Speech in Parliament: Development (Building Rules Consent – Disability Access) Amendment Bill
13/09/2011
Adjourned debate on second reading.
(Continued from 27 July 2011).
The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (17:09): I rise today to speak with some scepticism about a bill which most people, and I think probably most of all this government, would expect me to be overjoyed about.
This bill is a piece in the accessibility puzzle which our society is only just working out is worthwhile putting together. The first step was the provisions in the Disabilities Discrimination Act which provided for accessibility. Then there was the recent revelation of the Premises Standards which actually looked at practical ways to make the ideals enshrined in the discrimination act happen within the building code. It is a little unsettling that there was a time lapse of about 17 years between these two steps but, as we all know, most things in the world of government progress move slowly—and especially on disability rights. Now we are looking at what is basically a state level replication of the Premises Standards where we are adjusting the Development Act to make way for these standards of accessibility.
I do not want to be too cynical—I will say that from the outset—and I am very pleased that progress is being made but, unfortunately, we are still dealing with the case of too little too late when it comes to accessibility in Australia. I understand that accessibility measures can be financially burdensome especially for small businesses and the like, but it is necessary to make these changes, and the sooner we as a society realise the importance of it, the better. Think of it as being similar to food hygiene standards in business—sometimes costly, sometimes requiring retrofits but always worthwhile for public good. Unfortunately, ‘worthwhile’ is not usually a word we hear in conjunction with ‘accessibility’.
More often than not businesses will say things like, ‘Sorry, but it’s just too hard.’ I have a million anecdotes to illustrate this fact but I will tell you a recent one just quickly. I arrived at a pub a few months ago to see a friend’s band play. I had been to this pub before and I knew the accessibility was not great. There is a step at the front door which means I have to go through a locked side gate to get into a back door. There is also no accessible bathroom. However, I wanted to support my friend so I was prepared to work with what little the venue had.
I arrived and politely asked the man at the front door to allow me in the side and he wandered off to find a manager, leaving me in the cold. When the manager arrived he greeted me with the words, ‘You can’t go to the bathroom you know.’ I am sure it was not his intention to sound quite so rude and exclusive but, unfortunately, that was the impression I got; the impression that he would rather I just did not come in at all. I talked him around but his attitude is exactly the kind that people with disability face every day. It is too hard to allow us to get into shops, cafes, bars, schools and workplaces. That means it is too hard to make society truly inclusive of people with disability.
To some extent this bill is an attempt by government to force the arcane ‘too hard’ attitude out of our society, and I appreciate that to a large extent, but it is a pretty weak attempt. For one thing, this bill says that there will be some exemptions from having to conform with the new access standards, so that is concerning. I am sure that these exemption requirements will be akin to those contained within the Premises Standards which have set a fairly high bar. However, we must begin to wonder about what kind of message we are sending when it is so clear that it will still be okay for some buildings to be inaccessible.
This leads me to another issue which arises from particular methods in this bill used to enforce accessibility standards. The requirements outlined here will be expected of new buildings and will be applied to old buildings which are being upgraded or modified but, as you can imagine, this leaves any number of other older buildings to stand for years and years without having to change a thing. That means that those buildings will continue to be out of reach for many people with disabilities.
Further—and I thank the Hon. Mr Parnell for bringing this point to my attention—there could be problems when a building which may have been built for one function, say, as a private residence, is retasked for another use such as becoming a retail store. If there were no physical modifications made in this retasking then it is possible that the building owner will not bother to apply for a development approval meaning that, once again, the accessibility measures will be bypassed.
All of these issues I have mentioned are not really to do with this particular bill but rather problems with the Premises Standards themselves and how they have been incorporated into the building code. It is a code which the bill mostly harks back to for its meaning. These standards, which were assented to at a federal level after much public consultation, have failed to address these issues. Unfortunately, that is something we cannot provide a solution for in this place.
However, in the interest of informing members, I would like to point out that it was not out of ignorance that these issues were left untouched. There were around 146 submissions to the committee responsible for the Premises Standards and many of those submissions brought to light serious problems. While we can accept perhaps the need for exemptions and even the lack of inclusion for older buildings to be a compromise between business and disability submissions, there are some other things that should never have been compromised.
For example, submissions that focused on a lack of emergency exit facilities for people with disabilities seem to have been sidelined. If you think about it, if there were a fire in this place and we were advised against using the lift in the building, what would I do, just for example? Similarly, if an alarm was sounding in the workplace of someone with a hearing impairment while they were the only person working late, they would not hear it and thus would not have the chance to save their own life.
These matters were brought to the attention of the committee but apparently were not addressed in the Premises Standards. Also not addressed in any form in the standards was the need of people with multiple chemical sensitivity, despite submissions being offered on this. For these people, who can be hospitalised from exposure to certain common chemicals, there is no help. These are just examples of the way that these Premises Standards and this bill do not go far enough to provide true accessibility, not just for those with what are readily understandable disabilities but all people in this state.
In short, this bill is not the solution to the accessibility issue in Australia. It is one step and a narrowly conceived step at that. There is a lot further to go and we need to make progress faster than in the past, particularly in light of the fact that this population is ageing and therefore acquiring more and more disabilities at three times the rate at which it is growing. We should be looking to countries like England where, at great public cost, they are working to make more than 65 tube stations totally accessible. Such contrasting efforts simply make Australia look apathetic.
I will support this bill, of course, but I urge other members to join me in recognising that accessibility is still shamefully marginalised in a country as rich as Australia and hope that we all understand that there is much more to be done in the future to improve the quality and scope of documents like the Premises Standards. I look forward to working with the government and all other members to ensure that this happens.
Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.
