Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, I present the committee’s report entitled Access all areas: Report of the inquiry into Draft Disability (Access to Premise—Buildings) Standards, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.

Order that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

It is my pleasure to present the report Access all areas: Report of the inquiry into Draft Disability (Access to Premise—Buildings) Standards, which is the third report of the committee for this parliament. There are approximately four million people with a disability in Australia, a number which is expected to increase as the population ages. Every day people with a disability face physical barriers in the community, from a doorway too narrow for a wheelchair, to not being able to visit their member of parliament because his or her office is located at the top of a flight of stairs. These physical barriers to the built environment have broader consequences for people with a disability, in restricting their access to the economic and social environment of our community.

The draft Premises Standards are designed to make buildings more accessible for people with mobility, vision and hearing impairments. If introduced, the Premises Standards will have a widespread impact, changing buildings regulations for new buildings and existing buildings undergoing significant upgrades.

As well as providing improved access, the Premises Standards would also provide certainty to building certifiers, developers and managers that they are complying with their obligations under the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act. In conducting the inquiry, the committee received evidence from disability advocacy groups, the property and building sectors and many concerned individuals. The level of interest in the inquiry clearly demonstrates how important these issues are to people with a disability.

The report reflects the unanimous view of the committee that the Premises Standards should be finalised and introduced without delay. However, there are a number of areas of the Premises Standards which should be amended prior to their introduction. The committee has recommended that access be provided to the common areas of class 2 buildings, such as residential apartment buildings. It is clear that the market has not responded to the needs of people with a disability or to the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act, even where class 2 buildings are primarily used for short-term accommodation. As a result, people with a disability are excluded from an affordable accommodation option in serviced apartments which might otherwise be well suited for their needs. The committee’s recommendation to include class 2 buildings within the scope of the Premises Standards reflects the overwhelming majority of evidence received.

The committee also recommended that the Premises Standards distinguish between new and existing class 1b buildings. These are bed and breakfast, eco-lodges and similar accommodation. The committee found that the proportional cost increases imposed by the Premises Standards are substantial in existing class 1b buildings. The committee therefore considers that the current threshold of four bedrooms or dwellings for accessibility in existing buildings is appropriate. However, the increases in costs flowing from accessibility requirements in new class 1b buildings are much more modest. The committee has therefore recommended that accessibility requirements should be imposed on all new and purpose-built class 1b buildings, regardless of the number of rooms or dwellings they provide.

Given the long and protracted history of the development of the Premises Standards, the committee has recommended that they be finalised and introduced without delay. However, there are a number of areas where more research is required and other areas which are the result of previous negotiation and compromise. It is important to assess whether the standards, and certain provisions in the standards, are working to achieve their object and purpose. As a result, the committee has made a detailed recommendation relating to the review of the Premises Standards after some years of operation.

I would like to thank the other members of the committee and the skilled and dedicated staff of the secretariat who worked on this important inquiry: Anna Dacre, Serica Mackay, Stephen Still and Sharon Bryant, some of whom are with us in the advisers box. I would also like to acknowledge the contribution of all those who shared their time, expertise and experience with the committee during this inquiry. I have spoken of the committee’s key recommendations for the draft Premises Standards. There are other relatively minor changes discussed in the committee’s report.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to join the chairman of the committee in supporting the report which has been tabled by the committee. Once again, it is a unanimous report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. We covered a very important area in relation to disability. This committee seems to work very well together. It is obviously a cross-party committee, but we put our politics aside when we consider terms of reference referred to us by responsible ministers.

With respect to the report being tabled today, the committee was asked by the Attorney-General to consider and report on the draft Disability (Access to Premises—Buildings) Standards covering a range of areas including:

the appropriateness and effectiveness of the proposed Premises Standards in achieving their objects;

the interaction between the Premises Standards and existing regulatory schemes operating in state and territory jurisdictions, including the appropriateness and effectiveness of the proposed Model Process to Administer Building Access for People with Disability;

whether the Premises Standards will have an unjustifiable impact on any particular sector or group within a sector; and

any related matters.

The committee received a substantial number of recommendations from across the country when we advertised for views, and we wanted to consult widely. In fact, we received 146 submissions. We held six public hearings and one roundtable hearing. The whole idea of following this process was to try to discern what the Australian community was telling the committee and the parliament.

As a result, following our deliberations the committee made 19 recommendations. The committee chairman outlined some of those recommendations but the first recommendation of the report is that Premises Standards should be introduced without delay. The Premises Standards has a protracted history and the committee considered that the benefits it will provide, such as certainty and accessibility, should not be delayed any further. That was particularly important.

One of the key recommendations relates to class 2 buildings, which are residential apartment buildings. At the moment the Premises Standards does not require these buildings to be accessible. The committee has recommended that the common areas of class 2 buildings should be within the scope of the Premises Standards—that is, they should be made accessible. There were a number of reasons for that and it was obvious to the committee that those reasons have veracity and that the recommendations ought to be implemented.

Class 1B buildings were also the subject of recommendation by the committee. Class 1B buildings include eco-lodges, bed and breakfasts and holiday cottages. At present, the Premises Standards only applies to class 1B buildings containing four or more bedrooms. This means that the accessibility requirements of the Premises Standards would not apply to these types of buildings that have fewer than four bedrooms. The committee recognises that many class 1B buildings are run by small businesses with limited resources. One of the things about disability and disability regulation is that there has to be a balance. On the one hand we have to give people access and we have to treat people with disability as being equal to other people in the community. On the other hand we are not really serving the interests of people with disability if we send small business to the wall in the process.

The committee found that it was clear that it is much less expensive to provide access when building a new bed and breakfast or holiday cottage. That is why the committee has recommended that the requirements for accessibility should be imposed on all new and purpose built class 1B buildings regardless of the number of bedrooms they contain but that the proposed four-bedroom threshold should be maintained for existing buildings.

There were a whole range of other matters in the report, and time will not allow me to cover them, but they include areas such as dignity, fit-out, and review. We also pointed out that lessons could be learnt from the review of the Transport Standards for which, seven years on, a final report has still not been released. (Time expired)

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does the member for Isaacs wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a later occasion?

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the House take note of the report.

In accordance with standing order 39(c) the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.