Response to Consultation Questions (p.95)
48. Modernising and strengthening the DDA
The Act should explicitly recognise communication accessibility as a core right. Many barriers faced by disabled people — especially autistic and neurodivergent people — arise not from refusal of access, but from systems that only recognise one “acceptable” communication style. Modernisation should include language that requires duty holders to respect and support diverse communication methods (written, visual, AAC, email, support person, etc.), not just spoken or standard formal channels. Additionally, provisions from the Equal Opportunity Act (Vic) and Human Rights Act (Qld) that impose a positive duty to prevent discrimination, rather than just respond to it, could be mirrored in the DDA to promote proactive inclusion.
49. Guidance and public information
Guidance materials must exist in multiple accessible formats — Easy Read, plain English, Auslan, captioned videos, audio summaries, and trauma-informed guides for self-advocates. There also needs to be clear, real-world examples showing what compliance looks like for schools, health providers, employers, and government agencies — not just theoretical explanations. Too often, duty holders say they “didn’t understand” their obligations because the information is hidden in inaccessible legal text. Importantly, consultation and feedback processes themselves must model accessibility — allowing people to respond in writing, audio, video, assisted submissions, or through advocates.
50. Keeping the DDA fit-for-purpose
The Act should be reviewed regularly in partnership with lived-experience experts, not just lawyers and policymakers. “Accessibility” must evolve as technology and social understanding change — particularly in digital spaces, where many disabled people experience exclusion. To stay relevant, the DDA must also address systemic gatekeeping — such as support services or institutions that technically “exist” but operate in ways that prevent people from using them. The law should make clear that inaccessible systems are discriminatory systems.
51. Other issues for consideration
The DDA needs to recognise the emotional and cognitive cost of navigating systems that fail to accommodate neurodivergent and disabled people. When “support services” become procedural walls, the impact is still discrimination — just disguised in politeness and paperwork. True inclusion requires not only removing barriers but actively building safe, accessible, and flexible systems that people can engage with in their own communication style and
capacity. Accessibility should not depend on someone’s ability to self-advocate through stress, burnout, or trauma.