under $500 per

22 Australian Human Rights Commission. (2016). Willing to work: National inquiry into employment discrimination against older Australians and Australians with disability. https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/disability-rights/publications/willing-work-national-inquiry-employment-discrimination. 9

employee, and that they improve retention, productivity, and morale23. Yet many employers invoke “hardship” without assessing these benefits.

Small business challenges: Small and medium enterprises often rely on hardship claims because they lack awareness, guidance, or dedicated funds24. Rather than exemptions, targeted capacity-building and shared-funding models could help them comply.
Risk of normalising exclusion: Over-use of hardship provisions entrenches exclusion as the default. Under Article 5 (Equality and Non-Discrimination) of the CRPD, limitations on rights must be proportionate and strictly justified, not routine.
Lack of transparency: Decisions about hardship are rarely explained or documented, leaving employees without reasons or appeal pathways. The DRC recommended mandatory consultation, written reasons, and record-keeping where hardship is claimed25.

Consultation Question

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

My preferred approach is (b) a new definition of ‘unjustifiable hardship’. The DRC suggested process fixes to the current test, including making employers show they consulted the person with disability, considered all feasible alternatives, and kept records/gave reasons when claiming hardship, with the burden of proof staying on the employer. Those are useful accountability steps, but they don’t change the core test, which still leans toward cost and organisational impact. A new definition should centre rights and participation, make hardship truly exceptional, and require evidence that alternative options, funding and supports were genuinely exhausted before exclusion is permitted.

23 JobAccess. (2024). Workplace adjustments: Employer confidence vital to bridge disability employment gaps (Attitudes survey summary). Australian Government. https://www.jobaccess.gov.au/news/understanding-workplace-attitude; Australian Disability Network. (2024). Getting workplace adjustments out of the “too hard basket” (Accessible PDF). https://australiandisabilitynetwork.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Workplace_Adjustments_Research_Report_Accessible_PDF_Version.pdf; Hensel, W. F., Spear, K. M., & Rothstein, M. A. (2022). Reasonable accommodations and the meaning of “undue hardship.” Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 33(1), 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/10442073211052460. 24 Disability Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. (2023). Final report (Vols. 1– 12). Australian Government. https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au/publications/final-report. 25 Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. (2023). Final report (Vols. 1–12). Australian Government. https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au/publications/final-report. 10

Issues with the Current Framing of “Inherent Requirements” The concept of inherent requirements is intended to ensure that people with disability can perform the essential parts of a job. However, in practice it is often used as a blunt tool to exclude people from employment. The current framing gives employers broad discretion to define what is “inherent,” leaving significant room for bias and misinterpretation. This section outlines key issues with the current framing including:

Overly broad definitions: Employers sometimes treat non-essential tasks as “inherent,” creating avoidable barriers that minor adjustments or job redesign could remove. AHRC recruitment guidance explicitly warns against listing non essential requirements in position descriptions (e.g., unnecessary driver’s licence) and encourages role customisation26.
Exclusionary by default: In practice, the “inherent requirements” test is often applied without properly considering reasonable adjustments. AHRC is clear that inherent requirements refer only to the essential tasks of a job, which must be assessed in light of any adjustments that could enable the person to perform them27. Job Access similarly confirms that employers have a duty to explore adjustments before deciding a person cannot meet job requirements28.
Misuse for risk management: Employers often conflate general safety concerns with a role’s inherent requirements. However, High Court authority (X v Commonwealth, 1999) makes clear that risk must be specific, evidence-based, and directly related to the job’s inherent duties. Broad or speculative risk claims are not enough. The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC, 2010) has also highlighted that the inherent requirements exception under the DDA is narrow and should only apply where the requirements are genuinely essential to the position29.
Ignoring technological change: What counts as “inherent” can change with technology and new work practices. In Qantas v Christie, the High Court emphasised that inherent requirements are the permanent features of a position, not features that vary over time, implying the need for periodic reassessment30

26 Australian Human Rights Commission. (n.d.). Attracting people with disability to your organisation. https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/disability-rights/attracting-people-with-disability-to-organisation. 27 Australian Law Reform Commission. (2010). Essentially yours: The protection of human genetic information in Australia (ALRC Report 96), §31.2 “The inherent requirements exception.” https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/essentially-yours-the-protection-of-human-genetic-information-in-australia-alrc-report-96/31-inherent-requirements-of-the-job/the-inherent-requirements-exception/. 28 JobAccess. (2025, June 30). Guidelines on reasonable adjustment. Australian Government. https://www.jobaccess.gov.au/i-am-an-employer/know-rights-responsibilities/guidelines-reasonable-adjustment. 29 Australian Law Reform Commission. (2010). Essentially yours: The protection of human genetic information in Australia (ALRC Report 96), §31.2 “The inherent requirements exception.” https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/essentially-yours-the-protection-of-human-genetic-information-in-australia-alrc-report-96/31-inherent-requirements-of-the-job/the-inherent-requirements-exception/. 30 Qantas Airways Ltd v Christie, [1998] HCA 18; 193 CLR 280. (High Court of Australia). (Authoritative summaries: Equal Rights Trust; ITCILO Compendium). https://www.equalrightstrust.org/ertdocumentbank/Qantas%20Airways%20Ltd%20v%20Christie.pdf ; 11

Lack of transparency – Employees are often given little explanation for “inherent requirements” decisions or how adjustments were considered. The DRC recommended clearer procedures, including consultation and written reasons, so workers can understand and, if needed, challenge decisions31.

Consultation Question

What is your preferred approach to achieving greater fairness and transparency in how inherent requirements are defined and applied?

My preferred approach is to redefine inherent requirements in a rights-based and dynamic way. This should include:

Establish a statutory definition of ‘inherent requirements’ which is limited to essential outcomes; requires an adjustments-first assessment; decisions based on the actual role and evidence; proportionate safety; mandated consultation and written reasons; and consider redesign/redeployment before exclusion.
A requirement that employers demonstrate they have considered adjustments, flexible work practices, and available technologies before concluding a person cannot meet inherent requirements.
Regular reassessment of inherent requirements to reflect changes in technology, workplace design, and industry practice.
Guidance for employers on separating genuine safety considerations from unnecessary exclusion.
Transparency obligations requiring employers to provide written reasons if they determine a person cannot meet inherent requirements, with accessible review and appeal mechanisms.

This approach would prevent misuse of the concept as a blanket exclusion tool and ensure that inherent requirements serve their intended purpose, safeguarding the essential nature of a role, while upholding the rights of people with disability to participate in employment on an equal basis.

https://compendium.itcilo.org/en/compendium-decisions/australian-higher-court-qantas-airways-limited-v.-christie-19-march-1998-1998-hca-18. 31 Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. (2023). Final report (esp. Volume 4: Realising the human rights of people with disability). Australian Government. https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au/publications/final-report ; https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au/publications/final-report-volume-4-realising-human-rights-people-disability. 12

Issues with the Current Linkages to the Fair Work Act The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FWA) is meant to provide a safety net of workplace rights, but its weak alignment with the DDA creates confusion and undermines enforcement. The current framework leaves employees with disability caught between two systems: one that nominally protects against discrimination (DDA) and another that governs workplace rights (FWA), but without clear bridges between the two. This section outlines key issues with the current framing, including:

Unclear obligations: The Fair Work Act (FWA) does not expressly create a right to workplace adjustments. This blurs the line for employers and employees about whether a refusal to adjust is a Fair Work issue or a discrimination issue under the DDA32. Because FWA concepts like inherent requirements and adverse action have absorbed DDA notions of “reasonableness,” many employers wrongly assume the FWA itself regulates adjustments. In truth, the FWA largely asks, after harm occurs, whether adjustments were considered; it does not impose a positive duty to provide them.
Fragmented enforcement: When adjustments are refused, workers must choose between lodging a discrimination complaint through the AHRC or pursuing unfair dismissal or general protections claims under the Fair Work Commission (FWC). The Willing to Work Inquiry found this fragmentation discourages many people with disability from seeking redress33.
Gaps in unfair dismissal: Employees dismissed for “failing to perform inherent requirements” are often left without recourse because the FWC does not always test whether reasonable adjustments were considered before termination. The DRC highlighted this gap and recommended clearer linkage between the DDA and FWA to require consideration of adjustments prior to dismissal34.
No proactive duty: FWA imposes no positive duty to make adjustments or prevent discrimination; action only occurs once harm has occurred and a

32 Australian Human Rights Commission. (2016). Willing to work: National inquiry into employment discrimination against older Australians and Australians with disability. https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/disability-rights/publications/willing-work-national-inquiry-employment-discrimination; Australian Law Reform Commission. (2023). Respect@Work: Reforms to address workplace sexual harassment (ALRC Report 141, Chapter 4: Positive duties and systemic reform). https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/respectwork-report141/. 33 Australian Human Rights Commission. (2016). Willing to work: National inquiry into employment discrimination against older Australians and Australians with disability. https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/disability-rights/publications/willing-work-national-inquiry-employment-discrimination. 34 Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. (2023). Final report (esp. Volume 5: Realising the human rights of people with disability). Australian Government. https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au/publications/final-report-volume-5-realising-human-rights-people-disability. 13

complaint is made. The ALRC and the DRC both recommended introducing a positive duty consistent with human-rights law35.

Limited remedies: Even where discrimination is proven, remedies under the FWA, such as reinstatement or compensation, rarely drive systemic change within organisations. The DRC recommended stronger enforcement mechanisms, including orders for training and systemic reform.

Consultation Question

How should the Disability Discrimination Act and the Fair Work Act better align to protect people with disability in employment?

The DDA and FWA must be explicitly linked so people with disability can rely on workplace law for enforcement of their rights. This should include:

Amending the FWA to explicitly recognise the right to workplace adjustments, aligned with the strengthened duty in the DDA.
Ensuring that failure to provide adjustments can be challenged through the Fair Work Commission, providing faster, more accessible remedies than discrimination complaints alone.
Requiring employers to demonstrate that adjustments were genuinely considered before dismissing a person for not meeting inherent requirements.
Embedding a positive duty within the FWA for employers to provide adjustments, backed by guidance and oversight.
Expanding remedies to include systemic responses (e.g., enforceable undertakings, workplace training orders) as well as individual compensation.

By integrating the DDA and FWA more closely, people with disability would no longer face fragmented processes or legal uncertainty. Instead, they would have a single, clear framework that enforces their rights in the workplace.

35 Australian Law Reform Commission. (2023). Respect@Work: Reforms to address workplace sexual harassment (ALRC Report 141, Chapter 4: Positive duties and systemic reform). https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/respectwork-report141/; Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. (2023). Final report (esp. Volume 5: Realising the human rights of people with disability). Australian Government. https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au/publications/final-report-volume-5-realising-human-rights-people-disability.

Conclusion

Australia’s employment system still forces workers with disability to navigate avoidable barriers. An elastic idea of “reasonableness,” an easy hardship test, vague inherent requirements assessments, and weak links to the Fair Work Act (FWA) together prioritise employer discretion over enforceable rights. The consequences are predictable: non disclosure, stalled careers, and avoidable exits.

The path forward is straightforward. Remove the word “reasonable” and make the duty to provide adjustments explicit. Recast unjustifiable hardship as truly exceptional and evidence-based, after genuine consultation and exploration of alternatives. Define “inherent requirements” as essential outcomes assessed only after an adjustments-first process, with written reasons and periodic reassessment as technology and practice evolve. And align the DDA and the FWA so that failure to provide adjustments is enforceable through accessible, timely workplace mechanisms, underpinned by a positive duty.

To be successful, legislative change must be matched with practical scaffolding, including a national register of common adjustments, model policies, standardised “passports,” privacy safeguards, co-designed training, and light-touch oversight with transparent data. These measures will build employer confidence, reduce delay and disputation, and normalise adjustments as ordinary tools of productivity, retention and safety.

If we get this right, employees won’t have to choose between their health and their job, managers won’t have to guess their obligations, and workplaces will keep the skills they’ve invested in. Most importantly, Australia will move closer to substantive equality: recognising that different starting points require tailored supports to participate on an equal basis with others. The DDA Review is the moment to lock that principle into law and practice. Let’s seize it.

Part 6 – Disability Action Plans (Alexandra Bignell)

Part 6 – Modernising the Disability Discrimination Act

Disability Action Plans

Introduction

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the review of Part 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) (DDA), which deals with Disability Action Plans (DAPs). This is a personal submission reflecting my experience as a Disability Inclusion Advisor in local government, where I have been directly involved in developing, implementing and reporting on DAPs. I am also writing as a woman with disability who understands the real-world importance of making our communities accessible and inclusive.

DAPs are intended to be practical blueprints for organisations to remove barriers and prevent discrimination. Under Part 3 of the DDA, any public or private organisation can develop a DAP and lodge it to the AHRC. In practice, local councils are among the most frequent producers of DAPs, given their pivotal community role. In Victoria, for example, councils are required by state law, under the Disability Act 2006 (Vic), s.3836, to have a DAP, lodge it with the AHRC, and report annually on progress. New South Wales37 and Western Australia38 have similar requirements for local governments to prepare DAPs. These state mandates have improved coverage and focus on disability inclusion at the local level. However, even in these jurisdictions, the quality, consistency and impact of DAPs vary widely, due to minimal guidance and lack of enforcement. In states without such requirements, many councils either do not have a formal DAP or do not publish it, reflecting the wholly voluntary nature of Part 3 at the Commonwealth level.

Australia’s national disability policy context underscores why DAPs matter. The Australia Disability Strategy 2021–2031 (ADS) calls for coordinated action across all levels of government to build inclusive communities, underpinned by the obligations of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)39. Local government, as noted by the Australian Local Government Association (AGLA), has “a key role in ensuring the roll-out of the [ADS] and the accessibility of communities”. In 2017, a Senate committee reviewing the effectiveness of the ADS described local government

36 Victoria. (2006). Disability Act 2006 (Vic) s 38. https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/in-force/acts/disability-act-2006. 37 New South Wales. (1993). Disability Inclusion Act 2014 (NSW) s 12. https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-2014-041 38 Western Australia. (1993). Disability Services Act 1993 (WA) s 29B. https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/main_mrtitle_269_homepage.html

39 Parliament of Australia. Senate Community Affairs References Committee. (2024). Accessible communities: Inquiry into the delivery of outcomes under the National Disability Strategy 2010–2020. Chapter 2. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/AccessibleCommunities/Report/c02. 16

Part 6 — Disability Action Plans (Alexandra Bignell)

as being “at the vanguard of change” in responding to community needs*°. My own experience echoes this; local initiatives can have immediate, tangible effects on the daily lives of people with disability. Yet that same inquiry also highlighted a major gap: without proper monitoring and support, many local DAPs were failing to translate into real outcomes. Too often, DAPs have been treated as a tick-the-box exercise: a document is written and perhaps posted on a website, but there is little follow-through, evaluation, or public visibility of progress.

This submission focuses on reforming Part 3 of the DDA to address those shortcomings.

| will first outline the current issues with Part 3 and why the status quo is inadequate. |

will then discuss how DAPs can become dynamic levers for systemic change, drawing on comparisons with successful frameworks like Victoria’s Gender Equality Act 2020

and the proposed Disability Inclusion Bill. Finally, | will present detailed

recommendations for amendments to the DDA and related measures to strengthen the DAP framework. My goal is to ensure that DAPs truly fulfill their promise as a proactive tool to achieve equity, supporting a shift from individual complaints towards organisational responsibility for inclusion, in line with contemporary best practice and Australia’s human rights commitments.

Current Issues with Part 3 (Disability Action Plans)

Part 3 is still voluntary and unenforceable. It allows organisations to prepare DAPs but does not require anyone to have one, sets no enforceable standards, and makes submission to the AHRC optional. After three decades, we can see the limits of a goodwill model: some large agencies and progressive councils publish comprehensive plans, while others have none or only cursory documents. Public coverage on the AHRC register sits at roughly a quarter of councils*’, and even among those the quality ranges from exemplary to tokenistic. Without baseline requirements, too many plans read like brochures or vision statements rather than delivery blueprints with targets and accountability.

Key issues include:

e Nominimum content standards: Unlike jurisdictions that specify what DAPs should cover, the DDA is silent on what DAPs must contain. As a result, many plans recycle general commitments or list existing services instead of driving new

40 Barliament of Australia, Senate Com munity Affairs References Committee. (2017). Delivery of outcomes under the National Disability Strategy 2010-2020 to build inclusive and accessible communities (pp. 29-31). https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/AccessibleCommunities/~/media/Com mittees/clac_ctte/AccessibleCommunities/report.pdf Australian Parliament House.

47 australian Human Rights Commission. (n.d.). Disability Action Plan Register. Australian Human Rights Commission. https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/disability-rights/disability-action-plan-register.

Part 6 – Disability Action Plans (Alexandra Bignell)

improvements. Consultation quality varies widely, with some organisations engaging deeply with people with disability, while others barely consult at all, undermining the CRPD expectation that disabled people are involved in decisions that affect them. Because there is no required outcomes framework, plans often lack indicators or links to the ADS, making it hard to evaluate success or compare progress across entities.

Planning has become “set and forget.” The DDA imposes no expiry or renewal cycle, so a plan can be submitted once and never updated. Some entries on the AHRC register are decades old. Without a validity period, there is little pressure to refresh and improve as communities, technology and expectations evolve. It also signals that disability inclusion is a one-off project rather than an ongoing organisational commitment, which breeds stagnation, even where plans started well.
Transparency and accountability are limited: The AHRC register is a passive list of documents: it does not review plan quality, rate them, or require public progress reporting. As a Senate inquiry noted, many systems only track whether a plan exists, not whether it is implemented or effective42. Communities therefore have scant information about delivery. Registration does not imply approval and there is no explicit mandate for the AHRC to follow up, so a very weak plan can sit indistinguishably alongside a strong one.
No enforcement tools or incentives: If an organisation ignores its plan, the DDA offers no direct remedy under Part 3. Individuals can still bring discrimination complaints under other parts of the DDA, but that is reactive and contrary to the preventative intent of DAPs. Without even light-touch mechanisms, such as improvement notices or the ability to publicly mark non-compliance, DAPs become optional.

In short, Part 3’s voluntary nature, absence of standards, lack of renewal and reporting, and weak accountability mean DAPs are not yet functioning as catalysts for change. The next section sets out how a modern, systems-based architecture would turn DAPs into dynamic levers for structural reform.

DAPs as Dynamic Levers for Systemic Change

Governments already use systems thinking to understand complexity, identify interdependencies, and create feedback loops that strengthen planning and delivery. In local government, this is embedded in integrated planning and reporting frameworks,

42 Parliament of Australia. Senate Community Affairs References Committee. (2024). Accessible communities: Inquiry into the delivery of outcomes under the National Disability Strategy 2010–2020. Chapter 2. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/AccessibleCommunities/Report/c02. 18

Part 6 – Disability Action Plans (Alexandra Bignell)

where councils plan strategically, allocate resources, deliver, measure, and adjust in repeating cycles. This approach ensures decisions are evidence-based, responsive and cumulative over time. DAPs can and should operate in exactly this way. They are not just compliance tools, they are system levers that can shape how councils and public authorities design, deliver and measure inclusion across all aspects of their work. Right now, Part 3 doesn’t allow them to play that role. With modest reform, it could.

Seen through a systems-thinking lens, Part 3 can be redesigned so that DAPs sit within a continuous improvement cycle that drives structural change across government and community. This means making DAPs dynamic; regularly updated, data-informed and integrated with other planning processes, so they actively guide progress rather than sit on a shelf. This includes:

Feedback and learning: A systems approach builds in feedback loops. Organisations should monitor and evaluate DAP outcomes, publish results, and use what they learn to inform the next cycle. For example, a council might track accessibility improvements in community facilities each year, report progress publicly, and then refine its next actions based on what worked and what didn’t. Public feedback from people with disability, through consultation, advisory groups, or co-design processes, must also be part of this loop. This keeps lived experience at the centre of decision-making and signals that the DAP is a living commitment, not a static document.
Adaptation and responsiveness: Systems change depends on the capacity to adapt. DAPs should work on fixed, repeating cycles (for example, four-year plans with a mid-term review) so organisations can adjust to changing conditions. The last few years have shown how quickly circumstances can shift, from disruptions caused by the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) to rapid digital transformation. Static plans can’t keep pace. Dynamic DAPs allow organisations to reset priorities, test new approaches and learn as they go. This iterative process builds a culture of reflection and improvement, treating inclusion as a journey rather than a checklist.
Integration and alignment: DAPs will only create structural change if they are integrated into the systems that drive decision-making and resource allocation. In local government, this means aligning DAP objectives with the Council Plan, budget cycles, asset management, procurement and workforce strategies. When a DAP action to improve accessibility is built into capital works budgets, or when inclusive employment targets appear in HR plans, inclusion becomes routine, not exceptional. Integration also activates other levers: procurement policies that require accessible design, planning schemes that promote universal design, or performance frameworks that measure inclusion alongside financial or

Part 6 – Disability Action Plans (Alexandra Bignell)

environmental outcomes. In short, DAPs should function like other core plans, part of the machinery, not an accessory to it.

A national scaffold for local flexibility: Embedding DAPs in this systems cycle doesn’t mean uniformity. Local government areas, for example, are highly variable according to geography, population and demographics. This means, each council should still shape its plan around its own community and scale. For example, a metropolitan council might focus on complex transport and employment barriers; a small rural council might prioritise access to community halls and inclusive recreation. Both contribute to the same national picture of progress, provided they work within a consistent, measurable framework. The opportunity lies in creating a national scaffold, with clear expectations, a standard cycle, and a shared outcomes framework, within which councils and agencies can innovate.
Turning DAPs into proactive levers of inclusion: When designed this way, DAPs bring the “positive duty” to life: instead of waiting for discrimination to occur, they compel organisations to act early and systemically. This aligns with the CRPD’s obligations (Articles 4, 5 and 9) for governments to proactively identify and remove barriers, and with the ADS’ goal of embedding inclusion in mainstream systems.

A well-structured DAP framework would also catalyse collaboration. Councils already partner with state departments, local businesses, and community groups to deliver accessibility projects, inclusive events and co-design initiatives. Strengthened DAPs would make these partnerships visible, transforming them from isolated good practice into a national architecture for inclusion.

In short, local government already knows how to plan in systems. The opportunity before us is to apply that same discipline to disability inclusion. With the right design, DAPs can become the mechanism that links national strategy to local action, turning inclusion from a series of projects into a continuous, self-improving system that delivers measurable change for people with disability.

Case Studies - Lessons from Comparative Frameworks

What can we learn from other legislative frameworks that mandate action plans or similar strategies? Two examples are particularly instructive: Victoria’s Gender Equality Act 2020 and the proposed Victorian Disability Inclusion Bill (2023). These initiatives, though in different domains, share a commitment to structured planning, monitoring, and accountability, and thus offer valuable lessons for reforming Part 3 of the DDA.

Part 6 – Disability Action Plans (Alexandra Bignell)

Gender Equality Act 2020 (Victoria) – Integrated, Cyclical Change

Victoria’s Gender Equality Act 2020 (the Act) provides a powerful model of how enforceable action plans and transparent reporting can drive systemic change. The Act established the Commission for Gender Equality in the Public Sector as an independent body overseeing the implementation of the Act. Public sector organisations (including local councils, universities, government departments) are required to develop Gender Equality Action Plans (GEAP) every four years, conduct workplace gender audits, set targets and strategies, and report on progress every two years. Non-compliance can trigger compliance notices and improvement measures by the Commission.

This regime has effectively created a continuous improvement cycle: plan → implement → report → improve → plan anew. Crucially, the plans are not static; they must be refreshed and informed by data (e.g. gender pay gap analyses) each cycle. The Act also mandates integration of gender equity into regular business, for example, requiring gender impact assessments on new policies or programs. Early indications show that this has led to widespread embedding of gender considerations into organisational practices, rather than relegating them to a single policy. Public transparency is another key feature: organisations must publish their GEAP and progress reports, and the Commission may publish sector-wide results. This has normalised conversation about gender metrics and created healthy pressure to improve.

For DAPs, the lesson is clear: make the process mandatory, cyclical, data-driven and public. Just as the Gender Equality Act treats gender equality as a structural issue requiring planned action and oversight, so too should the DDA treat disability inclusion. Imagine a future where every council and public authority must consider disability inclusion in each strategic decision, report to a central body on their outcomes, and knows that an independent commission can call them out if they lag behind; much as the gender equality framework does. Such a cultural shift, supported by law, moves the needle from seeing DAPs as an optional extra to viewing them as core business. It is worth noting that the gender equality framework still allows flexibility (each organisation sets its own strategies appropriate to its context), suggesting that we can have both standardisation and local relevance. The success of this model in Victoria provides a compelling precedent for disability action planning nationally.

Victorian Disability Inclusion Bill 2023 – “Educate, Then Enforce” Oversight

The Victorian Disability Inclusion Bill 2023 (exposure draft) proposed a contemporary approach to strengthen disability inclusion obligations, including DAPs, at the state level. While this Bill is not yet law, it embodies forward-thinking elements that could be mirrored in the DDA. A centrepiece of the Bill was the creation of a Commissioner for Disability Inclusion, tasked with supporting organisations to comply with their disability

Part 6 – Disability Action Plans (Alexandra Bignell)

inclusion duties and monitoring their performance. Importantly, the model emphasised a graduated, supportive enforcement approach:

Initially, the Commissioner would provide guidance, education, and resources to help organisations develop and implement quality DAPs.
If an organisation’s plan was missing or clearly inadequate, the Commissioner could issue a notice to rectify (an improvement notice), giving the entity a chance to address the gaps within a reasonable timeframe.
Should the organisation fail to improve, the next step could be a formal compliance notice or even publishing the organisation’s non-compliance status, effectively calling out organisations after giving ample opportunity to correct.
Only as a last resort would enforcement escalate to legal orders or penalties, for instance through the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) in cases of persistent non-compliance.

This approach aligns with best practice regulatory theory: start with education and capacity-building, escalate through warnings, and reserve punitive measures for recalcitrant cases. It recognises that organisations often need help to meet new obligations, and that the ultimate goal is improved outcomes, not punishment. The Bill also would have required regular reporting by organisations (e.g. biennial reports on DAP progress) and the Commissioner would table a consolidated report to Parliament every two years evaluating the state of disability inclusion. Additionally, would have mandated that DAPs be published in an accessible manner and listed on a public register, increasing transparency.

For the DDA, the Victorian Bill’s features suggest the value of: (a) a clear oversight authority (if not a new Commission, then the AHRC empowered with similar review functions), and (b) a system of graduated enforcement. Applying this, Part 3 could empower the AHRC’s Disability Discrimination Commissioner (or a dedicated DAP Unit) to review submitted DAPs and work with organisations on improvements, issuing notices where needed. Persistent failure to even lodge a plan or to address flagged shortcomings could then justify public disclosure or other consequences (e.g. loss of eligibility for certain government grants or contracts until compliance is achieved). The guiding philosophy is that accountability drives improvement when there is an actual backstop to the requirements. Just knowing that one’s plan might be reviewed and sent back for improvements would incentivise organisations to take Part 3 seriously from the start.

Part 6 – Disability Action Plans (Alexandra Bignell)

In essence, these comparative frameworks reinforce the case that voluntary, unchecked approaches are outdated. Modern inclusion legislation is moving towards mandated action, regular reporting, and a balance of support and enforcement. By borrowing these elements, we can redesign Part 3 of the DDA so that DAPs genuinely deliver on their promise.

Recommendations for Reform of Part 3 (Disability Action Plans)

Based on the analysis above, I put forward a series of recommendations to Part 3 of the DDA and its implementation. The aim is to create a national DAP framework that is consistent, effective, and aligned with Australia’s broader inclusion agenda. Below are the key recommended changes:

Establish mandatory minimum content requirements: Amend the DDA to empower the Minister or AHRC to set mandatory guidelines or standards for DAPs. These guidelines should outline the essential elements every DAP must cover. At a minimum, this should include:

Consultation: A DAP must be developed in consultation with people with disability (and their representative organisations). The process should be documented, inclusive, and accessible (e.g. offering multiple formats and forums). This ensures plans are grounded in lived experience and co-designed to the extent possible.
Objectives and outcomes: Each plan should articulate clear objectives (what inclusion improvements will be achieved) and, wherever feasible, measurable indicators or targets. For example, an objective might be “improve employment of people with disability in our workforce to 5% by 2025” or “ensure 100% of new buildings meet accessibility benchmarks.” Indicators should align with broader frameworks like the ADS so progress can be aggregated nationally. An outcomes framework provides consistency, listing common outcome areas (e.g. access to services, community participation, employment opportunities, inclusive decision-making) and suggesting sample measures, which organisations can adapt.
Assigned responsibilities: There must be a concrete implementation plan, not just aspirations. Actions should be specific, time-bound, and assign a responsible owner or department for each item. Moreover, required resources (budget, staffing or other support) should be identified for significant actions. This embeds accountability internally: if everyone knows who is responsible for what, the plan is more likely to be executed.

Part 6 – Disability Action Plans (Alexandra Bignell)

Timeline and review cycle: The DAP should indicate its duration (ideally 4 years) and include a commitment to a mid-term review (2-year mark) and a full renewal by the end of the cycle. Including these in the plan itself signals that it’s a living document. A lapse in currency would be a breach of requirements. To facilitate alignment, an organisation could have a short grace period (say 6–12 months overlap) to align the DAP cycle with other strategic planning cycles.
Accessibility and publication: DAPs (and annual progress reports) must be made publicly available in accessible formats and there should be a clear point of contact for inquiries. Plans should be easy to find on the organisation’s website and via the AHRC register. If a DAP is embedded in a broader strategic document (as some councils do within Council Plans), then a standalone extract or section must be published for ease of reference.

These minimum requirements will professionalise and standardise the quality of DAPs, without being overly prescriptive about the content of actions (which should remain context-specific). They create a baseline expectation that a DAP is a serious, consultative, data-informed plan, not a glossy pamphlet. Organisations that fail to include these elements would not have their plans accepted/recognised, pushing them to do better.

Implement a national outcomes framework and data strategy: Create a light- touch national framework (Commonwealth with states, local government and DPOs) that names a small set of shared outcome domains and a few high-level indicators for each. Example domains: physical accessibility, employment/economic participation, attitudes and culture, service access, and civic participation. This will cut through siloed planning by giving everyone the same reference points for measuring progress. The AHRC could issue plain-English guidance and templates (with sample indicators and how-to notes) to demystify performance measurement and make selecting common indicators simple and practical.

Alongside this, the AHRC’s DAP register could serve as a platform for data collection. Each year or at plan conclusion, organisations could be required to submit a short outcomes report, perhaps a template asking for key statistics or narrative on achievements and challenges. The AHRC could aggregate this information to produce national snapshots and identify trends. Over time, this will build an evidence base of what works and feed into monitoring of the ADS. Care should be taken to not overly burden especially small organisations. The goal is to turn the multitude of local actions into a coherent national story of progress, and to allow benchmarking between similar entities which can spur improvement through friendly competition or peer learning.

Part 6 – Disability Action Plans (Alexandra Bignell)

Align DAPs with broader planning and policy cycles (without folding them in): DAPs should connect to other organisational plans, not be absorbed into them. While alignment with the four-year Council Plan cycle makes sense for timing and accountability, DAPs need to remain standalone documents to preserve focus and visibility. Integrating them into broader strategic plans (as has happened with some Municipal Public Health and Wellbeing Plans) risks diluting their purpose and weakening accountability. Instead, councils and public authorities should:

Run DAP cycles in parallel with other statutory plans, ensuring actions are resourced and reported alongside, but not buried within, broader frameworks.
Reference the DAP in related documents (e.g. Council Plan, budget, annual report) to show alignment without merging the content.
Use shared reporting cycles so DAP progress can feed into existing planning and reporting systems while retaining its distinct statutory and community facing role.

This approach keeps DAPs visible, measurable, and recognisable as the primary instrument for advancing disability inclusion.

Enhance the AHRC Register into an interactive compliance tool: The AHRC’s DAP Register should be modernised from a static list to a more interactive, user-friendly portal. This could involve:

Having a searchable database where users can filter plans by sector, region, date, compliance status, etc. For instance, a user could see all local council DAPs in Queensland and whether they are up to date. This helps researchers, advocates, and the public to identify gaps or leaders.
Displaying each organisation’s compliance at a glance. e.g. “Plan status: Compliant (meets all minimum requirements; valid 2024–2028)”, or “Conditional (minor improvements due by June 2025)”, or “Non-compliant (no current plan registered)”. This simple addition creates a public accountability loop to ensure no council or agency is marked “Non-compliant” on a national public website.
Appending regular progress updates to the DAP providing a timeline of reporting. The Commission could highlight exemplary plans or outcomes on the site, creating a repository of good practices that others can learn from. For example, a council that significantly improved digital accessibility might have its story featured.
Ensuring the register itself is accessible and kept up to date by the AHRC. Adequate resourcing will be needed for the Commission to manage this enhanced register and follow up with organisations whose plans are expiring or missing.

Part 6 – Disability Action Plans (Alexandra Bignell)

In my experience, councils often struggle to work out what to do, even though we’re tackling the same problems with similar tools. A modernised register could be a valuable learning tool. By injecting competitive transparency and knowledge sharing, the register creates a ‘virtuous’ cycle where organisations see what peers are doing, borrow ideas, and feel constructive pressure not to lag. That shifts the register from a ‘filing cabinet’ to a continuous improvement platform.

Introduce proportionate enforcement (“carrot and stick”): Drawing on the case studies above, the Gender Equality Act 2020 (Vic) and the Victorian Disability Inclusion Bill (exposure draft), amend the DDA to give the AHRC (via the Disability Discrimination Commissioner) clear, graduated powers focused on improvement:

Review and feedback: AHRC assesses each DAP against the minimum requirements and issues written feedback.
Improvement notice (time-bound): Where gaps exist, provide a rectification notice with a practical timeframe (e.g., 3–6 months) and targeted guidance.
Conditional registration: List plans as ‘conditional’ on the register while minor issues are fixed; revert to ‘compliant’ once addressed.
Transparent status: If gaps persist, mark ‘non-compliant’ on the register to create constructive public pressure (consistent with the learning-and transparency model).
Escalate rarely: For persistent non-engagement, enable proportionate escalation (e.g., binding directions; in limited cases, linking eligibility for certain Commonwealth grants/contracts to having a current, compliant DAP).
Support first: Pair every step with templates, exemplars, and advisory support (delivered in partnership with ALGA and state counterparts), so most entities succeed without formal enforcement.

This approach mirrors what works in Victoria: educate → improve → (rarely) enforce, using visibility and practical help to lift quality across the system.

Foster a rights-based, inclusive culture through DAPs: Reforms should not only change processes but also encourage a cultural shift:

The DDA’s objects could be updated to explicitly reference the role of DAPs in fulfilling Australia’s commitments under the CRPD and achieving substantive equality.
Guidance around DAPs should emphasise rights-based language, for instance, framing adjustments and accessibility as legal and human rights obligations.
DAPs should include initiatives to address attitudinal barriers and promote inclusion within organisations. Many councils, for example, include staff training or disability awareness campaigns in their DAPs. Such “soft” actions are

Part 6 – Disability Action Plans (Alexandra Bignell)

important complements to the more structural changes (like physical upgrades or new programs).

The ADS highlights community attitudes as a priority; DAPs can localise those efforts by committing to a range of initiatives aimed at changing community attitudes and showcasing the contribution of people with disability to community life.

Conclusion

Local government is the forgotten level of government in national reform debates, yet we are the tier quietly delivering change on the ground, in libraries, leisure centres, footpaths, websites and workplaces, using the same integrated planning and continuous-improvement machinery that runs through government. We know how to plan, measure, adjust and report. Give us a clear DAP architecture and we will keep lifting outcomes year on year.

Right now, however, disability risks being sidelined by generic “diversity mainstreaming”. With government all but stepping back from the Disability Rights Act recommended by the DRC, favouring instead a broader human rights act, ambitions again are deferred, and we face the prospect of standing here in ten years asking why nothing changed. Part 3 of the DDA is our last practical lever to get this right.

Make DAPs mandatory, measurable and cyclical. Keep them standalone and visible, aligned to planning cycles but not buried within them. Require minimum content, annual public reporting to the AHRC, an upgraded register, and proportionate oversight that starts with help and only rarely enforces. Pair this with a light national outcomes scaffold and real support, especially for smaller councils and organisations.

Do this, and DAPs stop being lifeless documents and become working levers. Barriers will come down earlier, learning compounds, and inclusion becomes routine. Ignore it, and we entrench the status quo. The DDA Review is the moment to choose the former. Let’s not miss it.