What Australian government agencies need to know
Picture this: Someone visits your agency’s website looking for essential information about a service they’re entitled to access. They use a screen reader. The content is there, everything’s a mess. Multiple H1s used for style rather than structure. Images of graphs with no alt text explaining the data. Online forms that are impossible to navigate.
Under current Australian legislation, if a user wants to make a complaint about lack of access, they have to prove your website is inaccessible.
But that’s about to flip.
Proposed changes to the current Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) will reverse the burden of proof. Instead of users having to prove your website is inaccessible, your agency will need to prove that it’s accessible.
And that’s a very different game for users and agencies.
What’s changing
Right now, when someone with disability experiences barriers on a website, the onus is on them to prove the site doesn’t meet accessibility standards.
Proposed changes to the DDA would flip this completely. Under the recommendations from the Disability Royal Commission, government agencies would need to prove that any unfavourable treatment of a person with disability (for example not being able to access an online service) was NOT because of their disability.
Currently, if someone experiences discrimination, they must show:
- they were treated less favourably than someone without disability
- this treatment was because of their disability.
The proposed changes would shift the burden. Once someone shows they experienced unfavourable treatment and they have a disability, the “duty holder” (that’s you, government agency) would need to prove the treatment wasn’t because of the disability.
What we like about this shift is that it recognises that people with disability can feel exhausted from having to constantly advocate for their rights. So, this legislative change is one fewer burden.
But for you as a duty holder, this means a need for evidence of accessibility – like proper documentation that your website, PDFs, forms, and everything else comply with accessibility standards. Not just a statement from the webmaster saying “I think it’s probably OK.”
This change to the DDA isn’t happening in a vacuum, either. It builds on existing requirements under the DDA and the Australian Government Digital Service Standard (DSS) 2.0, which says all public-facing services must meet Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2 standards from 1 July 2025. So the “burden of proof” change will add teeth to what should already be standard practice.
WCAG 2.2 has become the international standard ISO/IEC 40500:2025.
Why this matters (and why you should care now)
Your legal exposure just increased
When the burden of proof shifts, your risk changes significantly.
Without documented evidence of accessibility compliance, you’ll be in a much weaker position if someone files a complaint. The question changes from “Can users prove we’re non-compliant?” to “Can we prove our actions weren’t discriminatory?”
And if you can’t answer that second question confidently right now, you’ve got work to do.
Documentation becomes everything
Here’s the thing about proving accessibility – having an accessible website and being able to prove it are 2 completely different things. Many agencies genuinely believe their sites are accessible (and they might even be right), but they lack the comprehensive documentation that the new framework will require.
You’ll need to maintain records of:
- accessibility audits and what they found
- remediation work and timelines
- ongoing monitoring and testing
- governance processes
- staff training
- pretty much everything accessibility-related you’ve done.
Budget planning becomes critical
There’s a massive cost difference between proactive accessibility planning and reactive crisis management.
Agencies that wait until they’re facing a complaint will find themselves juggling remediation costs, potential legal costs, reputational damage and the expense of trying to fix everything yesterday.
Setting aside a budget now for comprehensive audits and planned improvements? Much more cost-effective. (And much less stressful for everyone involved.)
The shift to proactive prevention
Here’s another change that’s coming – a “positive duty” to eliminate discrimination.
The Disability Royal Commission has recommended introducing a positive duty that’s similar to what already exists in the Sex Discrimination Act. This would require duty holders to proactively take reasonable and proportionate steps to eliminate disability discrimination. Not wait until someone complains. Not fix things after they’re broken. Not place the burden on the complainant. Prevent discrimination from happening in the first place.
What this means for your website
For government websites, this means:
- regular accessibility audits (not just one-off assessments)
- documented processes for maintaining accessibility
- training for staff who create and manage digital content
- clear policies on accessibility requirements and governance
- systems to identify and fix issues before users encounter them.
The positive duty would also enable the Australian Human Rights Commission to enforce compliance. So it’s not just about individual complaints anymore. The AHRC could step in if your agency isn’t taking appropriate steps to prevent discrimination.
This shifts the entire framework from “Fix it when someone complains” to “Make sure it doesn’t happen in the first place”, which is how we think it should’ve been all along.
Service delivery expectations evolve
Beyond the compliance stuff, this change reflects what should already be happening – designing digital services that work for all Australians, regardless of ability.
Under the DDA, everyone must have equal access to government services and information. The burden of proof change just brings the legal framework into line with good service delivery.
What “proving accessibility” actually looks like
Some agencies might run an automated checker, see a green tick and think, “Great! We’re sorted.”
Not quite.
Automated tools can only detect about 30 to 40% of accessibility issues. The rest needs expert human evaluation. (Turns out robots aren’t great at understanding context or user experience. Who would’ve guessed?)
Your evidence base needs to cover 4 main areas:
- Content: Is your content in plain language? Does it follow proper heading structures? Does the information make sense? Are calls to action clear?
- UX design: How have user journeys been designed and tested with people using assistive technologies? Can you demonstrate that navigation, forms and interactive elements work for everyone?
- Visual design: Do colour contrasts meet minimum standards? Is typography accessible? Do you provide alternatives when information is conveyed through colour alone? Are images properly described?
- Technical implementation: Does your code meet WCAG 2.2 Level AA standards? Are ARIA labels used correctly? Is keyboard navigation fully functional? Have you tested across different browsers and assistive technologies?
You need evidence of compliance across all 4 areas. Not just one or 2.
The 4 pillars for auditing
Think of accessibility like 4 pillars supporting a roof. Remove one pillar and the whole thing becomes unstable.
1. Content
Content accessibility goes way beyond the words on a page. It includes plain language, readability scores, semantic heading structures, meaningful link text, clear calls to action, and appropriate captions and transcripts for multimedia content.
2. UX design
Can users actually accomplish their tasks on your site? This means testing user journeys with assistive technologies, evaluating navigation patterns, assessing form usability and making sure interactive elements work for everyone. Not just people who use a mouse and can see well.
3. Graphic design
Visual choices shouldn’t create barriers. This covers sufficient colour contrast, accessible typography, meaningful alternative text for images, ensuring information isn’t only conveyed through colour, and designs that work across different screen sizes and zoom levels.
4. Technical implementation
The code behind your website must meet technical standards. This means valid HTML, proper ARIA implementation, keyboard accessibility, focus management, error handling and compatibility with assistive technologies. It’s the foundation that enables everything else to work.
Miss one pillar and you’ll struggle to prove compliance.
Why you need to start now
Budget cycles wait for no one
Budget planning cycles are narrow windows. If you wait until the burden of proof changes are officially enacted, you’ll be competing with every other agency for the same accessibility expertise and resources.
Good luck with that.
Time is not on your side
A thorough accessibility audit and remediation work takes time. Depending on the size of your digital ecosystem, size and complexity, you might need 6 to 12 months or more to move from audit to compliance. Starting now means you’ll be ready when (not if) legislative changes take effect.
Early movers get the advantage
Plus, there are advantages to being ahead of the curve. You’ll have your pick of experienced consultants, more flexibility in timelines and the opportunity to build accessibility into your procurement and governance processes before it becomes urgent. You’ll also gain reputation points for demonstrating leadership in inclusive service delivery.
(And let’s be honest, nobody wants to be the agency scrambling at the last minute while everyone watches.)
Building it into your DNA
Most importantly, starting now means embedding accessibility into your organisation’s DNA rather than treating it as a one-off compliance exercise. When accessibility becomes part of how you work – built into contracts, procurement, briefings, training and quality assurance – ongoing compliance becomes manageable rather than overwhelming.
What a smart approach looks like
Forward-thinking agencies start with a baseline audit. Not just identifying problems, but understanding the scope of work required, prioritising improvements based on user impact and business value, and creating realistic timelines.
From there, you develop an implementation roadmap that breaks work into phases:
- Immediate actions (0 to 3 months): Quick wins like adding alt text to images, improving colour contrast, fixing critical WCAG violations. The low-hanging fruit that makes a real difference.
- Medium-term improvements (3 to 12 months): Content rewrites for readability, template fixes, systematic remediation of common issues. The meatier work that takes planning and resources.
- Long-term embedding (12+ months): Training programs, governance frameworks, procurement process changes, ongoing monitoring systems. Making accessibility part of business as usual.
The most successful agencies also establish governance and monitoring frameworks from the start. Clear roles and responsibilities, regular compliance checking (both automated and manual), escalation paths for issues and allocated budget for ongoing work.
And they invest in building internal capability through training. When your content creators, designers, developers and procurement officers understand accessibility requirements, you create sustainable compliance rather than relying solely on external audits.
The real goal: embedding accessibility
The ultimate goal is to become an accessibility-first organisation where accessibility isn’t something you bolt on at the end or fix when someone complains. It’s baked into every decision from the start – from initial project briefs to procurement contracts to final quality checks.
Here’s the thing about designing for accessibility … everyone benefits!
- Clear headings and plain language? Easier for everyone to scan and understand.
- Good colour contrast? Helps people reading on their phones in bright sunlight.
- Properly structured forms? Less frustrating for absolutely everyone trying to complete them.
- Keyboard navigation? Essential for people using assistive tech, but also handy for power users who prefer keyboard shortcuts.
Time to have the conversation
The burden of proof reversal isn’t just a legislative tweak, it’s a fundamental shift in how government agencies need to think about digital accessibility.
The question is no longer whether your website might be inaccessible. It’s whether you can prove it is accessible.
For agencies willing to get ahead of this, it’s an opportunity to reduce legal risk, improve service delivery, and genuinely include all Australians in accessing government services.
Questions to ask yourself right now
- When was your last accessibility audit?
- Can you prove your website meets WCAG 2.2?
- Do you have documentation of accessibility testing?
- Is accessibility built into your procurement processes?
- Who owns accessibility in your organisation?
- Do you have budget set aside for accessibility?
If you’re uncertain about any of these, now’s the time to start the conversation.
At True North Content, we’ve been helping government agencies navigate accessibility requirements for over 10 years. We can help you understand your current state, create a realistic roadmap for improvement and build governance frameworks that keep you compliant long after the legislative changes take effect.
Need an audit?
Learn more about how we run accessibility audits. If you would like to discuss how we can help your agency prepare for the accountability shift, get in touch.
