INTRODUCTION

Ratifying international instruments such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) comes with responsibilities. Ensuring accountability is essential. Through inviting inputs to the annual position paper of the Stakeholder Group of Persons with Disabilities, the International Disability Alliance is a valued contributor to this endeavour. The 2026 position paper will be presented at the High Level Political Forum (HLPF) on Sustainable Development to be held in New York, 07–15 July 2026. This year’s HLPF theme is “Transformative, equitable, innovative and coordinated actions for the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its Sustainable Development Goals for a sustainable future for all” (https://hlpf.un.org/2026).

In the past the SDGs have often been thought of as being for ‘environmental’ issues and relevant to developing countries rather than developed countries. Sustained advocacy and effort from within the disability domain and its allies has ensured that improving the situation of people with disability is also now integral to achieving the SDGs. Also, local government authorities (LGAs) in Australia have increasingly adopted SDGs within Council Plans. The UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its 17 SDGs were formalised in late 2015; 2030 is now less than four years away.

Visionary Design Development Pty Ltd is a transdisciplinary consultancy operating at the intersection of disability and built environment. The recent doctoral studies of Mary Ann Jackson, an Access Consultant, Architect, and Urban Planner, and Visionary Design Development’s Director, focused on working with people with disability to expose lived experience of built environment (in)accessibility at neighbourhood scale. It is in this capacity that we welcome the opportunity to make this submission.

Our Submission is brief, restricted to issues relevant to SDG 11. Firstly, we provide some background on the ‘UMI Process Trial’ associated with Dr Jackson’s doctoral studies. Secondly, very briefly, salient results are presented and findings discussed. Lastly, recommendations are put forward.

UMI PROCESS TRIAL (INNER MELBOURNE)

Full explanation of the UMI Process is beyond the scope of this submission. However, it is an iteration of the UMI (Universal Mobility Index) tool, the defining features of which are, firstly, there are two components, Policy Environment and Built Environment. Secondly, rather than access experts, diverse people with disability provide the built environment component’s assessment ratings. Lastly, the built environment assessment is undertaken at ‘neighbourhood scale’, not building-by-building.

For the UMI Process Trial, ten fieldwork sessions were conducted in inner Melbourne within an area spanning across the boundary between the suburbs of North Melbourne and West Melbourne, adjacent the northwest fringe of Melbourne’s central business district; the area is within the Local Government Authority area of the City of Melbourne. All locations assessed were within about a five-minute walk of North Melbourne’s Errol Street Activity Centre, the latter being the local High street or Main street.

Results

Site sessions took approximately 75–100 minutes, during which approximately 22–31 randomised locations were rated by the participant with disability. Paths of travel were frequently interrupted by multiple obstacles. For example:

• Uneven footpaths—footpaths are a local government responsibility.

• Pit lids—‘others’, Utilities entities, (which are all now privatised) are responsible for service pit lids.

• Standardised street furniture installations—a local government responsibility—poorly designed and inconveniently placed. And,

• Inaccessible road crossings. The state government is responsible for arterial roads, local government is responsible for local roads.

At signalised Road crossings—the provision of traffic lights at intersections on arterial roads being a state government responsibility—the positioning of call buttons was often a complete afterthought. At times, an otherwise Very Good footpath could not be accessed from the Road crossing in the direction of intended travel, requiring backtracking if one wanted to access transport. Participants also observed that pedestrian movement was often subservient to vehicular traffic management, further complicating users’ journeys within neighbourhoods.

Space precludes fuller description of the detailed mechanics of site sessions or how the Scores are calculated from the Ratings. Final Scores, however, fall between ’0.00’ which signifies completely inaccessible, and ‘1.00’ which represents fully accessible.

The Built Environment Component is disaggregated into four categories: Infrastructure, Public buildings, Commercial buildings, and Private dwellings. Infrastructure, the most salient to this submission, is further disaggregated into Transport, Footpaths, Road crossings, Public spaces, and Miscellaneous, the latter being, mostly, diverse street furniture. The resultant quantitative data painted a stark picture. Transport scored 0.38. Footpaths also scored 0.38. Road crossings was marginally better, at 0.44. Public spaces scored 0.32 and Miscellaneous 0.41. Such Scores provide a clear and compelling metric for change.

Findings (systemic barriers)

Narratively capturing analysis from on-site observations enabled identification of journey pain-points. Most, if not all, pain-points were present in all site sessions. These included:

1. boarding/ alighting from, transportation devices,

2. using the pedestrian transportation subsystem, of footpaths, intersections, mid-block crossings,

3. navigating, whether by seeing, feeling, hearing, or using an app,

4. accessing the whole built environment, not just discrete parts,

5. crossing the boundary line, from ‘public’ to ‘private’ space, and

6. getting in, to buildings.

Re-purposing the architectural concept of site analysis through the social model’s built environment-as-disabling lens better reveals users’ lived experience of neighbourhood-scale built environment accessibility. Figure 1 maps the reality of discontinuous pedestrian journeys interrupted by the aforementioned pain-points while adjacent vehicular movement remains untroubled.

Figure 1: Are we there yet? (a user-centred view of Existing Conditions)

COMMENTARY

On various internationally recognised metrics, Melbourne has consistently ranked within the top 10 most liveable cities in the world for over two decades. However, the preceding illustrates that even affluent inner city areas of capital cities in highly developed countries are not immune to inequity regarding people with disability’s built environment accessibility. Therefore, we still have a long way to go to achieve Sustainable Cities and Communities. Nonetheless, the UMI Process Trial highlighted that there are ways to improve the situation. A defining feature of the UMI Process (setting it apart from the UMI tool) is that built environment practitioners, architects for example, accompany people with disability on the assessment routes. Confirmed through interviewing architect-participants approximately twelve months post-Trial, the site sessions were transformative, evolving from architect-participants ‘going along’ to ‘being along’ with lived experience of real-world inaccessibility. Therefore, to improve neighbourhood-scale accessibility which is within the control of the built environment knowledge domain, built environment practitioners must interact directly with users with disability, in person, in real-world conditions.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Enabling direct, productive interaction between the architecture profession and people with disability requires remoulding tacit professional socialisation, in both academia and practice. Innovative and coordinated actions are required to achieve such an outcome. Based on the doctoral studies of Dr Jackson, we recommend the following:

Academia

• Rather than being offered as an occasional elective, ‘Inclusive Design’ courses must be mandated and satisfactory completion compulsory. Such courses must be co-designed and taught with people with disability and included in curriculums at all year levels.

• Design Studios, a staple of architectural education, must be undertaken with diverse people with disability as ‘design partners’.

Practice

• ·Within compulsory Continuing Professional Development (CPD) programs to maintain professional qualifications, practitioners must complete mandated Inclusive Design courses, co-designed and taught with people with disability.

Dr Jackson’s doctoral studies illustrates how application of the UMI Process in both academic and practice settings can assist in achieving the above recommendations.

Visionary Design Development is thankful for the opportunity to contribute to International Disability Alliance endeavours by way of making this submission.

Dr Mary Ann Jackson, Director, Visionary Design Development Pty Ltd, May 2026.

Acknowledgment of Country

In the spirit of reconciliation Visionary Design Development acknowledges Traditional Custodians’ connectedness to Country throughout Australia. We respect past, present, and emerging elders, and extend that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

INTRODUCTION

Past systems of extraction and power generation in locations remote from end users have significantly depleted our planet’s resources. In addition, losing energy through lengthy supply lines is inefficient. Continued, business-as-usual reliance on fossil-fuel generated energy is problematic for the health and well-being of all our socio-ecological planetary systems. Furthermore, ageing infrastructure and changes within market systems have seen end users’ power costs escalate. Moreover, cost of living increases disproportionately affect lower-income households. As stated in Inclusive Victoria: state disability plan midway report 2022–2024, “people with disability are considerably more likely to live in a lower income household than people without disability” (https://www.vic.gov.au/state-disability-plan-midway-report/results-refreshed-outcomes-framework/outcome-12-economic-independence).

Reducing reliance on fossil-fuel generated energy has led to increasing efforts of electrification. The path to electrification at household level is supported by Victorian Government legislation. Over time, it is intended that electrification is solely generated by renewable energy methods, e.g., solar and wind. While large-scale solar and wind generation has seen significant take-up in the last few decades, storage of the resultant energy has been challenging. At the residential scale, although solar power systems have been incentivised and are regularly installed on roofs of detached and semi-detached, owner-occupied housing in Victoria, providing reliable, affordable energy to households that do not reside in such housing requires improvement. Renters and social housing tenants living in apartment buildings are, typically, unable to access such schemes. This inquiry is, therefore, timely.

Visionary Design Development Pty Ltd is a transdisciplinary consultancy operating at the intersection of disability and built environment. The recent doctoral studies of Mary Ann Jackson, an Access Consultant, Architect, and Urban Planner, and Visionary Design Development’s Director, examined designing change within complex adaptive systems particularly where such systems overlap and/or intersect, in multiple dimensions, the built environment and disability domains. It is in this capacity that we welcome the Legislative Assembly Environment and Planning Committee’s invitation to make this submission. Our Submission is brief, restricted to addressing subclauses c) and e) of the Terms of Reference.

TERMS OF REFERENCE, SUBCLAUSE C)

“options to increase access to renewable and affordable electricity for these dwellings, including shared rooftop solar, balcony or façade solar, community batteries and virtual power plants”

From an improving people with disability’s access to services perspective, increasing housing supply, affordability, and sustainability through densification of inner and middle Melbourne is to be encouraged. However, fully powering individual multi-storey, multi-residential buildings 24/7 solely via conventional rooftop mounted solar panel arrays is unrealistic. The rooftop space required competes with other rooftop space needs, future development on adjacent sites will likely compromise available sunlight, and the energy generated is likely mismatched with peak use thereby requiring storage mechanisms which also require additional space. Therefore, making existing systems ‘smarter’ is a significant contribution towards a better, long term solution for the provision of power to such buildings. This arena is being successfully explored within the engineering domain, right now. Battery storage solutions that capture excess capacity in the existing grid and contribute that energy back to the grid in peak times provide the best value towards this goal. Technology developed by Synertec (https://www.synertec.com.au/) and undergoing continuous ‘R&D’ achieves this.

In broad terms, Synertec’s technology is as follows:

Powerhouse (https://powerhousebysynertec.com/) “is an AI-powered smart industrial scale technology that provides clean renewable power to both microgrids and grid support applications”. Powerhouse, is a sophisticated, highly reliable battery storage system designed to be as compact as possible for installation in basements, on roofs, co-located with other plant on a ‘plantroom’ level, or in any ‘leftover space’ within buildings.

Fire risk depends on battery chemistry used. Lead acid has a very much lower risk than Lithium but the latter is more compact and, currently, cheaper. However, we note that elsewhere, China for example, lithium battery storage systems are not permitted to be located within buildings. There are other battery chemistrys close to full commercial scale but these are currently more expensive. Powerhouse is battery chemistry agnostic with the ability to leverage the most suitable battery chemistry based on client requirements. Synertec has access to most battery chemistrys.

Powerhouse can be configured to automatically dispatch stored energy back to the grid if power trading pricing conditions make it commercially attractive and current and near-term building consumption requirements can be accommodated. This provides the opportunity to reduce energy costs while providing greater reliability of supply to both the individual households within a building and the building’s internal infrastructure, e.g., lifts and common areas.

Commentary

While storage systems that utilise low fire risk technology could be installed building-by-building, higher fire risk technology would be best considered at local government authority (LGA) level. Beyond connecting into the grid, both options require very little change to existing set-ups. In addition, both options could be ‘ring-fenced’ to provide power to lifts and common areas and also to ensure that lifts and common areas are not compromised in peak times and times of emergency.

TERMS OF REFERENCE, SUBCLAUSE E)

“any legislative, regulatory, planning or market reforms that could support the implementation of options, consistent with Victoria’s legislated emissions reduction and renewable energy targets”

A three-pronged strategy would facilitate take-up of battery storage systems, with the aforementioned technology, at scale.

Ongoing incentives and/or capital funding mechanisms are required to facilitate local government authorities (LGAs) to install decentralised battery storage systems at the community level. Skilled, meaningful community engagement will also be needed to support such an initiative.

Victoria’s Planning Provisions need, firstly, strengthening such that battery storage systems and technologies are considered integral to Renewable Energy (Clause 19.01-2S) requirements. Secondly, Clause 58 Apartment Developments, should be amended to:

a) require multi-storey, multi-residential buildings to demonstrate suitable measures taken towards achieving either installation of battery storage systems with appropriate technology within the development or connection to a municipal-level battery storage system,

b) require multi-storey, multi-residential buildings be provided with (temperature controlled) unprogrammed, gathering spaces so that residents less able to afford heating and cooling costs can find relief in times of extreme heat or cold, or power outages, and

c) encourage the provision of functionally programmed communal spaces for, e.g., laundry facilities and leisure activities.

Lastly, the National Construction Code (NCC) should require that, firstly, all power to lifts, common areas, and communal spaces within multi-storey, multi-residential buildings be connected to such technology. Secondly, the NCC should require that the temperature controlled unprogrammed, gathering spaces mentioned above are also connected to a battery storage system with appropriate technology.

CONCLUSION

This submission’s technology and regulatory intervention suggestions are not purporting to directly impact power bills of individual users, in the immediate term. However, as noted in the Introduction, making the existing grid better is a major step towards the goal of a renewable energy system that provides affordable power for all users.

(Note: Neither Visionary Design Development Pty Ltd’s Director nor any personnel directly associated with Visionary Design Development have any commercial interest in Synertec.)

INTRODUCTION

Bringing the differing building codes of Australia’s multiple states into alignment via the introduction of the National Construction Code (NCC) was groundbreaking at the time. Moving beyond previous ideologies of prescription to performance-based assessment was also groundbreaking. This repositioning also heralded significant content and format change. Rather than direct instruction within the document, third party documents such as Australian Standards are often referenced within the NCC’s Deemed-to-Satisfy (DtS) Provisions. Minimum compliance benchmarks are, thereby, frequently set in this manner.

While the NCC is nationally applicable, Australia’s federated governance system gives states some autonomy. This is welcome when states show leadership, less so when states submit to building industry actors with vested interests in maintaining the status quo, circumstances pertinent to current discussions around nation-wide adoption of the updated housing accessibility requirements contained in NCC 2022. Built environment accessibility and its associated regulatory environment has advanced throughout Australia since the instigation of the NCC. However, there is still room for significant improvement, particularly in embedding human rights principles. Streamlining and modernising the NCC can assist such an endeavour. This review project is, therefore, timely.

Visionary Design Development Pty Ltd is a transdisciplinary consultancy operating at the intersection of disability and built environment. The recent doctoral studies of Mary Ann Jackson, an Access Consultant, Architect, and Urban Planner, and Visionary Design Development’s Director, focused on interrogating built environment practitioner (particularly those within the architecture profession) lack of understanding of people with disability’s lived experience of neighbourhood accessibility. It is in this capacity that we welcome the opportunity to make this submission.

Our Submission is brief, restricted to ‘built environment accessibility’ concerns and, mainly, corresponds to themes two and three of the Discussion Paper, published by the Australian Government (The Treasury), December 2025. Firstly, we make some broad observations about the intent of these themes before providing more specific commentary around our recommendations for NCC improvement. Lastly, given that the NCC is not the sole mechanism impacting people with disability’s accessibility outcomes, we provide some additional thoughts on improving Australia’s built environment accessibility regulatory system.

Themes two and three

The wording of Theme two’s Vision is problematic. While we agree that having “fewer duplications and inconsistencies” would streamline NCC usability, ‘reducing regulatory burden’ can easily be construed as permissive weakening of regulation. From our accessibility perspective, people with disability’s right of access to the built environment requires strengthened regulatory assistance by, for example, built environment practitioners’ duty-bearer obligations being made explicit, with clear links within the NCC directly to Australia’s Disability Discrimination Act and its subordinate legislation—the Disability Standards—particularly the Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010 (the Premises Standards). Further, rather than accessibility outcomes being solely predicated on compliance as assessed by designated technical experts, co-design with people with disability is essential and requires embedding within regulatory processes. Therefore, in this regard, “the regulatory burden on our building and construction industry” needs to be ‘increased’ rather than ‘reduced’.

In respect of Theme three, it’s a trope in the industry to complain that the NCC is so hard to understand. At face value, DtS Provisions do seem to contain a lot of facts and figures, and often refer to third party documents. However, in the case of built environment accessibility, if both design and construction are approached from human rights principles and intended outputs co-designed together with people with disability from the start, then ‘best practice’, exceeding minimum standards, is more likely to result.

IMPROVING THE NCC

Class 1b, 2, 3 and Classes 5–10

Various requirements ‘for people with disability’ need to be met to obtain a building permit for buildings classified Class 1b, 2, 3, and 5–10 under the NCC. Therefore, by default these requirements apply to everyone’s use of such buildings. Consequently, rather than having separate Parts and/or clauses within the NCC labelled “for people with a disability”, thereby specifically othering people with disability, all such content should be communicated as routine, not special, building requirements. For example, rather than Part D4’s heading being “Access for people with a disability”, the heading should be, succinctly, “Access”.

Many NCC DtS clauses reference Australian Standards. Accessibility requirements are no different in this regard. However, Australian Standards being behind the publisher’s paywall compromises implementation. As accessibility requirements are dealing with human rights this is problematic and breaches the ABCB’s duty-bearer obligations, in its role as government agent.

Class 1a

In addition, accessibility requirements within the NCC with respect to housing are very limited. The delayed adoption in various states of the Livable Housing Design Standards, which are at best minimalistic, has not helped.

Since the adoption of NCC 2022, most DtS Provisions relating to Class 1a buildings are in an additional document, the ABCB Housing Provisions, and/or referenced Australian Standards. However, the Housing Provisions do not contain the DtS Provisions for Livable Housing Design. Instead, they defer directly to Part H8 of NCC Volume 2 (https://ncc.abcb.gov.au/editions/ncc-2022/adopted/housing-provisions/front-matter/how-use-housing-provisions). In treating Livable Housing Design as a separate, compliance exercise, the NCC again others specific cohorts, i.e., “older people and those with a mobility-related disability” (refer H801 Objective, https://ncc.abcb.gov.au/editions/ncc-2022/adopted/volume-two/h-class-1-and-10-buildings/part-h8-livable-housing-design#_ec0ebc74-a071-443f-8c89-69eea67e5077). However, then, within H8’s Deemed-to-Satisfy Provisions, H8D2 Livable Housing Design, Clause (1) states that “A Class 1a dwelling must comply with the ABCB Standard for Livable Housing Design”, i.e., yet another separate document.

The requirements of the Livable Housing Design Standard need to be met to obtain a building permit. These requirements therefore apply to all housing. By definition, everyone wants to reside in ‘livable’ housing. Therefore, rather than being something that only concerns older people and those with a mobility-related disability, livable housing is a health and amenity issue. Consequently, rather than treating them separately as an additional compliance burden, all Livable Housing Design Standard requirements should be folded into (NCC Volume 2) Part H4 Health and Amenity, and the Housing Provisions amended accordingly.

RECOMMENDATIONS: NCC

Remove othering statements such as “for people with a disability”, “older people”, and “mobility-related disability” in headings and objectives.

Communicate all ‘accessibility’ and ‘livable’ content as routine, not special, requirements.

Ensure that all NCC DtS Provisions content relating to accessibility is freely available.

Explicitly link the NCC to Australia’s DDA and its Disability Standards.

IMPROVING THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT ACCESSIBILITY REGULATORY SYSTEM

Regarding achieving the human right of built environment accessibility, the NCC is not the sole source of regulation. Specific to buildings classified Class 1b, 2, 3, and 5–10 under the NCC, the Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010 (the Premises Standards), which form part of Australia’s DDA suite, are also an essential component of the regulatory process. However, built environment practitioners, architects for example, tend to rely on the NCC and fail to consider the Premises Standards. That the two regulatory instruments say much the same thing but have some fundamental differences causes confusion which is then further exacerbated by their differing review cycles.

If, as laid out in our recommendations for NCC improvement, all ‘accessibility’ and ‘livable’ requirements are in the NCC, it would be unnecessary for the Premises Standards to duplicate requirements for the physical design details of buildings. In this scenario, the Premises Standards should specifically focus on people with disability’s human rights. Differing review cycles would then be irrelevant.

In addition to the NCC’s housing accessibility requirements being very limited, the Premises Standards do not currently apply at all to the vast majority of Australia’s housing. This means that, currently, there is no enacted legislation instrument that directly improves people with disability’s housing outcomes. From a human rights perspective, this is very concerning and should be addressed.

RECOMMENDATIONS: PREMISES STANDARDS

Remove all duplicated NCC material from the Premises Standards.

Extend the Premises Standards to include all residential housing.

In its era, Australia’s Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 1992 was groundbreaking. Current times, over three decades later, and those ahead, necessitate its change. The Review of the Disability Discrimination Act being undertaken by the Australian Government Attorney General’s Department is, therefore, timely.

Australia’s DDA legislation also includes a suite of Disability Standards. These are the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002 (Transport Standards), the Disability Standards for Education 2005 (Education Standards), and the Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010 (Premises Standards), all of which as well as DDA itself, directly reference the built environment.

Visionary Design Development Pty Ltd is a transdisciplinary consultancy operating at the intersection of disability and built environment. The recent doctoral studies of Mary Ann Jackson, an Architect, Urban Planner, and Access Consultant and Visionary Design Development’s Director, focused on enabling conditions that create direct, productive interaction between people with disability and built environment practitioners, particularly those within the architecture profession. It is in this capacity that we welcome the opportunity to make a submission to this very necessary Review endeavour.

Our Submission is brief and presented under four headings: (Existing) Regulatory framework around DDA, Accommodation, Access to Services and Public Places, and Positive duty.

(Existing) Regulatory framework around DDA

We acknowledge that legislation and policy, i.e., the instruments of regulatory frameworks, invariably develop asynchronously. This frequently results in the production of subordinate documents, available separately. In our professional experience and according to research findings, members of the architecture profession, rather than being familiar with the full content of the regulatory framework around the DDA, tend to consider only the Premises Standards as relevant to their work. One reason for this is that it is written in similar language to Australia’s National Construction Code (NCC). However, because the NCC is, ostensibly, harmonised with Premises Standards, the architecture profession (as a whole) rarely properly considers the full content of the Premises Standards nor understands its ramifications. The differing review methodologies, timescales, and governance of the different instruments foments further misunderstandings and implementation recalcitrance, the latter evidenced by the protracted endeavour to include ‘liveable housing’ requirements in the NCC.

RECOMMENDATION 1

Insert all current and future Disability Standards, particularly the Premises Standards, directly into the DDA.

RECOMMENDATION 2

Remove all duplicated Premises Standards content from the NCC, thereby forcing built environment practitioners to work directly with the full DDA content.

Accommodation

We know from the Disability Royal Commission that people with disability have difficulty finding accessible private and social housing. People with disability and disability advocates are championing Individualised Living Options (ILO) rather than the ‘group homes’ of the past. However, there are very few direct regulatory requirements for accessible ‘private and/or social’ housing that is detached, semi-attached, or town/terrace housing, i.e., the types of dwellings conventionally classified as Class 1a under the NCC. Additionally, various states and the federal government are dragging their heels on including liveable, accessible housing requirements within the NCC. The lack of regulatory requirements for accessible housing also severely constrains people with disability’s ability to visit friends and family.

RECOMMENDATION 3

Extend the reach of the Premises Standards to include all forms of housing.

Access to services and public places

Endeavouring to access services and public places invariably results in encountering physical and/or digital spaces that are not specifically covered within the current content of the Premises Standards. Further, aligned with privatisation ideologies, many services previously provided by the public sector in public buildings have been outsourced. These are now often located in ‘private’ places, and digitised. Therefore, ‘services’ and ‘public places’ in the modern, technological era are very different to those of the era in which the DDA was first devised. Moreover, the overlap between ‘the built environment’ and ‘the digital environment’ is becoming increasingly entangled.

RECOMMENDATION 4

Create a new, comprehensive Disability Standard that covers both built and technological infrastructure: Disability Standards for Accessible Public Places.

Positive duty

The DDA, one of Australia’s four, primary, federal-level anti-discrimination Acts, utilises a complaints-based process to address discrimination. Currently, the process of complaining is very onerous on individuals with disability and, particularly in respect to built environment accessibility complaints, very convoluted. Australia’s DDA was enacted well prior the emergence of the human rights model of disability and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability (UNCRPD), both of which are underpinned by concepts of rights-holder rights and duty-bearer obligations. ‘Positive duty’ was introduced into Australia’s Sex Discrimination Act in December 2022. Positive duty necessitates proactive, meaningful action up-front rather than reliance on individualised, after-the-fact responses.

Built environment practitioners must be made aware of their duty-bearer obligations. Therefore, positive duty obligations must also apply to built environment education systems and to professional (architect) registration systems particularly in respect of required ‘competencies’, the latter necessitating detailed attention be paid to Australia’s system(s) of architecture course accreditation.

Further, positive duty requirements should stipulate that it is discriminatory for building owners and real estate letting agents to lease inaccessible buildings.

RECOMMENDATION 5

Include the principle of ‘positive duty’ in the revamped DDA.

RECOMMENDATION 6

Stipulate arenas within which positive duty is to be proactively pursued and minimum mechanisms for achieving same.

Subscribe now