Accessibility statement requirements in Australia
Who actually has to publish one, what government guidance expects, what a good statement contains, and the mistakes that turn a statement into a liability.
Overview
Is an accessibility statement legally required in Australia?
No Australian law compels any organisation to publish an accessibility statement, public sector or private. But the practical picture is different. The Australian Government Style Manual instructs agencies to include one, the Digital Inclusion Standard requires content in line with the Style Manual, and the AHRC guidelines list publishing a statement among the good practice steps for meeting obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act. Federal agencies effectively need one, suppliers are increasingly asked for one in tenders, and for everyone else it is the cheapest piece of accessibility risk management available. You can generate a starter statement free with our tool.
Who needs one, in practice
- Australian Government agencies: effectively required. The Style Manual tells agencies to include an accessibility statement that explains how WCAG has been addressed, the technical specifications tested, and the agency's commitment. Because the Digital Inclusion Standard under the Digital Experience Policy requires content in line with the Style Manual, a statement is part of demonstrating compliance rather than an optional extra.
- Government suppliers: expected in evidence. Agencies buying digital products commonly ask for a public accessibility statement alongside an independent audit and a VPAT or Accessibility Conformance Report. Our supplier checklist covers the full evidence set.
- Everyone else: recommended, not mandated. The AHRC's good practice guidance includes providing a statement and an accessible way for people to report barriers. Unlike the UK and EU, where public sector statements are legally mandated in a prescribed format, Australia relies on this guidance layer. Organisations operating internationally often publish one statement that satisfies the stricter overseas rules and Australia at the same time.
What a good statement contains
W3C guidance on accessibility statements is the accepted reference. At minimum:
- A genuine commitment. One or two sentences on what accessibility means for your organisation, not boilerplate.
- The standard applied. For Australian organisations that is WCAG 2.2 Level AA, plus PDF/UA if you publish documents.
- A working contact route. An email address and an accessible form so someone who hits a barrier can tell you. This is also the AHRC's expectation, and a barrier report you fix quietly is a complaint that never happens.
A stronger statement adds the things evaluators and complainants actually check:
- Conformance status, honestly stated. Fully conformant, partially conformant with named limitations, or a target with a date.
- Known limitations and workarounds. Named, specific, with remediation timeframes.
- How it was tested. Independent audit, assistive technology testing, automated checks, and when.
- A review date. A statement last touched years ago tells its own story.
The mistakes that turn a statement into a liability
- Claiming full conformance without an audit. If a complaint or tender evaluation tests the claim and it fails, the statement becomes evidence that you knew the standard and misrepresented your position. Partially conformant with a dated plan is a perfectly respectable status; the W3C conformance model is built for it.
- No contact route, or a dead one. A statement that offers no way to report barriers fails the AHRC's core expectation, and an unmonitored inbox is worse than none.
- Letting it go stale. Sites change every release. A statement should carry a review date and be revisited whenever significant changes ship.
- Writing it for lawyers instead of users. The audience is a person who cannot complete your checkout. Plain language, findable from every page footer.
How to produce one
The fastest path: run our free Accessibility Statement Generator, which builds a starter statement aligned to WCAG 2.2 AA from a few questions about your organisation. To make the statement mean something, back it with an independent WCAG 2.2 AA audit so the conformance status and known limitations are facts rather than hopes. ExceedAbility delivers the audit, the statement wording and the conformance reporting as a single package, so your public statement, your VPAT and your remediation plan all tell the same story.
Common questions about accessibility statements
Plain answers to what organisations ask us most often.
Should a statement claim full WCAG compliance?
Only if an independent audit supports it, which is rare. The W3C conformance model allows partially conformant statements that name known limitations, and an honest statement with dated remediation plans reads far better to evaluators and the AHRC than an unsupported claim of perfection. Overclaiming turns the statement from protection into evidence against you.
How is an accessibility statement different from a VPAT or ACR?
The statement is public and written for users: what standard you target, where you stand and how to reach you. A VPAT or Accessibility Conformance Report is a procurement document written for evaluators, reporting conformance criterion by criterion from an independent audit. Mature organisations hold both, and they should agree with each other.
Where should the statement live?
On its own page, linked from every page footer, written in plain language. If you publish documents, cover them too. You can see our own accessibility statement as a worked example, and yes, it honestly states our known limitations.
Can ExceedAbility write ours?
Yes. The free Statement Generator produces a solid starter. For a statement backed by evidence, we pair it with an independent WCAG 2.2 AA audit so the conformance status and limitations are verified. Reach us at [email protected].
Need a statement backed by evidence?
Get an independent accessibility review and a statement that holds up to scrutiny.
Request an Accessibility Audit