Acknowledgements

Disability Commissioner Tasmania (DCT) respects the Palawa and Pakana peoples as the Traditional Owners and continuing custodians of Lutruwita (Tasmania), where this submission was written. We honour their enduring connection to land, waters and skies, and pay our respects to Elders past and present.

We acknowledge and thank Tasmanians with disability, along with their families and supporters whose lived experience continues to shape our work. As an organisation, we are committed to inclusive and accessible engagement. We stand in solidarity with those across Australia who have shared their personal stories and/or worked to advance human rights.

About Disability Commissioner Tasmania

The Tasmanian Disability Commissioner (DCT) is an independent authority established on 1 July 2025 under the Disability Rights, Inclusion and Safeguarding Act 2024 (the DRIS Act). DCT refers to the organisation of staff supporting the Commissioner to deliver their functions under the DRIS Act.

DCT is a regulator, working to protect and promote the rights of people with disability across Tasmania/Lutruwita.

We do this by listening, investigating, educating, regulating and working with others to create safer, inclusive and accessible communities.

While the DRIS Act gives the Commissioner a broad range of functions and powers, DCT’s work focuses on three key areas:

  • Driving systemic change through the regulation of Disability Inclusion Action Plans created by government agencies (referred to in the Act as defined entities;
  • Receiving and investigating reports of violence, abuse, neglect, coercion, and exploitation of people with disability; and
  • Monitoring and investigating systemic issues of concern to Tasmanians with Disability.

About this submission

This submission is made by DCT on behalf of the Tasmanian Disability Commissioner. As an authority tasked with promoting inclusion, safeguarding rights, and responding to systemic harm, DCT welcomes the opportunity to contribute to this national review.

The review presents a vital opportunity to modernise the DDA, strengthen protections from discrimination, and ensure the legislation remains a flagship by reflecting contemporary understandings of disability and discrimination as well as cumulative and intersectional harm.

Wherever possible, the responses provided in this submission are shaped by both the principles of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and the DRIS Act, alongside the findings of the Disability Royal Commission (DRC). We have not engaged with all 51 consultation questions in the Issues Paper. As a small organisation in the process of establishing our staffing, we have chosen to focus on those areas we believe we are able to contribute meaningfully to.

DCT is mindful of the need for reform to be practical, enforceable and easily engaged with by the community of people it must protect and advance. The recommendations in this submission aim to strengthen protections while remaining practical and achievable and evidence based for duty holders. Rather than provide prescriptive solutions, this submission recognising that cultural change and legal reform ought to progress together.

Our recommendations

Part 1 – Updating understandings of disability and disability discrimination

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

DCT supports modernising the definition of disability in the DDA. In doing so, we consider plain English should be used, and care should be taken to ensure wherever possible, the definition is legally robust for the purposes of preventing discrimination without excluding people who may experience episodic or temporary disability. In so far as is practical, the definition should align with state and territory anti-discrimination legislation.

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

In their submission, Disability Voices Tasmania have proposed a range of potential constructs for a new definition of disability that is fit for the purpose of preventing discrimination while ensuring language that is strength affirming. DCT supports and endorses this proposed approach to developing a new definition within the DDA.

Specifically, Disability Voices Tasmania suggest:

“further consideration could usefully be given to whether some of the language of the definition in paragraphs (a) to (g) could be amended to remove particularly negative and stigmatised language, such as replacing in (e) the term ‘malfunction’ with ‘impairment to the functioning’, the term ‘malformation’ with ‘difference in the formation’ and the term ‘disfigurement’ with ‘visible irregularity’; replacing in (f) the term ‘disorder or malfunction’ with ‘condition’ in the two places it occurs, and replacing in (g) ‘disorder, illness or disease’ with ‘condition’.”

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

Yes. It is well established discrimination related harm compounds when people embody multiple protected attributes. Allowing claims to be brought for multiple or combined protected attributes will prevent fragmented or incomplete protection and reflect the nuanced and cumulative nature of discrimination experienced by many Australians.

This change would align the DDA with intersectional principles embedded within the Tasmanian DRIS Act and with international human rights obligations under CRPD, CEDAW, and International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

Question 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?

Yes. To recognise compounded harm and disadvantage, the DDA should:

  • Acknowledge, recognise and the impact of compounding discrimination; and
  • Avoid the need for hypothetical comparators.

Intersectionality results multi-layered experiences of discrimination creating interconnected and interdependent systems of disadvantage or discrimination for some people with disability. The DDA must reflect this reality to ensure meaningful protection.

Recognising intersectionality does not create unreasonable or impractical expectations of duty holders. Rather, it requires them to be alert to how overlapping protected attributes — such as disability, race, gender, and culture — may interact to create compounded disadvantage. Ensuring a requirement for this awareness recognises the DDA’s position as a legislative driver of cultural change and community awareness raising within Australia.

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

The DDA should adopt a shared burden of proof model, consistent with international human rights law and domestic procedural fairness principles. This model ensures that complainants are not unfairly disadvantaged and that duty holders are accountable for their actions.

Proposed Model
  • Initial Burden on Complainant
    The complainant must show facts suggesting differential treatment linked to disability. This may include:
    • Circumstantial evidence;
    • Patterns of exclusion; and
    • Failure to provide reasonable accommodation.
  • Shift to Duty Holder: Once a prima facie case is established, the burden shifts to the duty holder, who must:
    • Justify the treatment; and
    • Demonstrate that it was objectively reasonable and proportionate.

This approach:

  • Supports substantive equality, not just formal fairness.
  • Ensures the DDA is enforceable in practice, not just in principle.
  • Aligns with:
    • CRPD Article 5 – equality and non-discrimination
    • CRPD Article 13 – access to justice
    • ICCPR Article 14 – fair trial and procedural rights
    • DRIS ACT ss.36–37 – burden of proof and procedural fairness

This model is already used in other anti-discrimination frameworks and does not impose unreasonable burdens on duty holders. It simply requires them to respond to credible claims and demonstrate that their actions were justified and proportionate — a fair expectation in any rights-based system.

Question 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
Please expand on your response.

The “reasonableness” element in the definition of indirect discrimination should be replaced by a proportionate test.

This change would better align the DDA with international human rights obligations, particularly Article 5 of the CRPD, which requires States Parties to prohibit all discrimination on the basis of disability and guarantee equal and effective legal protection. A legitimate and proportionate test ensures any discriminatory impact must be justified by a legitimate aim and that the means of achieving that aim are proportionate to the harm caused.

Replacing “reasonableness” with a proportionate test would also:

  • Shift the burden of justification to the respondent, rather than requiring the complainant to prove unreasonableness;
  • Promote consistency with other jurisdictions (e.g., UK, EU), where proportionality is a well-established legal standard in discrimination law;
  • Ensure the impact on the person experiencing discrimination is central to the analysis, rather than the convenience or assumptions of the respondent; and
  • Encourage proactive consideration of less discriminatory alternatives, rather than reactive justification of existing practices.

If a full replacement is not adopted, another option could be to retain the reasonableness test and supplement it with a clear list of factors, such as:

  • The nature and extent of the disadvantage caused;
  • The availability of less discriminatory alternatives;
  • The impact to the dignity and autonomy of the person affected; and
  • The intersectional impact of multiple forms of disadvantage.

This would improve clarity and consistency in administrative decision-making while allowing for necessary nuance in complex cases.

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

Yes, the CRPD should be explicitly included in the objects provision of the DDA.

Australia ratified the CRPD in 2008, and it has since shaped domestic disability policy and legislation. Including the CRPD in the DDA’s objects provision will ensure the DDA is interpreted consistently with Australia’s international obligations and reflects a rights-based approach to disability.

This change would also align the DDA with other key covenants ratified by Australia including:

  • The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR);
  • The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR); and
  • The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).

Question 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?

Yes, the DDA should be expressly required to be interpreted in a way that is beneficial to people with disability, in line with Australia’s obligations under international human rights treaties.

This interpretive requirement would align the DDA with the CRPD, which Australia ratified in 2008. The CRPD recognises people with disability as rights-holders and requires that laws be interpreted and applied in ways that promote dignity, autonomy, inclusion, and equality. Article 4 of the CRPD obliges States Parties to take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures to give effect to the rights recognised in the Convention.

There are multiple instances of domestic state and territory-based legislation with a requirement of this nature. Creating legislative parity between state and federal systems designed to protect people with disability removes inconsistency of protections and allows greater accessibility for everyday Australians to participate in public life with a fuller and, perhaps more predictable, understanding of systems.

Part 2 – Positive duty to eliminate discrimination

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

A renewed DDA must create a positive duty. This duty should apply to all actors shaping access to work and services: employers/persons conducting a business or undertaking, agents/contractors/volunteers, service providers (education, health, housing, transport, goods/services), and government bodies. This reflects CRPD Article 4(1)(e) (obligation to eliminate discrimination by public and private actors) and ICCPR Article 26 (equal protection of the law).

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

Question 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?

Yes. At the moment, the DDA addresses adjustments in specific heads of power and legal circumstances, which can create confusion for people with disability and duty holders alike. A single, standalone duty would:

  • Set one consistent rule: provide necessary adjustments unless to do so would cause unjustifiable hardship (reflecting the current legal effect);
  • Align with the CRPD, which treats reasonable adjustment as a core obligation (Articles 2 and 5);
  • Support a cultural shift so adjustments are seen as routine and beneficial for all;
  • Make it easier to develop national guidelines, training, and compliance processes; and
  • Reflect the approach in the Sex Discrimination Act (SDA), which already includes positive duties to eliminate discrimination.

Question 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 duty should extend beyond the existing DDA areas, so it applies wherever people exercise rights: employment, education (including early childhood, schools, vocational education and training, higher education), goods and services, premises, transport, government programs and public life. This reflects the CRPD’s whole-of-life approach (Articles 5, 9, 24, 27, 29) and avoids gaps in protecting people with disability from discrimination.

Question 22: Should any other amendments be made to the definitionof inherent requirements, including factors that should be considered when deciding whether a person could carry out the inherent requirements of a job?

Yes — DCT supports amending the DDA to include best practice guidance on how employers can define and assess the inherent requirements of a role in an objective manner.

This guidance should emphasise that:

  • Inherent requirements refer to the essential outcomes or core purpose of a role, not the traditional method or setting in which tasks are performed;
  • Employers should consider whether the person could meet those requirements with reasonable adjustments in place, including supports offered during recruitment and before the person starts (CRPD Article 5(3)); and
  • The assessment should be individualised, based on the person’s actual capacity and circumstances — not assumptions or generalised standards

For example:

  • A telephone-based customer service position may traditionally be performed in an office, but the inherent requirement is the ability to respond to customer enquiries, which could be met remotely with appropriate technology and sound organisational frameworks to mitigate psychosocial injury/continue skill development of employees as required; and
  • A position may be advertised as full-time; however, the inherent requirement may be the completion of specific tasks, which could be achieved through job-sharing or part-time arrangements.

This approach reflects CRPD Article 27(1)(a), which protects the right to work and promotes inclusive labour markets, CEDAW Article 11 and ICESCR Articles six and seven, which support equal access to employment and just working conditions, particularly for women and other marginalised groups.

It also aligns with the DRC’s recommendation employment decisions are based on a contextual and relational understanding of a person, the employment position and reasonable adjustments (DRC Final Report, Volume 4, Recommendations 4.23–4.34), not rigid or exclusionary definitions.

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

Yes. The concepts of exclusion and exclusionary discipline should be defined in the DDA. Without clear definitions, harmful practices often occur as a result of slavish adherence to policy, even when to do so disproportionately impacts people with disability. The DRC found exclusionary discipline—such as suspension, expulsion, isolation, and informal practices like reduced timetables—occur frequently in education and employment, often in response to behaviours that are disability-related or misunderstood (DRC Final Report, Volume 7).

Defining these concepts would:

  • Ensure disciplinary actions are assessed for impact rather than intent (DRC Final Report, Volume 7).
  • Promote inclusive, trauma-informed alternatives (DRC Final Report, Volume 7).
  • Align with CRPD Articles five (equality and non-discrimination) and 24 (inclusive education), which require States to eliminate discrimination and ensure equal access to education and participation.

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

Yes. The DDA should adopt key principles from state and territory provisions limiting exclusionary discipline and requiring consideration of disability-related factors. Several jurisdictions require schools consider whether behaviour is a manifestation of disability before imposing suspension or expulsion and require reasonable adjustments prior to exclusion (Equal Opportunity Act 2010(Vic); Anti-Discrimination Act 1998(Tas); Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA)).

Currently, these state and territory provisions are not uniform and may lack strong accountability mechanisms. The DRC recommended harmonising protections nationally and strengthening safeguards to ensure exclusion is a last resort (DRC Final Report, Volume 7). Incorporating a provision of this nature into the DDA would provide a national baseline.

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

Yes. A different approach is appropriate for higher education and vocational education and training because these sectors involve adult learners, diverse learning environments, and professional pathways. Exclusionary discipline in these settings often takes the form of withdrawal from courses, denial of placements, or refusal of adjustments during assessments. The DRC highlighted that exclusion in tertiary education can have lifelong consequences, including loss of qualifications and employment opportunities (DRC Final Report, Volume 7).

This is not just a policy issue—it is a rights issue. Under CRPD Article 24, people with disability have the right to inclusive education at all levels, including higher education, vocational training, and lifelong learning, without discrimination.

Exclusion from education also limits access to employment and income security. CRPD Article 27 guarantees the right to work on an equal basis, but if a person is excluded from higher education or vocational education and training, they may never qualify for roles that suit their abilities or offer accessible conditions. This creates a structural barrier to economic participation and independence.

The approach should focus on procedural fairness, transparency, and proactive support rather than punitive measures. Institutions should be required to consider whether behaviour or performance issues are disability-related before imposing exclusion, provide reasonable adjustments for coursework, assessments, and placements, and document decisions with review rights to prevent arbitrary exclusion (CRPD Article 24; DRIS ACT 2024). Exclusion should only occur after adjustments have been trialled and where participation would cause unmanageable safety risks or prevent meeting inherent requirements of professional practice (CRPD Article 27).

Part 4 – Improving access to justice

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

The DDA should be amended to include a standalone provision prohibiting offensive behaviour and harassment based on disability. This protection must extend beyond institutional settings to include community environments, where harm often goes unseen or unreported. A positive duty to prevent and respond to harassment should also consider remedy and where appropriate, relationship restoration.

The law must recognise offensive behaviour and/or harassment based on assumptions, stereotypes, or discomfort with difference is discriminatory, even if a disability has not been disclosed. This will not have the effect of criminalising learning but instead set a clear community norm of responding to difference with respect.

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

Definitions should be impact-based rather than intent-based, supported by practical examples and guidance to ensure clarity and consistent application. This approach aligns with existing frameworks under the DDA (s.35 – harassment in employment and education), the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Part 3-1 – general protections), and Work Health and Safety obligations under the Model WHS Laws and associated Codes of Practice on psychosocial hazards.

Example definitions:

  • Offensive behaviour: Any conduct that humiliates, degrades, intimidates, or excludes a person on the basis of disability, including targeting disability-related traits such as sensory responses, communication styles, or mobility aids.
  • Harassment: Repeated or severe conduct that creates a hostile, unsafe, or intimidating environment for a person with disability, including neglect, coercion, or behaviours disguised as “care” that result in harm (consistent with CRPD Article 16 and DRC Recommendations 4.23–4.34 in the DRC Final Report, Volume 4).

These definitions should:

  • Recognise intersectional and cultural dimensions of harassment (CRPD Article 3; DRIS ACT s.3(a)).
  • Apply to all forms of disability, including fluctuating, psychosocial, and communication-related disabilities (DRC Final Report, Volume 4 – Realising the Rights of People with Disability).
  • Be supported by examples and explanatory materials to guide implementation and compliance.

These example definitions are consistent with existing anti-discrimination and workplace safety obligations and do not impose obligations beyond those already expected under the DDA, Fair Work Act 2009, and other Work Health and Safety laws.

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

Exemptions similar to those in the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth)(RDA) (s.18D) could be considered to ensure that legitimate public interest activities—such as journalism, academic research, and artistic expression—are not unintentionally caught by provisions prohibiting offensive behaviour or harassment.

Exemptions should not be as broad as those in the RDA. They should apply only where the act is reasonable, in good faith, serves a genuine public interest purpose, and does not perpetuate stigma or cause harm (consistent with CRPD Article 3, 5, 16 and DRIS ACT s.3). This approach balances freedom of expression with protection from harm, consistent with the DRC’s findings on systemic abuse and negative stereotypes (DRC Final Report, Volume 4, Recommendations 4.23–4.34).

Question 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?

Despite recent legislative developments, including the Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Act 2025 (Cth), the DDA still lacks a clear prohibition on vilification based on disability. This gap leaves people with disability vulnerable to public incitement of hatred, ridicule, or contempt—particularly in online spaces and community settings where such conduct is often dismissed as satire or opinion.

The DRC highlighted that negative stereotypes and public hostility contribute to systemic abuse and exclusion, recommending stronger civil protections to complement criminal law (DRC Final Report, Volume 4 – Realising the Human Rights of People with Disability). DRIS ACTreinforces that abuse, neglect, and humiliation are rights violations and empowers proactive investigation (s.3, Part 4).

Internationally, the CRPD requires States to ensure equality and non-discrimination (Article 5), protect against exploitation, violence and abuse (Article 16), and promote awareness to combat stereotypes (Article 8). These obligations extend to preventing vilification that incites hatred or contempt.

Recommended reform:

  • Insert standalone provisions in the DDA prohibiting:
    • Offensive behaviour: Conduct that humiliates, intimidates, or excludes a person because of disability-related traits (modelled on RDA s.18C).
    • Vilification: Public acts that incite hatred, serious contempt, or violence against people with disability, whether in person or online.

This approach closes a significant gap in the legislative framework, aligns with CRPD obligations, and ensures that people with disability are protected from vilification as a distinct and systemic form of discrimination.

Part 5 – Exemptions

Question 34: Should the Australian Human Rights Commission be given the power to grant special measures certificates?

Yes. Giving the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) the power to issue special measures certificates would strengthen the operation of section 45 of the DDA, which permits positive measures intended to achieve equality or meet special needs. This reform would:

  • Align with CRPD Article 5(4), which states that specific measures necessary to accelerate or achieve de facto equality of persons with disabilities shall not be considered discrimination under the Convention.
  • Respond to DRC recommendations (DRC Final Report, Volume 4, Recommendations 4.23–4.34) for systemic reform that encourages proactive inclusion and removes uncertainty that deters organisations from implementing targeted programs.

A certification process would provide legal certainty for organisations implementing initiatives such as disability-specific employment programs or inclusive arts projects, ensuring these measures are recognised as lawful and consistent with the DDA. It would also create a transparent, evidence-based framework for assessing whether a measure genuinely promotes substantive equality, rather than functioning as tokenistic or exclusionary.

Certification should be voluntary, time-limited, and subject to review. It should complement—not override—state systems and require organisations to demonstrate that measures are proportionate, evidence-based, and designed to remove barriers rather than create new ones.

Question 35: Should a definition for special measures be added to the Disability Discrimination Act?

Yes. Adding a statutory definition of special measures to the DDA would clarify the scope and purpose of section 45, which permits positive measures intended to achieve equality or meet special needs. This reform would:

  • Align with CRPD Article 5(4), which states that specific measures necessary to accelerate or achieve de facto equality of persons with disabilities shall not be considered discrimination under the Convention.
  • Respond to DRC recommendations (DRC Final Report, Volume 4, Recommendations 4.23–4.34) for modernising the DDA to remove ambiguity and ensure proactive inclusion strategies are lawful and consistent across jurisdictions.

A clear definition would reduce uncertainty for organisations and individuals about what qualifies as a special measure, promote consistent interpretation by courts and regulators, and prevent misuse. It should make explicit that special measures are:

  • Temporary and targeted actions designed to achieve substantive equality;
  • Proportionate and evidence-based, with a clear link to removing barriers;
  • Regularly reviewed to ensure they remain necessary and do not entrench segregation or exclusion.

This approach reflects international human rights standards and complements domestic frameworks that emphasise inclusion and accountability.

Question 36: Should a definition for temporary exemptions be added to the Disability Discrimination Act?

Yes. Adding a statutory definition of temporary exemptions to the DDA would clarify the scope and purpose of section 55, which empowers the AHRC to grant exemptions. This reform would:

  • Align with CRPD Article 4(1), which requires States to adopt legislative measures consistent with the Convention and avoid laws that perpetuate discrimination. A clear definition ensures exemptions operate as transitional tools toward compliance, not as permanent carve-outs.
  • Reflect principles of progressive realisation embedded in international human rights law and domestic frameworks such as the DRIS ACT, which emphasise safeguarding rights and promoting inclusion through accountable mechanisms.
  • Respond to DRC recommendations for greater transparency and consistency in how temporary exemptions are applied (DRC Final Report, Volume 4, Recommendations 4.23–4.34), ensuring they do not undermine systemic reform.

A statutory definition should make clear that temporary exemptions are:

  • Exceptional and time-bound, granted only where immediate compliance is impracticable due to structural or financial barriers;
  • Linked to compliance action, demonstrating steps toward meeting the DDA’s requirements;
  • Consistent with the objects of the DDA, including the progressive achievement of accessibility and equality;
  • Subject to review and public reporting, to maintain accountability and prevent misuse.

This approach promotes legal certainty for applicants and affected communities, while ensuring exemptions remain a bridge to inclusion—not a loophole to avoid obligations.

Question 37: Would you recommend any changes to the legislative process of granting temporary exemptions?

Yes. The legislative process for granting temporary exemptions under section 55 of the DDA should be strengthened to ensure transparency, accountability, and alignment with human rights principles. This reform would:

  • Support CRPD Article 4(1), which requires States to adopt legislative measures consistent with the Convention and avoid practices that perpetuate discrimination. Embedding consultation and monitoring ensures exemptions operate as transitional tools toward compliance, not as indefinite carve-outs.
  • Reflect principles of participation and progressive realisation in international law, ensuring people with disability have a voice in decisions that affect them.
  • Respond to DRC recommendations for greater transparency and accountability in exemption processes (DRC Final Report, Volume 4, Recommendations 4.23–4.34).

Possible changes include:

  • Public consultation (where practical and appropriate), with a requirement to seek input from people with disability and representative organisations before granting an exemption.
  • Reporting obligations for exemptions longer than 12 months, demonstrating steps toward compliance and outcomes achieved.
  • Publication of decisions and reasons, to promote transparency and public confidence in the process.

These changes would ensure temporary exemptions are framed as structured, conditional pathways to compliance—not as loopholes to avoid obligations under the DDA.

Part 6 – Modernising the Disability Discrimination Act

Question 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?

Protections for assistance animals under the DDA should be strengthened and clarified to ensure consistent application and enforcement. While section 9 and section 54A recognise assistance animals, ambiguity remains around evidence requirements and hygiene standards, leading to frequent unlawful refusals—particularly in transport and hospitality sectors. These reforms would:

  • Align with CRPD Article 9 (Accessibility) and Article 20 (Personal mobility), which require States to ensure access to public spaces and services without discrimination, including through the use of assistance animals.
  • Reflect principles of equal participation and reasonable accommodation, ensuring that documentation and standards are proportionate and not used as barriers.
  • Respond to DRC recommendations (DRC Final Report, Volume 4, Recommendations 4.23–4.34) on systemic discrimination in transport and service access, which highlighted persistent refusals even when individuals provide correct documentation.

Possible clarifications and reforms:

  • Nationally consistent guidance on where assistance animals are legally permitted (including cafes, restaurants, taxis, and rideshare vehicles), promoted as law—not discretion.
  • Standardised evidence requirements, such as:
    • Public Access Test certification;
    • ID cards from recognised training organisations;
    • Medical documentation confirming disability-related need.
  • Reasonable hygiene and behaviour standards, based on evidence and not arbitrary exclusions.
  • Positive duty to prevent discrimination, particularly for transport providers:
    • Rideshare and taxi platforms must actively prevent refusals, not merely respond to complaints.
    • Mandatory disability awareness training for drivers and explicit agreement to carry assistance animals before accreditation.
  • Enforcement and accountability measures:
    • Increased penalties for unlawful refusals;
    • Quarterly reporting by platforms on refusals and enforcement actions;
    • Publication of compliance data by regulators.
  • Real-time enforcement coordination with state and territory regulators to address refusals immediately, preventing harm and distress.

These changes would ensure that protections for assistance animals are practical, enforceable, and consistent with human rights obligations, rather than remaining theoretical.

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

Yes. A mixture of legislative amendments and guidance materials is essential to balance flexibility and certainty. Beyond minimum compliance, the framework should incentivise and support organisations that want to go further than the baseline. This could include:

  • Legislative clarity: Define positive duties and special measures so organisations know what “best practice” looks like and can confidently implement ambitious inclusion strategies without fear of breaching the DDA.
  • Guidance for leadership: Publish AHRC-endorsed examples of best practice and toolkits for organisations that want to exceed minimum requirements—such as universal design benchmarks, inclusive recruitment models, and accessibility audits.
  • Recognition mechanisms: Introduce voluntary certification or public recognition programs for organisations that adopt exemplary practices, similar to the concept of special measures certificates but focused on systemic inclusion.
  • Collaborative pathways: Encourage co-design with people with disability and representative organisations, ensuring that leadership initiatives are authentic, and rights based.

Guidance should not only explain technical compliance but also educate duty holders on the human rights foundations of the DDA, including Australia’s obligations under the CRPD. This would help organisations understand why nuance and flexibility matter. Embedding CRPD principles in practical examples—such as accessibility planning, reasonable adjustments, and inclusive recruitment—would promote cultural change and systemic inclusion.

This approach creates a culture where organisations move beyond preventing discrimination and actively drive inclusion.

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

Yes. To ensure Disability Action Plans (DAPs) are meaningful and effective, the DDA should include minimum requirements through guidelines or regulation. These should reflect the DDA’s role in promoting systemic inclusion. Minimum requirements should include:

  • Co-design with people with disability, consistent with CRPD Article 4(3) and General Comment No. 7.
  • Measurable objectives linked to CRPD principles such as accessibility, participation, and dignity.
  • Timeframes for implementation and review, ensuring plans remain current and responsive.
  • Reporting on compliance with Disability Standards, including sector-specific obligations.
  • Identification of systemic risks and strategies to mitigate them.
  • Documentation of progress and outcomes, to support transparency and accountability.
  • Standardised templates and sector-specific guidance, to support consistency and reduce burden for smaller organisations.

These requirements would ensure that DAPs are not symbolic or optional, but structured tools for advancing inclusion and preventing discrimination.

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

Yes. The AHRC should be empowered to reject plans that fail to meet minimum standards. This would prevent tokenistic submissions and reinforce that Disability Action Plans are strategic tools for inclusion, not symbolic gestures. This reform would:

  • Ensure that DAPs are meaningful tools for inclusion.
  • Reflect the DRC Recommendations 4.23–4.34 (DRC Final Report, Volume 4) and their emphasis on systemic reform and proactive safeguarding.

The AHRC should be able to reject plans that:

  • Lack substantive content or fail to address systemic barriers.
  • Do not demonstrate consultation with people with disability.
  • Fail to include review mechanisms or implementation strategies.

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

Yes. Disability Action Plans should have a set validity period to ensure they remain current, effective, and responsive to evolving needs. A recommended timeframe is three to five years, with mandatory review and renewal processes.

Question 44: Are there any other changes to the action plan process that you would recommend?

Yes. To strengthen the action plan process, the following changes are recommended:

  1. Mandatory public reporting on implementation and outcomes.
    • Aligns with DRIS ACT s.12(1)(a) and CRPD Article 33.
    • Promotes transparency and builds trust.
  2. Co-design with people with disability as a required element.
    • Reflects CRPD Article 4(3) and General Comment No. 7.
    • Ensures plans are relevant, respectful, and effective.
  3. Integration with other planning frameworks, such as State and territory legislative requirements,
    • Reduces duplication and supports national consistency.
  4. Sector-specific guidance materials.
    • Supports smaller organisations and improves consistency.

These changes would transform DAPs into strategic tools for systemic inclusion, aligned with both federal and state obligations.

Question 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?

Yes. This reform would:

  • Promote transparency and accountability.
  • Support DRIS ACT s.12(1)(a), which requires public authorities to document decisions affecting people with disability.
  • Align with CRPD Article 33, which calls for national implementation and monitoring frameworks.

Self-reporting should be:

  • Mandatory for public authorities and regulated entities.
  • Incentivised for private organisations through recognition mechanisms or certification.
  • Supported by sector-specific guidance, and reporting tools developed by the AHRC.

This approach complements proposals to strengthen enforcement of the Disability Standards through positive duty mechanisms, systemic inquiries, and civil penalties, and reinforces the role of Disability Action Plans as strategic tools for inclusion.

Question 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?

Yes. The AHRC should provide additional guidance to duty holders on how to self-report on the Disability Standards in their Disability Action Plans. This guidance should:

  • Include sector-specific examples of what compliance looks like in practice.
  • Clarify how self-reporting aligns with CRPD obligations and complements state frameworks.
  • Be co-designed with people with disability and representative organisations, consistent with CRPD Article 4(3) and General Comment No. 7.

This approach supports consistent, meaningful reporting and may reduce confusion for duty holders, especially smaller organisations or those operating across multiple jurisdictions.

Part 7 – Further options for reform

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

To remain fit for purpose, the DDA must anticipate and respond to technological, systemic, and cultural barriers that disproportionately affect people with disability. This includes:

  • Embedding a precautionary principle to identify emerging risks, such as reliance on voice-based emergency systems.
  • Requiring inclusive design standards for telecommunications, digital platforms, and emergency services.
  • Monitoring and regulating third-party relay services, ensuring they are reliable, available, and do not create additional barriers.
  • Ensuring location-sharing and identity verification systems do not exclude people who communicate via interpreters or alternative formats.
  • Reviewing the registration requirements for the NRS, which currently create barriers to emergency access for Auslan users.
  • Recognising Auslan as a distinct language, and requiring public information and emergency protocols to be available in Auslan, not just English.
  • Establishing a statutory review cycle for the DDA to ensure it evolves with community needs and international obligations.
  • Creating a standing advisory group of people with disability to inform future reforms.
  • Aligning future amendments with the CRPD, DRIS ACT, and other human rights instruments.

For many people with disability, daily access to communication, safety, and public services is compromised by systems that assume verbal, English-based, or app-based interaction. These barriers persist regardless of infrastructure reliability and must be addressed through inclusive design, proactive regulation, and continuous legislative improvement.

Acronyms

DCT: Disability Commissioner Tasmania

DDA: Disability Discrimination Act 1992

CRPD: Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

DRIS ACT: Disability Rights, Inclusion and Safeguarding Act 2024 (TAS)

ICCPR: The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

ICESCR: The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

CEDAW: The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women

CRC: Convention on the Rights of the Child

RDA: Racial Discrimination Act 1975