Site navigation

Change font size: SmallerLargerReload

navigation Disability Rights

Frequently asked questions: Goods, services and facilities

See also our goods and services index page including links to complaint outcomes

Does access to goods, services and facilities include access to providers' premises?

Equal access to goods, services and facilities will usually require accessibility of the premises where the goods, services or facilities are provided, if those premises are open to other customers or users. Where the premises cannot be made accessible immediately without unjustifiable hardship, access to the goods services or facilities should still be provided by other means if possible - for example by the service provider going to the customer's premises.

Where the premises are open to the public or a section of the public, access to the premises is also required by DDA section 23. See our access to premises page for more information. See also the "Missed Business" guide for small business

Does the DDA require products to be made accessible and useable by people with disabilities?

Generally not - but accessibility is required if equipment is provided as part of a service. Information about products and how to use them should also be accessible.

Accessible products are not required but are recommended

The DDA prohibits discrimination in the terms or conditions on which goods are provided, or in the manner in which goods are provided. This does not create a requirement for the goods themselves to be equally accessible and useable. (See the decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal in Sims v The Age Corporation for discussion of similar issues.)

However, it makes good business sense for manufacturers and designers to make their goods accessible to as wide a range of people as possible. "Universal design" approaches benefit not only people with disabilities - a sizeable section of the population, particularly among older people - but other users as well. For example:

Information on universal design is available on the internet.

Equipment provided as part of a service should be accessible

Service providers who provide customer equipment as part of or in association with their service are obliged to provide equipment which is accessible to and useable by people with disabilities - except where it can be demonstrated that this would involve unjustifiable hardship. A detailed advice on telecommunications equipment is available on this site. Another example is that a car hire business might need to supply a car with hand controls on reasonable notice.

Product information needs to be accessible

Information about products - including information for customers on how to use products - needs to be made accessible to people with disabilities, unless it can be shown that this would impose unjustifiable hardship. The information provided with products is part of the "manner in which goods are provided" and this is covered by the DDA. This may include providing customer manuals in formats other than print on request. Also, the DDA covers services, including services "relating to entertainment". It could readily be argued that provision of customer information enabling the use of a DVD player, television etc is a "service relating to entertainment".

What complaint outcomes have there been under the DDA regarding goods, services and facilities?

See the separate page for summaries of conciliated outcomes

Does the DDA apply to services provided by private sector or State government organisations?

Yes. For more detailed discussion see our FAQ on the scope of the DDA.

Does public housing have to be accessible, visitable or adaptable?

The folloiwng is the text of a reply provided to a recent (2002) query whether a State housing authority could be liable under the DDA unless all new housing is at least visitable and adaptable, and unless major refurbishments provide for visitability and adaptability where possible (subject to site constraints or disproportionate costs in particular situations so far as refurbishments are concerned).

The DDA renders discrimination unlawful in areas including provision of services and facilities (section 24). Services for this purpose include services of a kind provided by government (section 4) which clearly includes provision of public housing.

Lack of physical access for people using wheelchairs means that a person is in effect being required to comply with a condition or requirement of not being dependent on a wheelchair for mobility in order to use the service or premises concerned. This requirement will very obviously have a disadvantageous impact on people who have a disability requiring the use of a wheelchair as compared to people who do not have a disability. The elements of indirect discrimination as defined in section 6 of the DDA will thus be satisfied, subject to determination of whether the condition or requirement is reasonable, and the related issue for the purposes of sectio 24 of whether provision of access would impose unjustifiable hardship.

It is not possible to give definitive advice on the situations in which, almost 10 years after the commencement of the DDA, a lack of access would continue to be accepted as reasonable, or for provision of access to be accepted as imposing unjustifiable hardship.

In current negotiations for revision of the building code, the emerging consensus so far as new buildings providing public access are concerned is that apart from a number of specific technical constraints, the concept of unjustifiable hardship ought not to apply to limit obligations to provide accessibility. For existing buildings, there is an expectation that access will be built in in the course of major refurbishments, subject to provision for consideration of unjustifiable hardship.

This result is similar to that applying in the area of public transport services, for example, where it is recognised by all parties concerned that new vehicles and facilities must be accessible, while a longer transition period is provided for existing vehicles and facilities.

It is possible that in the context of residential buildings, even for new premises it could be an unjustifiable hardship to provide full and immediate accessibility for 100% of new buildings.

Provision of visitability and adaptability, rather than of full accessibility, may be a commonsense recognition of this possibility, which however also provides the capacity to remove access barriers relatively quickly when required.

The concept of visitability is important for compliance with the DDA because the DDA covers discrimination against a person who is an associate of a person with a disability as well as discrimination directly against the person with a disability. Thus if a public housing client is housed in premises which are not at least visitable, he or she could complain when this prevents being visited at home by a friend or relative who does require disability access.

Can a service or accommodation provider exclude a person because he or she is accompanied by a guide or hearing dog?

No. This is unlawful under the DDA unless unjustifiable hardship can be shown, which in the Commission's view will very rarely be possible. See the decision of the Commission in Brown v Birss Nominees . Note also the Commission decision in Jennings v Guan Lee that it was discriminatory to require a guide dog to be left outside.

Does the DDA cover sign language interpreting in nursing homes and medical services?

Yes.The DDA covers discrimination in accommodation (s25) and in provision of goods services and facilities (s24) both of which would apply to a nursing home; provision of medical services therein would be covered by s24. Also relevant may be standards of service more generally in nursing homes which are regulated by the Department of Family and Community Services

Is it unlawful under the DDA for "disabled parking" eligibility to be restricted to people with particular levels, types or duration of disability?

The DDA does not make unlawful any act reasonably intended to afford people who have a disability or a particular disability access to facilities to meet special needs. Restrictions on eligibility to use "disabled parking" spaces will be lawful under the DDA if they can be shown to be reasonably intended to meet special needs of persons who are eligible for these spaces.

Does giving discounts to aged pensioners and not recipients of disability support pensions constitute discrimination under the DDA?

Generally not.

Direct discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act occurs where a person with a disability is treated less favourably than a person without that disability is or would be treated in the same or not materially different circumstances. Offering discounts to age pension recipients only (and hence not to Disability Support Pension recipients) does not constitute discrimination under this definition.

A Disability Support Pension recipient would be denied a discount not because of his or her disability but because he or she was not an age pensioner. A person who did not have a disability and who also was not an age pensioner would be treated in the same way - that is, also denied a discount.

The position would be different if all pensioners were entitled to discounts with the exception only of disability support pensioners. In that situation, it could be found that the reason for less favourable treatment of people denied a discount was their disability.

Indirect discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act occurs where

Clearly, a person who is not an age pensioner and is thus denied a discount offered only to age pensioners has been required to meet a requirement or condition which he or she cannot meet. It is less clear, however, that such a requirement proportionately excludes more people with than without a disability.

People who have a disability are not thereby ineligible for age pensions. The most recent Australian Bureau of Statistics figures indicate, as might be expected, that the proportion of people with a disability in the population in fact increases with age. Considered as between people who have a disability and people who do not, therefore, a claim of indirect discrimination would be unlikely to be sustained.

This part of the definition of indirect discrimination might be satisfied in the case of people whose disability is such that substantially fewer people with than without that disability will survive to be of an age where they are eligible for age pensions and thus for the discounts offered. In such a case, the question would remain whether being an age pensioner was a reasonable condition or requirement for eligibility for the benefit concerned. This question could only be determined in the circumstances of a complaint.

Does the DDA prevent services being targeted to people with a particular disability?

No. There is nothing in the DDA to prevent service providers making services or facilities available only to people who have a particular disability or disabilities, and excluding eligibility for people who do not have that disability or those disabilities, even if they do have another disability.

The DDA provides for complaints only where a person alleges discrimination on the basis of a disability which that person or an associate has (or which is imputed to him or her, or he or she had in the past or may have in the future).

A complaint that a person has been discriminated against because he or she does not have the particular disability (or one of the disabilties) which is a criterion for eligibility for a program or opportunity has no valid basis in the DDA.

For example, a person who uses a wheelchair and is not blind cannot complain if he or she is excluded from services made available to blind people, any more than a person can complain who is not blind and has no other disability can complain in this situation.

In any event, section 45 of the DDA specifies that the discrimination provisions of the legislation do not make it unlawful to do any act which is "reasonably intended" to ensure that persons who have a disability have equal opportunities with other persons, or to afford persons who have a disability, or a particular disability, opportunities to meet their special needs.

The only exceptions to this would be:

Can the DDA be used to remedy a lack of disability services in rural and remote areas?

The DDA cannot be used to require services to be provided where they do not exist. But the DDA can be used to require those services and facilities which do exist to be accessible to people with a disability. This may include provision of a particular service or facility as a means of achieving equal access to some existing service. For example, TTY phones for deaf or speech impaired people are required as an element of standard phone service rather than being a new and separate service. Similarly, integration aides may be required in some circumstances as a means of providing equal access to education rather than being seen as a distinct service.

Can the DDA be used to prevent the closure of a residential facility for people with a disability?

A reduction in or failure to provide a particular service, however important that service is, does not in itself constitute discrimination.

Does the DDA cover complaints about medical treatment?

The DDA covers discrimination in the provision of services, which includes “services of the kind provided by the members of any profession” and thus includes medical services.

A number of complaints have been dealt with about accessibility of medical premises or facilities, or the manner of service provision (for example, while accepted infection control protocols may justify placing patients known to be HIV or Hepatitis C positive at the end of a day’s operating list, this does not extend to letting other patients present know about a person’s infection status).

However, the fact that treatment may be (or be perceived as) unsatisfactory – for example misdiagnosis as having or not having a particular condition - does not mean it is discriminatory. In general HREOC ha terminated complaints of this sort as more appropriately dealt with by health care complaints systems.