Disability Discrimination Act Review – Issues Paper

On 1 August 2025, we opened public consultation on an Issues Paper concerning recommendations from the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability (Disability Royal Commission) to amend the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Disability Discrimination Act). The Issues Paper also sought views on other ways to modernise and strengthen the Disability Discrimination Act.

On 15 August 2025, we held an introductory webinar to outline the background and scope of the review. Several speakers from civil society were invited to share their own reflections on the review, why it matters and what they would like to see change. From August to October 2025, we held:

• 8 community forums in each capital city
• 14 roundtables, including:
  • 4 themed online public roundtables covering employment, education, access and inclusion, and community safety
  • 1 online public roundtable with small business stakeholders
  • 1 focus group with small and medium-sized enterprises
  • 8 targeted online roundtables, including 1 with Disability Representative Organisations, 1 with education stakeholders, 3 with legal stakeholders, and 3 with industry stakeholders
• 9 focus groups on intersectional discrimination, including with First Nations people, people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, and young people.

More than 1,100 people attended our engagement sessions, and we received more than 1,100 submissions and responses to our community survey and Issues Paper survey. We heard from:

• people with disability
• families
• carers and kin
• support workers
• service providers
• advocates and representatives
• unions
• employers
• small business
• legal professionals
• education providers
• academia
• Commonwealth, state, territory and local government agencies
• non-government organisations.

Many stakeholders noted that the Disability Discrimination Act is overly technical and confusing.

The disability community is generally supportive of the Disability Royal Commission’s recommended reforms and want to see a modernised Disability Discrimination Act that prevents discrimination. This includes introducing a positive duty for duty holders to take reasonable and proportionate steps to reduce disability discrimination.

Duty holders are generally supportive of measures to ensure the Disability Discrimination Act is clear and implementable. Some duty holders noted the cumulative regulatory impact of obligations across Commonwealth, state and territory anti-discrimination, workplace health and safety, and fair work legislation. They noted the importance of ensuring any reforms are balanced and proportionate.

Many stakeholders, including legal experts and academics, want clear law and guidance material to help both duty holders and people with disability to understand their rights and obligations.

Summary of views on key issues

• Reasonable adjustments: The Disability Royal Commission recommended introducing a standalone duty to provide adjustments and to remove the word ‘reasonable’ from ‘reasonable adjustments’. Many respondents support the introduction of a standalone provision or duty to provide reasonable adjustments. There were mixed views on whether to remove the word ‘reasonable’ from ‘reasonable adjustments’.

• Positive duty: The Disability Royal Commission recommended introducing a positive duty requiring duty holders under the Disability Discrimination Act to take reasonable and proportionate steps to eliminate disability discrimination, based on the positive duty in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. Respondents from disability representative organisations, legal professionals, human rights experts and academics generally expressed support for a positive duty. There were mixed views from duty holders, with some raising concerns about regulatory impact.

• Tests for discrimination: The Disability Royal Commission recommended simplifying and clarifying tests for discrimination. There is general support among stakeholders for removing the ‘comparator test’ in direct discrimination and reversing the onus of proof about the reason for discriminatory conduct. Views on the ‘reasonableness test’ in indirect discrimination were mixed, with some advocating for its removal and others suggesting a supplementary list of factors to consider when deciding whether a condition or requirement is reasonable in the circumstances.

• Exceptions: The Disability Royal Commission recommended requiring consideration of consultation with the person with disability and available alternatives when relying on certain exceptions to the Disability Discrimination Act, including the exception of unjustifiable hardship. Many stakeholders supported these reforms, emphasising the need for transparent decision-making and genuine consideration of adjustments before an exception is relied upon.

• The application of the Disability Discrimination Act to education and police: The Disability Royal Commission recommended clarifying that the Disability Discrimination Act applies to exclusionary discipline practices in education, and to police when performing their duties and functions. The disability community and legal experts indicated support for both reforms. Some education and police stakeholders noted the importance of balancing safety and operational considerations.

• Offensive behaviour and vilification: The Disability Royal Commission recommended new civil prohibitions on public offensive behaviour and vilification because of disability. Many stakeholders support reform, including protections modelled on s 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and express coverage of online conduct. Views were mixed on exemptions for artistic, academic and public-interest conduct. Some stakeholders opposed the reforms because of concerns about regulatory burden and freedom of expression.

• Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Convention) and beneficial interpretation: The Disability Royal Commission recommended referring to the Convention in the objects of the Disability Discrimination Act and requiring the Act to be interpreted beneficially for people with disability. Both recommendations received support as measures to promote a rights-based approach. Some stakeholders cautioned that a beneficial interpretation clause could create legal uncertainty.

• Assistance animals: Although not a Disability Royal Commission recommendation, some stakeholders supported greater national consistency in the accreditation and recognition of assistance animals. Stakeholders identified fragmentation across jurisdictions as causing confusion and unlawful access refusals, and supported clearer definitions, minimum behavioural and hygiene standards, nationally recognised identification, and better guidance for duty holders. Some stakeholders also raised concerns about accreditation costs and access in regional and remote areas.

• The definition of disability: Although not a Disability Royal Commission recommendation, many stakeholders supported retaining the definition’s broad legal coverage while replacing outdated and deficit-based terms such as ‘malfunction’ and ‘malformation’. Some disability and academic stakeholders favoured moving further towards a social or human rights model and expressly recognising episodic, invisible, psychosocial and other disabilities. Others cautioned that more substantial changes could create uncertainty about coverage and legal enforceability.

• Intersectionality: Although not a Disability Royal Commission recommendation, many stakeholders supported expressly recognising discrimination based on multiple or combined protected attributes, noting that people with disability may experience compounded intersectional discrimination. Some stakeholders raised concerns about legal complexity and noted that claims based on multiple protected attributes can already be made to the Australian Human Rights Commission under the Disability Discrimination Act.

We have carefully analysed submissions and feedback received through engagement sessions.

We have now published these submissions, where consent was provided to us, in line with our Privacy Collection Notice and Privacy Policy.

Read the published submissions.

Thank you to everyone involved in the consultation for your engagement, and for sharing your views and ideas. We deeply value the expertise, lived experience, insights and time that you have provided throughout these consultations.

Your feedback is being used to inform the next stages of the review. You can stay up to date with the review by signing up to our mailing list. Further information is available at Review of the Disability Discrimination Act | Attorney-General's Department.        

We look forward to engaging with you further as the review progresses.