Judi Moylan (Pearce, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Access all areas: report of the inquiry into Draft Disability (Access to Premises—Buildings) Standards addresses many of the inequalities those with a disability encounter when going about their day-to-day activities. I congratulate the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee and its chair, the member for Isaacs, for their work in drawing to the attention of this House the impediments faced by people with a disability in accessing buildings that the rest of us take for granted.

Those affected by a lack of access to buildings, and indeed affected by the fitout of some buildings, are not an insignificant group because one in five Australian people are estimated to have a disability—that is 20 per cent of the population. Indeed, I would suggest that number will grow quite rapidly as our country faces the ageing of our population. So it is a very important matter which has been on the agenda for some time. I am not a member of the committee; however, I feel so strongly about this matter that I wanted to take the opportunity to say something about it. I suppose I first became aware of the difficulty people with a disability face when I had ministerial responsibility for disability services in 1996. I have continued to take an interest in these matters, particularly as I moved to the role of chair of the Public Works Committee, a role that I undertook for nine years—I think it was nine years; it seemed like an awful long time anyway!

During that time, I felt very proud of all members of that committee, both in terms of their interest and the interest they took in questioning the adequacy of access for people with a disability in new buildings, and refurbishments, that were being proposed by government agencies, or agencies of the Commonwealth, that came before that committee.

Disability does cover many different conditions. It can include people who are wheelchair-bound, blind, and indeed, older Australians. People suffering from rheumatism and arthritis sometimes have great difficulties with access to buildings. For those of us who do not face living with these extra challenges, I think, it often escapes our notice that without specific attention to the way buildings are constructed and fitted out, the daily routine for people with a disability can be seriously compromised. The Disability Discrimination Act was passed in this parliament in 1992, just a little before my election to parliament. Its 16 years of operation have highlighted not only some of the positive steps forward in providing for people with a disability within the community by not discriminating against them, but it has also highlighted some of the deficiencies in its operation.

Of course it is true that there have been many positive changes, both in accessibility to buildings, and, I think, to community attitudes towards people with a disability. But surprisingly, there are still difficulties and challenges for people with a disability in accessing buildings for work, for necessary services and for leisure. That isolates many people with a disability, both socially and from being able to access the workplace and generally going about their day-to-day business.

This report specifically looks critically at the intersection and operation of the Disability Discrimination Act and the Building Code of Australia. While the act enshrines the right of access to premises by people with a disability, it is enforced, in the first instance, through the Australian Human Rights Commission complaints mechanism. But it is up to a person with a disability to take action to have the provision of the act enforced. It is therefore not surprising that few people exercise that right due to the financial and emotional cost of initiating such access. If conciliation is not successful then the aggrieved party must initiate an action in the Federal Magistrates Court or in the Federal Court of Australia. Very few people with a disability, I would suggest, would want to actually pursue that course of action.

I am pleased to see that the report makes a recommendation in regard to the fit-out, and to apply disability standards to places other than buildings. Primarily, the committee was asked to inquire into, and report on:

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 a disability;

whether the premises standards will have an unjustifiable impact on any particular sector or group within the sector; and

any related matters.

Under the current arrangement there is too much scope for confusion and uncertainty which does not serve to encourage building owners to comply and it risks leading to a high level of complaint from people with a disability.

The Attorney-General does have the power under the Disability Discrimination Act to codify standards and to give greater clarity. This has led to the government’s announcement that it will introduce premises standards in the hope of achieving greater clarity. The premises standards have the potential to ensure that the Building Code of Australia and the Disability Discrimination Act is harmonised and incorporates an access code into the building code. This should assist those engaged in the industry to comply with these acts and ensure that buildings meet disability access requirements.

According to the evidence given to the inquiry by the Victorian Disability Advisory Council:

The standards are long overdue. The [Disability Discrimination Act] and the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act have been in place for 17 and 13 years, respectively. The industry has had 17 years to regulate itself and to progressively and cost-effectively implement changes that would meet their obligations under the Acts. Had they done so, many of the cost arguments mounted today would be irrelevant. Industry has in fact been cost-saving for 17 years at the expense of a large percentage of the population. It is now time to restore that balance.

And while cost is frequently argued as a reason to do nothing, it is hard to sustain that argument in the case of new construction. The regulation impact statement estimates that the cost of compliance for a new building or new buildings as a proportion of overall building costs is low. The RIS indicates a scale of cost based on case studies, and for the most part the costs are estimated at between one and five per cent for new buildings, with the bulk of case studies falling between a cost of one and three per cent of the total cost of building. Really, no-one could argue that that is unreasonable where a new building is being contemplated and planned for.

Of course cost needs to be considered. None of us in this place is naive enough to think that it is something we should not consider. I suppose, especially with regard to existing buildings, there is certainly a much higher cost in retrofitting existing buildings and perhaps even greater difficulties when it comes to heritage listed buildings. The costs for retrofitting such buildings rise sharply, with the RIS estimating between a two to 20 per cent cost relative to the value of the building. However, that should not prevent us from seeking a sensible way forward to ensure that people with disability are not excluded from accessing necessary services and from social exclusion.

I was also pleased to see that the committee did take particular note of the heritage issues. At 4.56 of the report, on page 65, it says:

The Committee supports the inclusion of a heritage value provision in determinations of unjustifiable hardship. However, the Committee also agrees with the arguments raised by many submitters that providing access to heritage buildings does not have to diminish the heritage value. The Australian heritage industry could look overseas for examples of how a compromise might be reached.

These problems have been addressed in some countries where the buildings were built many, many years ago. They are not new challenges or new problems and I am sure they are ones that could be overcome. They are surmountable. The committee report did go on, at 4.57, to point out that the term ‘heritage value’ is a bit ambiguous. It is unclear, and it wanted greater clarification of those particular words. I think they are sensible suggestions in this report.

In the little time I have available, I would like to mention that I thought, looking through some of the submissions, that Vision Australia made an excellent submission to this committee hearing. I cannot go through the whole submission, it is quite a detailed one, but they did raise a matter which is probably relatively easily addressed in all buildings, whether they are existing buildings or new buildings—that is, braille and tactile signage for people who are vision impaired or blind. Vision Australia felt that this is a particularly important matter. They said that the provision of tactile and braille signage is the only way finding device included in the draft standards, and they did not regard features such as hazard warning TGSIs and luminance contrasts as way finding devices per se, rather they are safety features. They said:

However, there are several cases where there is no specific requirement to provide braille and tactile signage even though other signage is required …

They went on to say:

Perhaps the omission of the words ‘braille and tactile’ in these cases is an oversight. In any case, Vision Australia’s strong view is that if signage is considered necessary to provide useful information to the public, then people who are blind or have low vision are just as entitled to this information as other members of the public.

They also said:

Braille and tactile signage could be provided at minimal cost, and would have significant benefits for people who are blind or have low vision.

They also talked about the safety issues around moving people out of buildings.

I have to say that a matter that concerned me as the Chair of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works when we were approving proposals for Commonwealth buildings was emergency egress from buildings for people who have a disability. I know that the committee at that time shared my views that this is a matter of considerable import. Vision Australia just highlighted the issue for people who are blind. They went on to say:

It goes without saying that people who are blind or have low vision should have their needs taken into account in the design of systems for the same evacuation of people from premises in emergency situations.

It is a very serious matter and some of those issues go to:

• Adequate lighting of emergency egress routes
• Braille and tactile signage of emergency egress stairways and exits
• The need for wayfinding features such as directional TGSIs to provide an accessible path of travel from emergency exits to designated assembly points.

In closing, I think it is apt to quote from one of the submissions, from People with Disabilities in Western Australia:

Every person, with or without a disability has the right to enter and use buildings and facilities housed within the built environment. Stating that certain areas do not need to meet the Standards may prevent people with a disability from working, living, or socialising in specific areas. This is discriminatory.

Once again I congratulate those involved in putting this report together. I hope that this parliament can look forward to seeing some of the worst of these issues addressed in the very near future.

Sharryn Jackson (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will start by concurring with many of the remarks that my colleague the member for Pearce made. I also congratulate the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on this report, Access all areas. It is a terrific report and one where I not only support the recommendations but also urge the government to implement the recommendations as expeditiously as possible.

Increasingly, the issue of access is gaining greater prominence in the community and, as the member for Pearce has indicated, not only because so many Australians—some one in five—have a disability but also as a result of our ageing population, where greater disability or a lack of mobility is becoming an increasing issue in the community. Frankly, it is wrong for people with a disability to be denied adequate access to buildings. This can have repercussions not only in a social sense but especially for their employment and it raises issues associated with social inclusion. I am particularly pleased that the report has not just determined that the issues of access are about access to buildings. I congratulate the committee on the broadening of the definition of ‘to place’. Indeed, it is only right and proper that people with a disability have access to all manner of opportunities in their lives.

The report seeks to achieve a number of objectives. The first is to recommend harmonisation of the Building Code with the current provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act by containing the access code as schedule 1. I applaud that. People in the past have done a good job with the Building Code, despite the fact that they struggle with different legislative and planning requirements across the nation. There has not been a clear and precise set of standards developed with respect to the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act. The second objective of not only harmonising the act with the Building Code but incorporating the access code into the Building Code is something which we should congratulate. Apart from anything else, it will provide a huge opportunity for consistency in development and for certainty for building owners and people in the building industry.

I am also delighted at the recommendations which will see a shift from what has been very much an individual complaints based framework to a compliance based framework. I am particularly pleased with that change. That would be achieved by incorporating prescribed requirements into a code. That alleviates the need for us to wait for an individual to experience some sort of disadvantage or discrimination before a complaint can be made and, presumably, action is taken. This way we will see a proactive role to ensure that particularly new buildings are constructed in an accessible manner. Increasingly, we will also see the role of the Disability Discrimination Commissioner encouraging, through not only compliance but greater information, building owners and the like retroactively dealing with rectifying obstacles that are identified.

I endorse the approach of the committee, which is, frankly, ‘Let’s get something into place as quickly as possible,’ and the acknowledgement that anything in terms of standards is better than what we have now. I say that because clearly there are some, for want of a better description, kinks in the current code. The fact of the matter is that these regulations, if they come into effect as an access code, will have the greatest impact on new buildings and major upgrades. That is something that will have real value for people with disabilities. It is, no doubt, long overdue.

The code in many respects should be measured against the intent of the Disability Discrimination Act which applies now. On that basis it should not be onerous to implement the code immediately, because, frankly, people should have been complying with these sorts of standards. One would hope that current plans for buildings would not have been approved if they did not meet accessibility standards like those set out in the report and its recommendations. I am very pleased to say that I think this is the beginning of a better system for everyone. It removes business exposure to prosecution by complaint and ensures better compliance for disabilities.

The publishing of the report has created the opportunity for what is necessary dialogue with the broader community. I notice, for example, that the committee found it difficult to find accessible public hearing venues, especially in places like central Melbourne and Brisbane, which is almost unbelievable in 2009. That in itself immediately highlights issues that can be addressed. The report also touched on things such as—and I appreciate the debate—accessible rooms in our four- and five-star hotels for people with a disability. It was reported that many hotel staff were reluctant to offer available accessible rooms to patrons who appeared to have a disability for fear of giving offence. That is on page 97 of the report. I hope this public discussion and recognition of the importance of accessible public venues and buildings will begin to see accessible room requirements as a positive opportunity—indeed, a marketing opportunity—for the hotel and tourism industry.

On many, many pages the report stresses the need for haste in the implementation of change. It notes that there will be further research required, for example, in the area of dimensions of modern wheelchairs. It encourages that to be done as a matter of some urgency. But to proceed in any event is important. Again, I think this recognises the time that has been taken to get this far. Indeed, the member for Pearce referred to a particular quote that the committee includes in its introductory comments at paragraph 1.19:

In calling for a speedy conclusion to this process, the Committee notes that most submitters have also requested that the Premises Standards be introduced without further delay:

The standards are long overdue. The [Disability Discrimination Act] and the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act have been in place for 17 and 13 years, respectively. The industry has had 17 years to regulate itself and to progressively and cost-effectively implement changes that would meet their obligations under the Acts. Had they done so, many of the cost arguments mounted today would be irrelevant. Industry has in fact been cost-saving for 17 years at the expense of a large percentage of the population. It is now time to restore that balance.

I concur also with the quote from the Victorian Disability Advisory Council and with the committee’s conclusion that the premises standards should be introduced without further delay. I do note that the committee recommended that the Australian government provide funding for new research—they specify a 12-month timetable from the tabling of the report—into wheelchair sizes and the dimensions of building features necessary to accommodate them. I endorse that recommendation.

I understand that the data the committee had been relying on for the development of the standards was based on a study conducted in 1983. Frankly, we know that the population requiring accessible facilities is increasing and we know that the technology available to assist them is improving. It seems to me that to be unaware of whether that has meant that wheelchairs are changing shape, getting bigger or getting smaller or by how much seems to be a gap in the research and information available to the committee. I hope that that research will be able to be conducted and perhaps improvements to the code made in that regard.

In the case of my own electorate office, we found that a constituent with a child with a disability whose electric wheelchair would be unable to come through the front door of my office. With the support and approval of the Special Minister of State that resulted in some renovations to my office to ensure that we had access for all my constituents who may need to come and see me.

I referred earlier to my delight at the committee’s recommendations that the Disability Discrimination Commissioner be given power to investigate noncompliance with the premises standards and to be able to bring a complaint where there is noncompliance with the premises standards without requiring any individual complaint. I think this is an incredibly important reform. Our experience in this area shows that an individual complaints based system is less effective than it could be or should be—when I say ‘less effective’ in some cases it is totally ineffective—in bringing about the sort of change that would ensure not only social justice but improved social inclusion for people with disabilities. The process of pursuing a complaint can be lengthy and costly for the individual who has been disadvantaged or discriminated against in the first place. It seems to me not a desirable system when you are dealing with issues associated with discrimination. So I fully support this role for the Disability Discrimination Commissioner and I hope that this will hold drive change effectively across our community.

In conclusion, can I say that I would again urge the government to implement the committee’s recommendations expeditiously. It is clear to me that out there in the disability services sector—and certainly amongst advocates and representatives of people with disability—there is a great anxiety to see these changes implemented as soon as possible. I am also confident that the recommendations, if implemented, will drive positive change in our community.

In that regard, I could not possibly conclude today without acknowledging the disability services sector in Western Australia for the work that they continue to do in advocating for the rights of people with disability. I talk here about not only community based organisations but also our own Disability Services Commission in Western Australia. They understand completely that accessibility is critical to the full participation of people with a disability in all that life has to offer.

I am pleased that access has been the focus of substantial campaigns and public policy development in Western Australia. Indeed, the West Australian state government has a regime in place—and has had for many years—which requires all state government agencies and departments, as well as all local governments in Western Australia, to consider their buildings and facilities and to ensure that they have plans for disability access. Disability access and inclusion plans have been required to be tabled in Western Australia for some time, and it has helped provide some focus to this issue in Western Australia.

The Disability Services Commission, who have driven much of that change, have also campaigned successfully on this issue. I would like to close with a quote from their campaign:

Good access for people with a disability means good access for all people.

Again, I commend the report. I commend the committee, and in particular the chair, the member for Isaacs. I look forward to seeing the Rudd government, especially led by the parliamentary secretary in this area, act on the recommendations of the report at the earliest opportunity.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children's Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to congratulate the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Standing Committee led by my colleague the member for Isaacs, for its hard work in examining the draft Disability (Access to Premises—Buildings) Standards. I would also like to acknowledge the work of the countless number of people from the disability sector who made submissions. There were also constructive contributions from many in the property sector, including Peter Verwer, the head of the Property Council of Australia.

The Rudd government is still finalising its response to the report, I can advise the member for Hasluck, but I believe that the thoroughness of the consultation process and the work that has been done will influence the final decision. The battle for access to public buildings for people with disability is one that has been fought for many years and unfortunately despite some victories is not over. I believe that without access to buildings and public spaces there cannot be true equality for Australians with disability. Until people with disability can enter shops and cafes, enter workplaces, get to appointments that are not on the ground floor and enjoy the same concerts and sporting events as the rest of the population then their inclusion in society cannot be considered complete. Too many Australians are literally on the outside looking in.

Throughout the history of all civil rights struggles, access to public premises has been a key test. Whether it be black Americans forced to ride at the back of the bus, or Aboriginal Australians barred from public swimming pools, second-class citizenship has always been clothed in physical exclusion. Despite the passing of the Disability Discrimination Act in 1992 and the progress that has been made since then, people with disability are still excluded too often in society in terms of access to premises. I believe that this exclusion is generally not through active malice but through a combination of indifference and neglect that sometimes takes refuge behind a spurious economic argument.

It has been suggested to me by one advocate that buildings that are not accessible should be required to have signs prominently displayed telling the public which classes of people with disability are not welcome in the building, and therefore we could shame people into changing the way they build their buildings. I think this suggestion shows the importance of this issue to people with disability and how keenly exclusion is felt. The idea that we would design labels on buildings saying, ‘You’re not welcome here,’ would be anathema to Australians. But that is exactly what happens with disability standards and access to premises.

The Rudd government recently released the Shut out report, the result of consultations on our national disability strategy, which is due next year. This report is an honest look at the frustrations of having a disability in Australia today and the barriers that are routinely and needlessly placed in the path of people with impairments. Twenty-seven in every 100 respondents to the massive survey in the Shut out report said that lack of access to the environment acts as a barrier to their full participation in the life of the community. The report quotes one as saying:

“We want to contribute to Australian society but we usually find that we can’t access the workplace, can’t access public venues, can’t have a holiday because there is no suitable accommodation.”

Another was quoted as saying:

“Many professional services [such as dentists] are based on secondary levels with stair access only. Many cafes have step entry. Cinemas and swimming facilities are still often inaccessible. This prevents me from participating in these recreational activities with family and friends.”

This inability to access facilities compromises a person with a disability’s quality of life and acts as a persistent reminder that they are only partial members of the broader Australian community. Nothing reinforces the sense of internal exile that many feel more than the experience of arriving at a shop or restaurant only to find that they are effectively locked out. If they are not locked out, they might be forced to go around the back, through the kitchen or up the goods lifts—made to feel less than the person they are.

People with disability have the legal right not to be discriminated against with regard to access to premises and the built environment. The Disability Discrimination Act affirmed those rights when it was enacted in 1992. This act has done great work, and in the hands of dedicated advocates for people with disability it has been used as a tunnel-boring machine driving through the rock line of entrenched prejudice. However, the act does not provide detailed guidance as to what a building owner, designer or manager needs to do to ensure accessibility. It is clear, and has been clear for some years, that the Building Code of Australia needs to be amended to outline the legal responsibilities in detail. Premises standards would harmonise the requirements of the Building Code and the Disability Discrimination Act. As well as providing more access for people with disability, premises standards would provide more certainty to the building industry by letting them know in advance what is required. It is obvious to anyone who has renovated a house that including accessibility features in the original design is far cheaper and easier than trying to retrofit them to an existing building.

We have reached a point, I am pleased to say, where environmental sustainability is automatically considered as part of the design of a new building, reinforced by the star-rating schemes established by the states. But where is the same treatment for people with a disability? Are they less important than our environment? I think not. We are not at the same point with disability access. It is still seen as an add-on cost, something separate from the main design of a building. In my role as the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services I am constantly being presented with issues of accessibility—from poorly located disability parking places and ramps leading straight into grilles that a wheelchair could not negotiate to shortages of disabled toilets. I am grateful for some research from the Australian Federation of Disability Organisations for the following paragraphs:

Disabled toilets appear to be a particular issue. Even in new buildings, such as Rod Laver Arena and Federation Square in Melbourne, or the Pacific Fair Shopping Centre on the Gold Coast, there are issues with the quality and access of disabled toilets.

I hear that the toilets are often not suitable for people who require a hoist, or for those who require assistance and an adult-size change table.

In one case reported to me, the lock on the door required both hands to open and shut—making it difficult for some people with disability to enter.

Often these toilets are combined with baby-changing facilities. Presumably this is to save space, but it increases the demand on a scarce resource.

I know that people with disability are frustrated by the sporadic application of accessibility principles and the number of new buildings that appear to have been built without any thought about or input from a person with a disability. I am also aware that local councils are all too often failing in their responsibility to their ratepayers with a disability by allowing exemptions to accessibility standards for new construction.

I am also concerned about the way our houses and apartments are being built in Australia. The issue of residential premises is not covered by these draft standards, but I believe it is one that will become of increasing importance as Australians age. I would love to see more builders embrace the concept of universal design, the simple yet powerful idea that houses should be able to change as we change and to adapt to our changing needs as we go. Along with ageing Australians, there are approximately 1.3 million Australians with a severe or profound disability, and this number is likely to increase. It is also obvious that most people prefer to age in their own homes, on their own terms, with as much independence and dignity as possible. Some of the practical features of universal design are simple: solid walls in bathrooms so that rails can be easily attached; showers where a person does not have to step over the side of a bath or another obstacle to get into them; benchtops in kitchens at both sitting and standing heights; extra living spaces on the ground floor of homes to accommodate future needs; a level main entrance to a house and a sloping landscape to allow easier access; and windows that can be opened or closed with one hand by a person in a sitting position. None of these items adds significantly to the cost of a new house, and indeed the builders would find a greater market to purchase these houses.

The battle for equality for people with disabilities is not one that is going to be won overnight, as many decades of struggle would indicate. I suggest that it is a series of small victories and incremental changes. However, measures such as these building standards are an important signal to the building industry that the needs of people with disability and their right to access buildings easily and with dignity are important. I think these draft standards show that we in this place no longer accept that the needs of people with disabilities are secondary to the needs of other Australians. We accept that they need to be included and consulted when buildings are designed.

For too long people with disabilities have been told they are the ones who have to adapt to their environment rather than having the built environment adapt to them. They have had to waste valuable time and energy dealing with products, rules and systems that have been put in place with no thought for how a person with an impairment might deal with them. Need I add that we are all only one terrible car accident or, indeed, the effluxion of age away from having the very same issues that we talk about when we refer to people with disabilities? This is not an acceptable situation for people with disabilities, who are, in fact, us. I hope that the introduction of building standards will be a recognition that it is time for the rest of the community to begin more serious thinking about the needs of people with disability in every aspect of their lives.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too welcome the opportunity to speak on the report by the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs entitled Access all areas. It is a report on the draft Disability (Access to Premises—Buildings) Standards. I could not help reading the opening commentary in that report, which was a statement by Brian Howe MP made on 26 May 1992 in his second reading speech on the Disability Discrimination Bill. Having read that statement, I believe it sums up very eloquently what we as a society should be aspiring to when it comes to redressing and addressing the issues, difficulties and disadvantages being faced by people with a disability throughout our communities.

I certainly welcome the opportunity to speak on this report because it enables me to touch on some of the matters that cause that disadvantage and create barriers to people with a disability not just in Australia but right around the world. I say from the outset that this is a matter that has been neglected and somewhat ignored for much too long. I certainly welcome the fact that in recent years this parliament has begun to address many of these issues. We nevertheless have a long, long way to go. I say that in the full knowledge that it is indeed a very complex matter that is effectively endless. You can start on this project, as I suspect the committee members did, and once you begin to make your inquiries and hear the stories you begin to delve into areas that you had not intended to from the outset but which are just as relevant to what you are trying to achieve as the final recommendations that you bring back to the parliament are.

Clearly, the committee had a focus on addressing the issues relating to buildings, and quite rightly so, because, without access into buildings, that level of disadvantage is just compounded so much more. Access denied into buildings is in fact one of the most serious kinds of barriers that we place in front of people with a disability. I say that in the full knowledge that there is such a wide range of disabilities and trying to address every aspect of improvement that is required for every kind of disability that is out there is indeed a mammoth task. For that reason I accept that we can address these issues by taking them one step at a time, and I believe that is exactly what the committee has endeavoured to do in this report by, in the first instance, addressing the building standards.

I congratulate the committee members on the effort they have put into this report. It is clear that they have put an incredible amount of work into listening to the representations that were made and then put some very considered thought into the recommendations that they brought back to the parliament. Just a moment ago I listened to the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services and I, too, will be waiting with interest for the government’s response to the report.

It is well known and, again, repeated in the report that one in five members of our society has some form of disability. As I said earlier on, that disability can take on a whole range of different forms. As a result of that, those people with a disability, whatever it might be, have to live with a level of hardship on a daily basis that, fortunately, most of us do not have to do. It is a hardship that is made worse because we as a society have, over the years, placed unnecessary barriers in front of people with disabilities. We have done so, I believe, not deliberately but unintentionally. We have done so because many of us within society, in our decision-making processes, simply do not have the understanding and the knowledge of what it might be like for a person with a disability to then have to, perhaps, be part of whatever it is we are making a decision on. I will come back to that a bit later on and talk about some of the things that can be done.

It seems to me that, quite often, many of the barriers that are there for people with disabilities could have been avoided, probably without any additional cost whatsoever to society, but rather with some foresight. I said earlier that this is a complex issue and indeed it is. It is a complex issue because of the multiple nature of barriers that are there and the multiple nature of disabilities that exist amongst the community. For that reason I expect that our response to all of these matters will certainly be a slow one. Extensive reform is possible without, I believe, doing much more than just changing the culture and the mindset of the decision makers, the designers and the people who make decisions within society generally. In saying that, I believe it is possible to do all those things without imposing an unreasonable obligation on the rest of society. I highlight the word ‘unreasonable’ in my remarks because there is a level at which you have to make a judgment about what is reasonable and what is unreasonable. It is all about: what is reasonable?

We live in a society where many of our laws, practices and principles we adhere to are built on a spirit of social justice or social equality. Yet, when it comes to disability issues, reform seems to have occurred at a much slower pace than it has in so many other areas. We can talk about inequality, whether it is to do with women’s issues or racial issues and so on, and we moved and acted on those many years ago, but it seems we have been pretty slow when it comes to the disability sector. Again, I welcome the fact that this parliament is now speaking about this issue and has brought back this report.

As I said, access to buildings is one of those primary areas that we need to overcome if we are going to begin on the road to breaking down the barriers for people with disabilities. Essentially, that comes about by society broadly having a much better understanding of what needs to be done, and you can only have that better understanding if you take the time out to listen to people with disabilities, to listen to their problems and to understand that, more often than not, what they are asking for is not at all unreasonable.

It comes about, for example, through changing the designs of many of the things we manufacture, including our homes. I heard the parliamentary secretary talking about that just a moment ago. A classic example of the way we design homes today is that had we designed them differently in years gone by, and if the standards for door making, or windows, or ramps or whatever had been done differently from the start, it would have made life so much easier for so many people, yet without adding any additional cost. All it meant was a different design, not a different cost structure. The cost occurs now because when you retrofit, what you are trying to do and what you need to do incur additional costs because they are not standard fittings anymore. Had they been standard in the first place, they would not have been an extra cost at all. I can think of many examples, whether they are to do with ramps, passageways or doorways, that could easily have been designed differently in years gone by. It now is the case that we have to retrofit in many examples, so bringing about some uniformity in the building standards and standards to address some of those problems will at least ensure that new buildings, or where new work is carried out, will comply with those standards. I believe that is a good thing and is something that is well overdue.

I will give another example of how, sometimes, it does not take a lot to do things differently but it can make a world of difference to people with disabilities. Years ago I was the mayor of the City of Salisbury. We adopted a program whereby we would see what we could do to overcome many of the barriers faced by people with disabilities. We set up an advisory committee made up predominantly of members of the community with a diverse range of disabilities, who gave us advice as to what should be done. One of the issues that was a constant problem to people with disabilities was accessing buses—getting on and off buses—because the bus stops were not properly designed and built to enable that to occur. Certainly, if you had a wheelchair, or one of those motorised gophers, it was almost impossible to get onto a bus at most bus stops. We went about redesigning and changing the bus stops throughout the city. Had that been done in the first instance, most of the problems—the redesign and rebuild work that took place—would never have been necessary, and it would not have cost much more to have done it right in the first place than it was to have done it the way that it was. It was simply through genuine ignorance that they were designed and built the way they were. Ultimately, to retrofit was going to cost our city close to $1 million. That is the kind of cost that could have been avoided.

Having said that, the work of the committee highlighted to me that people with a disability are not at all unreasonable; in fact, they are probably more understanding and more tolerant than most other people. It was because of that I came to respect the fact that what they asked for was never unreasonable, and if what seemed to be unreasonable was unreasonable, they would be the first to say, ‘We accept that this might create a barrier for us but it is unreasonable to ask the rest of the community to fix it up for us.’ They did not have unrealistic expectations. What we were able to do, as a group, was methodically to work through the areas of disadvantage that were being caused for people with disabilities throughout the city as a result of doing things unintentionally, which created those barriers.

This report has a number of recommendations in it, and I suspect they make a huge inroad towards breaking down those barriers. It is a report that, I believe, will lead to a lot more reports in years to come and a lot more areas being explored where the barriers for people with disabilities can and should be broken down, and I welcome that. A number of the recommendations talk about further work being done in different areas.

I conclude my remarks by saying that, having read parts of the report—and I cannot say that I have studied it all in detail—the important thing is that we need to ensure whatever standards are agreed to are then implemented throughout the community because it is pointless having a set of standards that overcome the barriers that I am referring to but are not in fact policed in any way, shape or form. That is one of the things that we need to ensure happens.

The other concern I have is that because of the cost of housing today and the small allotments that are being created, I am seeing smaller homes being built on tighter allotments with tighter spaces in every sense of the word. I believe that we may regret doing that because in years to come when older people remain in their own homes they will need some of the aids that the parliamentary secretary referred to earlier. The places that we are building now may not be designed to cater for them. Again, that is why I welcome the fact that, at least in future new buildings, or where new work is carried out, work ought to be carried out in a way that complies with these standards.

Once again, I congratulate all of the committee members for the work they have done. I look forward to the government response on this; but, more importantly, I look forward to the community’s response on this because this is a matter for which we all collectively have responsibility.