Consultation Submission – Review of the
Disability Discrimination Act 1992
Prepared by: Sophia Anna-Faria
Affiliation: Committee Member, Disability Advisory Council of South Australia and person
with lived experience of disability Date: 19/10/2025
Response to Page 48: Part 3 – Encouraging Inclusion of People with Disability in Employment, Education and
Other Areas of Public Life
Recommendations 4.25 and 4.26 – Strengthening the Duty to Provide Adjustment
Yes. The law should explicitly state that duty holders must provide adjustments unless it causes unjustifiable hardship.
Yes. The removal of the word reasonable will allow for adjustments that genuinely enable people with disability to engage in meaningful and sustained work, removing the subjectivity that can too often disadvantage the person seeking support.
Employment and Financial Security: People with Disability
Have Economic Security, Enabling Them to Plan for the
Future and Exercise Choice and Control Over Their Lives
A key area of concern, which appears to have received limited attention in current legislative frameworks, is the restriction imposed by the Fair Work Act 2009, which allows employees with disability to request flexible working arrangements only after 12 months of continuous service.
This eligibility threshold creates a significant legal gap for people with disability who may require workplace adjustments from the beginning of their employment. This limitation can directly conflict with the intent of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) by delaying or denying the right to reasonable adjustment and equal opportunity in the workplace.
Although the Fair Work Act and DDA operate concurrently, in practice, the 12-month rule may effectively override DDA protections, especially for individuals unaware of their legal entitlements under anti-discrimination law.
This 12-month qualifying period can effectively delay or deny access to necessary adjustments, leaving individuals vulnerable to workplace exclusion or disadvantage during the early stages of employment. For people with disability, such a delay can function as a barrier to equal participation in the workforce — in direct contradiction to the aims of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA).
As a person living with a life-threatening but largely invisible disability Sickle Cell Disease, I must undergo a full-day blood exchange every month. In my early career, I was required to “make up my hours”, working 40 hours a week to accumulate a full paid day off, so that I did not deplete my annual or personal leave entitlements. I could not access flexible arrangements through purchased leave as I had not yet reached 12 months of employment.
Following a stroke, this kind of arrangement has become unachievable. Were I to change employment again, I would not be eligible for full-time work unless I could attend my hospital appointments - a basic requirement to manage my health and stay alive.
This eligibility threshold is also in direct conflict with Article 27 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which affirms the right to work and to receive reasonable accommodation to enable participation in the workforce.
Failure to allow timely, flexible work arrangements risks excluding people with disability from the workforce and deprives them of economic security, meaningful employment, and independence.
Stipulating that an individual with a disability cannot request flexible working conditions under 12 months of employment is in direct conflict with Article 27 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).
The CRPD states that “reasonable accommodation is provided to persons with disabilities in the workplace…with a view to achieving progressively the full realisation of (economic, social and cultural) rights.”
If an individual with a disability is unable to access flexible work arrangements that enable them to support their health commitments, this may influence their ability to retain meaningful and paid employment, resulting in reduced social and economic security.
Consultation Questions
- How should disability be defined in the Disability Discrimination Act? As a young individual who lives with a chronic blood disorder and neurological condition following a stroke — and as a committee member of the Disability Advisory Council of South Australia — I fear that removing the word ‘disability’ minimizes the experiences of people with disabilities, and may risk erasing or not appropriately recognising the reality of living with a disability, by ignoring systemic barriers and/or the magnitude of living with a life-long condition.
An impairment suggests a loss or abnormality of a body structure, rather than a broader word that supports multiple different disabilities.
-
What factors should be considered in developing a new definition of disability? A new definition must consider:
-
The importance of validating lived experience.
-
The risk of excluding or overlooking invisible disabilities.
-
The need to reflect not just medical diagnosis but social, structural, and attitudinal barriers.
-
Removing the word disability entirely would ignore the context in which discrimination and disadvantage occur.
-
Should the Disability Discrimination Act be expressly required to be interpreted in a way that is beneficial to people with disability, in line with human rights treaties?
Yes.
Recommendation 4.32 – Definition of and considerations for unjustifiable hardship
- What is your preferred approach to achieving greater fairness and transparency in claims of unjustifiable hardship: a. the Disability Royal Commission amendment as proposed
A. The Disability Royal Commission amendment as proposed. I support this approach because it allows for a case-by-case assessment, rather than relying on standardised definitions that can be open to interpretation. This flexibility enables meaningful consultation with the person with a disability, which can lead to better outcomes and compromise.
I also believe the legislation should clearly outline specific categories or thresholds for when an adjustment might not be reasonable—for example, if the adjustment would involve a significant financial burden that would negatively affect the viability of a business. This would provide greater transparency and fairness for both parties involved.
Recommendation 7.26 – Expanding the factors considered by employers when determining if an employee can carry out the inherent requirements of particular work
Consultation questions 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?
As a person who has experienced firsthand discrimination having my employment terminated following an otherwise successful probation whereby the employer cited “long-term concerns” about my health - despite no evidence of underperformance.
This highlights the need for:
-
Objective assessments of whether a person is meeting inherent requirements.
-
Consideration of how a person is meeting those requirements (e.g., using adjustments or supports).
-
Independent assessments or external mediation where appropriate to reduce bias or ableist assumptions.
Interactions with other legislation
Consultation questions 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?
I agree with this recommendation.
- 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 job?
Formal performance reviews within a probationary period to minimize the risk of unfair . dismissal based on ableism or unfair perception of disability.
- 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?
-
Encourage consultation between employers and employees with disability when making decisions about employment or adjustments.
-
Promote transparent and clear job descriptions, including documented inherent requirements.
-
Mandate formal performance reviews during probation to reduce discriminatory terminations based on perception of disability.
Re. Recommendations 4.29 and 4.30 – Offensive behaviour and vilification protection
- How could the Disability Discrimination Act be amended to protect people with disability from offensive behaviour and/or harassment?
Public attitudes toward people with disabilities, particularly those with invisible illnesses, remain a significant barrier to inclusion and dignity.
One of the most visible and distressing examples of this is the harassment and verbal abuse directed at individuals who use accessible (disability) parking spaces despite not presenting with an obvious, visible disability.
This kind of public policing reflects deep-seated ableism, where people are judged by how “disabled” they appear to others.
These incidents are distressing and dehumanising, reinforce shame, stigma, and exclusion and can create a climate of fear. In my persona experience, I have frequently chosen to avoid parking in designated accessibility spaces to avoid public scrutiny and verbal harassment, even when unwell.
A proactive and simple intervention could be the implementation of clear, visible public signage near accessible parking areas and other disability accommodations.
For example, signage could include messages such as:
“Not all disabilities are visible. Harassment of individuals using accessible services will not be tolerated.”
Such campaigns - whether through signage, media, or community education –would:
- Acts as a deterrent against verbal abuse.
- Educates the public about invisible disability.
- Contributes to a more inclusive, respectful social environment. Beyond signage, public education campaigns, media messaging, and community engagement can reshape how disability is perceived - reinforcing dignity, respect, and equality.
Final Remarks
In reviewing the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, we must ensure that:
- Rights are actionable from day one, not delayed by arbitrary eligibility rules.
- Definitions reflect both visible and invisible disabilities.
- Protections extend to public spaces, not just workplaces and services.
- Attitudes and assumptions are challenged through law, education, and visibility. This submission reflects my commitment - both personally and professionally - to advancing the rights, dignity, and inclusion of people with disability in all aspects of life.