Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byDarien Buoy Modified over 10 years ago
1
Evaluating the DDA: Where is it now, and how did it get here? Beth Gaze, Associate Professor Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne
2
Origins and hopes for the Act How was it supposed to bring about social change? How has it fared in operation: ‘legal’ advances – case law and legislative amendments Broader context – advances within the framework set by law Current status: how useful is the Act? what are the problems? 2
3
Innovations Uniform national disability discrimination law Improved many areas of disability discrimination law Prohibits direct and indirect disability discrimination permits some special measures Introduced the formula of requiring special services or facilities limited only by unjustifiable hardship Provision for Standards, Action plans Disability Discrimination Commissioner 3
4
Change is needed at two levels: Broad – group or society wide; systemic change Individual – protect the rights of individuals who are affected by discrimination ▪ The two levels are interdependent Mechanisms of change: legal decisions, legislative change, and bargaining in ‘the shadow of the law’ development of guidelines, codes of practice and educative processes ▪ the role of the DD Commissioner is extremely important. What level of change and by what mechanisms does the DDA approach this task? 4
5
The scope of the law Coverage limited in some areas ▪ no protection against vilification ▪ no explicit requirement to provide reasonable adjustments; ▪ omissions such as the absence of a defence of unjustifiable hardship in relation to an already enrolled student No requirement to take positive action No public agency to assist with enforcement Overall: extent of change the law requires is not clear 5
6
Problems of process Lack of public enforcement assistance means that enforcement is left entirely up to the disadvantaged individual Since 2000 cases have to go to the Federal Court or Federal Magistrates Court of they do not settle at conciliation in the AHRC ▪ Relatively formal process ▪ Need for legal representation ▪ Costs awarded against the loser Lack of or limited legal aid ▪ merits test requires ‘public interest,’ generally requires a group to be affected – denies the significance of human rights claims ▪ Legal aid provision varies between states and territories Disparity of size and resources of parties to DD cases ▪ power imbalances not addressed by the DDA or the Courts 6
7
High Court 2 cases – both unsuccessful – success rate of 0% Purvis v New South Wales (Department of Education and Training) (2003) 217 CLR 92 X v Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 200 CLR 177 Full Court of the Federal Court 12 cases (including Purvis), 2 successful – success rate of 17% – both involve schools and accommodation for hearing impairment Hurst v Queensland (2006) 151 FCR 562; [2006] FCAFC 100 Catholic Education Office v Clarke (2004) 138 FCR 121; [2004] FCAFC 197 Federal Court 47 Cases, 8 successful (includes Clarke and Hurst) – success rate of 17% Federal Magistrates Court 21 successful cases – many more unsuccessful 7
8
Unlike HREOC tribunal (pre 2000), the federal courts are not seen as user friendly for people with a disability Court interpretation of the laws: lack of judicial understanding / sympathy with the law’s objects/ those the laws are designed to assist. Technical approach to interpretation Courts state that decision only applies to the facts of the case Result: the only avenue for enforcement is individual litigation, but this has not been effective to apply pressure for change. In the cases that are successful, damages awarded have been very low – no incentive to enforce the law While state and territory jurisdictions have no-cost enforcement through tribunals, their legislation can be weaker, and awards lower. 8
9
Not yet tested in litigation To avoid doubt, a disability that is otherwise covered by this definition includes behaviour that is a symptom or manifestation of the disability New definitions of reasonable adjustment, unjustifiable hardship Implicit obligation to make reasonable adjustments ▪ Failure to make reasonable adjustments incorporated as an aspect of both direct and indirect discrimination New definition of indirect discrimination based on the SDA model condition or requirement P cannot meet because of their disability, effect of disadvantaging R has onus of proof that the condition or requirement is reasonable General exceptions for inherent requirements (s.21A) and unjustifiable hardship (s.21B) 2011-12 Consolidation process 9
10
Do courts provide a service? Registry / judicial officers Do they impose a condition or requirement? Eg that a person must have legal representation or must be able to interact as if they had no disability Do the courts make reasonable adjustments for people with a disability? What adjustments should they make? 10
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.