Planning, Development and Infrastructure Bill
01/12/2015
The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I will speak briefly this evening to the second reading of this bill and indicate that I appreciate the government briefing provided to my office on 23 September, I believe it was, and the additional briefing by Mr Chris Kwong and Mr Matthew Loader to my staff last week.
Before I go any further, there are several people I would like to thank. I particularly thank parliamentary counsel for drafting the many amendments we have before us (Dignity for Disability’s included, which I will talk about shortly) and all the staff who have worked very hard on this very lengthy and very detailed bill. I would also like to thank the other staff who are assisting not only with this bill but with the general running of parliament. The reason I want to do this is that I was reminded of how we members are not the only ones who make sacrifices by sitting into the evening to discuss these important and lengthy issues.
Of course, we have Hansard here fulfilling a very important role and creating a public record of everything that is said, but the reason I want to mention this specifically is that during the dinner break I wandered into the library, as I am known to do, and got talking to Bianca, one of the research librarians. Tonight is the first night ever that Bianca has not been home to say goodnight to her two and four-year-old children. So I would like to put on the record my thanks to all the staff who have worked very hard on this bill and who keep parliament running to make sure that we can give these important issues the consideration they deserve.
This is certainly the most significant piece of legislation considered by this parliament this year, particularly in terms of length. Although other issues, such as improving the justice system for all people, including people with disabilities, have been a very important priority for Dignity for Disability, we are certainly keen to give this adequate consideration. As the key plank of a year-long process of planning law reform, this bill demands careful and detailed consideration in this place.
It is clear from the number and variety of organisations and interest groups that have lobbied my office, and certainly other offices as well—we have heard a number of them mentioned by the Hon. Mr Parnell—that it has prompted a range of concerns. I would like to place on the record some of the concerned people and organisations who have taken the time to contact me. They include:
Frank and Margaret Hardbottle;
Alex and Kim Paschero;
Jennifer Comley;
Dr Jonathan Deakin;
Kristina Barnett; and
Graham Webster.
Also, the following residents groups:
The Community Alliance South Australia;
Friends of the City of Unley Society;
Prospect Residents Association;
Local government;
The City of Adelaide;
The City of Marion;
The City of Norwood, Payneham & St Peters;
The City of Onkaparinga;
The City of West Torrens; and
The Local Government Association of South Australia.
I also thank the property development peak bodies:
Master Builders South Australia;
Property Council of South Australia; and
The Urban Development Institute of Australia SA Branch.
Members of my staff also met with Community Alliance’s Carolyn Wigg and Tom Matthews, and a staff member also represented me at the forum organised by Community Alliance, which was held at the Burnside Town Hall on 21 October. I do apologise that I was not able to be there, but I am very thankful to my staff for representing me, so that I could hear about the concerns raised at what I understand was a very active and important meeting.
I understand, of course, that the planning minister and Deputy Premier John Rau, shadow planning minister Griffiths and the Hon. Mr Parnell also spoke at that event. With the exception of the planning minister, I understand that the all of these people and organisations I have mentioned have advised me that they do not support all of this bill or some of it in its current form.
To summarise, community representatives are certainly worried that the effect of the bill would be to exclude residents and councillors from the planning approval process, and developers are worried about limits to urban growth and the impact of the proposed infrastructure delivery scheme. I am certainly carefully considering each of the concerns raised. In addition to acknowledging the range of concerns received, I say that this bill in its current form is missing out on several opportunities, not least of which is the opportunity to give prominence to the principle of universal design, also known as universal accessibility or accessibility for all.
I stressed the importance of universal design in my submission on behalf of Dignity for Disability in our submission to the Expert Panel on Planning Reform in February of this year. In that submission we cited the National Disability Strategy to which South Australia is of course a signatory. It specifically refers to universal design in chapter 1 on inclusive and accessible communities. In addition, as members would know, if not from their own background then from my repeated contributions in this place on the subject, that Australia is also of course party to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), which defines universal design as:
…the design of products, environments, programmes and services to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design. ‘Universal design’ shall not exclude assistive devices for particular groups of persons with disabilities where this is needed.
Members may recall that in 2012 I had the great privilege to have the opportunity to visit Norway, where universal design was first introduced as a planning concept, as I understand it, in 1997. For the record, just to be blunt and to illustrate how far behind South Australia is on the topic of universal design, in 1997 I was nine years old; in fact, universal design principles are incorporated into the objects clause and a number of provisions of Norway’s Planning and Building Act 2008, as I understand the title is translated.
When I was in Oslo, I visited the Norwegian national parliament, which happened to be undergoing a major building renovation. This may sound familiar to members, because it was around the same time that this same parliament was having some renovations done of its own. However, there was a stark difference in my experience of visiting the Norwegian parliament while it was being renovated. It starkly contrasted to my experience of visiting this very parliament of which I am a member, because, notwithstanding the disruption of the renovations, I and any other wheelchair or mobility aid user, parent with a pram, elderly person on a walker, and so on, entered the building through the same door as everyone else.
When I mentioned to people in that parliament, when I was visiting—either staff members or members of parliament I spoke to, or even just tourists and visitors to the parliament—that currently in my own workplace, the Parliament of South Australia, I was entering through the basement car park, they quite frankly could not believe that to be true and certainly could not believe that they would accept that in their country where universal design is now in legislation as a beneficial planning concept.
Not to minimise the fact that we have come a long way with design in this building—and I certainly do not want to downplay the hard work that has been done there—I think this one relatively simple example shows that still we have a long way to go, not just in this parliament but in the entire state.
I understand that the Norwegian government has an action plan for Norway to be entirely universally designed by 2025, and given that many cities in Norway are some hundreds of years older than our dear old Adelaide, I think it is time that we stopped using the excuse that Adelaide is just an old city and that is the way things are.
Universal design is particularly important not only from a perspective of enabling social inclusion, but also for the economy. Ireland has, in recent years, renewed its entire public bus fleet, making, as I understand it, all buses accessible to mobility aid users, elderly people, parents with prams and so on, by ensuring that all buses have the ability to ‘kneel’, so to speak, lower to kerb level to allow easier entry as there is no step to get over.
I understand that the nation of Ireland and the government of Ireland underwent this replacement of its entire bus fleet in the midst of the global financial crisis, which is generally a time during which one might not have expected to see these types of large projects undertaken. But Ireland did and they did it because they recognise, as Australia and the state of South Australia should, that universal design is good sense and an investment in the future of the state and the nation.
I understand that it worked out to be cheaper in the long run to replace the entire bus fleet, as I understand it worked out to be less expensive to deal with a single contractor providing all the buses, rather than several contractors providing different buses for different fleets.
By removing environmental barriers such as steps, narrow doorways and so on, universal design makes it easier for people with disabilities to become consumers of goods and services and to find employment opportunities. Of course, it makes sense that if we are able to enter your business or your store, you are more likely to get us as customers and therefore have us spending our money there.
This is certainly one of the reasons that Dignity for Disability was very disheartened and quite vocal about the Adelaide City Council shopfront renewal scheme earlier in the year—I forget the exact title, but I think members know what I am referring to. Although it did have some provisions for accessibility, what was promoted in terms of the glossy brochures and the front pages of the brochure and so on was the ability to give your shop a fresh lick of paint or get some funky and relatively uncomfortable hipster chairs in there.
All these things are very welcome, of course; we want to keep our shops updated and nice looking, but I think there is also a strong argument to make that one can only enjoy that fresh lick of paint if one can actually get in the door. Certainly, when I took that perspective to the media on behalf of Dignity for Disability, I was contacted with supporting comments not only from people with disabilities but also from parents whose young children still use a pram and who said that they felt I was speaking directly for them and about their experience when we took that perspective.
I think that we do need to stop seeing this as something that is an ‘us and them’ issue. I am very frustrated when in 2015 I still hear disability talked about using the term ‘special needs’, because 20 per cent of the population currently has a disability, plus those who will acquire it through the ageing process or surviving accident or injury, plus parents with prams, and people with—
The Hon. S.G. Wade: Sports injuries.
The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: —sports injuries (thank you, Mr Wade), a variety of health conditions, temporary injuries and so on. It becomes less and less ‘special’ and more about all of us.
I would like to read a short quote from an article entitled ‘Should business care about universal design?’ which was written by Lee Wilson and published just today, I understand, on architecture, design and construction site, sourceable.net. The quote reads thus:
The Australian Network on Disability (AND) identified the opportunity this emerging market presented. AND believes corporate social responsibility is an important contrib u tor to the success of long-term business, and that it should be viewed in a strategic business sense rathe r than simply be i ng a ‘feel-good’ factor.
AND adds that people with disability ‘show commitment and loyalty that is unsurpassed,’ which surely is a market worth catering for. People with disability r epresent close to 20 per cent of the Austra li a n population and one in three people either have a disability or are likely to be close to someone with a disability.
In terms of the ageing population, 20 per cent of the population will be over 65 years of age by 2030. This propo r tion of society could have a significant impact on how successful a business is, both now and into the future. They spend like everyone else, and universal design (or how suitable, adaptable or usable a ‘thing’ is) will increasingly become a factor in a person’s decision making process.
So when we ask ‘should businesses care about universal des i gn?’ I believe the answer is an unequivocal ‘yes, they can’t afford not to.’
Dignity for Disability would also argue that there is a strong cost saving to be made in building accessibility for all people into public spaces inherently, that is, during the planning process, rather than as an afterthought. To demonstrate this, I would like to quote from the federal government’s. Accessibility Design Guide: Universal design principles for Australia’s aid program. This is from section 3.6 of this document, Accessibility Design Guide, titled ‘Cost of not incorporating universal design’ and the quote reads thus:
The cost of not incorporating universal design can be significant. Inaccessible environments limit economic education, health, social and other opportunities for people with disability , and make them more dependent on others.
It is important to consider the following three components when working with universal design. Each component can affect the economic viability of family units and contribute to a cycle of poverty :
direct costs for people with disability, including access to services such as travel;
indirect costs to support persons and/or family members of people with disability; and
opportunity costs of forgone income for people with disability.
Again, universal design is not only about allowing us to get into businesses and to venues to spend money, but about enabling us to get into the workforce to actually get that money to spend. I believe, certainly, that the inaccessibility of the workforce is a major barrier to people with disabilities entering it. We know that fewer people who are identified as having disabilities are employed in the public sector than there were 20 years ago, and Dignity for Disability certainly believes that the attitudinal barriers which lead to the material barriers are a significant contributor to this.
I am often, if not constantly, frustrated by what I have termed, perhaps not so endearingly, the cycle of inaccessibility where we do not make a business or a venue accessible, so people with those needs do not come. As a result of them not presenting at the venue, we do not see the need to change it, so we do not make it accessible and we go back to the first point in the cycle.
There is also an argument, of course, that building these things into the plan saves money because not only can retrofitting be expensive when access is an afterthought but also it does not necessarily deliver the best results. If members need any further proof of this, I suggest they hop onto Google and enter the search terms ‘epic ramp fail’ or ‘epic accessibility fail’, an ‘epic fail’ of course being the internet term for when someone fails spectacularly badly at something.
There used to be, or they may well still be, an entire blog called ‘Epic ramp fail’, but I have not been able to drag it up today. Anyway, if you enter those search terms ‘epic ramp fail’ or ‘epic accessibility fail’, you will certainly find some doozies. Looking at them, I am never sure whether to laugh or cry. I will just do my best to describe a couple of them. I am not very good at visual description, but bear with me, Hansard.
Just so you get an idea, the examples include, but are sadly not limited to, ramps with two steps leading up to them, or a ramp with three steps at the end of it, or an accessible car park which, while technically is the appropriate width for an accessible car park, has a pillar in the middle of it so that you could probably barely open your car door if you parked there, much less have enough space to get out a walker or a wheelchair.
A personal favourite of mine, which I have had the great misfortune of seeing several times in the flesh, so to speak, rather than just on Google, is a sign out the front of a building reading, quote, ‘Wheelchair ramp available: inquire within’. Some members might not get that immediately, but just sit with it for a moment and let it sink in. I am sure the realisation will wash over you shortly.
This is exactly what happens when we do not consider accessibility as an imperative from both a social and economic perspective. As a society, as that earlier quote I read out said, we cannot afford not to do this. We have an ageing population. We have more people surviving accidents, thanks to advancements in medical technology, who are acquiring and living with disabilities long into the future as a result, so we need to get this right and we need to invest in South Australia’s social and economic future now. Universal design is one way of doing that very strongly, and the Norwegian experience shows us that it can and must be done.
Moving on for a while, part 2 of the bill relates to its objects, planning principles and general responsibilities. One of the high-quality design principles states, inter alia, that the public realm should be designed to be accessible. Dignity for Disability certainly has no argument with that principle, but we would argue that it does not nearly go far enough, given those arguments I have just made about universal design.
In a bill of some 84,000 words, one mention of accessible public spaces—that is, accessible to all people, not just those who have those needs now but who will in the future—does not give significant weight to this principle and this need and the benefits of it. It is certainly not enough to change the mindset of planners, providers and assessors of our built environment, and this is why Dignity for Disability is working on a small handful of amendments, in comparison to the—are you up to 84, Mr Parnell?
The Hon. M.C. Parnell: I have lost count.
The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: The Hon. Mr Parnell says he has lost count, and to an extent you can’t blame him. We have only a small handful of amendments in comparison to the 70 or 80 that we already have before us, but we think they are, nonetheless, very important in enshrining, in this bill, an opportunity for South Australia to play catch-up and then, hopefully, lead the way for the rest of the nation in the adoption of universal design. I understand that those amendments are still being circulated. We are still reaching some compromise with the wording, so I apologise that we do not have them before members at this stage, but we will very shortly, and I thank them for their patience.
My experience tells me that the current reliance on the minimum requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act, now incorporated into the Building Code of Australia, is not enough to ensure that buildings and public spaces are genuinely and generally accessible to people of all abilities and needs. In conversations with people responsible for a particular building entry or bathroom that is not quite accessible for someone who uses a wheelchair, I and my staff often hear the response (as do many people in the disability community), ‘But we have met the requirements of the code.’
In other words, designers and builders are being judged on whether certain parts of their building or infrastructure have certain dimensions rather than whether people with disabilities, older people or parents with strollers, for example, can actually enter and use the shop in an autonomous and dignified self-directed way. The design of accessible buildings, therefore, tends to be done to the lowest common denominator rather than aspiring to excellence.
As another example of this, I will quickly share this story. Many hotels I stay in have accessible rooms and they may well be accessible in terms of handrails and things like that, but there is nothing necessarily in the Building Code that says perhaps if this is a wheelchair-accessible room you should put the control panel for the air conditioner where someone in a seated position can actually reach it, or put the cups so that a person with a disability can get a glass of water without having to go down to the lobby and ask someone to come up to their room and get a glass down for them.
I had a recent experience in Canberra, probably a few months ago now. I tend to think of everything that was not yesterday as last week because the year is slipping away from us. I was presenting at a forum on access to the justice system for people with disabilities and talking about the work that Dignity for Disability and this parliament as a whole has done. Everything was good, and I got on the handrails and jumped in the shower, and then realised that I could not actually reach the tap from the shower bench because it was certainly beyond my arm length. I do not have the longest arms in the world but, certainly, I can imagine it would have been very difficult for anyone, particularly because you cannot necessarily just get up and walk over to the tap because, call me crazy, but I tend not to take my wheelchair into the shower.
The Hon. G.E. Gago: It’s hard to ring room service from there, too.
The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: As the Hon. Ms Gago interjects, it is hard to order room service from there, too.
The Hon. G.E. Gago: From the shower.
The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: From the shower, yes. Fortunately, I did work out a solution, but the point I am making is we should be creating a society where these things are a matter of course. I do not want to hit members over the head with the point but I think that we need to look at this from a tourism perspective as well, and this is certainly something that Dignity for Disability is in conversation with the tourism minister in the other place about, in terms of the economic benefits of promoting South Australia as a tourist destination for all people, particularly people who may be older and travelling post retirement.
Again, it can be done and it does bring results. As I said, when I was travelling in Scandinavia, I visited a particular chain of hotels and chose those hotels because they had a specific disability liaison officer whom you could talk with if you had any concerns. You could certainly tell that that was leading to excellent results because not only was I able to get a glass of water, reach the microwave, get in and out of bed, get in and out of the shower and not have to order my room service from there because I got stuck but they also had things like vibrating alarm clocks for people who had either been deaf all their life or had lost hearing, particularly, I suppose through ageing. There are many examples of where this can be beneficial to many people, rather than those who are crudely and inaccurately termed as having special needs.
Perhaps this legislation offers a chance to introduce a public interest test for genuine accessibility that is integrated into good design of our buildings and the public realm. To this end, accessibility should be given the same prominence in this bill as its existing objects and its planning principles under the headings of: long-term focus; urban renewal; high quality design; activation and liveability; sustainability; investment facilitation; and integrated delivery.
As another example of the need for high quality design and liveability of public spaces—and I did say that I would not hit members over the head, but unfortunately there are many examples I can give as to where South Australia is falling behind on the benefits of accessibility—members may recall that 19 November this year (as it is every year, I understand) was World Toilet Day. Generally, the United Nations uses this designated day to promote the fact that millions, if not billions, of people all over the world do not have adequate access to sanitation facilities, including toilets.
It was wrongly labelled in the media a couple of times as ‘public toilet day’, which is not accurate, because it is actually trying to promote the fact that many people in many countries do not even have access to a toilet, let alone a public one. But, anyway, on this occasion Dignity for Disability used World Toilet Day in the South Australian context to highlight in the media the needs of the 14,000 South Australian adults who require some form of assistance—be it assistance in a material way through the provision of a larger space, handrails and so on, or assistance from another person, or a mixture of the two—to use the bathroom.
Dignity for Disability promotes the provision of Changing Places, which are bathrooms equipped for adults who need such assistance, as well as younger people. To put it somewhat crudely just to help members to understand, Changing Places are basically a current accessible bathroom, with the handrails and so on, on steroids. So, it has all the same features, such as the extra space and the handrails, but it also has some additional features, including a hoist (so that if somebody needs a hoist to get on and off the toilet, they can use that) but also, I think most interestingly, an adult-sized change table.
I think many people either do not know or forget that there are people who are beyond the age and size of an infant who still require change tables to autonomously and in a dignified manner access the public realm. Currently, none of these Changing Places facilities exist in South Australia, while Victoria has several, and there is even one in Darwin.
As an illustrator of the effect of not having these facilities, Dignity for Disability is in regular contact with constituents who either feel extremely limited in the number of venues they are able to visit and spend their money at, or they are forced to change on the floor of a public toilet. I hope I do not have to explain to members why that is a concern.
I know that the Adelaide City Council in particular is keen to take up Dignity for Disability’s proposals in getting a Changing Places—hopefully several—in South Australia, and I certainly thank them for that. But, I raise it again in this place because we still have a long way to go.
Universal design should also be given equal weight as the other considerations for the various planning instruments provided in this bill—in particular, the foreshadowed design quality policy, the planning and design code, and design standards. I note that, within the bill’s provisions for the proposed planning and design code, local heritage and significant trees are each considered worthy of a clause. The planning minister and his staff have argued that the objective of universal design does not merit inclusion in this bill as it can be dealt with in one or more subsidiary planning instruments.
I respectfully submit that in promoting universal design—that is, the design of buildings and public spaces to be accessible to all our citizens as well as friends, family—there is evidence to suggest that the average person with a disability travels in a group of between two and eight people, so it is not only about us; it is about our friends, our family and the interstate and perhaps even international visitors we may and will bring with us. I respectfully submit that this group is at least as worthy of consideration as the conservation of our local heritage or the safeguarding of our significant trees.
Call me naive, and tell me I do not understand heritage, but from my perspective, to an extent, providing for greater accessibility is about respecting the heritage of existing venues in the state because it gives them a future and enables more and more people in the future to go into that place, be it a museum, be it Ayers House, or be it this very parliament, which has undergone significant changes in recent times. I like to think that that is a way of honouring this parliament because it has given it a future. It has given it the opportunity to be more diverse and more reflective of South Australia as a result. Call me crazy, but I think that should be the job of this parliament and/or others now and long into the future.
That said, Dignity for Disability will support the second reading of this bill and looks forward to the committee stage of debate. As I indicated earlier, we have drafted some amendments which are still being negotiated upon. We are also currently carefully considering the many amendments we have before us and do hope, as was illustrated by the Hon. Mark Parnell, that this parliament will be given adequate time to give this important issue the consideration it deserves.
Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. G.A. Kandelaars.
