21 October 2025
Disability Discrimination Act Review team Attorney-General’s Department Via email: DDAReview@ag.gov.au
Dear DDA team
Re: Disability Discrimination Act 1992 Review (DDA review)
The City of Stonnington (Stonnington) welcomes the opportunity to provide a submission to the Review of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA).
We conducted internal consultation and external consultation with our Stonnington Disability Advisory Committee (SDAC). Information provided in section 2 reflects the feedback from the SDAC. Information provided in section 3 reflects the feedback from Council.
1. Context - the City of Stonnington
Stonnington is located in Melbourne’s inner south-east, alongside the Birrarung / Yarra River, covering an area of 25.63 square kilometres. Stonnington is close to the centre of Melbourne and takes in the suburbs of Armadale, Kooyong, Malvern, Malvern East, Prahran, Toorak and parts of Glen Iris, South Yarra and Windsor. Stonnington is situated on the traditional land of the Wurundjeri Woi Wurrung and Bunurong peoples.
The estimated resident population for 2023 was 111,335. It is anticipated that the municipality will experience population growth of over 20 per cent from 2023 to 2036. Stonnington has a culturally and economically diverse population. The housing stock ranges from some of Melbourne’s finest mansions to large blocks of public housing, an indication of the community’s contrasting lifestyles, needs and expectations.
12.8% of Stonnington’s community identify as living with a disability or chronic health condition, based on responses from the 2023 Victorian Population Health Survey. Additionally, approximately 12% of Stonnington identify as unpaid carers. Stonnington’s Health and Wellbeing Strategy 2025-29 and Disability Inclusion Plan 2023-26 demonstrate Council’s commitment to improving disability inclusion and access and provide a framework to work towards a fully inclusive community where all can benefit from the services and facilities Council provides.
2. Stonnington Disability Advisory Committee Feedback:
Part 1: Updating understandings of disability and disability discrimination
The City of Stonnington has a Disability Advisory Committee consisting of 11 community members who are:
- People with disability.
- Carers for someone with disability.
- Appointed representatives from local disability agencies.
Council sought feedback from the SDAC on the DDA Review which responded as follows:
1.1 Definition of disability
SDAC acknowledged the need for the definition of disability to align with diagnostic criteria, although it needs to consider the contemporary social overlays and be rights based. Additionally, the language needs to be modernised. However, it is most important that the DDA is clear, specific and without ambiguity so it can be a robust Act. The committee was of the view that it will be difficult to produce a document that is worded specifically enough for legal cases, as well as ensuring general community understanding.
1.2 Addressing discrimination and intersectionality
When addressing intersectionality, the DDA and other acts addressing discrimination on protected attributes should be under one authority. Moreover, when a case of discrimination goes to court, all bases or attributes that are believed to be the reason for discrimination should be dealt with in the one case. The Committee agreed the DDA should be simple for claimants to interact with. There should be no limit to the number of attributes and an ability to combine multiple or combined protective attributes.
1.3 Direct discrimination definition
SDAC noted that the words favourable and unfavourable within the definition are comparison words by nature, and hard to define. It was also of the view that the burden of proof should shift to the respondent, as reflected in the Disability Royal Commission recommendation.
1.4 Indirect discrimination
When defining indirect discrimination, the SDAC advised that the reasonableness element in the definition of indirect discrimination should be replaced by a legitimate and proportionate test. Alternatively, if the reasonableness element was retained and supplemented with a list of factors to consider is accepted, the list would need to be comprehensive. Furthermore, the SDAC did not see adequate reason to remove the statement ‘does not or would not comply or is not able or would not be able to comply’ from the definition.
1.5 Convention of the Right of Persons with Disabilities:
Regarding the way that the DDA refers to the Convention of the Right of Persons with Disabilities, the committee considered that the DDA needs to be specific about the roles of the convention and the Act.
Other comments:
- There needs to be greater onus on the duty holder such as an employer or Public Transport Victoria to seek to understand the person with disability’s needs and situation without being intrusive or requiring a diagnosis.
- Employers need to do far more than make reasonable accommodations.
- The justice system needs to make specific accommodations and concessions in the system to prevent abuse including making adjustments. For example, ensuring the communication needs of people with autism are met to ensure they understand their situation.
- The government has an obligation to build understanding and acceptance across our communities for people with disability.
3. City of Stonnington feedback
Council officers support the review to ensure the DDA better supports people with disability. However, there are a few considerations when reviewing the Act.
Alignment to State legislation
Council would want to ensure that the DDA is aligned with state legislation, including the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act. This will support the consistency and clear implementation of state and federal legislation.
Consideration of financial sustainability challenges
If there is adoption of the review’s recommendations, there must be consideration of the resources required to adhere to the new Act. Across states, Councils have differing capabilities to manage their revenue. For example, in Victoria, rate-capping significantly limits rate revenues available to Council. Moreover, the financial environment varies between councils within the same states; there must be consideration for individual organisations’ resources available to implement the Act. A one size fits all approach which does not provide resourcing to Councils for implementation may not be successful.
To avoid transferring unfunded compliance burdens to local governments, the Federal government should accompany any legislative change with clear technical guidance, transition timelines, and dedicated funding streams that enable councils to progressively embed positive-duty practices within existing asset management and accessibility programs. This further supports the feedback from Stonnington’s Disability Committee to either retain reasonable or employ the legitimate and proportionate test.
Heritage considerations
Within Stonnington and other inner-metro councils there are unique challenges to ensuring that infrastructure and buildings are as accessible as reasonably possible to people with disability. Challenges include existing historical architecture, narrow streets, cobblestones, significant trees and other infrastructure which is challenging and costly to amend. Significant Heritage Overlays also limit the redevelopment and retroactive upgrades that can be made to heritage buildings and amenities. Whilst Stonnington commits to improving accessibility for our community, delivering accessibility improvements across ageing public infrastructure is already a substantial, ongoing investment for councils operating under rate- capped budgets.
Transport Standards
Council supports reform to strengthen proactive monitoring and enforcement of Disability Standards, particularly the Transport Standards. A coordinated approach between Federal, State and local governments is needed to improve compliance outcomes across shared transport infrastructure.
Council strongly supports the objectives of the DDA and remains committed to ensuring equitable access to transport, parking and public spaces. Council recognises the importance of eliminating discrimination and improving inclusion for people with disability.
However, while supporting the intent of proposed reforms, including the introduction of a positive duty and strengthened enforcement mechanisms - Council has significant concerns about the potential financial and administrative pressures these changes could impose on local government.
Minimum requirements for Disability Inclusion Action Plans
Council understands the critical role of removing systemic barriers and upholding the rights of people with disability. When developing our Disability Inclusion Action Plan, Stonnington adheres to obligations under the Victorian Disability Act (2006), and supports the objectives of the Disability Discrimination Act (1992), Australia’s Disability Strategy (2021-2031) and Inclusive Victoria: State Disability Plan (2022-26). There is also consultation conducted with the community and people with lived experience to ensure frameworks reflect the specific needs of people residing in, working in, or visiting Stonnington.
As there is a vast range of duty holders, one set of minimum requirement guidelines for action plans would be inadequate. Different guidelines should reflect the type and size of a duty holder.
Non-prescriptive minimum requirements for local government Disability Inclusion Action Plans would support strategic alignment to state plans. Local government areas, even within the same state, can vary significantly in geographic area, population, finance, types of services they provide and context regarding whether they are urban, regional and rural. Thus, there must be flexibility in the guidelines for councils to tailor their action plans to reflect the specific needs of their individual populations.
City of STONNINGTON
Set review period for action plans
Several factors need to be considered regarding time frames, including the current financial
climate of local governments with constrained resources, the substantial time and resources required to renew, implement and develop action plans, and wider organisational strategies that are individual to duty holders.
Thus, a valid timeframe for action plans should be no less than 4 years to provide sufficient time and resources for local governments to carry out an action plan cycle. This is reflective of other state plans such as the Inclusive Victoria: state disability plan, local government health and wellbeing strategies and council plans.
Additionally, duty holders should be able to commence their action plan cycle at a time point that aligns with their wider organisational plans and strategies to ensure strategic alignment and better execution and follow through with actions they commit to within the Disability Inclusion Action Plan.
Summary of Council recommendations
- Provision of clear technical guidance, transition timelines and pathways, and dedicated funding support or co-investment mechanisms that support councils to progressively embed positive-duty practices within existing asset management and accessibility programs
- Consideration of aligning the DDA to relevant state legislation, such as the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act
- Consideration to varying resources available across different duty holders
- Consideration to the limitations to redevelopment in areas with heritage characteristics
- Disability Inclusion Action Plan minimum standards should be flexible depending on duty holder type and size
- Disability Inclusion Action Plan minimum standards that are non-prescriptive that allow for flexibility for councils to tailor their action plans to reflect the specific needs of their individual populations
- Disability Inclusion Action Plan life cycle of no less than 4 year
- Flexibility in the timeframe to commence the Disability Inclusion Action Plan life cycle to allow for councils to strategically align with wider organisational plans and strategies.
Stonnington thanks the committee for the opportunity to provide input to this important review.
Please contact redacted
should you require further information.
Yours sincerely
redacted
Dale Dickson PSM Chief Executive Officer Stonnington City Centre PO Box 58, Malvern Victoria 3144 City of Stonnington 311 Glenferrie Road, Malvern
Stonnington Services and
Visitor Hub
redacted
stonnington.vic.gov.au