Disability Discrimination Act Review – Issues Paper

Closes 24 Oct 2025

This service needs cookies enabled.

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

The following questions relate to the discussion set out in Part 3 of the Issues Paper.

Part 3 considers the following Disability Royal Commission recommendations:

More Information

  • This section considers renaming ‘reasoning adjustments’ to ‘adjustments’, and inserting a stand-alone duty to provide ‘adjustments’.
  • This section seeks views on whether these changes would effectively simplify the operation of reasonable adjustment provisions and whether the proposed scope of the standalone duty is appropriate.
  • This section also considers the implications of the decision in Sklavos v Australasian College of Dermatologists (2017) 256 FCR 247 (‘Sklavos’), which has been criticised by disability rights advocates and academics.

More Information

  • This section considers changes to make the assessment of unjustifiable hardship fairer and more transparent.
  • This section considers 2 options:
    • additional factors be considered when deciding whether making an adjustment would result in unjustifiable hardship,
    • a new definition of unjustifiable hardship.
  • This section seeks views on how to ensure an organisation consults the person with disability and considers all options for adjustments before claiming unjustifiable hardship.

More Information

  • This section considers including two additional factors to be considered when assessing whether a person can carry out the ‘inherent requirements’ of a job.
  • This section seeks views on whether including these additional factors would effectively reduce barriers to employment for people with disability.
  • This section outlines how the overlap and variation of ‘inherent requirements’ with industrial relations obligations can cause confusion for users of the Disability Discrimination Act.

More Information

  • This section considers explicitly providing that suspension and exclusion, in addition to expulsion, on the grounds of disability is unlawful. This would ensure exclusionary discipline is only used as a last resort.
  • This section seeks feedback on how this change can be implemented, while taking into consideration the varying interpretations of exclusionary discipline across the states and territories.
  • This section also asks about application to the tertiary sector, as previous reviews have typically focussed on early childhood education and school.
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?

(Please select one)

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

(Please select one)

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

(Please select one)

20. What are your views on amending the Disability Discrimination Act to consider the nature and extent of any adjustments made and encourage consultation between prospective or current employers and prospective or current employees before making employment decisions?
21. Are there other amendments to the Disability Discrimination Act that could support engagement between prospective or current employers and prospective or current employees to better understand the inherent requirements of a role?
22. Should any other amendments be made to the definition of inherent requirements, including factors that should be considered when deciding whether a person could carry out the inherent requirements of a job?

(Please select one)

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

(Please select one)

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

(Please select one)

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

(Please select one)

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

(Please select one)