Queensland University of Technology CRICOS No. 000213J Disability Standards for Education: the obligation to make reasonable adjustment and ramifications

Queensland University of Technology

CRICOS No. 000213J

Disability Standards for Education: the obligation to make reasonable adjustment and ramifications for

schools

Dr Elizabeth Dickson

QUT Law School

[email protected]

CRICOS No. 000213Ja university for the worldrealR

Outline of presentation

• Introduction to the Disability Standards for Education

• Explanation of how disability discrimination law works in Australia

• Analysis of reasonable adjustment informed by decided cases


Standards authorised by DDA

• Enacted under the authority of Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) (DDA) s 31.

• Binding upon education providers in all Australian states and territories: DDA s 14; s 32.

• Education providers include educational authorities and educational institutions: pre-school to post-compulsory, public, private and not-for-profit. Standards 1.5, 2.1

• Compliance with the Standards amounts to compliance with the DDA: s 34

• Theoretical protection against being sued


Rationale behind the Standards

The objects of these Standards are:

(a) to eliminate, as far as possible, discrimination against persons on the ground of disability in the area of education and training; and

(b) to ensure, as far as practicable, that persons with disabilities have the same rights to equality before the law in the area of education and training as the rest of the community; and

(c) to promote recognition and acceptance within the community of the principle that persons with disabilities have the same fundamental rights as the rest of the community.

Note These are also generally the objects of the Act in relation to education (see section 3 of the Act).

Standards 1.3


Rationale

• The theoretical basis of Disability Standards is that they shift the burden of ensuring that ‘equality of opportunity’ is delivered to people with disabilities from individual complainants (students) to social institutions (schools)– DDA remedy – student must prove direct or indirect

discrimination in the way education services are provided

– Standards – obligation on education providers to make reasonable adjustment

• This shift is consistent with the ‘social mode’l of disability – disability is, in large part, caused by the failure of society to accommodate impairment.


What is Disability? DDA s 4; Standards 1.4

(a) total or partial loss of the person’s bodily or mental functions; or

(b) total or partial loss of a part of the body; or

(c) the presence in the body of organisms causing disease or illness; or

(d) the presence in the body of organisms capable of causing disease or illness; or

(e) the malfunction, malformation or disfigurement of a part of the person’s body; or

(f) a disorder or malfunction that results in the person learning differently from a person without the disorder or malfunction; or

(g) a disorder, illness or disease that affects a person’s thought processes, perception of reality, emotions or judgment or that results in disturbed behaviour;

and includes a disability that:

(h) presently exists; or

(i) previously existed but no longer exists; or

(j) may exist in the future; or

(k) is imputed to a person.

To avoid doubt, a disability that is otherwise covered by this definition includes behaviour that is a symptom or manifestation of the disability.


Disability

• Disability is very broadly defined:– Physical– Intellectual– Behavioural– Psychiatric– Sensory

• Definition of disability explicitly includes learning disorders:– ‘a disorder or malfunction that results in the person

learning differently from a person without the disorder or malfunction’


Impairment/Disability• Covers Education Queensland ‘verification’ categories

– Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD)– Hearing Impairment (HI)– Intellectual Impairment (II)– Physical Impairment (PI)– Speech-Language Impairment (SLI)– Vision Impairment (VI)– Social Emotional Disorder (SED) – not State schools…

• And more– Learning disabilities eg dyslexia– Behavioural disabilities eg ADHD– Others eg epilepsy, depression, schizophrenia

• Temporary, intermittent, permanent, (DDA) future


Effect of the Standards

• Cover a number of key aspects of the delivery of education services: – enrolment (Part 4)– participation (Part 5)– curriculum development, accreditation and delivery

(Part 6)– student support services (Part 7)– elimination of harassment and victimization (Part 8)


Effect of the Standards

• For each aspect, the Standards set out – student rights, ‘consistent with the rights of the rest of

the community’– the legal obligation of education providers – to take

‘reasonable steps’ to ensure students with disabilities enjoy those rights ‘on the same basis’ as other students

– ‘measures of compliance’

• The overarching obligation is to make ‘reasonable adjustment’


Walker v State of Victoria [2011] FCA 258 (23 March 2011)

• Case alleging discrimination and breach of the Disability Standards

• ‘The Disability Standards require no more of a government agency such as the Department than that, where necessary, it be alert to the need to adjust its normal practices when dealing with a disabled student; to consider, in consultation with the student or his or her parents, what reasonable adjustments to normal practices should be made to assist the student, and then to decide whether a particular adjustment is necessary and, if so, to implement it.’ [274]


What is an adjustment?

For these Standards, each of the following is an adjustment:

(a) a measure or action (or a group of measures or actions) taken by an education provider that has the effect of assisting a student with a disability:

(i) in relation to an admission or enrolment — to apply for the

admission or enrolment; and

(ii) in relation to a course or program — to participate in the

course or program; and

(iii) in relation to facilities or services — to use the facilities or

services;

on the same basis as a student without a disability, and includes an aid, a facility, or a service that the student requires because of his or her disability...

Standards 3.3


Consultation

Before the education provider makes an adjustment for the student, the education provider must consult the student, or an associate of the student, about:

(a) whether the adjustment is reasonable; and(b) the extent to which the adjustment would

achieve …[inclusion] in relation to the student; and(c) whether there is any other reasonable

adjustment that would be less disruptive and intrusive and no less beneficial for the student.Standards 3.5


Walker v State of Victoria [2011] FCA 258 (23 March 2011)

• ‘[The Standards] require a school to consult a student or his or her parents about prescribed matters.

• They do not, however, require that such consultation take any particular form or occur at any particular time.

• Those involved may meet formally or informally. • Discussions can be instigated by either the school or the

parents. • Consultation may occur in face-to-face meetings, in the

course of telephone conversations or in exchanges of correspondence.’ [284]


What is a reasonable adjustment?

(1) For these Standards, an adjustment is reasonable in relation to a student with a disability if it balances the interests of all parties affected.

Note Judgements about what is reasonable for a particular student, or a group of students, with a particular disability may change over time...

Standards 3.4


Limits on reasonable adjustment

An adjustment will not be required • if it is not ‘reasonable’• if it would cause unjustifiable hardship [Standards 10.2]

• if it would be inconsistent with an act authorized by law [Standards 10.3]

• if it would jeopardize the health of a student with disabilities or the health of other students [Standards

10.4]

• Special measures [Standards 10.5]


Authorised by law

(1) This Part does not render unlawful anything done by a person in direct compliance with:

(b) an order of a court...

(2) This Part does not render unlawful anything done by a person in direct compliance with a prescribed law.

Standards 10.3/DDA s 47


Protection of public health

These Standards do not render it unlawful for an education provider to isolate, or discriminate against, a student with a disability if the disability is an infectious disease or other condition and it is reasonably necessary to so isolate or discriminate to protect the health and welfare of the student with a disability or the health and welfare of others.

Standards 10.4


Special measures

(1)These Standards do not render it unlawful for an education provider to provide special measures (including specialised units or institutions) intended specifically for the benefit of students with disabilities...

Note Special measures are intended specifically for the benefit of students with disabilities, and can take the form of programs or initiatives that afford students with disabilities, or with a particular disability, benefits, grants, programs, goods, or access to facilities, services or opportunities to meet their special needs in relation to education and training. However, providing specialised support services will not necessarily be sufficient to eliminate discrimination.Standards 10.5


Reasonableness(1)...

(2) In assessing whether a particular adjustment for a student is reasonable, regard should be had to all the relevant circumstances and interests, including the following:

(a) the student’s disability;

(b) the views of the student or the student’s associate, given under section 3.5;

(c) the effect of the adjustment on the student, including the effect on the student’s:

(i) ability to achieve learning outcomes; and

(ii) ability to participate in courses or programs; and

(iii) independence;

(d) the effect of the proposed adjustment on anyone else affected, including the education provider, staff and other students;

(e) the costs and benefits of making the adjustment.• Standards 3.4


Unjustifiable Hardship

The provider must comply with the Standards to the maximum extent not involving unjustifiable hardship.

Note Section 11 of the Act provides that, for the purposes of the Act, in determining what constitutes unjustifiable hardship, all relevant circumstances of the particular case are to be taken into account including:

(a) the nature of the benefit or detriment likely to accrue or be suffered by any persons concerned; and

(b) the effect of the disability of a person concerned; and

(c) the financial circumstances and the estimated amount of

expenditure required to be made by the person claiming unjustifiable hardship; and

(d) in the case of the provision of services, or the making available of facilities — an action plan given to the Commission under section 64 of the Act.

Standards 10.2(3)


In summary, adjustment required if...

• It is reasonable taking into account– Disability – views of student– Effect on student– Effect on others– Cost and benefits

• And, it does not impose unjustifiable hardship– Benefit/detriment to anyone concerned– Effect of disability– Financial circumstances of provider of service


Who decides what’s reasonable?

• Walker v State of Victoria [2011] FCA 258 (23 March 2011)• ‘Once consultation has occurred it is for the school to determine

whether any adjustment is necessary in order to ensure that the student is able, in a meaningful way, to participate in the programmes offered by the school.

• The school is not bound, in making these decisions, by the opinions or wishes of professional advisers or parents.

• The school is also required to determine whether any reasonable adjustment is possible in order to further the prescribed aims.

• There may, therefore, be cases in which an adjustment is necessary but no reasonable adjustment is able to be identified which will ensure that the objectives contained in the relevant Disability Standards are achieved.’ [284]


Who decides what’s reasonable?

• Sievwright v State of Victoria [2012] FCA 118 (21 February 2012) • Jade’s teachers, being qualified education providers, were in the

best position to understand the breadth of her educational needs…Reasonable minds may differ as to the precise scope of intervention required for any particular child [164]


Case law guidelines • Only two cases so far which considers in any detail the

effect of the Standards– Walker; affirmed Walker v State of Victoria [2012] FCAFC 38

(22 March 2012)– Sievwright

• Can also look at past discrimination cases for guidance– If a court considering a discrimination claim found an adjustment

was unreasonable or would have caused unjustifiable hardship then it is likely it would be treated the same way in the context of the Standards.

• Legislation prohibits two varieties of discrimination: DIRECT and INDIRECT


Disability discrimination

• Complainant argues:• School failed to make reasonable adjustment• Failure amounts to direct or indirect discrimination

• Court will consider:• Whether reasonable adjustment has been made• Whether elements of direct or indirect discrimination proven

• Decided cases:• May set a ‘precedent’ re what the law (eg DDA)means• But outcomes are examples only of how law has been

applied – each case ‘turns on its facts’


Disability discrimination

• Note that intention is usually irrelevant – you don’t have to intend to discriminate in order to discriminate

• You might be motivated by ‘altruism’, might think you are doing the ‘right’ or ‘best’ thing, but might nevertheless be found to have discriminated. – See, eg, I v O’Rourke and Corinda State High School

and Minister for Education for Queensland [2001] QADT 1


Direct Discrimination• Direct discrimination arises when there is ‘less favourable treatment’

of the complainant.• Whether treatment is ‘less favourable’ is determined by comparing

the treatment of the complainant with the treatment of another without the complainant's disability in ‘circumstances which are not materially different’. See DDA s 5

• Limit: proof of unjustifiable hardship on the education provider will defeat a claim of direct discrimination

• Classic example of ‘less favourable treatment’:– student with disability not enrolled/excluded, student without

disability enrolled/not excluded.• See, for example, Hills Grammar School v Human Rights and Equal

Opportunity Commission [2000] EOC ¶93-081


Indirect discriminationIndirect discrimination is also called ‘facially neutral’ or ‘hidden’ or ‘institutional’ discrimination. It occurs when treating people in the same way has a discriminatory effect on those with a protected attribute.

1. Condition placed upon the inclusion of the person with disability [usually inferred from the facts]; and

2. The person with disability cannot comply with the condition; and

Either (most State acts)

3. persons without the disability can comply with the condition; and

4. The condition is ‘not reasonable’

Or (DDA, s 6)

3. The requirement or condition has, or is likely to have, the effect of disadvantaging persons with the disability; and

4. The condition is ‘not reasonable’

Limit: proof that the condition is reasonable will defeat a claim of direct discrimination


Indirect discrimination

• Classic example– Condition: you must be able to use steps to attend this school– A student with a mobility impairment cannot use steps– Students without a mobility impairment can use steps/condition

will disadvantage the student with the disability impairment– The term may or may not be reasonable depending on the

circumstances

• Compare Kinsela v Queensland University of Technology [1997] HREOC No H97/4] and A School v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1998) 55 ALD 93


DDA and Reasonable adjustment

• Since 2009, DDA has expressly provided that a failure to make reasonable adjustment may amount to discrimination: see DDA ss 5 and 6


Enrolment rights

‘The effect of the following Standards is to give prospective students with disabilities the right to enrol in an educational institution on the same basis as prospective students without disabilities, including the right to reasonable adjustments that are necessary to ensure that they are able to so enrol on the same basis as prospective students without disabilities’ Standards 4.1


Enrolment rights

• More about the enrolment Standards this afternoon…


Participation rights

‘The effect of the following Standards is to give students with disabilities the right to participate in the courses or programs, and to use services and facilities, provided by an educational institution, on the same basis as students without disabilities, including the right to reasonable adjustments, where necessary, to ensure they are able to participate in education and training, on the same basis as students without disabilities.’

Standards 5.1


Measures of compliance – participation Standards 5.3

(a) the course or program activities are sufficiently flexible for the student to be able to participate in them; and

(b) course or program requirements are reviewed, in the light of information provided by the student, or an associate of the student, to include activities in which the student is able to participate; and

(c) appropriate programs necessary to enable participation by the student are negotiated, agreed and implemented; and…

Standards 5.3


Measures of compliance – participation Standards 5.3

(d) additional support is provided to the student where necessary, to assist him or her to achieve intended learning outcomes; and

(e) where a course or program necessarily includes an activity in which the student cannot participate, the student is offered an activity that constitutes a reasonable substitute within the context of the overall aims of the course or program; and

(f) any activities that are not conducted in classrooms, and associated extra-curricular activities or activities that are part of the broader educational program, are designed to include the student.


Ramifications of participation Standards

• Courses and activities designed to be inclusive – incorporate activities which can be engaged in by ALL students including those with disabilities (but NB academic standards exception – later)

• Support provided to allow participation – eg teacher aide support, equipment

• ‘Reasonable substitutes’ provided where participation not possible

• Extra curricular activities (eg excursions) designed to be inclusive


I v O’Rourke and Corinda SHS and Minister for Education Qld [2001] QADT 1 (31 January 2001)

(mobility and intellectual impairment)1. Complainant excluded from excursion to Tangalooma because

school claimed barge not wheelchair accessible and offered alternative of trip to Indooroopilly Shoppingtown – direct discrimination; $3000 for loss of enjoyment of the excursion but held insufficient evidence of educational disadvantage to warrant damages on that ground – Indooroopilly excursion was ‘from a learning perspective … just as advantageous as the trip to Tangalooma island.’

2. School Formal held at the Greek Club which meant complainant would have had to be carried up the steps –not indirect discrimination – reasonable because of cost, and, to a lesser extent, security and supervision issues.

3. School Graduation dinner held on the Island which had poor wheelchair access –not indirect discrimination – reasonable


Kinsela v QUT [1997] HREOC No H97/4 (mobility impairment – use of wheelchair)

• Kinsela had completed the degree Bachelor of Science (Human Services) at QUT.

• One focus of the degree was disability services and the course materials indicated a strong commitment to ‘civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights’ for all people.

• Commissioner Atkinson noted the policy inconsistency between these course materials issued by QUT and Mr Kinsela’s exclusion by QUT from full participation in the graduation ceremony.

• Further, Commissioner Atkinson emphasised ‘the undoubted goals of the Act of inclusiveness, accessibility and availability’ and cautioned that as anti-discrimination legislation has introduced change, so the university must change.


Sluggett v Flinders University of SA [2000] HREOC No H96/2;

AJ v A School [1998] HREOC No. H97/168(mobility impairments)

Sluggett:• Access to classrooms and facilities• Access to work placements• Sluggett failed but on the basis that she had not alerted

administration to her problems (more on this point later)

AJ v A School:• Student could not access upper level class rooms• Action failed because school had offered a reasonable

alternative – AJ could have changed ‘house’ to one with classes held in accessible rooms


Grimshaw v QUT [2004] QADT 5 (back pain)

• Access and technology• Poorly pleaded but an indirect discrimination case• Infer an argument that a term imposed that complainant be able to

access a computer to change his tutorial enrolment; exacerbated by QUT rule that passwords be kept confidential, so couldn’t give someone else the password get them to change enrolment

• Dismissed as ‘trivial, misconceived both factually and legally and lacking in substance’. See ADA (Qld) s 215A. Held couldn’t use his computer because it was broken not because of disability and also that there were alternative mechanisms available to change enrolment

• Grimshaw lost but should be aware that need to make alternatives available to technologies that potentially exclude people with disabilities. QUT had done so in this case

• Applies to the curriculum Standards as well


Curriculum rights

‘The effect of the following Standards is to give students with disabilities the right to participate in educational courses or programs that are designed to develop their skills, knowledge and understanding, including relevant supplementary programs, on the same basis as students without disabilities’

Standards 6.1


Measures of compliance – curriculum Standards 6.3

(a) the curriculum, teaching materials, and the assessment and certification requirements for the course or program are appropriate to the needs of the student and accessible to him or her; and

(b) the course or program delivery modes and learning activities take account of intended educational outcomes and the learning capacities and needs of the student; and

(c) the course or program study materials are made available in a format that is appropriate for the student and, where conversion of materials into alternative accessible formats is required, the student is not disadvantaged by the time taken for conversion; and


Measures of compliance – curriculum Standards 6.3

(d) the teaching and delivery strategies for the course or program are adjusted to meet the learning needs of the student and address any disadvantage in the student’s learning resulting from his or her disability, including through the provision of additional support, such as bridging or enabling courses, or the development of disability-specific skills; and

(e) any activities that are not conducted in a classroom, such as field trips, industry site visits and work placements, or activities that are part of the broader course or educational program of which the course or program is a part, are designed to include the student; and

(f) the assessment procedures and methodologies for the course or program are adapted to enable the student to demonstrate the knowledge, skills or competencies being assessed.


Ramifications of curriculum Standards

Reasonable adjustment likely to require: • adjustment to the format and delivery of course

materials• adjustment to the format, time allowed for and

scheduling of assessment items • course materials delivered in a supportive

setting with access to both academic staff, and expert counsellors


Curriculum standard

• More on assessment later today…


Beanland v State of Queensland& Anor [2008] QADT 5

(physical and vision impairment)

• The complainant could not read or write.• He was commencing Year 11 at Corinda State High and wanted to

study English and German. Alleged that he was discriminated against in that the school insisted that he would have to be able to read and write to complete assessment.

• Before the matter was settled, complainant left the school and enrolled at another school.

• Held no discrimination in that the school were willing to work out special consideration arrangements that would have allowed the complainant to study English and German

• Tribunal said it was unsatisfactory, however, that someone be expected to commence study of a subject without knowing what special consideration would be available.


Hinchliffe v University of Sydney [2004] FMCA 85 (17 August 2004) (vision impairment)

• Hjgh achieving student claimed University of Sydney had failed to provide course materials to her in an accessible form in a timely fashion.

• Driver FM found that the actions of University disability support staff were ‘sufficient and adequate’.

• Evidence that after initially requestion materials in an enlarged font on green paper she came to prefer taped materials. At first, did not communicate this change in preference to administration. Slower process to tape materials.


Support services rights

‘The effect of the following Standards is to give students with disabilities rights in relation to student support services provided by educational authorities and institutions, on the same basis as students without disabilities.

The Standards also give students with disabilities rights in relation to specialised services needed for them to participate in the educational activities for which they are enrolled. These services include specialist expertise, personal educational support or support for personal and medical care, without which some students with disabilities would not be able to access education and training’

Standards 7.1


Measures of compliance – student support Standards 7.3

(a)staff of education providers are aware of the specialised services available for the student and are provided with information that enables them to assist the student to access the services that the student needs; and

(b) the provision of specialised services for the student, where necessary, is facilitated, including through collaborative arrangements with specialised service providers; and

(c) any necessary specialised equipment is provided to support the student in participating in the course or program; and

(d) appropriately trained support staff, such as specialist teachers, interpreters, note-takers and teachers’ aides, are made available to students with disabilities.


Ramifications of support services Standards

Three elements:• Staff made aware of support services available to

students with disabilities – ie staff training necessary• Support services available to all students must be

available to students with disabilities: eg careers guidance, general counselling

• Specialised support services and equipment must be made available to facilitate participation: eg ‘specialist teachers, interpreters, note-takers and teachers’ aides’; technology access equipment; external specialised support


Hurst and Devlin v Education Queensland [2005] FCA 405; Hurst v State of Queensland [2006]

FCAFC 100 (hearing impairment)

• Hurst and Devlin alleged discrimination in the failure of Education Queensland to provide them with Auslan interpreters to facilitate their learning

• Education Queensland would provide only signed English intepreters

• Devlin won at first instance and Hurst on appeal• Compare the similar ACT case Clarke v Catholic

Education Office & Anor [2003]202 ALR 340


Ferguson v Department of Further Education [2005] FMCA 954 (21 July 2005)

(hearing impairment)• Took seven years to complete a course which most

students completed in two and a half years.• Evidence that during his studies the amount of Auslan

(signed language) assistance he received varied from semester to semester: minimum of six hours a week, increasing at times to fifteen hours per week.

• Alleged indirect discrimination arising from a requirement that he ‘undertake his learning’ with only ‘limited assistance from an Auslan interpreter’.

• Raphael FM found that no such condition was imposed in that the complainant had ‘received all the interpreting assistance which he could usefully handle’.


One on one assistance?

• State of Victoria v Turner [2009] VSC 66 (4 March 2009) (language disorder, learning disorder, depressive disorder) (Victorian Supreme Court)• Condition imposed that student access education

without one on one fulltime support• Held that, on the evidence, the condition not

reasonable – upheld on appeal• Held on appeal that an order that the school provide

one on one assistance ‘beyond power’


One on one assistance

• Walker v State of Victoria (dyslexia, ADHD, Asperger’s Syndrome) (Full Federal Court)– Condition imposed that student access education

without one on one fulltime support– On the evidence, student could comply with condition

– at least in respect of some subjects– On the evidence, not necessary to provide full time

individual assistance or not unreasonable not to provide it


One on one assistance• Sievwright v State of Victoria (borderline intellectual

disability; speech impairment; processing disorder) (Federal Court)

• Condition that receive education without one on one assistance not unreasonable:– Cost; at times not eligible for govt funding (IQ cut off 70)

• Condition that receive education without access to tailored remedial programs not unreasonable– Effect on Jade of ‘isolation’ from the class

• Condition that receive education without access to a one on one speech pathology program not unreasonable– Poorly pleaded, Jade left the school before issue sorted;

appropriate to require Jade to ‘join the queue’ for access to support


One on one assistance and cost: Turner

• 102 Relevant considerations [re reasonableness]…include the cost of alternative conditions and the financial circumstances of the respondent. Evidence relevant to these considerations must be assessed by the Tribunal having regard to the practical realities of the situation facing the respondent and not hypothetically as if resources are unlimited.103 Where the State is the respondent to a claim alleging indirect discrimination in relation to education, the circumstances the Tribunal must consider include the fact that the State does not provide benefits to a single student (the complainant) in a single school but operates many schools with many students and that the education budget each year is not unlimited.104 Where the evidence before the Tribunal establishes that a decision by the Tribunal in favour of the complainant will have flow-on effects for the respondent in relation to other persons in a similar position to the complainant (for example, where the proceeding is a test case), the flow-on effects are a relevant consideration for the Tribunal. However, it is not for the Tribunal to speculate whether its decision will have flow-on effects for the respondent and what those effects might be. If the respondent wishes the Tribunal to take into account not only the direct but also the flow-on costs to it of a finding in favour of the complainant, it should present evidence of these costs and make it clear to the Tribunal in its submissions how the evidence is said to impact on the issues the Tribunal is required to determine.


One on one assistance: Sievwright• [207] The obligations of the State in respect of individual children must be considered alongside

the wider legal responsibilities which teachers and administrators owe to all students; see Purvis v State of New South Wales (Department of Education and Training)…and Walker…

• [209] Mr Tainsh gave evidence about the enormous cost that would be associated with providing a full time aide to all students who had a IQ in the vicinity of Jade’s before she qualified for the PSD (see [94] above). Such an imposition would double the current PSD budget requirements and result in a need for the State to engage 20,000 extra staff…

• [211]The public school system is structured upon education in groups and in a classroom, rather than individually... Jade’s teachers, and Mrs Hirth in particular, gave evidence that removing Jade from class for 90 minutes per day would make it more difficult for her to engage with the curriculum, and may also damage her ability to connect with her peers. Professor Anderson also stated that a balance must be struck between providing Jade with individual instruction and promoting her “connectedness with the classroom.”

• [214] It is not unreasonable for the State, with its finite resources, to maintain a waiting list for children to access speech therapy, where that list is prioritised according to the children’s needs and the availability of speech therapists. That Jade’s mother might be disappointed, or even out of pocket as a result of such a system, does not amount to the imposition of an unreasonable requirement concerning Jade’s access to education in the sense contemplated by s 6 of the DD Act.


Harassment and victimisation rights

‘The effect of the following Standards is to require strategies and programs to support the right of students with disabilities to education or training in an environment that is free from discrimination caused by harassment or victimisation on the basis of their disability.

The Standards also support the right of students who have associates with disabilities to an educational environment free from discrimination, harassment or victimisation in relation to those disabilities.’

Note The exception set out in section 10.2, relating to compliance that imposes unjustifiable hardship on an education provider, does not apply to a requirement in this Part’

Standards 8.2


Meaning of harassment

For these Standards, harassment:

(a) in relation to a person with a disability, includes an action taken in relation to the person’s disability that is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to humiliate, offend, intimidate or distress the person; and

(b) in relation to a person who has an associate with a disability, includes an action taken in relation to the associate’s disability that is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to humiliate, offend, intimidate or distress the person or the associate.

Note Harassment in education or training is unlawful under sections 37 and 38 of the Act (DDA)Standards 8.2


Meaning of victimisation

(1) It is an offence for a person to commit an act of victimisation against another person.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 6 months.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person is taken to commit an act of victimisation against another person if the first‑mentioned person subjects, or threatens to subject, the other person to any detriment on the ground that the other person:

(a) has made, or proposes to make, a complaint under this Act or the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 ; or

(b) has brought, or proposes to bring, proceedings under this Act or the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 against any person; or …[has done one of a variety of other acts relating to the bringing of an action under the DDA or HREOCA]

DDA s 42


Measures of compliance – harassment and vilification

Standards 8.5

(a) the provider’s policies, procedures and codes of conduct for its staff and students explicitly prohibit harassment and victimisation of students with disabilities, on the basis of disability, including:

(i) the need for individual strategies and adjustments for a student; and

(ii) the need to use such supports as a wheelchair, hearing aid, breathing support, an interpreter, a reader, an assistant or carer or a guide or hearing dog, or other appropriately trained animal; and

(b) the policies, procedures and codes of conduct for staff and students explicitly prohibit harassment and victimisation of the associates of students with disabilities, on the basis of disability; and

(c) the procedures for handling any cases or complaints of harassment and victimisation relating to disability are fair, transparent and accountable; and...


Measures of compliance – harassment and vilification

Standards 8.5

(d) the provider’s students and staff are effectively informed and reminded, at appropriate intervals, of their rights and responsibilities in maintaining an environment free from harassment and victimisation on the basis of disability; and

(e) the professional development programs offered to the provider’s staff ensure that policies, procedures and codes of conduct, including matters of harassment and victimisation, are known and understood by staff, and that staff are trained to detect, and deal with, harassment in education and training settings; and

(f) any cases or complaints of harassment or victimisation on the basis of disability are handled promptly and with due regard to the severity of the matter.

Standards 8.5


Ramifications of harassment/vilification Standards

• Generate specific policies, procedures and codes of conduct for STAFF and STUDENTS which explicitly prohibit harassment and victimisation.

• Develop complaints procedures which are fair, transparent and accountable

• Regular staff training in policies, procedures and codes of conduct. Staff trained to ‘detect and deal with’ harassment and victimisation.

• Student (including student with disability) awareness of policies, procedures and codes of conduct and of ‘rights and responsibilities’: posters? assemblies? class time?

• Complaints dealt with promptly.


Case example harassment and victimisation: Murphy and Grahl v The State of New South Wales (NSW Department of Education) and Wayne Houston [2000] HREOC NoH98/73 (Unreported,

Commissioner Carter, 27 March 2000) (mobility impairment)

• Complainant child was enrolled at mainstream primary school against the advice and wishes of the school’s principal

• Acts of discrimination which contributed to a ‘hostile’ environment and which could also fit the Standards definition of harassment include:• The placing of an industrial bin in the only accessible car park• Locking the only gate to the school accessible by wheelchair• Placing cartoons and comments disparaging of people with

disabilities on the notice board in a staff room where community meetings were also held


Relevance of Standards to action under State legislation

• Standards are Commonwealth legislation – what is their application to a state act? (Complainant chooses act)

• DDA s 13: (3) This Act is not intended to exclude or limit the operation of a law of a State or

Territory that is capable of operating concurrently with this Act.

(3A) Subsection (3) does not apply in relation to Division 2A of Part 2 (Disability Standards).’

• Constitution s 109:When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter

shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.

• Phu v NSW Department of Education and Training [2010] NSWADTAP 76 (25 November 2010):

‘the [NSW]Tribunal should have regarded the Standards as providing a norm or reasonable expectation of the standards an educational institution should seek to achieve and to that extent could be relevant to the Tribunal's decision...[but] its power did not extend to making determinations of breach of those Standards made under a Commonwealth Act.

• But, if have complied with the Standards, likely to have complied with state legislation

Documents

Queensland University of Technology CRICOS No. 000213J Disability Standards for Education: the obligation to make reasonable adjustment and ramifications