Access Insight - March 2018

FEBRUARY / MARCH 2018

Hon Dan Tehan MP Minister for Social Services Updates to BCA and what it means for Access

Mr Alastair McEwin Disability Discrimination Commissioner 25 Years of DDA - ACAA perspective

DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT THE NEWSLETTER FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

FROM THE PRESIDENT’S DESK

by Mark Relf AM President of the Association of Consultants in Access Australia

A

s you will have noted from the cover we have reached the 25th anniversary since the enactment of the Disability Discrimination Act, which is marked by several notable contributions by Minister Dan Tehan, Commissioner Alastair McEwin and John Deshon who each provide their reflections on the impact of the DDA and how it has changed the outlook and lives for people with disabilities.

While we can celebrate many achievements over the past 25 years there is always room for improvement, especially in the areas of: • M ore expeditious 5 year reviews of DDA Standards which incorporate amendments to Australian Standards that embrace new technology, innovation and continuous improvement.

• Education resources produced by the Australian Human Rights Commission for specific areas of the built environment and industry sectors to progress “inclusion” such as tourism and public transport.

• Conducting public enquiries and research focussed on building inclusive communities.

• Enforcement mechanism for the implementation of the DDA Standards.

• C ollaborative ventures that include inter-government agencies and the community sector.

• Creation of a funded agency to co-ordinate all of the above.

Hopefully, we will see progression of the DDA Premises Standards review in the near future and whether the timetabled 2017 review of the DDA Transport Standard will proceed.

While the public draft NCC 2019 document heralds the increased use of Performance Solutions with the inclusion of VM (Verification Methods) it is evident that there is the potential for a real threat on the integrity of the DDA Premises Standards whereby consultants are encouraged to deviate from deemed to satisfy building design requirements. Who could imagine a VM quoting 1:6 gradient for a pedestrian ramp – as access consultants we need to be very conscious of safety in design, injury litigation, insurance claims and potential loss of livelihood if we engage in such extreme practice.

I’m sure technology can assist in performance based design, but I doubt there is any place

IN THIS ISSUE From the ACAA Committee............................. 3 25th Anniversary of Disability Discrimination Act........................................... 4 The Theory of Access & Assistive Technology..................................................... 6 Reflections on 25 Years of the Disability Discrimination Act........................................... 8 DDA 25 Years On...........................................12 Performance-Based Design (or How To Bake a Cake).................................................18 CPD Opportunities........................................ 22 March Hot Apps............................................ 23 Book Review................................................. 24 ACAA Membership Requirements................. 26 2

The Association of Consultants in Access Australia

Address: 20 Maud Street, Geelong VIC 3220 Email: office@access.asn.au Phone: +61 3 5221 2820 Web: www.access.asn.au Editor: Farah Madon vicepresident@access.asn.au February / March 2018 Issue Please email the Editor if you would like to showcase your project on the Cover of the next Access Insight

THE NEWSLETTER FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

ACAA MATTERS

for 1:6 pedestrian ramps. Please read Lee Wilson’s article for a complete summary of accessibility matters in the draft NCC 2019.

Still on the NCC front the Australian Building Codes Board has announced the establishment of the Subject Matter Experts (SME) Network which includes Accessibility as one of the categories. The three volunteer access consultants appointed by the ABCB are all ACAA Accredited Members.

Go to www.abcb.gov.au/News/The-ABCBsSubject-Matter-Expert-Network-is-here.

Planning for Access 2019 conference is well underway and will be held in Sydney during August 2019. More details will be made available in the next edition.

Mark Relf AM

NEW LOGO FOR ACAA

T

he committee of management has been working with a graphic designer to update the ACAA logo. Five options were originally presented, and we have narrowed that down to two. This was done through a process of elimination based on the pros and cons of each option. We are now refining the chosen two options to ensure clarity and readability in all formats – digital and hard copy text, web, email and image. This is an exciting step forward for ACAA as it symbolises new directions and a push towards the future of access consulting in Australia.

From the ACAA Committee of Management MARCH 2018

A

CAA COM have decided to publish the minutes of the management committee meeting from June of 2018. A copy of the minutes will be made available for members on the ACAA website.

The ACAA Committee of Management has decided to offer an incentive to ACAA Associate members to upgrade to the Accredited membership category.

From the 1 April – 30 June 2018 eligible ACAA Associate members are able to start the upgrade process by paying the special offer of $750 (which includes the Accreditation Test & the accredited membership fee till end of June 2019), a saving of $250 on the current fee pricing.

Those considering this offer will need to review the Rules on applying for Accredited membership. The steps would be as follows: • Pay the Special Offer Fee $750. The online Accreditation Test will be arranged to be taken with by the 30th of June 2018 • Prepare your application submission to include, Proposer/Seconder, • Curriculum Vitae, 3 Access Reports and 3 Referees • Review and update your Continuous Professional Development (CPD) • Complete the application form & include all supportive documentation.

ACAA COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT CONTACT DETAILS Members are invited to CLICK HERE to provide feedback

PRESIDENT Mr Mark Relf AM VICE PRESIDENT Mrs Farah Madon

SECRETARY Mrs Lindsay Perry TREASURER Mr Francis Lenny

ORDINARY MEMBERS Ms Jennifer Barling Ms Cathryn Grant Mrs Anita Harrop Mr Bruce Bromley February /March 2018

3

FEATURED ARTICLE

Access Insight – 25th Anniversary of Disability Discrimination Act

by Hon Dan Tehan MP Minister for Social Services

OVERVIEW The signing of the Disability Discrimination Act in 1992 heralded major changes in attitudes to disability in Australia.

The Act recognises the fundamental rights of people with disability to equality before the law, and to live free from discrimination.

I applaud the dedicated individuals involved with achieving this milestone over 25 years ago, most notably people with disability, who themselves have been the foremost advocates and initiators of change.

People with disability, their families, carers and supporters have seen a considerable number of barriers to equal opportunity removed. Access to public spaces, transport and buildings – all critical to equal and active participation in social and economic life – are now regarded as obligatory.

Increasingly, universal design is ensuring the liveability of housing, and accessibility in work places, shopping centres, restaurants, public places and medical and education facilities.

This is the focus of the National Disability Strategy 2010-2020 (the Strategy). All levels of government in Australia have committed to the Strategy, as part of a national approach to addressing the needs of people with disability in Australia. While it is pleasing to see progress, there is always more work to be done.

NATIONAL DISABILITY STRATEGY 2010-2020 The Strategy sets the framework for improved 4

performance in the planning, design and delivery of mainstream policies, programs, services and infrastructure, as well as disability-specific services.

The six priority areas of the Strategy are the physical environment, education, health, justice, community life, and economic security, including jobs, all of which are fundamental to an inclusive society.

On 2 September 2016, members of the Council of Australian Governments’ Disability Reform Council reaffirmed their commitment to the Strategy, and agreed to reinvigorate all governments’ efforts to drive progress towards better outcomes for people with disability.

Work is also starting on developing a new national disability framework for beyond 2020, when the current Strategy expires. The new framework will build on the work of the Strategy, committing all tiers of government and the community to a continued national approach to generating positive change in how society responds to, and supports people with, disability, their families and carers.

IMPROVING ACCESS AND LIVEABILITY There is greater awareness by government, organisations, communities and business, of the need for full access to public and private facilities to ensure everyone in the community has the ability to actively participate.

People-centred approaches to planning, design, and delivery of supports and services continues to improve in the built environment.

Much of this change has been driven by people with disability themselves, and those who advocate and support these changes.

The Association of Consultants in Access Australia’s (ACAA) contribution should be commended.

THE NEWSLETTER FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

FEATURED ARTICLE ACAA provide advice to all levels of government, the building industry, and owners and managers of premises and facilities on accessibility for people with disability. Through their work with the Australian Institute of Architects, Occupational Therapy Australia and the Australian Institute of Building Surveyors, they are committed to creating a more inclusive community.

SPECIALIST DISABILITY ACCOMMODATION PROGRAM

To improve inclusion of people with disability, the Australian Government is rolling out the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), announced in 2013.

For the first time, the support allows people with disability to be independent and live in their own homes – particularly those who are cared for by elderly parents, and young people with disability living in residential care.

NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME The NDIS is undoubtedly one of the greatest social reforms of our time, and aims to give people choice and control over the services and supports they want to access. The NDIS empowers people to take control of their lives.

In December 2017, the NDIS reached a major milestone – over 132,000 participants had joined the Scheme. This number is expected to increase to 460,000 participants when the Scheme is fully implemented across Australia from 2020.

The NDIS represents a significant shift in the delivery of services for people with disability, and will create enormous opportunities for businesses and the economy.

BENEFITS OF NDIS FOR MARKETS, WORKFORCE, COMMUNITY AND BUSINESS The NDIS is expected to create tens of thousands of new jobs. The disability support workforce is expected to more than double from 73,600 full-time equivalent workers at July 2013, to around 162,000 workers by full scheme in 2020.

The NDIS is poised to stimulate a wave of innovation in assistive technology, helping people with disability in new and dynamic ways. By 2020, it is expected that participants in the NDIS will spend $1 billion a year on assistive technology.

The Australian Government is providing up to $10 million through the Specialist Disability Accommodation Initiative to address the need to improve, and increase the supply of, specialist disability accommodation for those who need it most.

This specialist accommodation aims to set a new standard for people with disability that meets the level of accessibility, liveability, robustness and support needed to live a rich and fulfilling life.

OTHER INITIATIVES As well as efforts from the Australian Government, there are many encouraging initiatives happening at a state, territory and local level.

In 2016, the South Australian Department for Communities and Social Inclusion launched a free mobile phone app called BlueBays, to help people with disability parking permits locate and share information about accessible car parking spaces in South Australia. BlueBays supports inclusion by assisting with journey planning. It taps into people’s knowledge to assist in building a consolidated list of accessible car parks. It also allows people with disability, their carers, family members, and service providers to locate car parks, find out how many there are, their dimensions, nearby facilities or businesses, and any potential concerns about the spaces.

Local governments have a major role to play in enabling people with disability to participate equally in their communities, particularly as our population continues to live longer.

To support people living with dementia, their families, and carers, local governments across

February /March 2018

5

FEATURED ARTICLE Australia are establishing dementia-friendly communities. In 2016, Kiama Municipal Council won the National Award For Local Government – Disability Access and Inclusion Award 2016 for its Dementia Friendly Project.

The Kiama Dementia Friendly Project aims to make Kiama one of Australia’s most dementia-friendly communities. Kiama Municipal Council worked collaboratively with people with dementia in Kiama, as well as their carers and interested members of the community, to achieve this goal. The project implemented a range of initiatives, such as improving local signage, creating an online dementia-friendly places map, and launching a community awareness campaign.

For its part, the Australian Government continues to support change, through updates of standards under the Disability Discrimination Act, and, most importantly, with its commitments to the Strategy and the NDIS. However, as significant as the NDIS is, we must remember that it is not the whole story.

While there are 460,000 people who we expect to qualify for the NDIS, there are another 3.8 million people who will not be eligible for the NDIS. We must continue to ensure they have the support they need.

I am very passionate about improving the lives of people with disability. All levels of government, community, business, and organisations must continue to work together to ensure people of all abilities have the same rights and opportunities within the community.

The Australian community needs to continue to remove societal barriers that prevent people with disability from participating as equal citizens. There are still barriers to equal access and opportunity that need dismantling.

But let’s not forget how far we have come since 1992.

The Theory of Access and Assistive Technology

by Farah Madon Vice President ACAA Vista Access Architects

P

rofessor Stephen William Hawking CH CBE FRS FRSA passed away on the 14th of March 2018. Professsor Hawking suffered from Motor Neurone disease since the age of 22 and in spite of his disability, with the support of assistive technology, he went on to be able to communicate with a speech synthesizer and contributed as the world’s most famous astrophysicist. Professor Hawking wrote the Foreword for the World Health Organisation’s World report on Disability in 2011. His words are still relevant today.

“….we have a moral duty to remove the barriers to participation, and to invest sufficient funding and expertise to unlock the vast potential of people with disabilities. Governments throughout the world can no longer overlook the hundreds of millions of people with disabilities who are denied access to health, rehabilitation, support, education and employment, and never get the chance to shine... It is my hope that, beginning with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and now with the publication of the World report on disability, this century will mark a turning point for inclusion of people with disabilities in the lives of their societies.”

- Prof Stephen Hawking There is no doubt that Assistive technology enhances the lives of people with disabilities and the homes designed for people with

6

THE NEWSLETTER FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

FEATURED ARTICLE disabilities need to incorporate these available technologies. With milestones such as the 25 years of the Australian Disability Discrimination Act comes the NDIS (National Disability Insurance Scheme) and the SDA (Specialist Disability Housing) that provides housing categories that allow for Assistive Technology to be incorporated or capable of being incorporated within the dwellings.

The “Fully Accessible” SDA category is required to incorporate technology that enables door automation, window blinds automation or as minimum allow for these automations during construction stage itself, so that automation can be provided as a retrofit in the future, if and when required by the resident.

This category also requires the designer to consider that fixtures such as bathroom vanities, kitchen sinks, dishwasher, oven, microwave oven, laundry appliances are designed such that they can be used by the resident in a seated or standing position. The idea is to be as flexible as possible as the resident’s needs change over time and the dwelling should be able to adapt to the changing needs.

In addition to the above the “High Physical Support” category requires, structural provision for ceiling hoists, provision to be assistive technology ready, provision for heating/cooling and household communication technology such as video or intercom systems.

Given the level of automation, the next logical question is, what happens if there is power outage? The SDA does have a requirement for emergency power solution to cater for a minimum two-hour outage, but nothing beyond that. Would the SDA still hold up in case of technology failure?

Stephen Hawking speaks at NASA. Photo Attribution by PhotosForClass.com

Another real concern is that the base line of the SDA categories requires compliance with either Livable Housing Australia’s (LHA) Guidelines Silver or Platinum level (based on the selected category). Silver level will not be suitable for wheelchair users and Platinum level will cater for wheelchair users only in certain circumstances. While AS1428.1- Design for Access and Mobility, which is the real go to document for Accessibility has a scattered reference in the LHA guideline document, the LHA Platinum level does not require door latch side circulation spaces or other circulation requirements that are crucial for independent access for wheelchair users.

As access consultants, we need to seriously consider providing Assistive technology to enhance the accessibility and not in lieu of accessibility failures.

February /March 2018

7

FEATURED ARTICLE

Reflections on 25 years of the Disability Discrimination Act

by Alastair McEwin Australia’s Disability Discrimination Commissioner THE DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT March 2018 marked the 25th anniversary of the commencement of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) (the ‘DDA’).

On 1 March 1993, Australians had a national law designed to protect them against discrimination based on disability.

Over the past quarter of a century, the DDA has contributed significantly to social change for people with disability and has been used by thousands of them to fight against discriminatory practices in many fields, including employment, education, accommodation, access to transport, goods, services, facilities and more.

The fundamental principles of the DDA are to ‘eliminate, as far as possible, discrimination against persons on the ground of disability’ (DDA, s 3(a)), and ‘ensure, as far as practicable, that persons with disabilities have the same rights to equality before the law as the rest of the community’ (DDA, s 3(b)). The DDA was Australia’s first federal, uniform legislation to recognise the rights of people with disability, symbolising a major national step towards ensuring that people with disability have the same rights as other citizens. The DDA also established an avenue of redress for people who believed they have been treated less favourably because of their disability, creating a legislative framework to work towards eliminating, as far as possible, discrimination on the ground of disability.

currently exist in the areas of public transport, education and access to premises. They serve two major purposes: to set legislative deadlines for achieving equal access for people with disability; and to provide more definite and certain benchmarks for accessibility and equality than is provided by the general anti-discrimination model. These standards have successfully promoted dignified, equitable and accessible guidance for governments, businesses, and people with disability. Together, the DDA and the disability standards establish a legislative scheme that works towards achieving the objectives of the DDA. Creating built environments and facilities that are accessible to all Australians is a right protected under the DDA. The DDA, the Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010 (‘Premises Standards’) and Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002 (‘Public Transport Standards’) provide mechanisms for achieving equal access for people with disability in the built environment. The Premises Standards aim to ‘ensure that dignified, equitable, cost-effective and reasonably achievable access to buildings, and facilities and services within buildings, is provided for people with a disability’ (Access to Premises Standards, s 1.3(a)).

COMPLAINTS UNDER THE DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT The DDA enables people to make a complaint to the Commission if they feel their rights have been violated. The Commission receives a number of complaints each year under the DDA relating to discrimination in access to premises. In 2015-16, the Commission received 74 complaints about access to premises. This makes up 8 per cent

It is unlawful under the DDA to contravene a Disability Standard. Disability Standards 8

THE NEWSLETTER FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

FEATURED ARTICLE of all complaints received under the DDA1.

Many of these complaints relate to inaccessible toilet and parking facilities, and the failure to provide ramps and other aids to enable access to shops and other public buildings for people with physical disabilities.

right. Without the clear statutory complaint framework that allows people to bring claims of disability discrimination in a no-cost jurisdiction, Australians with disability would not have access to justice other than through costly litigation.

The Commission has the power to investigate and facilitate conciliation between the parties, and in the rare circumstances the matter is not settled, complainants have the option of taking their case to court. The Commission’s conciliation process is inclusive. It strives to achieve mutually agreeable outcomes. In 2016-2017, approximately 75 per cent of complaints that were conciliated were resolved through mutually agreeable outcomes. And in the same year, 31 per cent of settlement outcomes included terms which will have benefits for people beyond the individual complainants. The following complaint illustrates this:

ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT

The complainant has osteoarthritis, which affects his mobility. He claimed he was required to board a train operated by the respondent private railway operator from the tracks, using a steep temporary stairwell. He claimed the train could have been moved to enable boarding from a raised concrete platform at the station.

The railway operator said the train could not be moved to the raised platform on the day due to short notice, the whereabouts of other passengers, timetabling issues and rail safety regulations.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that, with the assistance of an independent access consultant, the railway operator investigate, design, fund and implement suitable access alternatives for passengers with mobility restrictions.

The complaint process is clearly capable of having a degree of systemic impact in its own 1 Australian Human Rights Commission, 2015-16 Complaints statistics (2017). At https://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/ default/files/AHRC%202015%20-%202016%20Complaint%20 Statistics.pdf (viewed 6 April 2017).

Although the accessibility of buildings and infrastructure has improved due to the DDA and Standards, it is clear that there is much room for improvement.

The 2015-16 Review on the effectiveness of the Premises Standards conducted by the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science, in consultation with the Attorney-General’s Department, found that the Premises Standards have made some improvements. However, more could be done in terms of education, performance data collection and governance.

In its submission to the Review, the Commission argued that progress towards more accessible commercial premises, public spaces and amenities is restricted by the lack of measures to monitor the implementation and performance of the Premises Standards across Australia.

Resources and support to assist organisations to make their premises and public spaces more accessible could also have a significant impact. For example, the Make Local Communities more Accessible for all Australians initiative provided $5 million in 2010-11 for grants of up to $100,000 to local Governments with matched funding to make local buildings and public spaces more accessible for people with disability2. The success of this initiative highlights the need for further support to help organisations create accessible premises and spaces.

As part of its response to the Review, the Government agreed to increase awareness of educational and training materials, establish a 2 Australian Government Department of Social Services, Accessible Communities (2014). At https://www.dss.gov.au/ our-responsibilities/disability-and-carers/program-services/ for-service-providers/accessible-communities (viewed 30 March 2017).

February /March 2018

9

FEATURED ARTICLE data framework for collecting information and evidence across state and territory jurisdictions, and put in place a cohesive structure for progressing future reforms of the Premises Standards. The Commission looks forward to working with the Government on its implementation of the Review recommendations.

There is also a need for better support for organisations, including through resources like guidelines, frequently asked questions and a dedicated online advice portal, to ensure greater understanding of and compliance with the standards. As the cost of retrofitting is far greater than the cost of factoring in accessibility from the outset, it is important that organisations are better supported to understand and factor in access for people with disability in their initial planning for new buildings and/or building modifications.

While the cost of retrofitting older infrastructure continues to be a challenge to improving accessibility, more troubling is recently designed buildings that are inaccessible for some people with disability.

Some examples from the Commission’s national consultations held in 2016-2017 highlight the ongoing challenges people with disability face accessing the built environment, including new buildings:

“I went for a job interview at a fancy new building. I am a power wheelchair user and my chair has been customised

10

to suit my needs. When I arrived for the interview, I was able to get through the front door but my chair would not fit in the lift to go up to the fourth level. I had to call my potential employer from the lobby of the building and let them know I couldn’t access their office. The job interview took place in the lobby. After the interview, the employer thanked me for my time and said they would be in contact with me. I never heard from them again.”

“My school received funding to build a new school hall and sports centre. The whole school was excited to attend the opening and use the new facilities. On opening day, I realised that it wouldn’t be possible for me to access the building with my friends. I had to go around to the back of the building, be lifted up one step and enter through a fire door.”

These examples demonstrate a collective lack of forethought and responsibility regarding accessibility under the DDA. Universal accessibility – where all environments are accessible to everyone - should be integrated in every step of the development process.

This could be done by ensuring the voices of people with disabilities are heard from initial project conception to design, construction and ongoing maintenance.

We still face a culture of exclusion or adding disability access as an afterthought, and this

THE NEWSLETTER FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

FEATURED ARTICLE can lead to alarming situations, particularly when it comes to the safety of people with disability. For example, when we experience natural disasters the last thought is about the importance of public building accessibility for people with disability or how they are evacuated from areas that have been declared disaster zones (see: www.abc.net. au/news/2017-09-28/how-people-with-disability-cope-during-disaster/8987800 (viewed 15 February 2018)). The Commission has previously argued that improved community accessibility must be pursued in reconstruction programs following natural disasters. A good example is the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan, which includes a commitment to build accessible infrastructure, buildings and housing as part of disaster recovery efforts3.

CONCLUSION The 25th anniversary of the DDA presents an opportunity to reflect on the impact the DDA has had on the lives of people with disability in Australia, and how far we have progressed under the auspices of the DDA. The DDA and standards have successfully promoted dignified, equitable and accessible guidance for governments, businesses, and people with disability. They have driven public change that affects everyday lives of Australians with disability.

3 Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, Christchurch City Council, Christchurch Central Recovery Plan (2014). At http:// ceraarchive.dpmc.govt.nz/documents/christchurch-central-recovery-plan (viewed 3 April 2017).

No law is perfect. Notwithstanding the success and progress, people with disability in Australia still face challenges and barriers in the built environment. It is important that we acknowledge and try to progress the areas in which we have stagnated, and interrogate why we continue to have accessibility issues, including in new premises.

An accessible built environment benefits everyone. Equity of access is an indispensable pre-requisite for people with disability to participate in and contribute to the economic, cultural, social and political life of our community as equal citizens.

We need to explore where Australia should ideally be in another 25 years. When we reach that time, I hope to be in a position to reflect on the ongoing positive systemic outcomes that have been achieved to build a more sustainable and accessible environment capable of responding to our changing circumstances and family and community needs.

I further hope – with a small dose of scepticism – that the primary objective of the DDA will have been fulfilled, and discrimination has indeed been eliminated as far as possible in all areas of public life. The commencement of the DDA was the genesis of change 25 years ago, and whilst our lives have drastically improved, it is imperative we keep the conversation alive to ensure that all people with disability are living in a truly inclusive Australian society.

February /March 2018

11

FEATURED ARTICLE

DDA 25 YEARS ON

by John Deshon AM LFRAIA, RIBA, ACAA Fellow

President Emeritius Professor Rosalind Croucher AM

L

indsay Perry’s “The Disability Rights Movement” (Access Insights August/ September 2017) and Brian Kidd’s “The Brief History of the Access Movement in Australia” (October/November 2017) each contain valuable background to the introduction into the Australian Parliament in 1992 of the DDA. It became effective upon receiving royal assent on Guy Fawkes’ Day, 5 November 1992. The Max Murray Oration presented at the 2017 ACAA Conference also related some of the early history and subsequent developments, particularly with regard to accessibility.

It’s easy for access consultants to overlook the broader intent of the Act. Its Objects are a. to eliminate, as far as possible, discrimination against persons on the ground of disability in the areas of: (i) work, accommodation, education,

access to premises, clubs and sport; and (ii) the provision of goods, facilities,

services and land; and (iii) existing laws; and (iv) the administration of Commonwealth

laws and programs; and b. to ensure, as far as practicable, that persons with disabilities have the same rights to equality before the law as the rest of the community; and c. to promote recognition and acceptance within the community of the principle that persons with disabilities have the same fundamental rights as the rest of the community.

Day-to-day operation of the DDA is overseen by the Australian Human Rights Commission, 12

but that is only one of its responsibilities.

Seven Commissioners (when all positions are filled) report to President of the Commission.

The structure at the time of writing is:

Commissioners • Race Disability Discrimination: Tim Soutphommasane • Sex Discrimination: Kate Jenkins • Human Rights: Edward Santow • Age Discrimination: Kay Patterson AO • National Children: Megan Marshall • Disability Discrimination: Alastair McEwin • Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice: June Oscar AO Since inception, the position of Disability Discrimination Commissioner has been occupied by: • • • • • • • •

1993-1997: 1997-1999: 1999-2000: 2000-2005:

2005-2008: 2008-2014: 2014-2016: 2016-present:

Elizabeth Hastings Chris Sidoti (acting) Susan Halliday (acting) Sev Ozdowski (acting)/ Graeme Innes (Deputy) Graeme Innes (acting) Graeme Innes Susan Ryan (acting) Alastair McEwin

I knew Elizabeth Hastings well, and had a lot to do with Graeme Innes. Both were extraordinarily effective in their roles.

Elizabeth died in 1998 of breast cancer.

Nikki Henningham, The University of Melbourne, recounts this in her entry in “The Encyclopedia of Women & Leadership in twentieth century Australia”:

Elizabeth Hastings was born in London, England in 1949 and migrated to Australia, with her family, in 1957. The family had to fight to get her here.

Hastings was a bright, energetic, sociable child; but she was also a child with a disability. While the rest of her

THE NEWSLETTER FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

FEATURED ARTICLE family (her mother Jean, father Stuart and sister Stephanie) were all approved by the Department of Immigration under the scheme that allowed passage from Britain to Australia for £10, Elizabeth was refused entry. Her father, who had contacts in the Australian Government, spoke with the then Minister for Immigration, Harold Holt. He intervened and she was eventually approved to come, but only if she paid the full fare.

COMPLAINTS Complaints alleging disability discrimination may be made under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986. The Annual Reports1 of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, (since September 2008, the Australian Human Rights Commission) provide complaint statistics.

Complaints are reported consistently “by area” (I read “by subject”) as follows: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Employment Goods, services and facilities Education Access to premises Accommodation Land Incitement to unlawful acts or offences Advertisements Superannuation, insurance Clubs, incorporated associations Administration of federal programs Sport Application forms, requests for information Trade unions, registered organisations Unlawful to contravene disability standards

The number of complaints varies. There was a peak of 2,354 in 2009-10, a trough to 879 in 2014-15, and the number is rising again. There were 1,244 complaints made in 1994-95, and 713 in 1997-98. The reports warn that “one complaint may relate to more than one area”, so the overall numbers may be misleading for some purposes.

Complaints about employment and about goods, service and facilities are by far the 1 See https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/commission.../ annual-reports-index

most common. The averages over the 24 reported years show 42% of all complaints made about the former and 31.8% about the latter. Education is third, with 8.8%, and access comes a distant fourth with 5.5%.

However, the wild card is disability standards contravention – see below.

The percentage of complaints about employment have moved noticeably, and the trend is downwards. Five of the six periods 2000-2001 to 2006-2006 showed complaints above 50% (highest, 2005-2006, 58%); since 2009-2010 there has not been a single year where the percentage exceeded 36%. The percentage of complaints about access to premises was highest in 1996-1997 (12%); two years showed a low of 2%. There is no discernible trend.

The category “Unlawful to contravene disability standards” contained insignificant numbers in the early years. This is not surprising as the first Disability Standard, that for Public Transport, didn’t appear until 2002.

I remember asking Michael Small about early complaints and his response was that he thought the activists would give them a chance to take effect before taking up the cudgels again. The summary to date reads Report period Number

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Percentage of all complaints

8 1 40 2 135 7 153 8 202 9 241 11 149 12 122 11 109 6 82 5 42 5 105 6

It would be comforting to draw the conclusion that the introduction of Disability Standards has improved the areas of application, and that this would be reflected in a reduction in the number of complaints. It’s possible, of course, that the presence of the Standards and increasing awareness of them has February /March 2018

13

FEATURED ARTICLE changed the nature and detail of complaints, and, if this is the case, movement in the numbers doesn’t necessarily reflect improvement or otherwise in how we as a nation treat those of us who have a disability.

Standards are now well in place for Transport (Goods, Transport and Facilities) Access to Premises and Education, and it’s likely that there’s a correlation between those subjects and the “Unlawful to contravene disability standards” category, but it is at best tenuous. The current scandalous saga of the new Queensland trains demonstrates that one government at least hasn’t really started to respect its responsibilities, or even to take the trouble to define them.

SOME EARLY EVENTS BCEC In 1993, I recommenced private practice, which I’d started in 1974 on my return to Australia. I’d spent the intervening years in a large architectural healthcare practice and had been active as a Chapter President and National Councillor of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects. I had also been active on the Queensland committee of ACROD since 1980, and joined in the celebration of the IYDP in 1981.

1993 was an exciting year. Wayne Goss’ Labor government had been in office for three years, and the Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre was well under construction. The late Robert Jones was keen to test the new Queensland Anti-Discrimination Act by means of a complaint about the lack of access through the front entrance of the building. I went to Canberra to persuade ACROD to take up the case, but it declined. Kevin Cocks, recently retired as Disability Discrimination Commissioner in Queensland, became the formal complainant. Robert and I were witnesses in the hearing. The Government was found to have discriminated against persons with a mobility disability and was ordered to amend the design to accommodate them. The matter had a profound effect on how the BCA dealt with external access to buildings.

ADVISORY NOTES ON ACCESS TO PREMISES The 1996-97 HREOC Annual Report mentioned the following:

“During 1996-97, the Commission received many requests for information about the application of section 23 (Disability Discrimination Act) Access to Premises, and also about section 11, Unjustifiable Hardship. The Commission’s response to these requests has been to give individual policy advice although, out of necessity, this has been limited in scope.

Between November 1996 and March 1997, the Commission undertook extensive consultation with all stakeholders, including people with disabilities, the Australian Building Codes Board, the Australian Local Government Association and the Property Council of Australia over the development of guidelines. In June 1997, the Commission adopted guidelines which were issued on an interim basis under the title Advisory Notes on Access to Premises.”

The Notes may be accessed at: www.humanrights.gov.au/advisory-notes-access-premises I assisted Michael Small to compile these Notes. They were revised at least once and remained a valuable reference until the introduction of the Disability (Access to Premises-Buildings) Standards 2010. They may still be of use for those elements of buildings – furnishings, for example – which are beyond the scope of the Access Code.

IAN COOPER In 1997, I went to Coffs Harbour and then on to Bellingen where Ian lived. Ian was concerned that a local cinema owner had modified its facilities and had not provided step-free access for patrons. HREOC’s report2 says: 2 https://www.humanrights.gov.au/commission-determinations-dda-decisions

14

THE NEWSLETTER FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

FEATURED ARTICLE “The complainants alleged unlawful discrimination in the building of a new cinema in an existing complex with access being only by means of stairs.

The Commission noted that this in effect imposed a condition or requirement of being able to negotiate stairs or else being prepared to be carried, and that this would be unlawful indirect discrimination unless the unjustifiable hardship defence were established.

Commissioner Keim rejected arguments that provision of access was not permitted in the circumstances under the Building Code of Australia. He found that to be required to install platform lifts immediately would involve unjustifiable hardship in the present financial circumstances of the respondent but to do so within five years would not.

Accordingly he decided that the respondent should be required to enter into a deed undertaking to provide access by 2002.”

I was called as a witness in the hearing.

This case had far-reaching consequences, complicated by the changes made in the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Act 1999 which took effect in April 2000. Prior to this, the Australian Human Rights Commission conducted hearings and made determinations on Disability Discrimination Act complaints referred to it by the Disability Discrimination Commissioner or delegate. Complaints were referred to the Commission because the complaint could not be settled by conciliation

or because the nature of the matter was such that it should be determined by the Commission. This procedure was replaced by hearings by the Federal Court or Federal Magistrates Service.

Put simply, after the initial decision the cinema owner then sued the local authority for approving his building works. The local authority argued that it had done so because to impose a requirement to provide step-free access would have caused the owner hardship which was unjustifiable. The Federal Court found that the local authority didn’t have the right to determine such a matter.

The Commission tried. The 1999-2000 Annual Report said:

“The Commission commenced discussions in April 1999 with local government representatives about possible responses to the Federal Court decision in Cooper v HREOC and Coffs Harbour Council, which exposed councils to significant liability under the Disability Discrimination Act for permitting actions subsequently found to be unlawful discrimination, even where they make reasonable decisions in approving building or development applications. In June 1999 the Commissioner issued for consultation a draft policy on exercise of relevant powers under the Act to decline complaints where an appropriate alternative remedy is available or has been provided through local government procedures. The Commission did not proceed with this policy in view of

February /March 2018

15

FEATURED ARTICLE responses received - some of which condemned the proposal for doing too much, some for not doing enough, but few expressing support.”

AND SOME CURRENT OBSERVATIONS UNJUSTIFIABLE HARDSHIP I’ve written a paper on this which should be available from the ACAA Queensland Network.

The initial difficulty is that the relief may be available to a building owner through federal legislation, but it’s the state legislation which manages building consents. Queensland, New South Wales and Western Australia are yet to adopt processes which allow a measured and accountable method of aligning their own building law with the concept. At least two of those jurisdictions refuse to acknowledge that they need to address the matter.

PREMISES STANDARDS It’s distressing that after a honeymoon period where the Access Code (Schedule 1 of the Premises Standards) was replicated in full within the BCA, the Australian Building Codes Board has amended the text of the latter so that the two are now different. It’s also yet to be seen if there will be some responsible co-ordination between review of the Premises Standard and release of the next edition of the BCA. Given the history of reviews of Disability Standards to date, the possibility seems remote.

“COMPLIES WITH THE DDA” This is a common catch-all, beloved of risk-averse authorities and those who write consultant engagement contracts. One glance at the objects of the Act shows the absurdity of the condition. Compliance cannot be determined in advance, and acceptance of the condition should be refused outright.

NDIS It’s likely that the most significant event since the introduction of the DDA has not been the acceptance of Disability Standards or the integration of one and a bit of them into the National Construction Code / Building Code of 16

Australia, but the roll out of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, intended to provide lifetime care and support for people with a disability, empowered by their own decisions. Subject to intense politicisation, the way forward will be difficult, and it demands goodwill and encouragement from all who embrace the principles embodied in the DDA.

AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT In the late 1960s, while visiting Christchurch, my wife Gwenyth spotted and bought a lovely, stylish suit with gold buttons. In 1990 a bloke turned up at her tennis club in Noosa.

She found that he had been a successful dress designer in New Zealand, and the design of the suit was his. He’d married, fathered a child, divorced and came to Sydney where he started living a very different life.

He said later that he’d thought he was gay as a teenager but convention, being what it was then, made it impossible to come out.

He and Gwenyth became firm friends. He was flamboyant, had impeccable taste and quite definite opinions. When I came into her life seventeen years ago he became a friend of mine as well.

We attended Justin’s funeral service this month. Gwenyth spoke, as did his son Jeremy.

The service was streamed live and another Christchurch man, with whom he had shared a house there, watched it from Shanghai. Part of his message afterwards said:

Jeremy please feel very proud of what you said. Thoughtful and wise and for me a fellow gay man so meaningful and comforting that your family accepts and carries his pride. Justin had it tougher than our generation to be proud of his sexuality. The next generation easier still and that’s what paving the way achieves.

We are all part of an ongoing movement to recognise, accept and encourage persons who suffer discrimination in any of its myriad forms. We must celebrate our champions.

THE NEWSLETTER FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

Bathrooms for a safer environment for carers and users alike WE KNOW THAT OF AUSTRALIANS

Enware can provide sustainable and whole-of-life cost effective public amenity products to transition into a Changing Places-friendly facility for shopping centres, train stations, airports, hospitals and sport & recreational centres.

HAVE TO PLAN THEIR

TOILET KIT AS1428.1-2009 SET UP

EVERYDAY, THOUSANDS

DAY AROUND WHICH BATHROOMS THEY’RE ABLE TO USE. We have consulted with occupational therapists, disabled access specialists & consultants to develop complete solutions for Changing Places facilities.

IFO Sign Increased Height Toilet with Raised Height Button and Anthracite Grey Pressalit Sign toilet seat with lid

SUPPORT ARMS

Safe, comfortable and hygienic support arms to aid with sitting and standing

RENOVA PLAN ASYMMETRICAL WASH BASIN

European made asymmetric left and right hand wash basin with generous water resistance layoff space

ENWARE-ORAS VEGA BASIN MIXER

Extended 200mm lever designed for accessible/disabled basin applications.

Ergonomic and anthropometrically designed for greater hand and palm control

NURSING BENCHES

Adjustable height benches to a suit all users, including carers

SHOWER OUTLETS and RAILS

An extensive range of shower outlet and grabrail options

www.enware.com.au

To discuss your project requirements please call us on 1300 369 273 or email info@enware.com.au

FEATURED ARTICLE

Performance-Based Design (or How to Bake a Cake)

by Lee Wilson

Lee Wilson is a disability access, egress and universal design consultant based in Melbourne. He is an Accredited Member of ACAA and a Subject Matter Expert with the Australian Building Codes Board.

Lee has worked all over Australia, often consulting on complex building projects requiring a performance-based approach to compliance.

PERFORMANCE-BASED DESIGN IN AUSTRALIA Since the release of BCA96, Australia has had a performance-based building code. This might come as a surprise to some building practitioners. However, after 21 years it is widely recognised that the uptake in the use of Performance Solutions across the construction industry has been limited.

This has been credited to a lack of acceptance across all sectors of the building industry and a reduced level of awareness and understanding of how compliance with the building codes can be achieved through a performance-based solution.

The objectives of a performance-based building code are to create an environment that has more flexibility to develop innovative and cost-effective solutions by focussing on the outcomes that the building is required to deliver.

NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CODE 2016 The current National Construction Code or NCC now includes:

18

• Volume One Amendment 1: Requirements for Class 2 to 9 (multi-residential, commercial, industrial and public) buildings and structures.

• Volume Two: Requirements for Class 1 (residential) and Class 10 (non-habitable) buildings and structures.

• Volume Three: Requirements for plumbing and drainage for all classes of buildings.

• Guide to Volume One Amendment 1: Companion manual to Volume One providing clarification, illustration and examples for complex NCC provisions.

• Consolidated Performance Requirements Amendment 1: A compilation of all NCC Performance Requirements.

COMPLIANCE WITH THE NCC For those not familiar with how compliance with the NCC is achieved, the following is a quick summary.

Ultimately, as a performance-based document, the legal compliance requirement in each part of the NCC is the applicable ‘Performance Requirement’. A Building Solution will only comply with the NCC if it satisfies the Performance Requirements. These Performance Requirements are outlined at the start of each part of the NCC (i.e. in Volume One these include structural, fire resistance, access and egress, services and equipment, health and amenity, and energy efficiency).

Compliance can be achieved by one of three paths when assessing a building design against the applicable Performance Requirements. This was best explained during the recent national NCC seminar series when the Australian Building Code Board representative used an analogy of baking a cake.

The first method of compliance is by strictly following the recipe. The NCC outlines a set of prescriptive requirements within the various parts of the NCC and following this

THE NEWSLETTER FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

FEATURED ARTICLE recipe to compliance is referred to as being ‘Deemed-to-Satisfy’. This prescriptive path needs you to use all the same ingredients and follow the same instructions each time to meet the Performance Requirements (for example, baking a nice cake).

The second method is by way of a ‘Performance Solution’, which is defined as a building solution that complies with Performance Requirements, other than by satisfying the Deemed-to-Satisfy provisions.

This path allows flexibility, innovation and industry expertise to deliver the same (or better) outcome. Performance-based design allows you to substitute some ingredients based on experience, follow a different recipe or use an alternate cooking method, to meet the Performance Requirements (i.e. an equally nice cake, but with perhaps a little less sugar).

The third method is through a blended approach, often seen in Australia, where compliance with many Deemed-to-Satisfy provisions is possible or desirable, but some aspects of the design will be developed as Performance Solutions. From experience, this is the approach most often used in accessibility-related Performance Solutions, particularly during upgrades of existing buildings.

PRODUCTIVITY GAINS IN PERFORMANCE-BASED DESIGN The fire engineering profession was an early adopter of performance-based design, but other professions have been slower to accept the use of performance solutions. As a result, the ABCB is now actively promoting the use of Performance Solutions and attempting to increase awareness and acceptance of their use as an accepted pathway to compliance.

There is evidence to support this approach. A 2013 report found that 70% of the $1.1 billion per annum productivity gains delivered by ABCB reforms was derived from the use of a performance-based code. The report also suggested that future gains would be increased with more acceptance and use of Performance Solutions. ABCB representatives have suggested that these benefits could, in fact,

be doubled with the use of performance-based design.

Whilst the Australian Fire Code Reform Centre (FCRC) published the Fire Engineering Guidelines prior to the release of the first performance-based building code (BCA96), up until very recently there has been little guidance material available for other building disciplines developing Performance Solutions.

MOVING FORWARD WITH PERFORMANCE SOLUTIONS To change this situation, the ABCB has a three-pronged approach to increase the use of Performance Solutions: 1. Engendering a Performance Mindset 2. Capacity Building 3. Quantification (including Verification Methods)

THE ABCB, NCC 2019 AND WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW CREATING A PERFORMANCE-BASED MINDSET There is great potential to extend the use of performance-based design into other areas such as energy efficiency, accessibility and structural engineering. To do this, the ABCB has embarked on an industry-wide communication strategy to highlight the compliance options available to industry. This has included dedicating a significant amount of time from the recent NCC seminars to the concept of Performance Solutions. Earlier in March 2018 the ABCB also announced the establishment of a volunteer Subject Matter Expert Network.

SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT NETWORK The Subject Matter Expert (SME) Network has recently been established to support the architecture and building design sectors in shifting towards a performance-based mindset.

The SME Network is a pilot program comprising 10 volunteers, each being an industry leader in either energy efficiency, building codes, fire engineering or accessibility.

February /March 2018

19

FEATURED ARTICLE

ACAA will have three representatives on the SME Network, each being an accredited member of ACAA. These members will be working together to ensure a consistent approach when engaging with the ABCB and providing information and responses to members of the public.

The SME Network will operate as an internal referral process within the ABCB and will provide advice and support on the best practice application of Performance Solutions.

The Network will also help to develop guidance material, develop new Performance Solution case studies, respond to public enquiries and highlight opportunities for applying performance-based design by Architects and Building Designers.

CAPACITY BUILDING The ABCB aims to progressively release new awareness, educational and other supporting materials to help support an enabling environment.

Earlier this year the following initiatives related to access and egress for people with disability have been released as part of this program, and in preparation for the release of NCC 2019: • Public Comment Draft of NCC 2019, Volume One (comments close 13 April 2018); • Proposed NCC 2019 Verification Methods: °° Fire Safety Verification Method; °° Ramps Verification Method (DV3); °° Access to and within a building overview of proposed Verification Method (DV2) • Performance Solution Case Study: Disability Access - Disability Access: Riley Street Apartments • Consultation Regulation Impact Statements: °° Accessible adult change facilities in public buildings (comments close 13 April 2018), including a Cost Implications Report; °° Fire Safety in Class 2 and Class 3 residential buildings (comments close 13 April 2018); • Discussion Paper: The NCC and short-term accommodation in apartment buildings (comments close 8 April 2018); • NCC Improved Readability Overview 20

(Note, references to applicable fire engineering documents have been made, as people with disabilities are often not provided for adequately in fire-engineered solutions).

Additionally, we understand that the ABCB has been talking to universities offering engineering, building surveying and architectural courses about the need to introduce students to the idea of a performance-based regulatory environment. By doing so, the ABCB aims to tap into the next generation of practitioners to ready the industry with an increased awareness and understanding.

KEY PROPOSED CHANGES TO NCC 2019 The following is a summary of the most significant proposed changes to the access provisions of the NCC: • A revised Section to be consistent with other NCC documents, which introduces the term ‘Governing Requirements’. The Governing Requirements include rules and instructions for: °° Interpreting the NCC °° Complying with the NCC °° State or Territory compliance and application in conjunction with the NCC °° Applying documents referenced in the NCC °° Documenting evidence and suitability of materials for the purposes of the NCC °° Classifying buildings by their intended use • Alignment with other NCC documents and introduction of new accessibility Verification Methods (discussed below).

• Giving titles to all Performance Requirements, which now sees a reference to ‘Evacuation Lifts’ in DP7.

• Aged care buildings are now referred to as residential care buildings throughout the NCC. • Verification Methods DV2 (Access to and within a building) and DV3 (Design for wheelchair) are included at the start of Section D. • Table D2.13 (stair tread ‘risers’ and ‘goings’)

THE NEWSLETTER FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

FEATURED ARTICLE

• • •

•

•

• • •

• • • • •

is simplified.

Dry and wet condition headings have been rationalised in Table D2.14.

Clause D2.21(a)(iii) has been added Required exit doors need: °° Power operated door controls no closer than 500mm from an internal corner and not more than 2m from any part of the door; and °° Braille and tactile signage to identify the latch operating device.

Table D3.1 remains unchanged, other than moving the location of the text under Class 3 and Class 9c buildings, which outline the need for not more than 2 required accessible sole-occupancy units (SOUs) to be located adjacent to each other and to be representative of the range of rooms available. This is now at the end of the text, which might infer this is now only applicable when there are more than 500 SOUs. Clause D3.5(d) has removed the reference to being ‘designated’ and now says “need not be identified with signage where there is a total of not more than 5 car parking spaces, so as to restrict the use of the car parking space only for people with a disability.”

Clause D3.6(a) now clarifies where braille and tactile signage is not required in Class 1b and Class 3 buildings.

Clause D3.6(c) now includes signage requirements for the adult changing sanitary facilities required in Clause F2.4(j).

Clause D3.6(g) has been added to include the directional signage requirements for the adult changing sanitary facilities required in Clause F2.4(j).

Clause D3.8(c) clarifies where tactile domed buttons are required.

Clause D3.9(b) removes the requirement for the range of wheelchair seating spaces to be representative of the range of seats offered.

Clause D3.10(b) removes the maximum gradient of 1:14 for zero depth entry ramps into pools.

Specification D3.6 corrects the reference from sentence case to title case.

A complete revamp of Clause 3.6 and moving the requirements of Table E3.6a and Table E3.6b into the body of the Clause.

• Verification Method FV2.1 (Sanitary facilities) is included at the start of Part F2, which provides a method of developing Performance Solutions to vary the number of toilets for building occupants based on ‘waiting times’. However, no information on Verification Method FV2.1 has been released by the ABCB. • Clause F2.4(j) has been added, which states that in addition to those accessible facilities required by F2.4(a), one unisex accessible sanitary compartment complying with Specification F2.4 must be provided in an accessible part of any: °° Class 6 shopping centre that has a design occupancy greater than 1400 people, determined in accordance with Table D1.13 for each part of the building that is used as a shop; and °° Class 9b public building, other than one that is required to comply with H2.8, and in which at least one accessible unisex sanitary compartment is required by (a).

• Specification F2.3 has been added and replaces Table F2.1 and F2.3.

• Specification F2.4 has been added to outline the requirements for adult change facilities.

The Scope states “This Specification contains the requirements for unisex accessible sanitary compartments that are required to include additional features to assist people who may be unable to use standard unisex accessible sanitary facilities independently.” The design requirements are generally consistent with the Changing Places Technical Standard Option 1b, with additional circulation spaces, ceiling mounted hoist system, adult-sized change table, drop-down grabrails on each side of the toilet pan, a standard AS 1428.1 basin, other fixtures and fittings, door and door controls and signage (including the new Hoist and Table Symbol).

• Clause H2.8(b) has been added to include the requirement for Specification F2.4 adult change facilities in public transport buildings.

ACAA encourages all readers to visit the ABCB website to download, review and provide comment prior to 13th April 2018.

February /March 2018

21

CPD OPPORTUNITIES ACAA NSW Access Consultants Network Meeting

ACAA WA Access Consultants Network Meeting

Date: TBC Topic: Assistive Technology in Specialist Disability Housing Contact ACAA NSW Chairperson Robyn Thompson for details.

Dates: Tues 5th June and Tues 4th September Venue: Student Services Conference room at North Metropolitan TAFE, Leederville.

Time: 4pm to 5:30pm Contact ACAA WA Chairperson Anita Harrop for details.

ACAA QLD Access Consultants Network Meeting

Assisitive Technology Australia

Date: TBA. Contact ACAA QLD Chairperson Cynthia Lawes for details.

ACAA SA Access Consultants Network Meeting Dates for 2018: April 24th – Business Meeting June 5th – CPD July 17th – Business Meeting August 28th – CPD October 9th – Business Meeting November 20th – CPD December – Breakup drinks date Contact ACAA SA Chairperson Grant Wooller for details.

ACAA VIC Access Consultants Network Meeting Dates: TBC Contact Lee Wilson for details.

22

provides a Home Modification Course which includes units CPPACC5016A and CPPACC4020A. CLICK HERE for details

International Urban Design Conference To be held at the SMC Conference and Function Centre, Sydney (Mon 12 - Tues 13 November 2018) CLICK HERE for details

Melbourne - OMAA 6th Australasian Orientation and Mobility Conference (AOMC6) 6 - 7 April 2018 CLICK HERE for details

Melbourne/Perth - ATSA Independent Living Expo Melbourne 16-17 May 2018 Perth 30-31 May 2018 CLICK HERE for details

THE NEWSLETTER FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

HOT APPS

March 2018 Hot Apps

I

n this section we feature apps that are Access Industry related. If you have an app that is useful for Access Consultants, please let the Editor know so that it can be included in the next issue of Access Insight.

GOOGLE MAPS NOW HAS WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE ROUTE OPTION

by Jen Barling - funktion Google Maps has recently introduced "wheelchair accessible" routes in transit navigation in New York, London, Tokyo, Mexico City, Boston, and Sydney. Google Maps users in these cities will be able to search for wheelchair-friendly ways to get around. The project took off two years ago, when three google employees took it on as a "20 percent project," a Google initiative that employees pursue outside of their formal workload.

To find the wheelchair accessible routes, type your destination into Google Maps, tap “Directions,” and then choose the public transport icon. Then tap on “Options,” and you’ll find “Wheelchair accessible” under the Route options section. It will then show you a list of possible routes that are wheelchair accessible.

Google plans to add more wheelchair-accessible routes to its app in the coming months as they work with various transit agencies. Google want to improve the app, so the more people that use the app and give feedback, the better it will become.

February /March 2018

23

BOOK REVIEW

A GUIDE TO ACCESSIBLE HOUSING TOOLKIT

by Queenie Tran Housing Projects Manager, Summer Housing

Queenie Tran is the Housing Projects Manager at Summer Housing. With a background in architecture, she has been practicing as an access consultant since 2010, establishing ‘Wall to Wall Design + Consulting’ as an architectural design and consultancy practice with a commitment in developing functional and aesthetic solutions, inclusive of all people and their needs.

24

T

his year marks the 25th year of the Disability Discrimination Act, and whilst it does cover access to public areas and rental accommodation, it has limited capacity to affect the supply of housing to meet the needs of people with disability.

The introduction of the federally funded National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) has invigorated the disability services sector in Australia. Aiming to improve the lives of the 460,000 people eligible under the scheme, one particular group of Australians hoping to benefit from the NDIS are younger people in residential aged care (YPIRAC). With 6,200 people who find themselves unable to find alternative specialist accommodation and a market traditionally characterised by significant supply shortfalls and one-size-fits-all accommodation, the NDIS now aims to allocate $700 million annually to specialist disability accommodation (SDA).

THE NEWSLETTER FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

BOOK REVIEW The introduction of federal funding for housing has seen greater opportunities to build or lease appropriate accommodation

by NDIS participants. This has resulted in an increase in demand for housing specialists in this area. Summer Foundation and its newly established sister organisation, Summer Housing has been continuing their work in this area with a key emphasis on building sector capacity and sharing knowledge and resources.

Established in 2017, Summer Housing’s mission is to expand the range and scale of housing options of people with disability living in, or at risk of admission to residential aged care. Continuing the work of Summer Foundation which built two housing demonstration projects to build the evidence base for their research aiming to change human service policy and practice related to young people in aged care.

By replicating and scaling the demonstration projects developed by the Summer Foundation, Summer Housing’s vision is to deliver high quality housing that enables all people with disability and complex care needs to live as independently as possible, enhancing their health, wellbeing and participation in the community.

This can only be achieved with greater scale and accessibility to housing for people with disabilities that cannot be achieved by Summer Housing alone. By collating years of practical experience and research, we are pleased to share the launch of our first publication, Designing for Inclusion and Independence – An Explanatory Guide to support the Briefing and Design of Accessible Housing.

This guide serves as a practical tool to support stakeholders in developing the brief, design and specifications of high quality accessible housing. With key consideration of social inclusion, usability, homelike environments, amenity and cost-efficiency.

Containing explanatory information and examples to aid understanding, the guide is broken into separate sections based on the

design stage as well as easily assisting building professionals. The guide includes checklists as well as practice tips and includes current design benchmarks such as the Livable Housing Australia and Specialist Disability Accommodation Design Category requirements.

The guide is made up of six parts: • I ntroduction • P art A: Spatial Planning – Typology • Part B: Spatial Planning – Accessible Dwelling Elements • Part C: Construction and Detailing – Building Elements • Part D: Construction and Detailing – System Elements • Appendices The guide is available for free download on our website, via this link: http://summerhousing.org.au/designing-for-inclusion-and-independence.

You can also register your interest to order and purchase a hard copy of the guide on this webpage.

February /March 2018

25

recently received an email regarding t done as a response to potential memb – especially from people working with Certificate IV in Access Consulting qu

FROM THE ACAA COM

The response to the proposed changes was mostly positive howe feedback received. This could perhaps be due to a misunderstan replace the existing pathway. This is not the intention – the propo not replace the existing one.

Associate Membership

by Lindsay Perry participation in an interview. Further, As demonstrated below, the new pathway has two additional step applicants applying this pathway need Secretary ACAA and qualification.

These are the via submission of a log booka and particip ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP tertiary qualification in aa related field such asin a related ACAA Membership applying via this pathway need tertiary qualification architecture, therapy, orientation therapy, orientation occupational and mobility, engineering, or similar.

LindsayMember Perry Committee and mobility, engineering, or similar.

Secretary ACAA and ACAA Membership Committee Member

PATHWAY 1 PATHW thought this would be Iathought good point in time this would be a good point in time to address the committee’s intention to address the committee’s intention to to amend the process for applying for associate membership. You would have •CertIV in Access Consulting amend the process for recently applyingreceived for an email regarding Step 1the proposed amendments. This has been Step 1 associate membership. You would have done as a response to potential members enquiring about alternative pathways recently received an email regarding from the people working with the – especially access industry but do in not hold the •Demonstrate Engagement proposed amendments. This has been Access Consulting Certificate IV indone Access Consulting qualification.

Step 2 Step 2 as a response to potential members enquiring The response to thepathways proposed –changes wasfrom mostly positive however, theredetailed was also negative about alternative especially •Provide CV;some 3 referees; 3 detailed reports pathway will feedback received.with Thisthe could perhaps be due the proposed people working access industry butto a misunderstanding Step 3 andthat Step 3 replace the existing pathway.

This is not the intention – the proposed change is to adopt a second pathway, do not hold the Certificate IV in Access not replace the existing one.

Consulting qualification.

•SUBMIT APPLICATION Step 4 Step 4 The response tobelow, the proposed changeshas wastwo additional steps in lieu of acquiring the Cert IV As demonstrated the new pathway mostly positive however, there was also some qualification.

These are the submission of a log book and participation in an interview.

Further, applicants •Determination

by Membership negativeviafeedback received. couldqualification in a related applying this pathway need This a tertiary field such as architecture, occupational Committee Step 5 Step 5 therapy, mobility, engineering, perhapsorientation be due toand a misunderstanding thator similar. the proposed pathway will replace the existing pathway. This is not the intention – the Step 6 PATHWAY 1 PATHWAY 2 proposed change is to adopt a second pathway, not replace the existing one.

Step 7 •CertIV in Access Consulting •Tertiary Qualification in related field As demonstrated on this page, the new Step 1 Step 1 pathway has two additional steps in lieu of acquiring the Cert IV qualification.

These •Demonstrate Engagement in are •3 years work experience with supporting Access Consulting documentation - log book and portfolio the submission of a log book and Step 2 Step 2 Our decision for the proposed amendment is to encourag

I

•Provide detailed CV; 3 referees; Step 3 and 3 detailed reports Step 4 Step 5

•SUBMIT APPLICATION •Determination by Memership Committee

must remember that the Cert IV is an entry level qualificat •Provide evidence of attendance at access understanding of access consulting. It does not necessari related seminars / courses.

Step 3 required to work within the construction industry as an acc qualification to a trade certificate. The membership comm •Provide detailed CV; 3 referees; experience and professional conductand and3 as such we con

Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7

26

THE NEWSLETTER FORfor THEthe ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN is ACCESS AUSTRALIA Our decision proposed amendment to encourage

detailed reports

•SUBMIT APPLICATION

•Attend Interview •Determination by Membership Committee

the growth of the association. We

FROM THE ACAA COM

Our decision for the proposed amendment is to encourage the growth of the association.

We must remember that the Cert IV is an entry level qualification that provides a base understanding of access consulting. It does not necessarily prepare individuals for the skills required to work within the construction industry as an access consultant and a similar qualification to a trade certificate. The membership committee places an emphasis on experience and professional conduct and as such we consider that individuals who have been working within the industry should be able to apply for associate membership without the requirement for the Cert IV. The additional costs involved in the proposed pathway to associate membership, which was the main point of contention in the feedback we received, are to cover the application reviews by two independent accredited members. We see this as a fair method of assessing applications and it is intended that accredited members will be paid for their time

to assess the applications – approximately two to three hours for each assessor which equates to to 4-6 hours per application. This is currently done on a voluntary basis by the membership committee who will continue to assess all other applications.

We (the membership committee) are currently formulating a checklist for the assessment process based on the competency standards of the Certificate IV in Access Consulting as these provide the benchmark for the skills and knowledge required to work as an access consultant. Experience in each area of competency will need to be demonstrated through the log book process to ensure experience is relevant and varied.

Lastly, I would like to stress that this amendment only affects individuals applying for associate membership. Current associate and accredited members are not affected by these changes. I personally see this as a positive step to growing our membership.

February /March 2018

27

ACAA CORPORATE SPONSOR The policy supporting the Corporate member category has been clarified consistent with the original intent of the founding association and will be described as a sponsor of the objectives of ACAA and presented as ‘Corporate Sponsor’ membership category from 1st of July 2019 Annual fee for the ‘Corporate Sponsor’ membership category will be $1,100 • ‘Corporate Sponsor’ membership category is suitable for businesses that provide products that relate to accessible built environments and support the objectives of ACAA. • Businesses that provide disability access-related consultancy services are also

eligible to apply for ‘Corporate Sponsor’ membership category as long as the business employs at least 1 financial ACAA Accredited level member.

‘Corporate Sponsor’ Package will include the following: • Use of ACAA ‘Corporate Sponsor’ logo (which was not available for use for current corporate members) on their website and advertising material for financial members.

• A4 size Page advertisements in 6 issues of Access Insight magazine (approx. value of $1,500) OR 2x 1/4 A4 size advertisements and 1 page ‘Advertorials’ in Access Insight magazine (approx value of $1,500 based on AI advertising rates).

• Early release of ACAA

Conference Trade booths and other Sponsorship packages at 10% discount for the next ACAA National Conference to be held in Sydney in 2019 • Free admission to attend any 2 ACAA State Network seminars / meetings for 2 people (approx. value $200) • Free listing as a ‘Corporate Sponsor’ on ACAA website Total value of approx $2,200 for investment of $1,100.

All amounts noted are inclusive of GST. Contact Farah Madon for details.

Logo being considered for Corporate Sponsors - Design TBC

The content of this newsletter is for information purposes only and opinions expressed in articles are those of its author and not ACAA. ACAA assumes no liability or responsibility for any inaccurate or incomplete information, nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Advertised products and services that appear in this newsletter have been provided by such organizations without verification by ACAA. ACAA does not guarantee, support nor endorses any product or service mentioned in this newsletter, nor does it warrant any assertions made by the manufacturers of such products or services. Users of are recommended to obtain independent information and to perform independent research before using the information acquired from this newsletter.

In this newsletter, you will find links to other websites. ACAA cannot be held liable for the content of these websites nor for the way in which these websites handle your (personal) data. For information in this regard, read the privacy policy, disclaimer, copyright notices, general terms & conditions, if available, of any website you visit.

No part of the newsletter may be reproduced without the prior written consent of the ACAA Committee of Management.

ADVERTISING OPPORTUNITIES

CLICK HERE for our Advertising Rate Card

CLICK HERE to fill in a quick survey to help us improve Access Insight

CLICK HERE for a Free Subscription to Access Insight

The Association of Consultants in Access Australia 20 Maud Street, Geelong VIC 3220

28

office@access.asn.au

THE NEWSLETTER FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

+61 3 5221 2820

www.access.asn.au