The ''Disability Discrimination Act 1992'' (Cth) is an Act passed by the
Parliament of Australia in which prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in employment, education, publicly available premises, provision of goods and services, accommodation, clubs and associations, and other contexts. Discrimination is defined to include failing to make reasonable adjustments for the person. The
Australian Human Rights Commission are given and assess complaints made under the Act.
Background
At the time of the Act's enactment, a variety of anti-discrimination acts for people with disabilities already existed in the different state legislatures, some dating back to the early 1980s. All states and territories except
Tasmania and the
Northern Territory had anti-discrimination laws in place, and these two places had legislation under consideration. There were three reasons given for enacting a federal law:
*Standardise the scope of rights offered around the country
*Implement the Australian Government's obligations as a signatory to international declarations on the rights of people with disabilities.
*Enable regulation of discriminatory practices of Commonwealth authorities.
Legacy
In 2004, the findings of the
Productivity Commission's enquiry into the Act were published.
"Review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992"
30 April 2004, Productivity Commission. The Commission found that while there was still room for improvement, particularly in reducing discrimination in employment, overall the Act had been reasonably effective.
In addition, the Commission found that people with a disability were still less likely than other people to finish school, have a TAFE or university qualification, and be employed. They are more likely to have a below average income, be on a pension, live in public housing and in prison. The average personal income for people with a disability is 44 per cent of the income of other Australians.
Maguire v Sydney Olympic Committee
This case, brought by Bruce Maguire, concerned the website of the Sydney 2000 Olympics, and the inability of those with vision impairments to efficiently use the website.
In its decision, the Commission found that the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games
The Sydney Organising Committee for the Games of the XXVII Olympiad, or SOCOG, also known as the Sydney Organising Committee, was an informal name for the Sydney Organising Committee for the Games of the XXVII Olympiad. The President of SOCOG wa ...
(SOCOG) had discriminated against the complainant in contravention of s 24 of the Act, "in that the web site does not include ALT text on all images and image maps links, the Index to Sports cannot be accessed from the Schedule page and the Results Tables provided during the Games on the web site will remain inaccessible."
The commission also dismissed SOCOG's claim that modifying its website to meet the requirements would cause it unjustifiable hardship and established that such hardship cannot be used to avoid liability for breaching s 24 of the Act. SOCOG was ordered to render the website accessible by 15 September 2000.
See also
* Adaptive Physical Education Australia
* Disability discrimination act
* Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (United Kingdom)
*'' Maguire v SOCOG 1999''
References
{{reflist
External links
Disability Discrimination Act 1992
in the Federal Register of Legislation
Disability Discrimination Act 1992
at the Australasian Legal Information Institute
Inquiry report into the DDA
by the Productivity Commission, published 14 July 2004.
Australian Government Disability Policy, Programs and LegislationAustralian Human Rights Commission guide to making a complaint under the DDA
Acts of the Parliament of Australia
Disability legislation
Anti-discrimination law in Australia
Web accessibility
1992 in Australian law
Disability law in Australia