AFDO Policy and Campaign Updates:

Disability Rights Monitoring Project - David Webb

The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) includes strict obligations for ensuring the effective monitoring of its implementation. These obligations need to be integrated into Australia’s National Disability Strategy (NDS) due to be released mid-2010.

AFDO has commenced a project looking into what is required to establish and sustain effective disability rights monitoring in the new era of the CRPD and the NDS. One thing that is clear from the outset is that this will be a huge challenge. Disability rights cut across all sectors of government, all sectors of the economy and every aspect of living in the community. Everybody has a role to play in disability rights. Currently there is no “focal point” in Australia (as it’s called in the CRPD) that is responsible to oversee and ensure the implementation of the CRPD and the NDS. This must be a priority for the NDS because when everyone is responsible we sometimes find that no-one takes responsibility.

Although the CRPD provides a benchmark for disability rights, it does not always cover specific domestic issues. For instance, the current shortfall in disability funding in Australia is now a disability rights issue that the proposed National Disability Insurance Scheme seeks to address. Similarly, AFDO’s proposal for a Disability Inclusion Allowance highlights that Australia’s outmoded delivery of funding and services is also a rights issue, not just an economic one. And likewise the current buck-passing between federal and state governments in Australia is another domestic disability rights issue.

Monitoring is a critical component of the effective implementation of disability rights but it cannot be a one-off exercise. The recent Shut Out report gives a snapshot of the current plight of people with disabilities in Australia but sustained, ongoing monitoring is required until all our rights are achieved fully. It is unclear yet how this might best be achieved. There are many stakeholders or “players” in disability rights, all of whom need to come together in partnership if we are to see the effective implementation and monitoring of the NDS and the CRPD.

One thing is very clear though. People with disabilities and their organisations must play a central role in disability rights monitoring. This is no longer just an option at the whim of government but another strict obligation of the CRPD, without which even the most well-intentioned NDS is doomed to fail.

Access to Premises

On June 15th 2009 the Access All Areas report from the House of Representatives Legislative and Constitutional Affairs Committee was tabled in Parliament. This report summarised views from the consultations on the draft Access to Premises Standard, and made recommendations to move forward.

In July, AFDO participated in a cross sector meeting to discuss the recommendations from the report, and to talk about how to move forward. While not everyone at the meeting agreed on all of the recommendations, everyone agreed that it is now imperative that the Access to Premises Standard is brought in as quickly as possible. Attendees heard from the Attorney General’s Department that they are aiming to introduce the law within the next two years.

As a result of this meeting, a sector wide statement was developed. AFDO sent a letter and a copy of the statement to all relevant politicians. In the meantime, we have developed a summary of the recommendations and a list our own concerns. These concerns are:

1. That the report recommends small buildings of less than three storeys with a floor space smaller than 200 metres squared be exempt from providing lift and ramp access above the ground floor. This is a concern because the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 currently doesn’t provide specific exemptions for any building type so this would be a step backwards.
2. The report recommends further research on whether the current measurements in the draft Standard, which would cater for up to eighty per cent of wheelchair users, should be increased. AFDO believes that the first version of the Standard brought into law should cater for up to ninety per cent of wheelchair users.
3. Ratios for accessible toilets are too low – there is only one accessible toilet for every two banks of standard toilets. This means some people will have to access areas of a building especially to use the toilet if the accessible toilet is in a space owned by another tenant, or is set aside for staff use only. In large venues, it may mean people have to walk longer distances to reach a toilet they can use.
4. Ratios for accessible car parking spaces are too low. They are currently set at 1 – 2% of all parking spaces, depending on building type. The number of people currently using parking permits is about 4% of the population, and this is set to rise as the population ages. AFDO is especially concerned that the National Disability Parking Scheme will not address the number of parking spaces, and refers the issue back to the Access to Premises Standard.
5. Ratios for receivers for audio loops are too low. At present the ratios vary between 2.75% and 4% for a room. With one in five Australians currently experiencing a hearing loss and that number set to rise as the population ages, AFDO believes the ratio should be set at ten per cent.

AFDO has met with politicians and bureaucrats over the last few weeks to discuss both the sector-wide push for the Standard to be introduced as quickly as possible, and the specific concerns we hold.

• National Disability Parking Scheme
• AFDO made a written submission to the National Disability Parking Scheme consultation run by the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA). The review looked at the eligibility criteria for parking permits and the design of the permits. A copy of the AFDO submission can be found here.
• Since the submission was made, AFDO has had some further discussion with Bill Shorten regarding the Parking Scheme, outlining our particular concerns that the eligibility criteria be broad enough to be fair, and that the incidence of fraud needs to be dealt with through more serious penalties.