Australia — The
disabled are asking for too much when it comes to
building access. Their lobbyists have gone beyond common
sense or caring about the cost to the community. They
want the ideal and they plan to get it at any
price.
For several years, the Property
Council has negotiated with disability lobbyists and
bureaucrats to develop a premises access standard for the
disabled.
The aim is to provide certainty
about rules for complying with the Disability
Discrimination Act, which rightly says the disabled
should have dignified access to buildings.
The Property Council has devoted
huge resources to the issue. We approached the
negotiating table in good faith and agreed to dozens of
comprehensive changes to the way buildings are designed,
all of which would vastly improve the accessibility of
the built environment.
The problem is that disability
lobbyists do not believe in compromise.
And so now we come to the
reckoning. The government's own consultants recently
finished their cost benefit analysis of the draft
premises standard which resulted from our so-called
'negotiations'.
Their conclusion is that the
premises standard would produce $14 billion of benefits.
However, the cost of implementing the standard is
estimated at $26 billion.
The Property Council's research
indicates this price tag is wildly understated - $50
billion is closer to the mark. Nevertheless, even on the
government's own numbers, the costs outweigh the benefits
big time.
Incredibly, the government's
consultants recommend the standard proceed
anyway.
There are four big problems with
the conduct of this policy issue.
First, there is no commitment to
genuine negotiation on the part of disability lobbyists
or bureaucrats.
Second, there is no commitment to
producing a standard where the benefits outweigh the
costs.
Third, there is no recognition of
the need to phase in any new rules for existing
buildings. At present, if more than 50 percent of a
building is upgraded over three years, it must
automatically comply with the tough standard for new
premises.
The transport sector was given 25
years to come up to speed. For many buildings, the
guillotine will fall despite the massive impracticalities
of the draft standard.
Fourth, the draft standard is
unreasonable. AIl of this could have been avoided if
disability lobbyists had been willing to work with
industry to develop a standard that would deliver a
greatly improved built environment for the
disabled.
Instead they want the world. Here's
a few examples.
All corridors in virtually
every building in the country will need to be 200mm
wider just in case two wheelchairs need to pass each
other. If corridors are only 1800mm, then passing
spaces will be required every nine metres so that
wheelchairs can cruise by. In addition, turning spaces
will be required at the end of every corridor.
No compromise will be
considered.
Every entrance to a
building with more than 500 sq m of floor area will
need to be accessible. Topography is no excuse. If an
entrance is not wheelchair accessible, it should be
closed to everyone.
We suggested a majority of
entrances was reasonable. No compromises.
A unisex toilet will be
required at every location of toilets on every floor
of virtually every building in the country. We
suggested a percentage of toilets in a building, given
that most will never be used by the disabled. No
compromises.
Lifts will need to be bigger. No
compromises.
Restaurants will need to
be 100 percent accessible. No compromises.
The list goes on and on.
The property sector wants to do the
right thing and is willing to pay a reasonable bill for
society's higher standards. However, the current process
is rigged and driven by lobbyists who believe that
political correctness is a valuable asset that should be
played for all its worth.
Our job is to ensure rationality
prevails.
