Accessibility laws · Australia

Australia: Disability Discrimination Act

Australia has never made a binding web accessibility standard, and it is not for want of a way to do it. Section 31 of the Disability Discrimination Act lets the Minister create binding disability standards, and Australia has used that power for premises, for transport, and for education. Thirty-four years in, it has never used it for the web. So what you are actually measured against is a general ban on discrimination, a regulator's non-binding guidance that named WCAG 2.2 Level AA in April 2025, and a complaints process that ends at a court which can award damages.

AHRC 2025 guidance: 2.2 AA
DDA enacted: 1992
SOCOG: first web ruling: 2000
Complaints body: AHRC

What the law is

The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 makes it unlawful to discriminate against someone on the ground of their disability when you provide goods, services, or facilities. Section 24 is the operative line, and two details inside it decide most web complaints. It applies whether or not you get paid, so a free information site, a charity, a community group, and a paid online store are all caught on identical terms. And it bans discrimination in the manner in which you provide a service, not only in refusing to provide it at all. Nobody turns a blind customer away at the door. They just build a checkout a screen reader cannot finish, and that second limb is where the complaints land.

Maguire v SOCOG is the case, and it is usually described as the first web accessibility ruling anywhere. Bruce Maguire, who is blind, complained to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission on 7 June 1999 about three things, and only one of them was the website. He also wanted the ticket order information and the souvenir programme in braille. On 24 August 2000 the Commission found the Sydney Olympics organizing committee had unlawfully discriminated against him under section 24. It ordered the site fixed by 15 September. Alt text on every image and image map link, access to the Index of Sports from the Schedule page, and access to the Results Tables. SOCOG complied only in part. On 18 November 2000 the Commissioner awarded Maguire AU$20,000 for the hurt and humiliation the continuing discrimination caused him, which means that money was the price of ignoring the order rather than the price of the original barrier.

The part of that case to carry into your next budget meeting is what SOCOG argued. It ran the unjustifiable hardship defence, and told the Commission that fixing the site would take AU$2.2 million in additional infrastructure plus 368 days of one person's full-time work. Maguire's experts said a team could do it in four weeks at modest cost. The Commission rejected the hardship defence. So there is a documented finding, in a real case, that a respondent's accessibility cost estimate was inflated by roughly two orders of magnitude and lost on it.

This applies to you if…

You provide goods, services, or facilities to people in Australia, and where your company is registered changes nothing. Sections 12(12) and 12(13) extend the prohibition to discrimination in the course of trade or commerce between Australia and a place outside it, and to discrimination inside Australia involving people, things, or matters arising outside it. That is one of the cleanest reaches into overseas conduct in any law on this site, and it sits in the statute rather than in an argument someone won in court.
You give the service away. Section 24 opens with the words whether for payment or not. A free information site, a nonprofit, a community organisation, and a government portal are all covered on the same terms as a store that takes money at a checkout.
You are an Australian government body, in which case the Digital Transformation Agency's Digital Experience Policy has applied to you since 1 January 2025, on top of your general DDA duties. It carries four standards rather than one. The Digital Service Standard, the Digital Inclusion Standard, the Digital Access Standard, and the Digital Performance Standard, reaching new and replacement services along with existing public-facing ones.
You sell a digital platform that other organizations run their own services on. The DDA does not flow your customer's duties down onto you, and we are not going to tell you it does. What it does do is treat you as a provider of goods and services in your own right under section 24, so your product's accessibility is your own exposure and not a favour you do for a client.

What it technically requires

Test against WCAG 2.2 Level AA, because that is what the regulator's guidance names, and be clear about how much weight that guidance carries. The Australian Human Rights Commission published its Guidelines on Equal Access to Digital Goods and Services on 2 April 2025, replacing advisory notes from 2014 that still pointed at WCAG 2.0. The official Australian recommendation went from 2.0 to 2.2 in a single jump, skipping 2.1, because nobody updated the document in between. The guidelines also reference AS EN 301 549, Australia's adoption of the European ICT standard, and ISO 30071-1. None of it is binding. Section 67(1)(k) gives the Commission a power to publish guidelines, and contravening a guideline is not by itself unlawful.
Read those 2025 guidelines as covering a lot more than your website. They are reported to reach SaaS platforms, AI tools, connected devices, mobile apps, CAPTCHAs, two-factor authentication, extended reality, chatbots, voice assistants, facial recognition and other biometrics, digital kiosks, ATMs, self-checkouts, PDFs, video, email, and social media posts. A national regulator naming CAPTCHA and two-factor authentication as barriers deserves your attention, because both of them sit directly across the path of a paying customer. We could not read the guidelines themselves, since the Commission's site blocked every automated attempt, so this scope list comes from three Australian and vendor sources that agree with each other.
Know that unjustifiable hardship is the defence, and that the burden of proving it sits on you. Section 29A takes conduct outside the prohibition where avoiding the discrimination would impose unjustifiable hardship, and section 11(2) puts the burden of proving hardship on the person claiming it. Owners tend to assume the complainant has to show the fix was affordable. It works the other way around. Section 11(1) then lists what gets weighed. Your own expenditure is one of five items on that list. The others are the benefit or detriment to everyone concerned, community included, the effect of the person's disability, what financial and other help was available to you, and any action plan you have given the Commission.
Lodge an action plan, because it costs very little and it is a listed statutory factor in your favour. Sections 61 to 64 let you prepare one and hand it to the Commission, which must then make it available to the public. Section 11(1)(e) makes that lodged plan one of the things weighed in a hardship assessment, so the document you write this quarter is evidence in a case you have not had yet. There is also a formal route to lawful non-compliance for a defined period, because section 55 lets the Commission grant a temporary exemption on application.

All roads lead to WCAG. Start with Level AA, the legal standard or the full 55-rule library. Unfamiliar term along the way? The A to Z glossary decodes it.

How it is enforced

A complaint starts at the Australian Human Rights Commission, and the procedure for it lives in the Commission's own Act rather than in the DDA. The Commission inquires and tries to conciliate first. If it terminates the complaint, section 46PO lets the complainant apply to the Federal Court or to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. Most of these matters go to the second one. The window is 60 days from the termination notice, or longer where the court allows it.

That court can declare your conduct unlawful, order redress, and order damages by way of compensation. No ceiling on that compensation appears anywhere in the legislation we read. You will find a figure of AU$100,000 quoted online as a maximum under the DDA, and it is not in the Act. Maguire's AU$20,000 in 2000 is the number with a real case behind it.

Complainants have to pick one forum and stay in it. Section 13 covers that. Where a state or territory discrimination law reaches the same matter, and the person has already complained or started proceedings under it, they cannot run that matter through the federal scheme too. Every Australian state has its own anti-discrimination act, so that choice gets made early and it sticks.

The regulator can appear in a case it is not a party to. Section 67(1)(l) lets the Commission intervene in proceedings involving disability discrimination issues, with the court's leave. Twenty-six years on, Maguire is still the template. An individual complained, the respondent said the fix was unaffordable, the Commission disagreed, and the bill arrived for the delay rather than for the design.

Key dates

1992DDA in force: services covered
2000Maguire v SOCOG: websites are services under the DDA
2025AHRC guidance updated to WCAG 2.2 AA

What to do about it

Every obligation on this page is measured against WCAG, so the first step is knowing where you actually stand. Run the free 10-page scan for the machine-checkable slice. For the rest, we review the key journeys with an expert and a real blind screen-reader user, then attach a screenshot and a fix to every finding. $499, 5 business days.

Order your audit Run the free scan

Primary sources

Other laws

Related on this site

What to read next, and the terms this page uses.

Orientation only, current as of August 2026. Not legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is created. For your specific situation, talk to your own lawyer.