This week’s Angry Cripple column is by Tom Bridge, who graduated from Queensland University of Technology (QUT) with a Bachelor of Arts, completing a double major in Ethics and Human Rights and Political Studies. He was born with Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus and blogs at Aussie Pollies...

Barriers to access leave you banging your head against the wall. Pic: Supplied

Most people run a mile from the idea of the government regulating too many aspects of their lives. But in light of the way people with a disability have been dealt with - or not dealt with - particularly since de-institutionalisation, a strong argument exists for much more government interference. It would be beneficial if the three different levels of government ran interference and legislated for much stronger, even mandatory accessibility provisions.

Governments of both political persuasions at the local state and federal level have baulked at any major action on accessibility for some years now and that is not good considering the growing number of people with a disability, including the ageing population who will also face accessibility issues.

Poor policy decision-making in accessibility issues has affected what current governments can enact as law, but it is far from completely stifling.

There need to be strict equal access provisions in three main areas - commercial and other public building access, transport and housing design.

The government has to act on accessibility issues that private business and governments in the past have not provided. There are some basic requirements for all people to be able to enjoy society equally.

Probably the biggest failure of government in relation to accessibility in the last five years has been the failure to make “universal design” principles mandatory nationwide.

Universal design principles are those that call for housing design to be made readily adaptable to the needs of people with a disability. This seems like pure common sense, but we all know the old adage that “common sense ain’t that common”.

The National Dialogue on Universal Housing Design in 2009 failed to achieve this mandatory standard and instead left us simply with an “aspirational” target of all housing being of universal design specifications by 2020.

This opportunity lost is made even worse, particularly given the need for these principles in housing design to cater not just for people with a disability, but for the rapidly ageing population.

The blame for this should not solely be taken by any level of government, even though I think they should have stepped up and enforced this from the outset and preferably long ago. The industry bodies have also failed to note the importance and immediacy of the issue.

Another central tenet in giving people with physical impairments the opportunity to participate fully in all functions of society is to provide equal access to commercial and other buildings. This is a failure of state and local government divisions over many decades in providing adequate legislation mandating items such as lifts for all multi-storey buildings, ramps and other disability friendly furnishings and design.

All commercial buildings should be made fully accessible to allow people with any level of physical capacity to fully conduct their necessary business. Changes should also be made which allow people of all levels of physical ability to enjoy leisure activities equally.

Strong building accessibility provisions should also, as a matter of priority, apply to all public premises, especially educational institutions and other government services - the latter has less work to do, but the former has more ground to gain. Indeed, no society can consider its people to be equal if they have not been provided equal access to an education which is suitable to their individual circumstances.

Finally, but certainly not of any less importance than the other two factors, is equal access to suitable transport so that people can enjoy both employment and leisure opportunities. An all too brief caveat though - this seems to be an improving area of local and state government practice, with older inaccessible buses increasingly being phased out and replaced in growing numbers by more accessible vehicles.

However, this area does have the potential for much greater improvement by providing fully accessible transport to people of differing physical ability in a much more efficient manner than both state and local government in parts of Australia are doing at present.

In no civilised society should a person with a physical impairment requiring an accessible form of transport be left hoping that suitable transport will as a matter of course be dispatched to their area or have to call a transport authority to arrange a special form of vehicle when other members of the public can fully expect transport suitable to their needs.

To use a transport pun, where do we get off on not providing widespread suitable transport for all people regardless of their lot in life?

Government at all levels - be it local, state or federal really should mandate equality of access in the three key areas of housing, transport and private and public building accessibility wherever possible to make up for the dreadful ills of past policy.

To simply have building codes in housing and general construction as they are at present and the gradual growth of accessible transport is not a happy state of affairs for those in the community that struggle just to participate in the basic aspects of society. After all, with equality of access comes equality of opportunity.

Follow Tom on Twitter at @aussiepollies

Most commented

21 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Nathan says:

      06:06am | 07/03/12

      In Toronto i have seen buses that that have been purely designed to cater for the disabled. Admittedly I don’t know how affective it is but i think in principal it is a good idea. Everybody should have access to public transport but sometimes it is not cost affective to introduce new buses and change stations etc. For me sounds like a win win situation

    • marley says:

      07:47am | 07/03/12

      I was back in Canada a while ago and , depending on the city, there were either disabled buses or “kneeling buses” - or both.  The disabled buses usually run on special routes, the kneeling buses on regular routes at certain times.  (I don’t know if there are kneeling buses here in Aus - certainly not where I live, but I’m in the boonies - a kneeling bus looks like a regular bus but its suspension can be lowered and a ramp rolled out so wheelchair bound people can just roll onto the bus from the pavement).

      So, disabled people didn’t have full access to transport, but they have some, and it usually is timed to get them to and from work.

    • Michael says:

      08:38am | 07/03/12

      Those buses are awesome Marley, we have them in Darwin, of all places, very helpful for even older able bodied people so as they don’t trip on the step up into the bus from the kerb.

    • Nic says:

      12:06pm | 07/03/12

      @Marley, We have them in Adelaide, though they’re far from the standard. My impression is that all the buses have some kind of concession to accessibility though. It’s just how much effort the driver has to go to to help the disabled person on/off.

    • Kate says:

      01:56pm | 07/03/12

      We have kneeling buses in Perth, in fact most of them (I think) are this way now. There are many bus routes that are all these types of buses, and the timetables are labelled to indicate this. I think you can also call Transperth to request a disabled friendly bus if you regularly take the same route.

      In fact a look on their website suggest Transperth is pretty good at disabled access, with lots of infrastructure and services available throughout the network. Mind you, that’s coming from someone who is not disabled, so I can’t speak for those who are!

    • Mahhrat says:

      06:42am | 07/03/12

      @Tom:  I’d like to ask you something re public transport:

      “Public Transport” includes Taxis.  In the Hobart area there are ~24 Wheelchair Accessible Taxis, not to mention the many WA vehicles run by services for their own clients.

      That is approximately 10% of the total taxi vehicle pool in the Greater Hobart Area.  How much representation do you want, as often a WAT is not an accessible vehicle for the elderly who particularly use taxis to get themselves around town using the same Tas Access Scheme that disabled persons are entitled to?  (For the uninitiated, the TAS provides 50% off each cab fare less than $50 - which in Hobart will get you from the outer suburbs to the city, or from the city to the airport).

      Now, I absolutely and totally agree around public buildings - you should have equal access and while I can’t speak for them all, every public building I have worked in has provided amply for wheelchair access.

      Private buildings however are not and should not be subject.  It is a good conscience (and I would suggest good business) decision to provide for disabled clients, but it is enshrined in law that a business owner can refuse to provide custom to any person they see fit without requiring an explanation as to why.

      If that person decides they do not want to serve disabled people, that is their right.  This is why, for example, you can have a women’s only gymnasium.  While I agree it is discriminatory, I am not convinced that removing that right is a good idea.

    • AJ says:

      07:55am | 07/03/12

      @ Mahhrat

      I also live in Hobart and as i play wheelchair basketball i have numerous friends with a disability. Most of them drive but one of them relies on public transport to get around. Why should anyone have to rely solely on getting taxis to get around even if they do get a 50% discount. The cost would very quickly mount up and if they are unable to work and live off a pension they may not be able to afford to get taxis everywhere even with the discount. Why should they then have to wait sometimes for hours for a bus to come along that they can actually get into.

    • Mahhrat says:

      08:08am | 07/03/12

      In re-reading my post, I’d like to clarify that it is MY opinion that all buildings should have universal access, but that I respect the right of people/businesses to be arseholes under the tenet that you cannot force people to be free.

    • Mahhrat says:

      09:41am | 07/03/12

      @AJ:  I understand the point you’re trying to make but that’s not my question.

      Let’s have a soft example:  my partner is able-bodied but suffers incredible motion sickness if she sits sideways on a bus or near/behind the back wheels.  She’s effectively limited to maybe 3 rows on a wheelchair-friendly bus, and those rows are often full.

      Should she be able to demand a seat at the front of the bus?  How does this balance between the needs of your mates and the elderly?  What about others already there?

      Her problem is only going to get worse as more buses become wheelchair-friendly. 

      My question is not around whether your services should be catered to - of course the should.  My question is: Where is the balance?  I would like to see the figures but would respectfully argue that there is insufficient money to cater to everyone.  If there was, we wouldn’t have a medicare gap and your taxi rides would be free.

      Being that’s the case, how do we prioritise?

    • Pete says:

      10:17am | 07/03/12

      @Mahhrat - for one, it is a safety issue.  Bad access means someone in a wheelchair cannot get out of a building fast enough in an emergency, if there was a fire, for example. 

      As for this idea that a business has the right not to serve disabled people.  That is utter tosh.  Have you ever heard of anti-discrimation laws?  Do you think business have the right to refuse service to a person because they are black?  Or because of their ethnic heritage?  Mate, if you refuse to serve a disabled person you are in for a world of litigation.  Lol!

    • Timinane says:

      03:41pm | 07/03/12

      I’m about to get started lobbying for better disabled access to buildings here in Hobart, Glenorchy, Clarence.

      Businesses don’t usually own the building so a business refusing to serve disabled people isn’t the reason for lack of access.

      Oh there are cures for motion sickness or just waiting for an appropriate metro bus, people in wheelchairs aren’t that lucky and don’t have anywhere else to sit but that wheelchair space. I’ve been asking people who don’t move from disabled/elderly seats why they didn’t move. Most ignore me, that’s how much contempt they have for the disabled so we have to stand up and complain to be counted.

    • Vicki PS says:

      04:08pm | 07/03/12

      Mahhrat, leaving aside the fact that you are wrong regarding private businesses having a right to discriminate, you fail to consider the fact that privately-owned premises don’t necessarily house only private businesses.  A very large percentage of government departments and agencies occupy leased office space.

    • Wynston Cruso says:

      05:12pm | 07/03/12

      Vicki, Mahhrat never said that private business has a right to descriminate. They do, however, have every right to refuse anyone service on their premises, for whatever reason.

    • Peter says:

      09:36am | 08/03/12

      Wynston Cruso - sorry, but that is exactly what Mahhrat is saying.  Do you not understand what actionable discrimination is?  Refusing to serve a patron because he/she is drunk or whatever good reason is not discrimination.  But, to refuse to serve an entire class of people simply because of their race/religion/disability/sex etc - for no legally justifiable reason - is actionable.  It is against the laws of this country.

      So, a person cannot actually decide “they do not want to serve disabled people” for no lawful reason.  It is not their right to do that.  Mahhrat is totally wrong on this concept.  Funnily enough, he even goes on to say that he agrees it is “discriminatory” but apparently he does not understand what that actually implies. 

      Cheers!

    • SteveKAG says:

      07:39am | 07/03/12

      This is where i lost my staunch Liberal right wing attitude and go far to the left on issues like this.

      Irrespective of what flavour of government we have at any given time, basic human rights should be maintained and i am a very strong believer in equality in care and access.

      I understand the older buildiings in our city but not home should be built without taking wheelchair access into account and further more transport or public and commerical bulidngs shoud be by no a given.

    • Stuffed says:

      10:27am | 07/03/12

      This policy would be stuffed in Adelaide. Just about every building in the CBD - and even those within cooee of the CBD - is heritage listed and can’t be touched without going through a nightmare of bureaucratic paperwork.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      10:52am | 07/03/12

      It all comes down how much money can be thrown at the problem. In these current times of tight government and corporate budgets, the answer is not very much…...

    • Darryl says:

      01:17pm | 07/03/12

      I feel the the author should have researched this topic in relation to disabled access to non-residential building in much greater detail. As of 1 May 2011 the Disability (Access to Premises - Builings) Standard 2010 has been in effect. This statute is Commonwealth legislation, under s.109 of the Commonwealth constitution overrides State legislation to the extent of any inconsistency, and applies to all building (including existing building undergoing assessable development) of Class 3 - 9 (all buildings except detached dwelling and duplexes) and certain class 2 units. This standard requires access be provided for persons with a disability to and within all affected buildings.
      In relation to universal access, dwellings on flat land are often subject to flood inundation, so require the floor level to be built up, block on slopes provide obvious construction issues for zero entry access.

    • Greggy says:

      02:01pm | 07/03/12

      As a spina bifida suffer, I completely agree with the author’s sentiments. Thanks for writing such a brave a thought provoking article.

    • Chris says:

      02:05pm | 07/03/12

      Once again this discussion largely relates to people in wheelchairs - and yes you guys have issues all right. However a friend of mine rides a tricycle. Yeah you’d think, “well if he can push the pedals he’s okay. He can get around”. The reality is quite different. He can’t walk fast enough to cross a street safely. He needs the tricycle. Try telling that though to the powers that be. He can take it on the train - pays for it before 9 and after 3 - but he cannot take it on a bus or a tram. He needs it the way others need wheelchairs or gophers - not problem taking them - but the authorities are still stalling and saying it is NOT a mobility aid. We should be looking at these sort of problems before we make demands that ALL buildings be made accessible. Why should they if it is reasonable to meet elsewhere? Why do you want the building of the other guy accessible if he can come and meet three of you at your place of work?
      Let’s be reasonable about these things and we might just get more of the problems sorted out.

    • Kate says:

      02:39pm | 07/03/12

      Public buildings - absolutely! but private dwellings? I think I’ve read this wrong, unless you actually are implying that every private residence should be built to be mobility friendly. My house is on a sloped block. There are three flights of stairs from the carport to the front door. Surely if you choose to build your house without stairs and with rails in the bathtub that could be a bonus selling feature, but the bottom line is an elderly or disabled person would be crazy if they ever considered that this house would be a suitable purchase for them. If the house was knocked down and re-built, the stairs would be re-built too. Why waste the money adding the rails in the bath tub to fulfil legislation when there’d be no demand for the changes in this dwelling?

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

ToryShepherd

@DaveJory Rex's latest trip?

Lucy Kippist

What a day to just look at Twitter.... Proud to be part of @newscomauHQ today! http://t.co/NELofB3o0j

ToryShepherd

@bigwordsblog Best night I had there I won backstage passes to meet Warrant, of Cherry Pie fame. Didn't happen in the end, though!

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @sarahmichael24: Such a nice story - 'No hoper' to become little town's first doctor http://t.co/toN1UDSWeM by @itsKShort @newscomauHQ

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter