What was decided, and what it is
Report 26SP047 went to Lake Macquarie City Council's Ordinary Meeting of 24 August 2026,
recommending adoption of the Disability Inclusion Action Plan 2026-2030 together with an
Easy Read version. It is the council's third such plan, after 2017-2021 and 2021-2025, and
the report is explicit that this is not optional: the plan meets legislative requirements
of the Disability Inclusion Act 2014
.
The local need is stated in the report and is above the state figure. About 15,388 people, or 7.27 per cent of the population, require assistance with core activities, against a NSW average of 5.75 per cent. The report adds that as the city grows and ages that number is expected to rise.
The exhibition, and the funnel beneath it
Council resolved on 15 June to exhibit the draft for 28 days. It ran
16 June to 13 July 2026. During that window, the report says, staff
undertook diverse and targeted engagement
and the council engaged more than 3,679
people
. Here is what that was made of, as published.
| Channel | Reach | Response |
|---|---|---|
| Three pop-up events | 61 people directly reached | counted in the total |
| Shape Lake Mac e-newsletter | 3,028 subscribers | 24 clicked through |
| Project webpage | 992 visits, 315 unique visitors | 25 downloaded the draft, 17 the Easy Read version |
| Email to previous DIAP survey respondents | 74 emailed | 48 opened, 14 clicked through |
| Email to disability-sector network contacts | 80 emailed | not reported |
| Social media posts | 3,609 impressions | 26 engagements |
| Paid media campaign | 80,558 users reached | 95 click-throughs |
| Submissions received | not applicable | 1 |
What the 3,679 is made of
The figure is exact rather than approximate, and it is worth taking apart because the same construction appears in engagement reporting everywhere. Adding the published components gives 61 + 3,028 + 74 + 80 + 26 + 315 + 95 = 3,679. That is the number in the report, to the person.
Those seven quantities are not the same kind of thing. Three of them are people who were sent something: 3,028 newsletter subscribers, 74 previous respondents and 80 sector contacts, which is 3,182 of the 3,679, or 86 per cent. Two are people who did something small: 26 social media engagements and 95 paid-campaign click-throughs. One is 315 unique website visitors, and one is 61 people who turned up in person. They also overlap by construction: a subscriber who clicked through is inside both the 3,028 and the 24, and a paid click-through who reached the page is inside both the 95 and the 315. This is our arithmetic and our reading, not a claim the council makes.
None of that is unusual and none of it is hidden. What is unusual is that every component is printed, so the sum can be taken apart at all. Most councils publish the headline and stop, and a reader has no way to know whether "engaged" meant attended a workshop or was counted in an email list.
The one submission, and why it is not the failure it looks like
The submission came from a resident at Wangi Wangi and asked for additional seating along
the walking path between the Wangi Wangi Workers Club and the boat ramp. The council's
response was that the plan already carries an action to create an infrastructure
prioritisation guide, so no change was required. The report records that the plan was
otherwise updated for responsible departments, imagery, and consolidation of deliverables,
and that These amendments do not alter the overall objectives or commitments.
It would be easy, and wrong, to read one submission as a community that was not asked.
The report says the plan was developed through extensive consultation with community
members, Council staff and community sector organisations
and was further informed by
local consultants. The consultation happened before the exhibition. By the
time a statutory exhibition opens, the people with the most at stake have generally already
said what they had to say, through the co-design that produced the draft.
That is the useful conclusion for anyone reading a DIAP anywhere in New South Wales. The 28-day exhibition is a confirmation step, not a consultation, and judging a plan by how many submissions it drew measures the wrong thing. The question worth asking of a DIAP is what is in its action list and who is accountable for each item, which is a question about the plan rather than about the postbag.
What we will watch
Whether the plan was adopted. Lake Macquarie confirms minutes at a later meeting and none for 24 August was published when this was written, so this reports what was recommended, not what was resolved. The plan itself, and its Easy Read version, are attachments to the same agenda and set out the actions; those are the part worth auditing in a year, against the infrastructure prioritisation guide the council has now pointed a resident towards.