1.
Misleading Conclusions
The Physical Disability
Council rejects the RIS and will intend to
appeal the assessment along the lines of the
appeal mechanism referred to on page 1. We
believe that the methodology and conclusions of
the RIS continue to be flawed, and we
furthermore believe that the RIS shows a strong
bias against the disability sector.
We note that the benefits
to people other than people with disabilities
have been recognised but believe that mere
noting is not good enough and that some attempt
should have been made to measure these benefits.
We note that the NPV costs and nominal costs
have been revised downwards to $3.4 billion and
$6.6 billion respectively (page 9) as a result
of the exclusion of costs associated with places
of refuge and the higher discount rate used to
allow for technological change, but wonder why a
0.7-1.5% increase in costs continue to be
described as significant while a perceived
improvement by 53% of a survey group continues
to be described as moderate (see A.2.d
below).
We reject the conclusion
(which is the only part that most people read)
that the “amendment will impose significant
costs on building owners and building based
business” while “the users of
buildings will benefit from the increased access
and amenity to a moderate extent” (p.9).
This description is wrong in terms of the RIS
itself and wrong because of the inadequate
methodology of the RIS (notwithstanding the
endorsement of the Industry
Commission).
2.
Benefits Understated
We note that a number of
our comments about the benefits to other users
were noted in the revised RIS but were puzzled
as to why there was still no attempt to measure
these benefits in the same terms as the costs -
i.e. in terms of dollars. We note that the
Industry Commission has endorsed the methodology
of the RIS, but this merely calls into question
the Industry Commission as well as the RIS. We
present some of our own benefit estimates
below.
a.
Insurance Value of an Accessible
Environment
We note that the RIS
has made no mention of the
“insurance” benefit of an
accessible environment viz. that people who
do not currently have a disability or a
family member or friend with a disability
would draw comfort and therefore benefit from
having an accessible environment in the event
that they or a family member or friend
acquire a disability. There is of course
market failure for insuring against the loss
of socioeconomic participation because of
disability, but PDCN believes that
application of a “shadow” insurance
premium of 0.1% across the population is a
conservative estimate of a “fair value
risk-neutral” premium given that the
odds of acquiring a disability are less than
1,000 to 1. Applying a conservative 0.1%
premium to National Income implies a benefit
across the population of at least $420
million per year, or $8.4 billion over 20
years. (The actual “shadow” premium
which should be applied is an empirical
question which the RIS should have but did
not attempt to estimate).
b.
Lost Productivity Due to an Inaccessible
Environment
We believe that the RIS
should have made some attempt to estimate the
lost productivity due to an inaccessible
built environment. While the built
environment is only one part of the
environment, PDCN believes that some
apportionment of the benefits should have
been made.
The participation rate
in the workforce of the 80,000 wheelchair
users in the community is 38% as compared to
63% for the population as a whole. If 12,000
currently unemployed wheelchair users were
made employable as a result of an accessible
social and built environment, and they had an
average productivity of $25,000 per annum,
then National Income would increase by $300
million per year, or $6 billion over 20
years. This is an underestimate of an
accessible environment because it includes
only wheelchair users and therefore excludes
people with vision and hearing impairments,
and the large number of people with ambulant
disabilities.
c.
Other Beneficiaries of an Accessible
Environment
There are of course
difficulties in attempting to estimate the
value of an accessible environment to carers,
friends, and family and to people with prams
and trolleys. It is difficult to estimate the
value of a safer built environment to workers
and children or of the amenity value of
larger spaces. And it is difficult to measure
the value of an accessible environment to
people with disabilities.
But it is also
difficult to measure the cost of providing
access to a building. The latter was
attempted, and PDCN believes that there
should also have been an attempt to measure
the benefits in dollar terms or to look at
the overseas evidence, and to examine the
literature on benefits.
If the RIS was able to
accept the Property Council’s estimate
of a $20 per square meter cost of access,
then we feel it is appropriate to suggest
that the value of an accessible built
environment to wheelchair users is
approximately $4,000 per year.
Given the 80,000
wheelchair users in Australia, this comes a
value of $320 million per annum, or $6.4
billion over 20 years. It is an underestimate
because it only accounts for the small number
of people with disabilities who use
wheelchairs, and excludes people with
ambulant disabilities, and people with
hearing and vision impairments. It also
excludes the value of an accessible
environment to carers, friends and relatives
of people with disabilities.
d.
Qualitative Conclusions from RIS survey:
Beyond Comprehension
By what stretch of the
imagination can a policy which increases the
percentage of ambulant and wheelchair groups
not needing assistance from 59% to 90% and
where 77% of the surveyed group believe their
participation in socio-economic activities
will improve be described as “moderate
to major” rather than major? (p.
71)
By what stretch of the
imagination can a policy which increases the
percentage of the hearing group not needing
assistance from 33% to 86% and which 48% of
the surveyed group believe will improve their
participation in socio-economic activities be
described as “moderate” rather than
major? (p.71)
The Table below
summarises PDCN’s understanding of pages
71-72. We believe that the descriptors defy
comprehension.
|
Consumer
Group
|
Percent Not
needing Assistance
|
% who believe
RD97/01 will increase
independance
|
Qualitative
Descriptor of Importance
|
|
Before
RD97/01
|
After
RD97/01
|
Increase in
Independance
|
|
Ambulant &
Wheelchair
|
59%
|
90%
|
31%
|
77%
|
Moderate to
Major
|
|
Hearing
|
33%
|
86%
|
53%
|
48%
|
Moderate
|
|
Vision
|
70%
|
93%
|
23%
|
52%
|
Moderate
|
|
All
|
54%
|
89%
|
35%
|
59%
|
Moderate to
Major
|
If the issue was
merely one of semantics, there would be
little to be concerned about.
But the descriptors are
highlighted besides the conclusions in the
summary on page 9, and placed beside a
description of the costs to building owners
as significant.
But because page 9 may
be the only page that busy decision-makers
will read, and because it is the page that
most advisors to decision-makers will
summarise, the misleading description of the
value of the benefits is critical. It is
difficult to overstate PDCN’s
frustration with these misleading
conclusions.
3.
Costs Overstated
a.
Overseas Estimates Suggest Lower
Costs
We are at a loss to
explain the discrepancy between the cost
estimates of the RIS and overseas cost
estimates. Thus, “A brief survey of
studies on costs and benefits of
nonhandicapping environments” by Dr.
Adolf Ratzka at the International Congress on
Accessibility in Brazil 1994 suggests the
costs of providing barrier-free access to be
more like 0.13% than 0.7% for new public
buildings and more like 0.5% than 3.5% for
existing public buildings. Furthermore, the
survey reports that access legislation would
raise the cost of multi-family housing and
single floor single family housing by only
3%.
We are not equipped to
comment on the quality of the reviewed
research, but these estimates call into
question the costs estimates of the RIS and
suggest that a review of overseas experience
ought to be part of a sound impact
statement.
b.
Some Methodological Biases
We wonder why the
developers’ cost estimates which were
presented to Councils were taken at face
value rather than adjusted when it is well
known that these estimates are always lower
than the actual building costs. This is of
concern because the downward bias of base
estimates leads to an upward bias in the
percentage impact of access
requirements.
We wonder why the RIS
accepted at face value the estimates of
$20/square meter supplied by the Property
Council, when the Property Council wants as
little “intervention” in the
activities of builders as possible. This is
like the referee asking one of the teams in a
match to interpret the rules!
We wonder to what
purpose the RIS made three supposedly
“independent” estimates of the
costs when the three estimates are not
independent - i.e. national accounts and the
capital account are intimately related, and
these in turn are both logically related to
the real output extrapolations. We believe
the three estimates give a false and spurious
sense of consistency when consistency is in
fact guaranteed by the logic of the
relationship between National Accounts,
output, and the Capital account.
c.
Cost Overestimated Because Lack of
Enforcement
We believe that the RIS
costs estimates overstate likely future costs
because there is no means of enforcement
except through the DDA complaints mechanism.
It is inevitable that parts of the Amendment
will be ignored, with a consequent decrease
in the cost and a longer than 20-year time
frame for implementation of an accessible
built environment.
1.
The BCA as a DDA Standard
PDCN welcomes the
recognition in the Building Access Outcomes
Report “that there are many aspects of the
built environment not within the scope of the
BCA that are within the scope of the DDA and for
which a separate standard… standard may be
needed” (p. 4). We are however disappointed
that the Report did not go further in describing
the symbiotic relationship between the
“base building” and the other
“aspects of the building’s environment
and use”.. (We are also puzzled as to the
meaning of “part of a standard” which
has been excluded from the sentence quoted
above.)
Because it is impossible
from a functional point of view to separate the
base building from the furniture and fixtures,
from the outdoor and open space facilities, from
the management and operational procedures, and
from adaptability issues, PDCN believes it is
impossible to adopt one part of the what would
make up an Access Standard from the other parts
(i.e. the BCA from the Furniture and Fixture
Standard etc.).
While we support the need
for a DDA Standard to cover “access”
for people with disabilities in the built
environment, and we support the proposals of the
Building Access Outcomes Report subject to
resolution of a number of issues outlined below
and look forward to speedy passage of an amended
BCA, we believe that BCA and the making of DDA
Standard are at this stage separate
issues.
PDCN rejects both
the notion that the DDA must be amended
before the BCA Amendment can be adopted and
the notion that the BCA would constitute an
entire Access Standard.
2.
Decision Making and Review
Process
People with disabilities
in general and PDCN in particular participated
in good faith and with good will towards the
ABCB in the development of RD97/01, providing
advice on how best to meet their needs within
the built environment.
The Outcomes report does
not inform the stakeholders on the process
undertaken by the ABCB when reviewing the access
requirements as set out in RD97/01. In order to
make an informed response, people with
disabilities need to know the reasons for the
reduction in some of the proposals contained
within RD97/01 e.g. the reduction in designated
parking spaces, the exclusion of schools and
swimming pools, the backdown on visitability to
Class 1b and Class 2 buildings, and the increase
in the threshold for two and three-storey
buildings,
PDCN calls on the
ABCB and stakeholders to evaluate the methods
of review and the reasoning behind the
alterations to RD97/01 given that these
alterations will continue to exclude a
significant number of people with
disabilities from society.
1.
Door Widths, Lift Openings etc. - the Wheelchair
footprint
The suggested 800 mm
minimum clear opening of a doorway (p. 38)
appears to be an arbitrary decision between AS
1428.1 (with a A80 1250mm by 740mm wheelchair
footprint which suggests a 760mm door width) and
AS1428.2 (with a A90 1300mm by 800mm wheelchair
footprint which suggests an 850mm door
width).
This 800mm door width
proposal clearly discriminates against 10% of
wheelchair users and 15% of people who use
scooters.
PDCN calls on the ABCB to
accept the wheelchair footprint size of
A90(300mm by 800mm) as the minimum standard for
all components of access including door widths
and lifts. Accepting this as the wheelchair
footprint size will create consistency
throughout the built environment and minimise
discrimination.
2.
Second and Third Floors of Two and Three Storey
Buildings - (pp 7, 22)
The current proposal is to
require general access throughout a building
except in two and three storey buildings with a
total area less than 500 Metres2 on the upper
floor(s) and where no unique facility exists on
the upper levels.
We believe that 500
Metres2 is a substantial area which covers many
non-unique specialty outlets and services. We
further believe that exclusion from the wide a
range of non-unique outlets and services
substantially reduces the choices available to
people with physical disabilities, and is
therefore both discriminatory and burdensome. We
are puzzled as to why the area threshold has
been increased from the 400 square metres
threshold of RD 97/01.
The “unique facility
or service” (p. 7) clause is nonsensical
because most space is only leased out only after
a building is well under way, and because even
if none of the initial tenants in a new building
are “unique”, there is no reason to
expect that none of the subsequent tenants will
be “unique”. Were a subsequent
“unique” tenant to occupy upper floor
premises, the tenant would most likely be able
to successfully argue “unjustifiable
hardship” were a DDA complaint to be lodged
- even though construction or provision for a
lift shaft at an early stage could have been
economical.
PDCN calls upon
the ABCB to investigate options that allow
for easy installation of lifts after
construction if necessary and halving the
exemption threshold from 500 square metres to
250 square metres.
3.
Access and Egress – (pp 15-17)
We reject outright the
proposal to exclude access provisions for people
with a disability to the public and common areas
of Class 2 and Class 1b buildings. To continue
to prevent access through the front door, to
lifts, to car parks, etc. is to continue to
treat people with disabilities as second-class
citizens. It is keeping people with disabilities
separate - i.e. apartheid. Not only can we not
live in these premises, but we cannot even visit
our friends, nor work as tutors or technicians,
etc.
PDCN calls on the
ACBC to ensure that full non-discriminatory
access is provided to the public and common
areas of Class 1b and Class 2
buildings.
4.
Pedestrian Ramps at Exits - page
18
PDCN believes that all
ramps into and out of any facility should be
seen as an accessible ramp, and that there
should be no “other case” as suggested
in D2.10(b). All ramps for safety reasons should
comply with AS1428.1 and provide landings at
turns and intermediate rest points according to
AS1428.2
PDCN call on the
ABCB remove D2.10(b) and require that all
ramps comply with AS1428.1 and
AS1428.2
5.
Access for People With Disabilities - page
20
PDCN completely rejects
the proposal to exclude access provisions for
people with a disability to the public and
common areas of Class 1b, 2 and 4 buildings and
Class 10 buildings when part of Classes 2 and 4.
As indicated above, PDCN believes that to
continue to prevent access to public and common
areas is to continue to treat people with
disabilities as second-class citizens. It is
keeping people with disabilities separate - i.e.
apartheid.
PDCN calls on the
ABC to remove the exclusion to access Class
1b, Class 2, Class 4 and certain Class 10
buildings.
6.
Wheelchair spaces in certain Class 9b Buildings
- page 23
Words like practicable are
signals and messages for developers and Councils
to ignore the intention of the Building Code to
provide non-discriminatory access. In that sense
the inclusion of practicable in the wording of
D3.3 has reduced the intent of the provision as
compared to RD97/01 which required spaces
“across the range of viewing positions,
prices and amenity available to all
persons”..
PDCN calls on the
ABCB to return to the wording within RD97/01
with regard to the provision of Wheelchair
Spaces in certain Class 9b buildings, and to
provide more definition of the specified
areas of a grandstands, theatres and
auditoria to which wheelchair accessible
seating spaces should be provided.
7.
Vertical access - page 24
The pre-amble in the
summary of this report articulates the
requirement to provide independent usage of
speciality lifts at all times. However,
sub-paragraphs C and D relating to AS1735.7 and
AS1735.14 do not include the same requirement
for independent use as articulated in
sub-paragraph E for AS1735.16.
PDCN calls on the
ABCB to ensure that the requirement for
independent usage be applied to all
speciality lifts.
8.
Car parking - page 25
PDCN believes that the 1%
allocation of designated accessible car spaces
is totally inadequate in view of the ease with
which vouchers for accessible car spaces are
distributed, the poor enforcement of spaces, and
the proportion of the population with ambulatory
disabilities.
PDCN calls on the
ABCB to increase the percentage allocation to
3% wide bay spaces as per the proposal in
RD97/01.
9.
Hearing augmentation - Ticket Booths - Page
26
PDCN notes the ABCB’s
acknowledgment of the need to provide
communication support for people with hearing
impairment at ticket booth and windows, and
believes there should also be hearing support
available at wheelchair accessible windows.
There is an assumption that people in
wheelchairs do not have hearing impairments and
that people with hearing impairments do not use
wheelchairs. This is false, and likely to be
less valid in future as the incidence of people
with multiple disabilities increases.
PDCN calls on the
ABCB to ensure that all ticket windows,
booths and counters make provision for people
with hearing impairment.
10.
School Buildings
We cannot accept any
proposal which provides less than 100% access to
all classrooms and facilities in new schools,
including smaller buildings. To wait for the
building access issue to be resolved by the
Education Standards Taskforce is to delay
unnecessarily and subject another cohort or two
of students to marginalisation, isolation, and
discrimination.
The proposal to provide
less than 100% access restricts the ability of
students, teachers and parents who use a
wheelchair to undertake dignified education,
gain employment in the school, or be a parent
who participates in school activities.
Restricting the classrooms used by the cohort of
the peers of a student with a disability leads
to resentment against the student with the
disability. The need for teachers to be mindful
of the needs of a student with the disability
leads to resentment and/or guilt by teachers,
and as often leads to a failure to meet the
needs of the student with a disability.
Timetabling does not allow for spontaneous
events or individual need, and inevitably leads
to discrimination, isolation and
marginalisation.
PDCN cannot countenance
another generation of students with disabilities
being marginalised and isolated and being kept
from performing to their full potential,
particularly in view of the negligible cost of
providing access at a “greenfields”
site.
Furthermore, 100% access
needs to be provided because school buildings
are an intrinsic part of the community fabric
and are often used as Evening Colleges, for
community activities, election polling, and
entertainment venues, etc.
PDCN call on the
ABCB to ensure that the original requirement
of RD97/01 that access be provided to 100% of
the classrooms and facilities in all new
schools.
11.
Swimming Pools
It is totally
inappropriate to exclude swimming pools from the
need to provide access to people with
disabilities. Whilst it is accepted that it is
not possible to ramp a competition pool, it is
possible to provide access by means of a hoist.
In pools other than competition pools access
should be provided by means of a ramp to enable
independent entry. It should be noted that it is
now possible to raise the floor of a pool to
zero depth, and this is a means of dignified
independent access to swimming pools.
PDCN calls on the
ABCB to ensure that people with disabilities
should have the same choices of recreation as
everyone else in the community and should not
be excluded from accessing swimming pools.
Swimming pools should not be exempt from
providing access to people with
disabilities.
12.
Existing Buildings
We are unaware of any
consultation having taken place about access to
existing buildings but are pleased that the
issue has been raised in the RIS. In our view
the crucial questions relate to:
- when a building or
part of a building should be made
accessible
- the parts which should
be made accessible
- the nature of
exemptions
- implementation.
The fundamental principles
sought by people with disabilities are
that:
1. Whenever a
building undergoes:
a) any new building
works, even 5 % of structural or aesthetic
refurbishments,
or
b) a complaint of
discrimination has found to be
valid,
that the
following must apply:
- access into
building entrances becomes a mandatory
requirement where a partial upgrade,
such as a whole floor in a multi-storey
building, is planned.
- all efforts must
be made to establish primary access
into a building,
- all efforts must
be made to address the issue of a
complaint, and
- all aspects of
any refurbishment must be made
accessible.
2. While structural
components may prevent full compliance
with the BCA in some buildings, these
exceptions need to be clearly spelled out
after broad consultation in order to
ensure that exceptions are not used to
avoid the spirit and intent of the
DDA.
3. A decision-making
body or panel needs to be established to
decide when existing buildings should be
required to become accessible, with the
body to be include equal representation of
suitably experienced people with a
disability.
Generally, we would
agree with the view that a 20 year
implementation plan for a DDA Access
Standard is appropriate for existing
buildings.
ABCB Building
Access Outcomes Report and Regulatory Impact Statement for
Amendment of the Building Code of Australia