NDIA Accountability Project

This project is in DRAFT

Submission 3366 — Mr Andrew Hartwell (Attachment 3) — NDIS Future Generations Bill

‹ PrevPage 1 of 25 · Source p. 1Next ›

DDA Legislative Risk Policy Packs

Consolidated Word document

This consolidated document contains the policy pack Word documents from the DDA legislative risk suite. Draft email template sections have been removed in accordance with the updated document-production instruction.

Contents

  1. NDIS Reform and Mainstream Service Readiness
  2. Delegated Powers, Support Determinations and Parliamentary Scrutiny
  3. Automated Decision-Making, Algorithmic Bias and Human Review
  4. NDIS Integrity, Provider Registration and Thin-Market Choice
  5. Disability Standards for Education and Enforcement Gaps
  6. Accessible Housing, Building Law and DDA After-the-Fact Remedies
  7. Transport Standards Reform and Delayed Compliance
  8. Migration Health Requirement and Disability-Based Exclusion
  9. Fair Work, Reasonable Adjustments and Disability Employment Rights
  10. Online Safety, Social Media Age Restrictions and Disabled Young People
  11. Aged Care, NDIS Boundaries and Disabled Older People
  12. Intersectional Anti-Discrimination, Religious Exemptions and Service Access DDA legislative risk policy packs | Page 1
  1. NDIS Reform and Mainstream Service Readiness Policy risk pack: Disability Discrimination Act 1992 compatibility, legislative safeguards and advocacy materials Date: 8 July 2026

Risk rating: High

Primary legislation: National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Securing the NDIS for Future Generations) Bill 2026; National

Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013; Disability Discrimination Act 1992

  1. Full policy brief

Purpose

This brief identifies the risk that ndis reform and mainstream service readiness may weaken the practical operation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) even where the Act itself is not amended. It is intended to support ministerial correspondence, parliamentary engagement, consultation submissions and stakeholder advocacy.

Issue

The main DDA risk is not that NDIS reform directly amends anti-discrimination law, but that narrowed access, tighter planning and changed support categories may push people into mainstream systems before those systems can meet their DDA obligations.

The current legislative and policy context is as follows: The 2026 Bill is before the Parliament and the Senate inquiry has been extended to 14 August 2026. Government consultation is proceeding through staged public engagement on support, pricing, eligibility and planning reforms. The central risk is functional erosion. The DDA remains in force, but the surrounding legislative scheme may create disadvantage, delay, opaque decision-making, reduced support, inaccessible design or administrative barriers that an individual complaint cannot correct quickly enough.

How the DDA is engaged

The DDA prohibits disability discrimination in important areas of public life, including services, employment, education, accommodation, access to premises and administration of Commonwealth laws and programs. It also depends heavily on the concept of reasonable adjustment, together with the defence of unjustifiable hardship. Where another legislative scheme reduces a person’s practical capacity to access mainstream services, the DDA may be engaged because the person is no longer able to participate on the same basis as a non-disabled person.

The policy concern is not merely legal inconsistency. It is institutional timing. Discriminatory harm can occur immediately when support is removed, an automated tool rejects a person, an inaccessible dwelling is approved, a transport upgrade is delayed, or a mainstream agency refuses adjustment. A DDA complaint may be available later, but it will often be too slow, complex and individualised to prevent harm at population scale.

Specific DDA risks

  • Support reductions may leave people unable to access work, education, health, housing and community life on an equal basis.

  • Mainstream agencies may not have the funding, workforce or operational maturity to provide reasonable adjustments at the scale required.

  • The DDA may become an after-the-fact complaint remedy rather than a front-end design standard.

  • People may be left in a responsibility gap between the NDIS, states, employers, schools, housing providers and health services.

Recommended legislative or policy safeguards

  1. Insert a DDA compatibility clause into the Bill and any rules made under it.

  2. Require a mainstream readiness test before any support category is reduced, capped or transferred.

  3. Create a no-wrong-door escalation pathway where a person is refused both NDIS and mainstream adjustment support.

  4. Require disability impact statements for all support determinations, eligibility rules and planning rules. DDA legislative risk policy packs | Page 2

  1. Preserve access to social and community participation, capacity-building and disability-related health supports where these are needed to exercise rights under the DDA.

Implementation requirements

Implementation should be led through a cross-portfolio process involving the Attorney-General’s Department, the portfolio department responsible for the relevant legislation, the Australian Human Rights Commission, people with disability, disability representative organisations, community legal services and affected service systems. The key test is whether the measure has been designed so that a person with disability can exercise rights in practice, rather than being left to enforce those rights through individual complaint after harm occurs.

Preferred Ministerial position

The Minister should support reform where it improves safety, sustainability, accessibility and equal participation, but should not support any measure that narrows practical equality without an express DDA compatibility test, clear adjustment duties, accessible information, human review and a pathway to remedy. The Minister should seek amendments or implementation conditions that preserve the DDA as a living protection rather than a residual complaint mechanism.

  1. Two-page ministerial brief Decision sought: Agree to raise DDA compatibility concerns in relation to ndis reform and mainstream service readiness and support targeted legislative or implementation safeguards before the measure proceeds or is operationalised.

Recommended position: Support the policy objective where appropriate, but require amendments, rules or implementation commitments that prevent disability discrimination, preserve reasonable adjustment duties and ensure accessible review.

Key talking points

  • NDIS sustainability must not be achieved by transferring unmet disability need into systems that are not yet accessible.

  • The DDA already requires equal access, but individual complaints cannot replace properly funded system design.

  • A reform that saves money in one scheme may create discrimination, cost and harm in another. Proposed next steps

  1. Seek departmental advice on DDA compatibility and implementation risk.
  2. Write to the relevant Commonwealth Minister requesting targeted safeguards.
  3. Engage the Australian Human Rights Commission and disability representative organisations.
  4. Use the stakeholder register to coordinate outreach.
  5. Attach this pack as an annexure to relevant consultations or parliamentary submissions.
  6. Source notes
  7. Suggested annexures
  • DDA legislative risk source log and stakeholder register.
  • Extracts from the relevant Bill, explanatory memorandum or discussion paper.
  • Evidence from disability representative organisations.
  • Case studies showing how loss of support, inaccessible design or automated decisions create practical exclusion.
  • Draft amendments or recommended wording for a DDA compatibility clause. DDA legislative risk policy packs | Page 3
  1. Delegated Powers, Support Determinations and Parliamentary

Scrutiny

Policy risk pack: Disability Discrimination Act 1992 compatibility, legislative safeguards and advocacy materials Date: 8 July 2026

Risk rating: High

Primary legislation: NDIS Amendment Bill 2026; Legislation Act 2003; Disability Discrimination Act 1992

  1. Full policy brief

Purpose

This brief identifies the risk that delegated powers, support determinations and parliamentary scrutiny may weaken the practical operation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) even where the Act itself is not amended. It is intended to support ministerial correspondence, parliamentary engagement, consultation submissions and stakeholder advocacy.

Issue

Broad delegated powers may allow significant disability rights consequences to be made through rules, determinations, pricing instruments or operational systems rather than primary legislation.

The current legislative and policy context is as follows: The 2026 NDIS reform package proposes support determinations and other subordinate instruments to define and reduce categories of support, with amendments narrowing some categories but not removing the core delegation risk. The central risk is functional erosion. The DDA remains in force, but the surrounding legislative scheme may create disadvantage, delay, opaque decision-making, reduced support, inaccessible design or administrative barriers that an individual complaint cannot correct quickly enough.

How the DDA is engaged

The DDA prohibits disability discrimination in important areas of public life, including services, employment, education, accommodation, access to premises and administration of Commonwealth laws and programs. It also depends heavily on the concept of reasonable adjustment, together with the defence of unjustifiable hardship. Where another legislative scheme reduces a person’s practical capacity to access mainstream services, the DDA may be engaged because the person is no longer able to participate on the same basis as a non-disabled person.

The policy concern is not merely legal inconsistency. It is institutional timing. Discriminatory harm can occur immediately when support is removed, an automated tool rejects a person, an inaccessible dwelling is approved, a transport upgrade is delayed, or a mainstream agency refuses adjustment. A DDA complaint may be available later, but it will often be too slow, complex and individualised to prevent harm at population scale.

Specific DDA risks

  • Subordinate instruments may alter practical access to equality without equivalent parliamentary scrutiny.
  • Support categories may be defined in a budgetary frame rather than a DDA rights frame.
  • People affected may have difficulty identifying which instrument caused a loss or how to challenge it.
  • Delegated rules may change faster than disability organisations can respond. Recommended legislative or policy safeguards

  1. Require all NDIS rules and support determinations to include a DDA compatibility statement.

  2. Make high-impact support determinations subject to disallowance, consultation and human rights scrutiny.

  3. Require publication of plain English and Easy Read explanations before commencement.

  4. Create an independent disability rights review mechanism for support determinations.

  5. Prohibit delegated instruments from narrowing access to supports required to comply with DDA obligations in mainstream settings without replacement safeguards.

    DDA legislative risk policy packs | Page 4

Implementation requirements

Implementation should be led through a cross-portfolio process involving the Attorney-General’s Department, the portfolio department responsible for the relevant legislation, the Australian Human Rights Commission, people with disability, disability representative organisations, community legal services and affected service systems. The key test is whether the measure has been designed so that a person with disability can exercise rights in practice, rather than being left to enforce those rights through individual complaint after harm occurs.

Preferred Ministerial position

The Minister should support reform where it improves safety, sustainability, accessibility and equal participation, but should not support any measure that narrows practical equality without an express DDA compatibility test, clear adjustment duties, accessible information, human review and a pathway to remedy. The Minister should seek amendments or implementation conditions that preserve the DDA as a living protection rather than a residual complaint mechanism.

  1. Two-page ministerial brief Decision sought: Agree to raise DDA compatibility concerns in relation to delegated powers, support determinations and parliamentary scrutiny and support targeted legislative or implementation safeguards before the measure proceeds or is operationalised.

Recommended position: Support the policy objective where appropriate, but require amendments, rules or implementation commitments that prevent disability discrimination, preserve reasonable adjustment duties and ensure accessible review.

Key talking points

  • Rights should not be lost by rule book.
  • A delegated instrument can have the same practical effect as primary legislation for a disabled person’s daily life.
  • Budget discipline and rights compatibility must be tested together. Proposed next steps
  1. Seek departmental advice on DDA compatibility and implementation risk.
  2. Write to the relevant Commonwealth Minister requesting targeted safeguards.
  3. Engage the Australian Human Rights Commission and disability representative organisations.
  4. Use the stakeholder register to coordinate outreach.
  5. Attach this pack as an annexure to relevant consultations or parliamentary submissions.
  6. Source notes
  7. Suggested annexures
  • DDA legislative risk source log and stakeholder register.
  • Extracts from the relevant Bill, explanatory memorandum or discussion paper.
  • Evidence from disability representative organisations.
  • Case studies showing how loss of support, inaccessible design or automated decisions create practical exclusion.
  • Draft amendments or recommended wording for a DDA compatibility clause. DDA legislative risk policy packs | Page 5
  1. Automated Decision-Making, Algorithmic Bias and Human

Review

Policy risk pack: Disability Discrimination Act 1992 compatibility, legislative safeguards and advocacy materials Date: 8 July 2026

Risk rating: High

Primary legislation: Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024; Privacy Act 1988; NDIS Amendment Bill 2026; Aged Care Act 2024; Disability Discrimination Act 1992

  1. Full policy brief

Purpose

This brief identifies the risk that automated decision-making, algorithmic bias and human review may weaken the practical operation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) even where the Act itself is not amended. It is intended to support ministerial correspondence, parliamentary engagement, consultation submissions and stakeholder advocacy.

Issue

Transparency-only automated decision-making obligations may leave people with disability exposed to biased or inflexible decisions without a clear right to explanation, human review or reasonable adjustment.

The current legislative and policy context is as follows: From 10 December 2026, privacy policies must disclose specified information about automated decision-making that may affect rights or interests. NDIS reform also contemplates publication of automated decision-making arrangements. The central risk is functional erosion. The DDA remains in force, but the surrounding legislative scheme may create disadvantage, delay, opaque decision-making, reduced support, inaccessible design or administrative barriers that an individual complaint cannot correct quickly enough.

How the DDA is engaged

The DDA prohibits disability discrimination in important areas of public life, including services, employment, education, accommodation, access to premises and administration of Commonwealth laws and programs. It also depends heavily on the concept of reasonable adjustment, together with the defence of unjustifiable hardship. Where another legislative scheme reduces a person’s practical capacity to access mainstream services, the DDA may be engaged because the person is no longer able to participate on the same basis as a non-disabled person.

The policy concern is not merely legal inconsistency. It is institutional timing. Discriminatory harm can occur immediately when support is removed, an automated tool rejects a person, an inaccessible dwelling is approved, a transport upgrade is delayed, or a mainstream agency refuses adjustment. A DDA complaint may be available later, but it will often be too slow, complex and individualised to prevent harm at population scale.

Specific DDA risks

  • Automated tools may misread disability complexity, fluctuation, communication difference or support needs.
  • Publication of systems does not guarantee accessible reasons, correction or human review.
  • Algorithmic decisions may produce indirect discrimination before a person can complain.
  • People who use assistive technology or supported decision-making may be disadvantaged by digital processes. Recommended legislative or policy safeguards

  1. Create a statutory right to human review for high-impact disability-related decisions.

  2. Require disability bias audits before deployment and at fixed intervals.

  3. Require individual explanations that are accessible, plain English and available in Easy Read and Auslan where relevant.

  4. Ensure reasonable adjustments apply to digital assessment, identity, evidence and review processes.

  5. Prohibit fully automated adverse decisions that suspend, reduce or terminate disability supports without human verification.

    DDA legislative risk policy packs | Page 6

Implementation requirements

Implementation should be led through a cross-portfolio process involving the Attorney-General’s Department, the portfolio department responsible for the relevant legislation, the Australian Human Rights Commission, people with disability, disability representative organisations, community legal services and affected service systems. The key test is whether the measure has been designed so that a person with disability can exercise rights in practice, rather than being left to enforce those rights through individual complaint after harm occurs.

Preferred Ministerial position

The Minister should support reform where it improves safety, sustainability, accessibility and equal participation, but should not support any measure that narrows practical equality without an express DDA compatibility test, clear adjustment duties, accessible information, human review and a pathway to remedy. The Minister should seek amendments or implementation conditions that preserve the DDA as a living protection rather than a residual complaint mechanism.

  1. Two-page ministerial brief Decision sought: Agree to raise DDA compatibility concerns in relation to automated decision-making, algorithmic bias and human review and support targeted legislative or implementation safeguards before the measure proceeds or is operationalised.

Recommended position: Support the policy objective where appropriate, but require amendments, rules or implementation commitments that prevent disability discrimination, preserve reasonable adjustment duties and ensure accessible review.

Key talking points

  • Transparency is not the same as justice.
  • A privacy-policy disclosure will not help a person who has already lost support, housing or care.
  • Automated systems must be designed for disability complexity, not merely documented after deployment. Proposed next steps
  1. Seek departmental advice on DDA compatibility and implementation risk.
  2. Write to the relevant Commonwealth Minister requesting targeted safeguards.
  3. Engage the Australian Human Rights Commission and disability representative organisations.
  4. Use the stakeholder register to coordinate outreach.
  5. Attach this pack as an annexure to relevant consultations or parliamentary submissions.
  6. Source notes
  7. Suggested annexures
  • DDA legislative risk source log and stakeholder register.
  • Extracts from the relevant Bill, explanatory memorandum or discussion paper.
  • Evidence from disability representative organisations.
  • Case studies showing how loss of support, inaccessible design or automated decisions create practical exclusion.
  • Draft amendments or recommended wording for a DDA compatibility clause. DDA legislative risk policy packs | Page 7

  1. NDIS Integrity, Provider Registration and Thin-Market Choice Policy risk pack: Disability Discrimination Act 1992 compatibility, legislative safeguards and advocacy materials Date: 8 July 2026 Risk rating: Medium to High Primary legislation: NDIS Amendment (Integrity and Safeguarding) Bill 2025; NDIS Act 2013; DDA 1992

  2. Full policy brief

Purpose

This brief identifies the risk that ndis integrity, provider registration and thin-market choice may weaken the practical operation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) even where the Act itself is not amended. It is intended to support ministerial correspondence, parliamentary engagement, consultation submissions and stakeholder advocacy.

Issue

Integrity and safeguarding reforms are necessary, but may create disability discrimination risk if provider regulation reduces access to safe, culturally appropriate, specialist or local supports.

The current legislative and policy context is as follows: Integrity reforms expand NDIS Commission powers and provider regulation. Mandatory registration is being rolled out for higher-risk supports and certain provider categories. The central risk is functional erosion. The DDA remains in force, but the surrounding legislative scheme may create disadvantage, delay, opaque decision-making, reduced support, inaccessible design or administrative barriers that an individual complaint cannot correct quickly enough.

How the DDA is engaged

The DDA prohibits disability discrimination in important areas of public life, including services, employment, education, accommodation, access to premises and administration of Commonwealth laws and programs. It also depends heavily on the concept of reasonable adjustment, together with the defence of unjustifiable hardship. Where another legislative scheme reduces a person’s practical capacity to access mainstream services, the DDA may be engaged because the person is no longer able to participate on the same basis as a non-disabled person.

The policy concern is not merely legal inconsistency. It is institutional timing. Discriminatory harm can occur immediately when support is removed, an automated tool rejects a person, an inaccessible dwelling is approved, a transport upgrade is delayed, or a mainstream agency refuses adjustment. A DDA complaint may be available later, but it will often be too slow, complex and individualised to prevent harm at population scale.

Specific DDA risks

  • Small providers may exit due to compliance costs or registration burden.
  • Provider consolidation may reduce choice, cultural safety and specialist supports.
  • Participants may be forced into larger services that are less responsive or less identity-safe.
  • Loss of support options may impair access to employment, education, health, transport and community life. Recommended legislative or policy safeguards
  1. Pair mandatory registration with thin-market grants, transition funding and proportionate compliance pathways.
  2. Require registration rules to include choice, cultural safety, local availability and DDA access impacts.
  3. Create exemptions or modified pathways for low-risk peer, community and micro-provider models where safe.
  4. Publish market impact assessments before expanding registration categories.
  5. Fund independent advocacy to support participants affected by provider withdrawal. Implementation requirements

Implementation should be led through a cross-portfolio process involving the Attorney-General’s Department, the portfolio department responsible for the relevant legislation, the Australian Human Rights Commission, people with disability, disability representative organisations, community legal services and affected service systems. The key test is

DDA legislative risk policy packs | Page 8

whether the measure has been designed so that a person with disability can exercise rights in practice, rather than being left to enforce those rights through individual complaint after harm occurs.

Preferred Ministerial position

The Minister should support reform where it improves safety, sustainability, accessibility and equal participation, but should not support any measure that narrows practical equality without an express DDA compatibility test, clear adjustment duties, accessible information, human review and a pathway to remedy. The Minister should seek amendments or implementation conditions that preserve the DDA as a living protection rather than a residual complaint mechanism.

  1. Two-page ministerial brief Decision sought: Agree to raise DDA compatibility concerns in relation to ndis integrity, provider registration and thin market choice and support targeted legislative or implementation safeguards before the measure proceeds or is operationalised.

Recommended position: Support the policy objective where appropriate, but require amendments, rules or implementation commitments that prevent disability discrimination, preserve reasonable adjustment duties and ensure accessible review.

Key talking points

  • Safeguarding and choice must be designed together.
  • A safe market that no one can access is not a rights-compliant market.
  • Fraud control must not collapse legitimate support options for people with complex or intersectional needs. Proposed next steps
  1. Seek departmental advice on DDA compatibility and implementation risk.
  2. Write to the relevant Commonwealth Minister requesting targeted safeguards.
  3. Engage the Australian Human Rights Commission and disability representative organisations.
  4. Use the stakeholder register to coordinate outreach.
  5. Attach this pack as an annexure to relevant consultations or parliamentary submissions.
  6. Source notes
  7. Suggested annexures
  • DDA legislative risk source log and stakeholder register.
  • Extracts from the relevant Bill, explanatory memorandum or discussion paper.
  • Evidence from disability representative organisations.
  • Case studies showing how loss of support, inaccessible design or automated decisions create practical exclusion.
  • Draft amendments or recommended wording for a DDA compatibility clause. DDA legislative risk policy packs | Page 9

  1. Disability Standards for Education and Enforcement Gaps Policy risk pack: Disability Discrimination Act 1992 compatibility, legislative safeguards and advocacy materials Date: 8 July 2026 Risk rating: Medium to High Primary legislation: Disability Standards for Education 2005; DDA 1992; state and territory education legislation

  2. Full policy brief

Purpose

This brief identifies the risk that disability standards for education and enforcement gaps may weaken the practical operation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) even where the Act itself is not amended. It is intended to support ministerial correspondence, parliamentary engagement, consultation submissions and stakeholder advocacy.

Issue

Education law states the right to access and participate on the same basis, but enforcement remains too dependent on individual complaints and family advocacy.

The current legislative and policy context is as follows: The 2025 review of the Disability Standards for Education has closed and considered implementation, inclusive decision-making and responsibilities for assessment authorities and course developers. The central risk is functional erosion. The DDA remains in force, but the surrounding legislative scheme may create disadvantage, delay, opaque decision-making, reduced support, inaccessible design or administrative barriers that an individual complaint cannot correct quickly enough.

How the DDA is engaged

The DDA prohibits disability discrimination in important areas of public life, including services, employment, education, accommodation, access to premises and administration of Commonwealth laws and programs. It also depends heavily on the concept of reasonable adjustment, together with the defence of unjustifiable hardship. Where another legislative scheme reduces a person’s practical capacity to access mainstream services, the DDA may be engaged because the person is no longer able to participate on the same basis as a non-disabled person.

The policy concern is not merely legal inconsistency. It is institutional timing. Discriminatory harm can occur immediately when support is removed, an automated tool rejects a person, an inaccessible dwelling is approved, a transport upgrade is delayed, or a mainstream agency refuses adjustment. A DDA complaint may be available later, but it will often be too slow, complex and individualised to prevent harm at population scale.

Specific DDA risks

  • Students may continue to experience exclusionary discipline, delayed adjustments and inaccessible assessment.
  • Families may bear the burden of enforcing rights school by school.
  • Digital learning platforms and assessment technologies may not be designed with accessibility in mind.
  • State discipline and attendance frameworks may undermine DDA protections in practice. Recommended legislative or policy safeguards
  1. Strengthen enforceable duties to provide timely reasonable adjustments.
  2. Require system-level reporting on adjustment timeliness, suspensions, exclusions and complaints.
  3. Create accessible, independent dispute resolution for education adjustments.
  4. Require assessment authorities and course designers to meet accessibility obligations explicitly.
  5. Tie public education funding to compliance with DDA and Education Standards obligations. Implementation requirements

Implementation should be led through a cross-portfolio process involving the Attorney-General’s Department, the portfolio department responsible for the relevant legislation, the Australian Human Rights Commission, people with disability, disability representative organisations, community legal services and affected service systems. The key test is

DDA legislative risk policy packs | Page 10

whether the measure has been designed so that a person with disability can exercise rights in practice, rather than being left to enforce those rights through individual complaint after harm occurs.

Preferred Ministerial position

The Minister should support reform where it improves safety, sustainability, accessibility and equal participation, but should not support any measure that narrows practical equality without an express DDA compatibility test, clear adjustment duties, accessible information, human review and a pathway to remedy. The Minister should seek amendments or implementation conditions that preserve the DDA as a living protection rather than a residual complaint mechanism.

  1. Two-page ministerial brief Decision sought: Agree to raise DDA compatibility concerns in relation to disability standards for education and enforcement gaps and support targeted legislative or implementation safeguards before the measure proceeds or is operationalised.

Recommended position: Support the policy objective where appropriate, but require amendments, rules or implementation commitments that prevent disability discrimination, preserve reasonable adjustment duties and ensure accessible review.

Key talking points

  • The right to education cannot depend on the advocacy capacity of a parent.
  • A student excluded because a school will not adjust is not receiving education on the same basis.
  • The Education Standards need enforcement architecture, not simply clarification. Proposed next steps
  1. Seek departmental advice on DDA compatibility and implementation risk.
  2. Write to the relevant Commonwealth Minister requesting targeted safeguards.
  3. Engage the Australian Human Rights Commission and disability representative organisations.
  4. Use the stakeholder register to coordinate outreach.
  5. Attach this pack as an annexure to relevant consultations or parliamentary submissions.
  6. Source notes
  7. Suggested annexures
  • DDA legislative risk source log and stakeholder register.
  • Extracts from the relevant Bill, explanatory memorandum or discussion paper.
  • Evidence from disability representative organisations.
  • Case studies showing how loss of support, inaccessible design or automated decisions create practical exclusion.
  • Draft amendments or recommended wording for a DDA compatibility clause. DDA legislative risk policy packs | Page 11
  1. Accessible Housing, Building Law and DDA After-the-Fact

Remedies

Policy risk pack: Disability Discrimination Act 1992 compatibility, legislative safeguards and advocacy materials Date: 8 July 2026

Risk rating: High

Primary legislation: National Construction Code; state and territory building legislation; DDA 1992

  1. Full policy brief

Purpose

This brief identifies the risk that accessible housing, building law and dda after-the-fact remedies may weaken the practical operation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) even where the Act itself is not amended. It is intended to support ministerial correspondence, parliamentary engagement, consultation submissions and stakeholder advocacy.

Issue

If building law permits inaccessible housing to be built at scale, the DDA is left to remedy exclusion after it has been physically embedded in the housing stock.

The current legislative and policy context is as follows: Several jurisdictions have adopted livable housing requirements, while others remain inconsistent. Disability Royal Commission Recommendation 7.35 calls for accessible housing supply through the National Construction Code. The central risk is functional erosion. The DDA remains in force, but the surrounding legislative scheme may create disadvantage, delay, opaque decision-making, reduced support, inaccessible design or administrative barriers that an individual complaint cannot correct quickly enough.

How the DDA is engaged

The DDA prohibits disability discrimination in important areas of public life, including services, employment, education, accommodation, access to premises and administration of Commonwealth laws and programs. It also depends heavily on the concept of reasonable adjustment, together with the defence of unjustifiable hardship. Where another legislative scheme reduces a person’s practical capacity to access mainstream services, the DDA may be engaged because the person is no longer able to participate on the same basis as a non-disabled person.

The policy concern is not merely legal inconsistency. It is institutional timing. Discriminatory harm can occur immediately when support is removed, an automated tool rejects a person, an inaccessible dwelling is approved, a transport upgrade is delayed, or a mainstream agency refuses adjustment. A DDA complaint may be available later, but it will often be too slow, complex and individualised to prevent harm at population scale.

Specific DDA risks

  • Inaccessible dwellings create avoidable NDIS modification costs, hospital discharge delays and social housing pressure.

  • Private rental markets exclude people with disability even where discrimination is formally unlawful.

  • State variations create unequal access depending on jurisdiction.

  • Compact housing and build-to-rent models may further reduce accessible private space. Recommended legislative or policy safeguards

  1. Adopt the Livable Housing Design Standard nationally without further delay.
  2. Require accessibility impact statements for planning reforms that increase density or compact dwelling supply.
  3. Mandate accessible and adaptable dwellings in high-service precincts near hospitals and transport.
  4. Align building law, tenancy law and DDA duties through enforceable minimum design standards.
  5. Require post-occupancy evaluation for publicly supported housing projects. DDA legislative risk policy packs | Page 12

Implementation requirements

Implementation should be led through a cross-portfolio process involving the Attorney-General’s Department, the portfolio department responsible for the relevant legislation, the Australian Human Rights Commission, people with disability, disability representative organisations, community legal services and affected service systems. The key test is whether the measure has been designed so that a person with disability can exercise rights in practice, rather than being left to enforce those rights through individual complaint after harm occurs.

Preferred Ministerial position

The Minister should support reform where it improves safety, sustainability, accessibility and equal participation, but should not support any measure that narrows practical equality without an express DDA compatibility test, clear adjustment duties, accessible information, human review and a pathway to remedy. The Minister should seek amendments or implementation conditions that preserve the DDA as a living protection rather than a residual complaint mechanism.

  1. Two-page ministerial brief Decision sought: Agree to raise DDA compatibility concerns in relation to accessible housing, building law and dda after the-fact remedies and support targeted legislative or implementation safeguards before the measure proceeds or is operationalised.

Recommended position: Support the policy objective where appropriate, but require amendments, rules or implementation commitments that prevent disability discrimination, preserve reasonable adjustment duties and ensure accessible review.

Key talking points

  • The cheapest time to build access is before construction.
  • A home that cannot be entered, used or adapted is a permanent discrimination risk.
  • The DDA should not be forced to litigate every inaccessible doorway after the fact. Proposed next steps
  1. Seek departmental advice on DDA compatibility and implementation risk.
  2. Write to the relevant Commonwealth Minister requesting targeted safeguards.
  3. Engage the Australian Human Rights Commission and disability representative organisations.
  4. Use the stakeholder register to coordinate outreach.
  5. Attach this pack as an annexure to relevant consultations or parliamentary submissions.
  6. Source notes
  7. Suggested annexures
  • DDA legislative risk source log and stakeholder register.
  • Extracts from the relevant Bill, explanatory memorandum or discussion paper.
  • Evidence from disability representative organisations.
  • Case studies showing how loss of support, inaccessible design or automated decisions create practical exclusion.
  • Draft amendments or recommended wording for a DDA compatibility clause. DDA legislative risk policy packs | Page 13
  1. Transport Standards Reform and Delayed Compliance Policy risk pack: Disability Discrimination Act 1992 compatibility, legislative safeguards and advocacy materials Date: 8 July 2026

Risk rating: Medium

Primary legislation: Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002; proposed Transport Standards Amendment 2025; DDA 1992

  1. Full policy brief

Purpose

This brief identifies the risk that transport standards reform and delayed compliance may weaken the practical operation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) even where the Act itself is not amended. It is intended to support ministerial correspondence, parliamentary engagement, consultation submissions and stakeholder advocacy.

Issue

Transport reform is positive, but extended compliance timelines, equivalent access concepts and infrastructure exemptions can keep discriminatory barriers in place for years.

The current legislative and policy context is as follows: The Australian Government released an exposure draft of reforms to the Transport Standards in 2025 following a March 2024 reform announcement. The central risk is functional erosion. The DDA remains in force, but the surrounding legislative scheme may create disadvantage, delay, opaque decision making, reduced support, inaccessible design or administrative barriers that an individual complaint cannot correct quickly enough.

How the DDA is engaged

The DDA prohibits disability discrimination in important areas of public life, including services, employment, education, accommodation, access to premises and administration of Commonwealth laws and programs. It also depends heavily on the concept of reasonable adjustment, together with the defence of unjustifiable hardship. Where another legislative scheme reduces a person’s practical capacity to access mainstream services, the DDA may be engaged because the person is no longer able to participate on the same basis as a non-disabled person.

The policy concern is not merely legal inconsistency. It is institutional timing. Discriminatory harm can occur immediately when support is removed, an automated tool rejects a person, an inaccessible dwelling is approved, a transport upgrade is delayed, or a mainstream agency refuses adjustment. A DDA complaint may be available later, but it will often be too slow, complex and individualised to prevent harm at population scale.

Specific DDA risks

  • Delayed compliance may entrench inaccessible transport despite DDA standards.
  • Equivalent access may be used as a weaker substitute for independent access.
  • Passengers may be forced into booking, assistance or replacement pathways that reduce autonomy.
  • Transport barriers undermine employment, education, health access and community participation. Recommended legislative or policy safeguards
  1. Shorten transition periods where barriers are high-impact and technically remediable.
  2. Define equivalent access narrowly so it does not replace independent access unnecessarily.
  3. Require public reporting on compliance by operator, mode and location.
  4. Fund accessible transport upgrades in regional and outer-suburban communities.
  5. Strengthen complaint escalation and systemic enforcement under the DDA standards framework. Implementation requirements

Implementation should be led through a cross-portfolio process involving the Attorney-General’s Department, the portfolio department responsible for the relevant legislation, the Australian Human Rights Commission, people with disability, disability representative organisations, community legal services and affected service systems. The key test is

DDA legislative risk policy packs | Page 14

whether the measure has been designed so that a person with disability can exercise rights in practice, rather than being left to enforce those rights through individual complaint after harm occurs.

Preferred Ministerial position

The Minister should support reform where it improves safety, sustainability, accessibility and equal participation, but should not support any measure that narrows practical equality without an express DDA compatibility test, clear adjustment duties, accessible information, human review and a pathway to remedy. The Minister should seek amendments or implementation conditions that preserve the DDA as a living protection rather than a residual complaint mechanism.

  1. Two-page ministerial brief Decision sought: Agree to raise DDA compatibility concerns in relation to transport standards reform and delayed compliance and support targeted legislative or implementation safeguards before the measure proceeds or is operationalised.

Recommended position: Support the policy objective where appropriate, but require amendments, rules or implementation commitments that prevent disability discrimination, preserve reasonable adjustment duties and ensure accessible review.

Key talking points

  • A transport system that requires disabled people to plan around barriers is not an accessible system.
  • Delayed compliance is still exclusion.
  • Transport accessibility is not a transport issue alone; it is an employment, education and health-access issue. Proposed next steps
  1. Seek departmental advice on DDA compatibility and implementation risk.
  2. Write to the relevant Commonwealth Minister requesting targeted safeguards.
  3. Engage the Australian Human Rights Commission and disability representative organisations.
  4. Use the stakeholder register to coordinate outreach.
  5. Attach this pack as an annexure to relevant consultations or parliamentary submissions.
  6. Source notes
  7. Suggested annexures
  • DDA legislative risk source log and stakeholder register.
  • Extracts from the relevant Bill, explanatory memorandum or discussion paper.
  • Evidence from disability representative organisations.
  • Case studies showing how loss of support, inaccessible design or automated decisions create practical exclusion.
  • Draft amendments or recommended wording for a DDA compatibility clause. DDA legislative risk policy packs | Page 15
  1. Migration Health Requirement and Disability-Based Exclusion Policy risk pack: Disability Discrimination Act 1992 compatibility, legislative safeguards and advocacy materials Date: 8 July 2026

Risk rating: High

Primary legislation: Migration Act 1958; Migration Regulations; DDA 1992 migration exemption

  1. Full policy brief

Purpose

This brief identifies the risk that migration health requirement and disability-based exclusion may weaken the practical operation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) even where the Act itself is not amended. It is intended to support ministerial correspondence, parliamentary engagement, consultation submissions and stakeholder advocacy.

Issue

Migration law remains one of the clearest legislative carve-outs from disability equality because disability-related projected costs can be used to refuse visas despite the DDA’s broader anti-discrimination purpose.

The current legislative and policy context is as follows: Home Affairs has reviewed the visa Significant Cost Threshold, which is the point at which estimated health and community service costs are considered significant. The central risk is functional erosion. The DDA remains in force, but the surrounding legislative scheme may create disadvantage, delay, opaque decision-making, reduced support, inaccessible design or administrative barriers that an individual complaint cannot correct quickly enough.

How the DDA is engaged

The DDA prohibits disability discrimination in important areas of public life, including services, employment, education, accommodation, access to premises and administration of Commonwealth laws and programs. It also depends heavily on the concept of reasonable adjustment, together with the defence of unjustifiable hardship. Where another legislative scheme reduces a person’s practical capacity to access mainstream services, the DDA may be engaged because the person is no longer able to participate on the same basis as a non-disabled person.

The policy concern is not merely legal inconsistency. It is institutional timing. Discriminatory harm can occur immediately when support is removed, an automated tool rejects a person, an inaccessible dwelling is approved, a transport upgrade is delayed, or a mainstream agency refuses adjustment. A DDA complaint may be available later, but it will often be too slow, complex and individualised to prevent harm at population scale.

Specific DDA risks

  • Applicants may be excluded because of disability or health status rather than actual capacity to contribute.
  • Families may be forced to choose between staying together and remaining in Australia.
  • The DDA exemption permits a parallel disability exclusion regime.
  • Migration decisions may use projected public cost in ways that undervalue community, social and economic contribution.

Recommended legislative or policy safeguards

  1. Remove or substantially narrow the DDA migration exemption.
  2. Reform the Significant Cost Threshold to avoid disability-based family separation and exclusion.
  3. Require individualised, rights-based assessment rather than categorical cost assumptions.
  4. Exclude education and disability support costs for Australian-born children from punitive visa cost calculations.
  5. Create independent review and humanitarian discretion safeguards for disability-related refusals. Implementation requirements

Implementation should be led through a cross-portfolio process involving the Attorney-General’s Department, the portfolio department responsible for the relevant legislation, the Australian Human Rights Commission, people with

DDA legislative risk policy packs | Page 16

disability, disability representative organisations, community legal services and affected service systems. The key test is whether the measure has been designed so that a person with disability can exercise rights in practice, rather than being left to enforce those rights through individual complaint after harm occurs.

Preferred Ministerial position

The Minister should support reform where it improves safety, sustainability, accessibility and equal participation, but should not support any measure that narrows practical equality without an express DDA compatibility test, clear adjustment duties, accessible information, human review and a pathway to remedy. The Minister should seek amendments or implementation conditions that preserve the DDA as a living protection rather than a residual complaint mechanism.

  1. Two-page ministerial brief Decision sought: Agree to raise DDA compatibility concerns in relation to migration health requirement and disability based exclusion and support targeted legislative or implementation safeguards before the measure proceeds or is operationalised.

Recommended position: Support the policy objective where appropriate, but require amendments, rules or implementation commitments that prevent disability discrimination, preserve reasonable adjustment duties and ensure accessible review.

Key talking points

  • Australia cannot treat disability equality as a domestic principle and disability exclusion as a border rule.
  • Families should not be punished because one member has disability.
  • A cost-only lens ignores contribution, family unity and human rights. Proposed next steps
  1. Seek departmental advice on DDA compatibility and implementation risk.
  2. Write to the relevant Commonwealth Minister requesting targeted safeguards.
  3. Engage the Australian Human Rights Commission and disability representative organisations.
  4. Use the stakeholder register to coordinate outreach.
  5. Attach this pack as an annexure to relevant consultations or parliamentary submissions.
  6. Source notes
  7. Suggested annexures
  • DDA legislative risk source log and stakeholder register.
  • Extracts from the relevant Bill, explanatory memorandum or discussion paper.
  • Evidence from disability representative organisations.
  • Case studies showing how loss of support, inaccessible design or automated decisions create practical exclusion.
  • Draft amendments or recommended wording for a DDA compatibility clause. DDA legislative risk policy packs | Page 17
  1. Fair Work, Reasonable Adjustments and Disability

Employment Rights

Policy risk pack: Disability Discrimination Act 1992 compatibility, legislative safeguards and advocacy materials Date: 8 July 2026

Risk rating: Medium

Primary legislation: Fair Work Act 2009; DDA 1992; Disability Royal Commission employment recommendations

  1. Full policy brief

Purpose

This brief identifies the risk that fair work, reasonable adjustments and disability employment rights may weaken the practical operation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) even where the Act itself is not amended. It is intended to support ministerial correspondence, parliamentary engagement, consultation submissions and stakeholder advocacy.

Issue

The Fair Work framework does not always express disability adjustment duties as clearly as the DDA, creating uncertainty for workers and employers.

The current legislative and policy context is as follows: The Disability Royal Commission recommended Fair Work Act changes, and the Government supports strengthening protections by clarifying what constitutes disability for anti discrimination purposes. The central risk is functional erosion. The DDA remains in force, but the surrounding legislative scheme may create disadvantage, delay, opaque decision-making, reduced support, inaccessible design or administrative barriers that an individual complaint cannot correct quickly enough.

How the DDA is engaged

The DDA prohibits disability discrimination in important areas of public life, including services, employment, education, accommodation, access to premises and administration of Commonwealth laws and programs. It also depends heavily on the concept of reasonable adjustment, together with the defence of unjustifiable hardship. Where another legislative scheme reduces a person’s practical capacity to access mainstream services, the DDA may be engaged because the person is no longer able to participate on the same basis as a non-disabled person.

The policy concern is not merely legal inconsistency. It is institutional timing. Discriminatory harm can occur immediately when support is removed, an automated tool rejects a person, an inaccessible dwelling is approved, a transport upgrade is delayed, or a mainstream agency refuses adjustment. A DDA complaint may be available later, but it will often be too slow, complex and individualised to prevent harm at population scale.

Specific DDA risks

  • Workers may be forced to navigate separate legal pathways for adverse action and disability discrimination.
  • Employers may treat adjustments as discretionary rather than core workplace obligations.
  • Recruitment algorithms, probation processes and performance management may disadvantage disabled workers.
  • Flexible work and adjustment passports may remain inconsistent. Recommended legislative or policy safeguards
  1. Amend the Fair Work Act to align disability definitions and adjustment duties with the DDA.
  2. Create a positive duty for employers to prevent disability discrimination and provide reasonable adjustments.
  3. Enable Fair Work Ombudsman referral pathways for systemic disability discrimination.
  4. Require accessible recruitment and adjustment-passport portability in the public sector.
  5. Strengthen protections against adverse action linked to adjustment requests or disability disclosure. Implementation requirements

Implementation should be led through a cross-portfolio process involving the Attorney-General’s Department, the portfolio department responsible for the relevant legislation, the Australian Human Rights Commission, people with

DDA legislative risk policy packs | Page 18

disability, disability representative organisations, community legal services and affected service systems. The key test is whether the measure has been designed so that a person with disability can exercise rights in practice, rather than being left to enforce those rights through individual complaint after harm occurs.

Preferred Ministerial position

The Minister should support reform where it improves safety, sustainability, accessibility and equal participation, but should not support any measure that narrows practical equality without an express DDA compatibility test, clear adjustment duties, accessible information, human review and a pathway to remedy. The Minister should seek amendments or implementation conditions that preserve the DDA as a living protection rather than a residual complaint mechanism.

  1. Two-page ministerial brief Decision sought: Agree to raise DDA compatibility concerns in relation to fair work, reasonable adjustments and disability employment rights and support targeted legislative or implementation safeguards before the measure proceeds or is operationalised.

Recommended position: Support the policy objective where appropriate, but require amendments, rules or implementation commitments that prevent disability discrimination, preserve reasonable adjustment duties and ensure accessible review.

Key talking points

  • A disabled worker should not need to become a legal expert to know which Act protects them.
  • Reasonable adjustment is not a favour; it is the means by which equal employment becomes real.
  • Workplace law should prevent discrimination before careers are damaged. Proposed next steps
  1. Seek departmental advice on DDA compatibility and implementation risk.
  2. Write to the relevant Commonwealth Minister requesting targeted safeguards.
  3. Engage the Australian Human Rights Commission and disability representative organisations.
  4. Use the stakeholder register to coordinate outreach.
  5. Attach this pack as an annexure to relevant consultations or parliamentary submissions.
  6. Source notes
  7. Suggested annexures
  • DDA legislative risk source log and stakeholder register.
  • Extracts from the relevant Bill, explanatory memorandum or discussion paper.
  • Evidence from disability representative organisations.
  • Case studies showing how loss of support, inaccessible design or automated decisions create practical exclusion.
  • Draft amendments or recommended wording for a DDA compatibility clause. DDA legislative risk policy packs | Page 19
  1. Online Safety, Social Media Age Restrictions and Disabled

Young People

Policy risk pack: Disability Discrimination Act 1992 compatibility, legislative safeguards and advocacy materials Date: 8 July 2026

Risk rating: Medium

Primary legislation: Online Safety Act 2021; Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024; DDA 1992

  1. Full policy brief

Purpose

This brief identifies the risk that online safety, social media age restrictions and disabled young people may weaken the practical operation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) even where the Act itself is not amended. It is intended to support ministerial correspondence, parliamentary engagement, consultation submissions and stakeholder advocacy.

Issue

Age-based online safety restrictions may unintentionally isolate disabled young people if they remove access to peer support, disability community and identity-safe spaces without accessible alternatives.

The current legislative and policy context is as follows: From 10 December 2025, age-restricted platforms must take reasonable steps to prevent Australians under 16 from having accounts. The central risk is functional erosion. The DDA remains in force, but the surrounding legislative scheme may create disadvantage, delay, opaque decision-making, reduced support, inaccessible design or administrative barriers that an individual complaint cannot correct quickly enough.

How the DDA is engaged

The DDA prohibits disability discrimination in important areas of public life, including services, employment, education, accommodation, access to premises and administration of Commonwealth laws and programs. It also depends heavily on the concept of reasonable adjustment, together with the defence of unjustifiable hardship. Where another legislative scheme reduces a person’s practical capacity to access mainstream services, the DDA may be engaged because the person is no longer able to participate on the same basis as a non-disabled person.

The policy concern is not merely legal inconsistency. It is institutional timing. Discriminatory harm can occur immediately when support is removed, an automated tool rejects a person, an inaccessible dwelling is approved, a transport upgrade is delayed, or a mainstream agency refuses adjustment. A DDA complaint may be available later, but it will often be too slow, complex and individualised to prevent harm at population scale.

Specific DDA risks

  • Disabled young people may lose access to peer networks and disability information.

  • Age assurance tools may create privacy, accessibility or identity-document barriers.

  • Young people who use online spaces because physical environments are inaccessible may be disproportionately affected.

  • No equivalent safe, accessible community alternatives may be provided. Recommended legislative or policy safeguards

  1. Require disability impact assessment of platform obligations and age-assurance tools.
  2. Fund accessible, moderated peer-support alternatives for disabled young people.
  3. Require age-restricted platforms to provide accessible appeal, parental/carer and support pathways.
  4. Protect privacy and avoid intrusive identity checks that disadvantage disabled users.
  5. Monitor impacts on disabled, LGBTQIA+, regional and socially isolated young people. DDA legislative risk policy packs | Page 20

Implementation requirements

Implementation should be led through a cross-portfolio process involving the Attorney-General’s Department, the portfolio department responsible for the relevant legislation, the Australian Human Rights Commission, people with disability, disability representative organisations, community legal services and affected service systems. The key test is whether the measure has been designed so that a person with disability can exercise rights in practice, rather than being left to enforce those rights through individual complaint after harm occurs.

Preferred Ministerial position

The Minister should support reform where it improves safety, sustainability, accessibility and equal participation, but should not support any measure that narrows practical equality without an express DDA compatibility test, clear adjustment duties, accessible information, human review and a pathway to remedy. The Minister should seek amendments or implementation conditions that preserve the DDA as a living protection rather than a residual complaint mechanism.

  1. Two-page ministerial brief Decision sought: Agree to raise DDA compatibility concerns in relation to online safety, social media age restrictions and disabled young people and support targeted legislative or implementation safeguards before the measure proceeds or is operationalised.

Recommended position: Support the policy objective where appropriate, but require amendments, rules or implementation commitments that prevent disability discrimination, preserve reasonable adjustment duties and ensure accessible review.

Key talking points

  • Online safety must not mean social isolation for disabled young people.
  • For many young people with disability, digital community is an accessibility tool.
  • Safety legislation needs disability-specific alternatives, not only restrictions. Proposed next steps
  1. Seek departmental advice on DDA compatibility and implementation risk.
  2. Write to the relevant Commonwealth Minister requesting targeted safeguards.
  3. Engage the Australian Human Rights Commission and disability representative organisations.
  4. Use the stakeholder register to coordinate outreach.
  5. Attach this pack as an annexure to relevant consultations or parliamentary submissions.
  6. Source notes
  7. Suggested annexures
  • DDA legislative risk source log and stakeholder register.
  • Extracts from the relevant Bill, explanatory memorandum or discussion paper.
  • Evidence from disability representative organisations.
  • Case studies showing how loss of support, inaccessible design or automated decisions create practical exclusion.
  • Draft amendments or recommended wording for a DDA compatibility clause. DDA legislative risk policy packs | Page 21

  1. Aged Care, NDIS Boundaries and Disabled Older People Policy risk pack: Disability Discrimination Act 1992 compatibility, legislative safeguards and advocacy materials Date: 8 July 2026 Risk rating: Medium to High Primary legislation: Aged Care Act 2024; NDIS Act 2013; DDA 1992

  2. Full policy brief

Purpose

This brief identifies the risk that aged care, ndis boundaries and disabled older people may weaken the practical operation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) even where the Act itself is not amended. It is intended to support ministerial correspondence, parliamentary engagement, consultation submissions and stakeholder advocacy.

Issue

The new rights-based aged care framework is positive, but boundary disputes between aged care, health, disability and housing systems may leave older disabled people without practical access to DDA-protected equality.

The current legislative and policy context is as follows: The new rights-based Aged Care Act commenced on 1 November 2025 and aligns with the Support at Home program. The central risk is functional erosion. The DDA remains in force, but the surrounding legislative scheme may create disadvantage, delay, opaque decision-making, reduced support, inaccessible design or administrative barriers that an individual complaint cannot correct quickly enough.

How the DDA is engaged

The DDA prohibits disability discrimination in important areas of public life, including services, employment, education, accommodation, access to premises and administration of Commonwealth laws and programs. It also depends heavily on the concept of reasonable adjustment, together with the defence of unjustifiable hardship. Where another legislative scheme reduces a person’s practical capacity to access mainstream services, the DDA may be engaged because the person is no longer able to participate on the same basis as a non-disabled person.

The policy concern is not merely legal inconsistency. It is institutional timing. Discriminatory harm can occur immediately when support is removed, an automated tool rejects a person, an inaccessible dwelling is approved, a transport upgrade is delayed, or a mainstream agency refuses adjustment. A DDA complaint may be available later, but it will often be too slow, complex and individualised to prevent harm at population scale.

Specific DDA risks

  • Older disabled people may be shifted between aged care and disability systems with neither meeting the full need.
  • Assessment tools may understate disability complexity or support requirements.
  • Aged care rights may not fully replace disability-specific supports and autonomy protections.
  • People may face premature entry into residential care due to inadequate home and living supports. Recommended legislative or policy safeguards
  1. Create a joint DDA compatibility test for aged care, NDIS and hospital discharge boundaries.
  2. Guarantee no-loss transition protections for people moving between systems.
  3. Require human override and disability-informed review for aged care assessment tools.
  4. Fund independent advocacy for older disabled people navigating aged care and NDIS boundaries.
  5. Protect chosen family, supported decision-making and disability-specific supports in aged care settings. Implementation requirements

Implementation should be led through a cross-portfolio process involving the Attorney-General’s Department, the portfolio department responsible for the relevant legislation, the Australian Human Rights Commission, people with disability, disability representative organisations, community legal services and affected service systems. The key test is

DDA legislative risk policy packs | Page 22

whether the measure has been designed so that a person with disability can exercise rights in practice, rather than being left to enforce those rights through individual complaint after harm occurs.

Preferred Ministerial position

The Minister should support reform where it improves safety, sustainability, accessibility and equal participation, but should not support any measure that narrows practical equality without an express DDA compatibility test, clear adjustment duties, accessible information, human review and a pathway to remedy. The Minister should seek amendments or implementation conditions that preserve the DDA as a living protection rather than a residual complaint mechanism.

  1. Two-page ministerial brief Decision sought: Agree to raise DDA compatibility concerns in relation to aged care, ndis boundaries and disabled older people and support targeted legislative or implementation safeguards before the measure proceeds or is operationalised.

Recommended position: Support the policy objective where appropriate, but require amendments, rules or implementation commitments that prevent disability discrimination, preserve reasonable adjustment duties and ensure accessible review.

Key talking points

  • Older disabled people do not stop having disability rights when they enter aged care.
  • A rights-based aged care Act must be matched by practical supports that preserve autonomy.
  • Boundary disputes between schemes should not become life-limiting barriers for individuals. Proposed next steps
  1. Seek departmental advice on DDA compatibility and implementation risk.
  2. Write to the relevant Commonwealth Minister requesting targeted safeguards.
  3. Engage the Australian Human Rights Commission and disability representative organisations.
  4. Use the stakeholder register to coordinate outreach.
  5. Attach this pack as an annexure to relevant consultations or parliamentary submissions.
  6. Source notes
  7. Suggested annexures
  • DDA legislative risk source log and stakeholder register.
  • Extracts from the relevant Bill, explanatory memorandum or discussion paper.
  • Evidence from disability representative organisations.
  • Case studies showing how loss of support, inaccessible design or automated decisions create practical exclusion.
  • Draft amendments or recommended wording for a DDA compatibility clause. DDA legislative risk policy packs | Page 23
  1. Intersectional Anti-Discrimination, Religious Exemptions and

Service Access

Policy risk pack: Disability Discrimination Act 1992 compatibility, legislative safeguards and advocacy materials Date: 8 July 2026 Risk rating: Watchlist / Medium Primary legislation: DDA 1992; Sex Discrimination Act 1984; prospective religious discrimination or anti-vilification legislation; state and territory anti-discrimination law

  1. Full policy brief

Purpose

This brief identifies the risk that intersectional anti-discrimination, religious exemptions and service access may weaken the practical operation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) even where the Act itself is not amended. It is intended to support ministerial correspondence, parliamentary engagement, consultation submissions and stakeholder advocacy.

Issue

Any new religious discrimination, anti-vilification or service-provider exemption framework must be screened to ensure it does not weaken access for disabled people who are also LGBTQIA+, women, First Nations, CALD, migrants, older people or people of faith.

The current legislative and policy context is as follows: Religious discrimination and broader anti-hate protections remain live human-rights law debates. No DDA amendment should proceed without intersectional compatibility testing. The central risk is functional erosion. The DDA remains in force, but the surrounding legislative scheme may create disadvantage, delay, opaque decision-making, reduced support, inaccessible design or administrative barriers that an individual complaint cannot correct quickly enough.

How the DDA is engaged

The DDA prohibits disability discrimination in important areas of public life, including services, employment, education, accommodation, access to premises and administration of Commonwealth laws and programs. It also depends heavily on the concept of reasonable adjustment, together with the defence of unjustifiable hardship. Where another legislative scheme reduces a person’s practical capacity to access mainstream services, the DDA may be engaged because the person is no longer able to participate on the same basis as a non-disabled person.

The policy concern is not merely legal inconsistency. It is institutional timing. Discriminatory harm can occur immediately when support is removed, an automated tool rejects a person, an inaccessible dwelling is approved, a transport upgrade is delayed, or a mainstream agency refuses adjustment. A DDA complaint may be available later, but it will often be too slow, complex and individualised to prevent harm at population scale.

Specific DDA risks

  • Broad exemptions may allow refusal, exclusion or shaming by services that disabled people cannot avoid.

  • Faith-based providers may operate in health, aged care, housing, education and disability settings where dependency is high.

  • Laws protecting one attribute may weaken protections for people with multiple protected attributes if poorly drafted.

  • Complaints systems may force people to fragment their identity across separate legal regimes. Recommended legislative or policy safeguards

  1. Require intersectional DDA compatibility statements for any new anti-discrimination or exemption legislation.

  2. Prevent service-provider exemptions from applying to publicly funded disability, health, aged care, housing and education services.

  3. Strengthen complaints pathways for multi-attribute discrimination.

  4. Require disability services to provide identity-safe access for LGBTQIA+ and other marginalised disabled people. DDA legislative risk policy packs | Page 24

  1. Ensure any religious protection legislation preserves DDA reasonable adjustment and equal access duties. Implementation requirements

Implementation should be led through a cross-portfolio process involving the Attorney-General’s Department, the portfolio department responsible for the relevant legislation, the Australian Human Rights Commission, people with disability, disability representative organisations, community legal services and affected service systems. The key test is whether the measure has been designed so that a person with disability can exercise rights in practice, rather than being left to enforce those rights through individual complaint after harm occurs.

Preferred Ministerial position

The Minister should support reform where it improves safety, sustainability, accessibility and equal participation, but should not support any measure that narrows practical equality without an express DDA compatibility test, clear adjustment duties, accessible information, human review and a pathway to remedy. The Minister should seek amendments or implementation conditions that preserve the DDA as a living protection rather than a residual complaint mechanism.

  1. Two-page ministerial brief Decision sought: Agree to raise DDA compatibility concerns in relation to intersectional anti-discrimination, religious exemptions and service access and support targeted legislative or implementation safeguards before the measure proceeds or is operationalised.

Recommended position: Support the policy objective where appropriate, but require amendments, rules or implementation commitments that prevent disability discrimination, preserve reasonable adjustment duties and ensure accessible review.

Key talking points

  • A disabled person should not have to choose which part of themselves the law recognises.
  • Publicly funded services should not be able to exclude people through broad exemptions.
  • Intersectional rights protections are not complexity; they are accuracy. Proposed next steps
  1. Seek departmental advice on DDA compatibility and implementation risk.
  2. Write to the relevant Commonwealth Minister requesting targeted safeguards.
  3. Engage the Australian Human Rights Commission and disability representative organisations.
  4. Use the stakeholder register to coordinate outreach.
  5. Attach this pack as an annexure to relevant consultations or parliamentary submissions.
  6. Source notes
  7. Suggested annexures
  • DDA legislative risk source log and stakeholder register.
  • Extracts from the relevant Bill, explanatory memorandum or discussion paper.
  • Evidence from disability representative organisations.
  • Case studies showing how loss of support, inaccessible design or automated decisions create practical exclusion.
  • Draft amendments or recommended wording for a DDA compatibility clause. DDA legislative risk policy packs | Page 25