Disability Discrimination Act Review – Issues Paper

In 2025, the Australian Government opened public consultation on an Issues Paper concerning recommendations to amend the Disability Discrimination Act 1992. The Issues Paper also sought views on other ways to modernise and strengthen the Act. Stakeholders overwhelmingly called for reforms that better prevent discrimination, clarify rights and responsibilities, and remain practical to implement.

Summary of views on key issues

Reasonable adjustments: There was broad support for a standalone duty to provide reasonable adjustments, but mixed views on removing the word ‘reasonable’ from the requirement.
Positive duty: There was strong support from disability, legal, human rights and academic stakeholders for a positive duty to prevent disability discrimination. Some duty holders raised concerns about the potential regulatory impact.
Tests for discrimination: Stakeholders generally supported simplifying discrimination tests, including removing the ‘comparator test’ and reversing the onus of proof in direct discrimination. Views were mixed on changes to the ‘reasonableness test’ for indirect discrimination.
Exceptions: Many stakeholders supported requiring greater consultation and consideration of alternatives before relying on exceptions such as unjustifiable hardship. Transparency and genuine consideration of adjustments were seen as particularly important.
The application of the Disability Discrimination Act to education and police: Disability and legal stakeholders supported clarifying the Act’s application to exclusionary discipline in education and police duties. Education and police stakeholders also emphasised the need to consider safety and operational requirements.
Offensive behaviour and vilification: Many stakeholders supported stronger protections against disability-based offensive behaviour and vilification, including online conduct. Views differed on exemptions for artistic, academic and public-interest activities, with some also raising concerns about regulatory burden and freedom of expression.
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and beneficial interpretation: There was support for strengthening the Act’s connection to the Convention and ensuring it is interpreted in a way that benefits people with disability. Some stakeholders cautioned that a beneficial interpretation requirement could create legal uncertainty.
Assistance animals: Stakeholders supported greater national consistency in the accreditation and recognition of assistance animals to reduce confusion and unlawful access refusals. Some concerns were raised about accreditation costs and accessibility in regional and remote areas.
The definition of disability: Many stakeholders supported retaining the Act’s broad definition of disability while replacing outdated and deficit-based language. Some advocated for a stronger social or human rights approach, while others cautioned against changes that could create legal uncertainty.
Intersectionality: Many stakeholders supported explicitly recognising discrimination involving multiple or combined protected attributes to better address intersectional experiences. Others raised concerns about legal complexity and noted that claims involving multiple attributes can already be made under existing arrangements.