In late October, DANA made a submission to the Attorney-General’s Department as part of their review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA), which was last reviewed in 2008. Since that time, key Court decisions have been made regarding how the Act is applied, and the Disability Royal Commission Report made recommendations regarding how the Act should be reformed to better support the human rights of people with disability.  

The review was extensive, posing 51 questions on areas related to key terms and definitions, the scope of the Act, and how it interacts with other legislation.  

DANA’s submission responded to 16 of the 51 questions in the review, focusing on the below principles:  

1. Simplifying definitions: The DDA currently uses complex definitions which create barriers to accessing the law, and increase the level of effort and advocacy support needed for those who are seeking justice. Several of these definitions currently also favour those who are being accused of discrimination under the DDA, such as what counts as a “reasonable” adjustment or what is “unjustifiable hardship”.  Making the DDA fairer means making it clearer when it applies and who is covered by it.
    
2. More consistency: The DDA uses different language and scope to other related laws and conventions, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) and state and territory legislation.  By using terms that are more consistent with other relevant laws, the DDA can be reformed to more fully meet Australia’s international obligations under the UNCRPD, and can collect better quality data to track how people with disability are included in public life in Australia. Using terms and definitions that line up more closely with other legislation means more protection and greater clarity for people with disability and for duty holders (such as employers and service providers).
    
3. Improving coverage: In reforming the DDA there is a great opportunity to make sure that some of the current gaps in coverage for the rights of people with disability are better protected. This includes extending the DDA to cover policing and the justice system, and ensuring that the challenges faced by those in geographically remote areas are recognised. It also means allowing those experiencing multiple or intersecting types of discrimination (e.g. disability and race, sex, gender, or age) to bring matters forward under the DDA and know that their full experience can be recognised.
    
4. Positive duty: The DDA Review asked whether extending a ‘positive duty’ under the DDA would help improve the act. A ‘positive duty’ is similar to the way that under workplace safety law, businesses and employers hold a duty of care to ensure the safety of their employees and of people using their services. DANA’s submission argued that a positive duty under the DDA should use similar language to the Sex Discrimination Act, which says that employers and other organisations must take “proactive and meaningful action” to ensure that discrimination does not occur. If extended to the DDA, this should include the duty to provide adjustments, but also should include broader action to prevent discrimination, not just to respond after it has already occured. We also noted that any new positive duty should involve training and education for duty holders that reflects disability community perspectives, and it should be enforced in a meaningful way. DANA has recommended that DROs and the disability community more broadly should be consulted in developing any training materials and enforcement systems in future.
    
5. Moving towards a Human Rights Act (HRA): While a positive duty to prevent discrimination would be help further protect the human rights of people with disability, it is only the first step. DANA’s submission on the DDA restated our commitment to advocating for a Human Rights Act which would more proactively and positively describe the rights of people with disabilities alongside those of all other members of the community. In addition to the 12 other DROs who contributed to the Joint Statement on a HRA in 2024, a recent report by the Human Rights Law Centre and the Whitlam Institute states that a Federal Human Rights Act has strong community support and would greatly improve protections for vulnerable people in Australia. DANA’s submission argued that making short-term changes to improve the DDA will help bring short-term benefits while working towards the longer-term goal of a Human Rights Act. 

DANA also raised that the review process for the DDA posed unique accessibility challenges, because the legislation itself is very complicated and the review posed a large number of complex questions about highly specialist technical topics. DANA also recommended that changes to the DDA should be subject to independent monitoring and evaluation, in keeping with Australia’s obligations under the UNCRPD. This should include an appropriately qualified lived experience evaluation.  

The Review on the DDA has been extended to 14 November 2025, including accepting submissions and a community survey.