Ms Gillian Kearns:

It would be really helpful if we changed the language. I know the language is in the law and is listed as "reasonable accommodations" in the law, but who is getting to determine what is reasonable? It is unfortunately not the disabled person who is getting to determine what is reasonable at the moment. That is a huge issue because people can be denied as it is an ambiguous term in a lot of ways. I know there is the stuff about nominal costs and things like that, but people are being denied things and they have no legal route. As I highlighted earlier, there is very little support or legal recourse for people if they are being discriminated against on the basis of disability. They cannot get support. They could have the clearest case that you could see, but there is nobody there to support them. Changing the language around the idea of reasonable accommodations and basing it on human rights and the denial of access rights would go some way to ensuring that people's rights are being met. That is what is happening. People's rights are being denied and we need to use language that reflects that. The term "accommodations" makes it sound as if it is at the behest of somebody and they are bestowing something upon the disabled person out of the goodness of their heart. That is not what is happening here. People are being denied their rights to work and education.