Response to Consultation Disability Discrimination Act 1992 Review October 2025

Response to Consultation

Disability Discrimination Act 1992 Review

October 2025

Prepared by Researchers from The Queensland Disability Research Network and The Australian Disability Research Alliance

Griffith University (Inclusive Futures including Hopkins Centre, Autism Centre of Excellence, CARI),
Flinders University (Disability and Inclusion Network),
LaTrobe University (Summer Foundation Research Centre),
University of Technology Sydney (UTS Disability Research Network),
Queensland University of Technology (Service Innovation Lab),
Central Queensland University (School of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences),
University of Sydney (Centre for Disability Research and Policy),
Curtin University (The Centre for Culture and Technology),
University of Southern Queensland (Graduate Research School),
Torrens University (Disability Network),
James Cook University (FNQ Connect),
Monash University (Monash Assistive Technology & Society Centre),
University of Sunshine Coast (Disability Network),
Bond University (Business School).

Our Position on Discrimination:

Discrimination is an enduring ‘wicked problem’ that harms millions of people with disability (PwD) every day, undermining dignity and leading to widespread social exclusion. It arises from deeply ingrained beliefs that PwD are inferior (disablism), coupled with social structures designed to suit non-disabled people (ableism). The recent Disability Royal Commission revealed the alarming and intolerable extent of violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation faced by PwD. It also exposed the lack of available evidence about how to tackle this challenge.

The Commission recommended legal reform, but decades of ineffective measures have left PwD disillusioned and lacking trust in Australia’s ability to solve this critical issue. Discrimination has been hard to solve because it is complex, multifaceted, and

resistant to simple solutions - worthy of extensive research. It is influenced by evolving legal precedents and sociocultural interpretations that are not easily understood or observed. Solutions have yet to match the level of complexity needed. Discrimination is typically treated as a unitary concept and a tangible discrete event.

In reality, discrimination manifests in diverse ways depending on the nature and severity of a person’s disability and whether they are otherwise marginalised – what is often described as intersectionality. Over time, discrimination leads to compounded and unpredictable impacts requiring even more complex solutions. It can range from physical victimisation and harassment (harm), lost opportunities and isolation (exclusion), to humiliation and embarrassment (indignity). Impacts vary from life-threatening to seemingly innocuous micro-aggressions that can go unnoticed by perpetrators. Failure to address all these interlocking elements of discrimination and acknowledge its complexity has led to ineffective interventions that ignore core aspects of the problem (ADRA, 2024).

Responses to Specific Questions:

1. How should disability be defined in the Disability Discrimination Act?

The DDA is now more than three decades old and is no longer fit for purpose. The definition of disability should be modernised to reflect the human rights principles reflected in the CRPD. This model recognises disability as a social construct arising from the interaction between individuals with impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers that hinder full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.

The definition should:

Move away from deficit-based language (e.g., “malfunction”, “disfigurement”, “disturbed behaviour”).
Embrace inclusive and affirming terminology that reflects the diversity of disability experiences, including neurodiversity and psychosocial disability.
Recognise disability as an evolving concept, inclusive of temporary, permanent, visible, invisible, and fluctuating conditions.
Be consistent with Article 1 of the CRPD, which includes persons with long-term physical, mental, intellectual, or sensory impairments.
Not be defined by diagnostic language but based on needs and the way in which environments meet those needs.

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

Note that consideration should be complemented by adequate consultation and co-design of any definitions. Key factors for consideration, consultation and co-design include:

Alignment with the CRPD and international human rights standards.
Lived experience of people with disability, including First Nations peoples and those with intersecting identities.
Cultural and linguistic diversity, recognising that some communities may not use, have language for, or identify with the term “disability”.
Flexibility to accommodate emerging understandings of disability, including neurodiversity and chronic illness.
Clarity and accessibility for legal and public understanding, avoiding overly medicalised or technical language.
Fluctuating disabilities and identities.
Recognition of the fact that disability is something that we can all expect to experience at some point i.e., it is an expected aspect of life that should be normalised.

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

The DDA should explicitly allow for intersectional claims involving multiple or combined protected attributes. This would:

Reflect the real-world experiences of people who face discrimination on multiple grounds (e.g., disability and race, gender, sexuality, age).
Align with intersectionality principles recognised in the CRPD and by the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Reduce the legal burden on complainants who currently must navigate multiple legislative frameworks.

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?

The DDA should:

Include a definition of intersectionality and recognise the impact of compounding discrimination over time.
Provide clear guidance and training for courts and authorities on how to assess the complexity of intersectional discrimination claims.

Ensure data collection and reporting is disaggregated by disability, intersectionality with other identities to inform policy and practice.
Remove the comparator test and replace with a simple detriment test, which is more inclusive of intersectional experiences.

The comparator test requires a person with disability to prove they were treated less favourably than a person without disability in similar circumstances. This test is artificial, legally complex and practically difficult. It focuses on a hypothetical comparison rather than harm. It shifts attention away from the actual experience of discrimination and toward abstract comparisons. People with intersecting identities (e.g., a First Nations woman with disability) may not have a clear or appropriate comparator, making it harder to prove discrimination. Instead, a claim should focus on the lived experience of the person, not how they compare to someone else. This approach is consistent with the approach in other legislations and jurisdictions (e.g., Fair Work Act).

It should also be recognised that the causes of compounding discrimination may be systemic in nature, and therefore require more multifaceted, enduring and complex remedies.

5. What test should be used to ensure that the definition of direct discrimination is easy to understand and implement for both duty holders and people with disability, and why?

The current requirement to prove causation (due to disability) can be difficult, especially when the reasons for the treatment by others are not transparent. Consider introducing a presumption of discrimination once detriment is shown, shifting the burden to the other party to prove the treatment was not discriminatory.

This will need to be combined with guidance materials with examples of discriminatory and non-discriminatory conduct to help administrators understand their obligations. Guidance (and legislation) should involve plain English summaries of key concepts, visual aids and flowcharts to explain how discrimination is assessed and case studies that reflect diverse disability experiences, including intersectional identities.

Assessment processes and policy need to be more accessible to people with disability, including those with cognitive or psychosocial disabilities as well as administrators, employers, educators and service providers.

The assessment and procedural response should explicitly reflect the human rights model of disability and the principles of the CRPD, including:

Respect for dignity and autonomy.
Equality.

Participation and inclusion in society.

This framing helps shift the understanding of discrimination from a legal technicality to an avoidable violation of rights, encouraging more proactive and respectful practices.

6. How should the burden of proof be addressed in the Disability Discrimination Act?

The burden of proof should be shifted to the perpetrator once the person with disability describes a case of discrimination. This approach is important because it reflects the imbalance of power and information between people with disability (sometimes children) and those who are responsible for providing non-discriminatory and inclusive environments. This approach also aligns with international best practice and existing workplace health and safety legislation. It encourages transparency and accountability. It recognises that discrimination is not only interpersonal, but also caused by the way that policies and systems operate, some of which can be invisible to the person experiencing discrimination, but which need to be addressed by the institutions in which the treatment is experienced. Hence, any discrimination claim needs to be examined in terms of broad systemic and cultural factors.

The burden of proof should be shifted from the applicant to the respondent to demonstrate that the detriment the applicant has suffered was NOT because of their disability. This would be similar to the burden of proof that operates in the Fair Work Act. With discrimination there is often a power difference/positional power dimension between the applicant and respondent, which would be partially mitigated by a shift in the burden of proof.

7. How could the definition of indirect discrimination be amended to ensure that it is easy to understand and implement for people with disability and duty holders?

The definition should be simplified by providing plain language guidance and examples for those involved. Remove incomprehensible conditions such as “inability to comply”, which is confusing and unnecessary.

The current test includes four elements that can be difficult to interpret, especially for people without legal training. A simplified version supported by plain language guidance could focus on whether or not the rules in any workplace, school, university or other place apply to everyone and if they disadvantage people with disability in a way that could have been avoided through other actions or approaches.

There is a need for plain language, visual aids, and simulation-based training to help duty holders understand and respond suitably to diverse disability experiences.

Remove the third element of the test (i.e., “does not or would not comply or is not able or would not be able to comply”) as it is unnecessary and confusing (AHRC & Qld HRC have already noted the need to remove this element. The issue is dealt with sufficiently in element 2 “a requirement that disadvantages people with disability.

8. Should the reasonableness element in the definition of indirect discrimination be a. removed b. retained and supplemented with a list of factors to consider c. replaced by a legitimate and proportionate test d. other

Reasonableness should be removed from the definition of indirect discrimination. A balanced and transparent approach to this issue of reasonableness would be to support employers and educators to consider how they will address a range of factors (e.g., cost, practicality, impact on others, benefit to the person with disability, future benefit to others) rather than viewing this factors as sources of hardship. This approach could promote consistency in decision-making and support better understanding of obligations. It would allow assessment in ways aligned with the CRPD concept of reasonable accommodation and grounded in context-sensitive models. The reasonableness element (4th element) requires a considered list of guiding factors to determine reasonableness. This list must be developed through authentic and genuine co-design with people with lived experience.

Those responsible for providing inclusive environments should be encouraged to consider:

The nature and purpose of their rules or requirements.
The impact on people with disability.
The actual cost and practicality of making adjustments (which are often low cost and easy to implement if done so in collaboration with people with disability).
The availability of simple alternatives.
The benefits to other groups beyond those with disability (e.g., pregnant women, injured people, older people, people dealing with stressors or cumulative disadvantage) and the entire population (e.g., increased safety, efficiency).
Whether the person with disability was consulted during the process of finding a solution.

There should be an onus on the employer/educational institution to demonstrate how determination of adjustments was undertaken with the person with disability at the centre of the process and what alternative options were explored. They should also be required to document their reasoning and demonstrate continuous improvement. It should be explicitly unlawful for employers or educators to fail or refuse to make adjustments. Unjustifiable hardship exemptions should be removed and only apply where it is demonstrated that an adjustment poses a significant public safety risk.

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?

This language is confusing, outdated, and unnecessary and aligns with a victim-blaming approach to disability. The focus should be on whether a rule or requirement disadvantages someone with disability, not based on their actual ability to comply with potentially unreasonable expectations, rules or requirements, but on the extent to which doing so disadvantages them or causes discomfort. For example, someone with hidden disabilities, cognitive, psychosocial or sensory issues may be technically able to follow a rule or requirement, but doing so causes intense distress or longer-term discomfort and, therefore, disadvantage. Removing this language would simplify the process, reduce misinterpretation and align decision-making with the social and human rights models of disability.

Convention and Interpretation (Questions 10–11)

10. Should the Disabilities Convention be included in the objects provision of the Disability Discrimination Act?

Including the CRPD would clarify the intent of the Act, signaling that the DDA is a key mechanism for implementing Australia’s international obligations under the CRPD. It would also support interpretation of the DDA in legal courts in line with human rights principles rather than technical considerations.

Strengthen alignment of Australia with the CRPD, sending a firm message about the importance of a rights-based approach to disability based on inherent dignity, autonomy, and inclusion.

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?

Although both the Common Law’s positive presumption (that Parliament intends legislation to be consistent with international obligations) and the Acts Interpretation Act provisions on the use of extrinsic materials allow Courts to refer to the CRPD when interpreting the DDA, including an explicit interpretation clause in the DDA itself would make this connection clearer. Such a clause would confirm that the DDA should be interpreted consistently with the CRPD, thereby strengthening and clarifying its alignment with Australia’s international human rights obligations.

Locally, if the DDA is aligned with the Disability Services and Inclusion Act 2023, then it must give effect to the CRPD. It should reinforce a rights-based interpretation of the DDA, ensuring that ambiguity is resolved in ways that uphold the rights of people with disability.

Positive Duty (Questions 12–15)

12. If there was a positive duty in the Disability Discrimination Act, who should it apply to?

Positive duty was recommended by the Disability Royal Commission. We should adopt a similar approach to the recent sex discrimination law changes. Positive duty would make it clear to duty holders their responsibility to undertake reasonable, proportionate and continual measures to eliminate disability discrimination as far as possible.

Who would be the duty holders?

All levels of government
Employers
Education providers
Service providers
Government agencies
Providers of public goods (commodity and services) and built environments/places
Professionals
The Public when discrimination is experienced in collective settings or via an overarching medium such as media, social media, public speeches etc.

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?

Wide-scale education and attitude-change initiatives are essential to achieving the cultural shift required for the success of the positive duty. Evidence from sex discrimination campaigns shows that sustained, community-wide education can effectively transform attitudes and drive long-term behavioural change. Research undertaken for the Disability Royal Commission has also demonstrated what is needed to improve community attitudes towards people with disability, highlighting that education, visibility, and inclusive narratives are critical enablers. Embedding such measures within the positive duty framework will ensure that prevention becomes a lived reality rather than

an aspirational goal, fostering a culture of respect, inclusion, and equality across all areas of public life.

Other key lessons include the need for long-term strategic planning with continual improvement cycles and compliance mechanisms which allow a regulator to ensure duty holders meet their obligations under the Act.

Disability equity assessments are a requirement under the Gender Equity Act 2020 (Victora). Organisations listed under the Act as duty holders must undertake a gender impact assessment when developing a policy, program or service which has a direct and significant impact on the public.

https://www.genderequalitycommission.vic.gov.au/gender-impact-assessment-toolkit-and-templates/introducing-gender-impact-assessments

A gender impact assessment must:

Assess: How will the policy, program or service affect people of different genders?
Explain: How will you design or change the policy, program or service to better meet the needs of people of different genders? How will it address gender inequality and promote gender equality?
Apply an intersectional approach: Consider how the end user’s experience of gender inequality may be shaped by other aspects of their identity including: Aboriginality; age; disability; ethnicity; gender identity; race; religion; sexual orientation.”

A similar requirement could be applied to DDA, requiring disability equity assessment to be undertaken by duty holders whenever developing a policy, program or service which has a direct and significant impact on the public. This requirement would complement Disability Inclusion and Actions Plans (DIAP).

14. What costs, benefits and other impacts would duty holders experience in meeting a positive duty under the Disability Discrimination Act?

Positive duty requires systematic change, embedding a culture of inclusion, leadership accountability; inclusive good governance, risk management and transparency. It is a systemic and mindset shift towards proactive thinking and action to prevent and remove harms of disability discrimination. It promotes inclusive safer environments that benefit everyone - individuals, organisations, industry and society. Positive Duty also makes clear legal accountability and responsibility. The benefits may outweigh costs if examined fully and calculated comprehensively.

Costs:

Initial investment in training, policy development, culture change strategies and infrastructure.
Time and resources for consultation and implementation.
Benefits:
Reduced complaints and litigation.
Improved inclusion, retention, and productivity.
Enhanced reputation and compliance with other legal frameworks (e.g., WHS laws).

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

No. Exclusions, if any, should be very narrow and clearly defined, such as where the presence of disability could not be known and disclosure is not required, AND no alternative ways of operating or acting were possible. Exclusions, if granted to anyone, should not eliminate or reduce the responsibility to seek more inclusive and non-discriminatory practices or the development of safeguards to increase the likelihood of positive duty being possible in future.

Adjustments (Questions 16–18)

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?

A stand-alone duty clarifies that failure to provide adjustments is unlawful unless unjustifiable hardship applies. Research has shown that the term “reasonable” is contested and ambiguous and tends to align with precedents set in legal or political interpretations. This discourages proactive behaviour that would eliminate the need for claims.

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?

The DDA should extend to all contexts, including private interactions in public spaces and natural environments (e.g., housing, retail, beaches and national parks) and emerging areas like digital platforms and AI-based services. Public life and citizenship are constantly evolving, and this approach would ensure broader inclusion.

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

Reasonable adjustments has become a familiar, albeit confusing, terminology and removal of the word reasonable reduces the risk of misinterpretation. Even with plain-language guidance and training designed to offset this risk, “reasonable” is a term that can be argued and justified as needed, often to the detriment of the person with disability.

Unjustifiable Hardship (Question 19)

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

No other Commonwealth Anti-discrimination Act allows unjustifiable hardship. To ensure fairness and consistency, it is recommended that this condition be removed. There are limited exemptions made in other Acts. Any limited exemptions should be co-designed. Fairness and transparency require consultation with all stakeholders and discussions to co-design solutions with people with disability. There must be avenues to encourage all parties to consider alternative options and to reach mutually agreed compromises. There are cases where modifications are impractical or unaffordable, but there must be ways of discussing this without devaluing or ignoring the rights of people with disability.

Employment and Inherent Requirements (Questions 20–22)

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?

Collaborative and co-designed problem-solving is ideal, not based on assumptions about capacity, but in the spirit of genuine attempts to improve retention of people with disability in employment and build an inclusive workplace culture. Inherent requirements need to be matched to the actual requirements of the job/task and developed in response to flexible ways of working in a contemporary employment setting. They must not be developed based on ancient traditions, out-of-date ways of working, professional pride and misinterpreted beliefs about capability. They must also not be upheld in the absence of thorough job/task analysis.

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 job?

Employers should publish inherent requirements in job descriptions as thorough descriptions of the tasks and activities required rather than as broad-ranging statements that are not grounded in the daily practice of those professions and in current working environments. Suitable consultations and assessments should be conducted before decisions are made on suitability. Guidance materials should be provided for assessing inherent requirements. The principle of inherent requirements is particularly relevant for discrimination in educational and training institutions given that entire career pathways can be blocked to people with a disability as a result of the broad and inflexible application of inherent requirements. Before determining capability relative to inherent requirements, employers must consider the nature and extent of adjustments that could be made, including alternative ways of performing the task. This consideration should be based on extensive consultation with people with disability so decisions are fully informed and based on detailed dialogue.

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?

Possible factors for consideration could include:

Availability and effectiveness of adjustments.
Safety considerations.
Consultation outcomes.
Support needs and potential for training.
Technology and new ways of working.
Environmental modifications that could shift the demands of a job.
Possibilities such as job crafting and job sharing that can address requirements.

Exclusionary Discipline (Questions 23–26)

23. Should the concepts of exclusion and exclusionary discipline be defined in the Disability Discrimination Act?

Clear definitions are always useful as they ensure consistency across jurisdictions, prevent misuse of exclusionary practices and support data collection and accountability.

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

Any exceptions should be narrowly defined (e.g., serious risk to safety), subject to review and strongly justified.

25. Should any of the state and territory provisions relating to exclusionary discipline be adopted in the Disability Discrimination Act?

An important principle is exhaustion of all alternatives and the requirement to consider the best interests of the person with disability first. Mandatory requirements for consultation with disability inclusion experts is also useful.

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

No, the VET and tertiary education sectors host diverse adult learners and are delivered in diverse settings. There is less certainty about the curriculum requirements so greater flexibility and adjustments are important. Exclusion should only be an option in very limited circumstances where there is demonstrated serious safety risk and no other alternative. These sectors provide a critical gateway to future careers, employment and financial security, so equitable access and inclusion are essential.

Harassment, Offensive Behaviour, and Vilification (Questions 27–30)

27. How could the Disability Discrimination Act be amended to protect people with disability from offensive behaviour and/or harassment?

It should be unlawful to engage in any public acts that are likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate a person or group because of disability. This protection should be extended to online spaces, including social media and digital platforms.

28. If the Disability Discrimination Act were to prohibit offensive behaviour and/or harassment, how should these terms be defined?

Consistent with other anti-discrimination laws, offensive behaviour and harassment could be defined as reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate either a person or a group of people because it relates to disability. Clarify that harassment includes repeated or systemic behaviour, not just an isolated incident, noting that multiple isolated incidents have a cumulative impact on people with disability over time.

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

If any, exemptions must be narrowly defined to avoid undermining protections.

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?

Criminal law reforms address serious vilification, but the DDA should also focus on vilification involving the inciting of hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule including through memes, social media live streams, videos, and even comments that appear to be innocuous.

Policing and Justice (Questions 31–32)

31. How could the Disability Discrimination Act be amended to ensure that it covers policing?

The prevalence of people with disability in the justice system (and child safety system) is sufficient indication that inherent discrimination is likely to be operating in this sector. For this reason, exclusion of policing and justice situations would exacerbate the longer-term implications. Instead, areas where there is evidence of discrimination potential embedded in decision-making processes or policy (i.e., where there is higher than expected incidence or prevalence of disability) should be targeted for deeper investigation.

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?

Any exclusions should be minimal and clearly defined, by immediate threats to safety, and cannot be used to justify discriminatory treatment.

Exemptions and Special Measures (Questions 33–37)

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?

Our responses to questions 33-37 are similar in that any special measures and exemptions should be minimal, clearly defined and tightly controlled, but also linked with strong justifications based on public safety rather than economic arguments. They must be aligned with international law (e.g. CRPD) and linked to actions aimed at achieving equality in future.

Assistance Animals (Questions 38–40)

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?

Consistency throughout Australia for accreditation requirements for assistance animals is required. Four States/Territories have legislation in place and there is some work happening across governments (through the Assistance Animals Working Group) to establish harmonised regulation and accreditation of assistance animals. Consistency is key for clarity and improved outcomes.

Other actions could include providing guidance materials on acceptable evidence (e.g. vet certificates, training logs) and clarifying minimum standards for hygiene and behaviour while still ensuring flexibility for self-trained animals and those beyond formal accreditation schemes.

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

A mixture of guidance materials available online in multiple formats together with minimum standards detailed in regulations or in the DDA itself. Guidance materials are useful given that interpretation of assistance animals can be complex and confusing for all parties. Although guidance materials are easier to adjust and amend as needed, the robust accountability provided by including the minimum standards in regulations or the Act is also required.

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

Recognised training organisations are important to ensure quality and consistency, but also to ensure diversity of providers. There is a need, however, to define training requirements for assistance animals:

Share guidance about minimum training requirements that could be used by training organisations and by people training their own animals
Set out accepted training organisations in regulations
Make the training requirements clearer in the Act, while still making sure that they work for people who can’t access formal training or accreditation.

Disability Action Plans and Standards (Questions 41–47)

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

Minimum requirements should include:

Consultation and co-design with people with disability.
The use of plain language, visual supports, and supported decision-making.
Goals, timelines, and evaluation metrics.
Reporting on compliance with Disability Standards.

42. Should the Australian Human Rights Commission be able to reject action plans that fail to meet these requirements?

Yes to ensure quality and accountability and prevent tokenistic or superficial plans.

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

If too short, planners will simply copy and paste existing actions and may not see progress. A more realistic and meaningful arrangement is 3–5 year validity period with annual reviews and updated plans if negative action becomes apparent.

Require public reporting on progress and encourage co-design with disability communities.

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

Require public self-reporting against action plans, but also enforce compliance with plans and enable AHRC to conduct systemic inquiries and issue compliance notices.

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?

Self-reporting in a public venue promotes transparency, accountability and continuous improvement. It also allows sector-specific standards to be set.

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?

Guidance should include templates and examples, sector-specific advice about suitable and meaningful actions (e.g. in education, transport) and assistance with the application of co-design principles and practices.

Modernisation and Future-Proofing (Questions 48–51)

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?

Several States provide a positive duty requirement and there are lessons about the implementation of those Acts.
Statutory guidance and compliance tools (templates, sector guidance, small-business resources) are available, such as the Australian Human Rights Commission positive-duty guidance to support implementation.
The DDA should align with state human-rights obligations) to ensure cross-government prevention and mainstreaming of accessibility. Australia’s Human Rights Acts provide a proven model for how rights-based legislation can foster proactive compliance, build institutional capacity, and drive cultural change. Applying a human rights framework to the Disability Discrimination Act would move it from a reactive complaints model to a preventative, systemic, and educative framework. Under a Human Rights Act, public entities are required to act compatibly with human rights and give proper consideration to rights when making decisions. This shifts the focus from retrospective remedies (after a person has been discriminated against) to prevention. Rights-based legislation can therefore shift the culture from reactive to preventative, offering valuable lessons for

modernising the Disability Discrimination Act. Human Rights Acts allow for systemic investigation and continuous improvement, not just resolution of individual complaints.

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?

Sector-specific toolkits (e.g. for schools, employers), interactive online resources and videos and plain-English guidance notes would help in the development of actions and compliance. Access to expertise in co-design methods and support to understand the impact of discrimination on individuals, but also on those with responsibility to provide inclusive environments.

50. How can we ensure the Disability Discrimination Act remains fit-for-purpose into the future?

Use flexible language and processes that can adapt to technological and social change. Include major reviews every 5–10 years. Maintain ongoing consultation with and engagement of disability communities in the design and implementation of the DDA.

51. Are there any other issues with the Disability Discrimination Act that should be considered as part of this review?

Strengthen intersectional protections. Improve access to justice for all people with disability, including legal aid and advocacy support. Address digital accessibility and explore how emerging technologies can support anti-discrimination efforts.