Melville rejects new disability inclusion plan, cites fears of budget blowout

Melville council has rejected a new disability and inclusion plan that would have seen provisions for those experiencing homelessness, First Nations people and LGBTQIA + people recognised amid budget concerns.

At a December 12 meeting, councillors opted not to proceed with the Better Together Melville Access and Inclusion Plan, which was said to go “further” than the previous plan by including “all people who experience barriers in community life” but came with fears of a sizeable price tag.

The plan — prepared by City of Melville staff — identified a series of outcomes to ensure equitable access to buildings and facilities, information and services and was developed in consultation with people with lived experience.

It also specifically incorporated feedback from engagement processes to acknowledge the “shared and unique” experiences of diverse groups and to better cater to those living with invisible disabilities.

Mayor Katy Mair moved the alternate motion at the December meeting to retain the City’s current disability access and inclusion plan until a review can be carried out, likely in early 2024.

She said the Better Together plan could have significant costs for ratepayers.

“Indications are that the budget would go beyond the current budget level, however we have no indication or forecast of how much that would potentially be,” she said.

“If we proceed with the Better Together Melville Access and Inclusion Plan, we do not know what the implications are as far as the capital budget goes.”

Ms Mair cited the NDIS as an example of a budget blowout, while also arguing the plan would be outside the council’s remit.

“People I spoke to during my election campaign made it clear they they want council to do its legislative activities.

“With the cost of living crisis facing our residents, they do not want to pay higher rates for a potentially higher level of service.”

Cr Karen Wheatland advocated the other way, calling for more support for people living with a disability and other groups.

“Each reference group had high knowledge and a high understanding of what is required and the need for inclusion in each plan,” she said.

“If you support this alternate motion then you are not willing to support the voices of the community, specifically people that are living with a disability by physical, mental and invisible.”

Cr Tomas Fitzgerald also rebuked claims that budget constraints should be a reason for the plan’s rejection.

“Budgeting, fundamentally is about priorities, it’s about identifying where we want to put our resources.

“When you look at the examples this plan says we are going to do . . . it says we’re going to involve people with lived experience in the design process of our buildings.

“That might be slightly more expensive, it might mean it takes slightly longer.

“Whatever the cost of that is wouldn’t it be outweighed by the benefit we get?”

But Cr Matthew Woodall countered that the plan blurred the intent of a disability plan.

“The legislative requirement is to have a disability access and inclusion plan,” he said.

“I think the (Better Together) plan sort of goes to talk about other groups, talks about people’s ethnic origins or their gender identity and whatnot.

“I just don’t really see how that’s relevant to accessing City facilities.”

Ms Mair’s alternate motion was supported by the council with Crs Wheatland Fitzgerald and Glynis Barber voting against it.