An edited version of this post appeared on the Letters page of the Sydney Morning Herald on 25 May 2010.
There’s been lots of discussion in the Sydney media about ‘universal design’ and Federal Government policy in the last couple of weeks.
Cynthia Banham waxed lyrical in the SMH (24 May 2010) about Bill Shorten and his efforts to introduce universal design principles to new houses built in Australia. Here’s the article, which can also be found here:
You never plan for a life-changing injury. It’s something you just hope never happens. Growing old is more of a certainty. But both events can have a profound impact on the way you feel about your home: a sanctuary, or a kind of prison.
I know this first-hand. Catastrophic injuries from a plane crash changed my world forever. If not for the efforts of a family friend, a builder who extensively modified my home while I was still in hospital, I would not have been able to get in the front door, let alone my kitchen or shower.
But what really came as a shock was the impact my injuries had on visiting family and friends. Dropping in for a meal or a cup of coffee, to stay connected to people, is essential to a person’s mental well-being. Yet here I was, left in tears on a visit to my in-laws from the indignity of not being able to use their bathroom without help, unable to visit my parents’ home where I’d grown up because I couldn’t climb the stairs to their front door.
We have laws about accessibility standards in public spaces, but for private homes there are none and I never imagined this would change.
Then eight months ago Bill Shorten, the parliamentary secretary for disabilities, asked me to speak at a meeting he had organised, with Therese Rein as patron, for executives from the housing industry and the ageing, disability and community sectors, at Kirribilli House.
The subject was “universal design” – building a house to last its occupants’ lifetimes so whatever happens, should they get injured or grow old, they will still be able to live independently.
If we introduced some minor, inexpensive changes to the way Australia builds homes – changes many times more expensive if done retrospectively – then no house need be a prison. Making houses accessible from the street or car park, slightly widening front doorways and passages, putting a toilet on the ground floor that could be used by someone with mobility issues.
I agreed, intrigued something could be done to improve the lives of 20 per cent of the Australian population with some kind of a disability, and encouraged this concept could have economic and social benefits for all.
Universal design ideas are already being implemented overseas, in Japan, Britain, Canada and Norway. They are gaining traction in Victoria.
What is the appeal? Like Australia, these places have ageing populations. Given the option, most would prefer to grow old in their own homes, retaining connections with family and social networks where they have spent their lives. But with the majority of homes, this is virtually impossible for older people with mobility issues.
It doesn’t stop there. A house built for a lifetime would be easier for mothers with prams and people with temporary injuries.
I started out thinking it was an extremely lofty ambition to get this diverse group to agree there was a case for universal design in Australia. The Property Council of Australia, the Housing Industry Association, Master Builders Australia, the Australian Institute of Architects and the Human Rights Commission are unlikely allies.
But Shorten is a superb negotiator, and the determination he has shown over the past three years to fight for a better deal for some of the less lucky Australians is remarkable.
The final details are being nutted out, but soon this dialogue will deliver concrete proposals to the government. These professionals have surprised even themselves with their ability to reach common ground on an issue that for many will be life-changing, in a good way.
Critics might say they don’t want to be told by governments how to build their homes, or they don’t want to live in houses resembling hospitals. That’s not what this is about. Making a doorway a few centimetres wider does not make a house more sterile, just more liveable.
Is it really that big an ask of Australians to give a damn about their fellow citizens with physical limitations, but still want to engage as fully in society as you, their friends, colleagues, families and neighbours?
You never know, one day you might just grow old.
I’m less in awe. Universal design principles are sensible, modest, but far from new. As Banham correctly points out, a number of countries have introduced them already. So why has Shorten set an ‘aspirational goal’ of all new homes to be of agreed universal design standards by 2020? Remember, this is not about retro-fitting an existing stock of buildings – it’s simply about ensuring new buildings conform to a new standard. Shorten himself argues that these are ‘a few simple design features’. So why must we wait?
Shorten has appointed a working party to codify national standards but the working party has a very limited brief. There is no talk of encouraging – by incentive or requirement – even the most modest changes to existing houses. State and Federal Governments provide incentives and rebates to fit all manner of water and energy-saving devices, but if you want to remove an unnecessary single step at the front of your house and build a ramp to provide universal access, you’re on your own.
Similarly, small businesses, especially retailers, are provided with no incentives to make their buildings universally accessible. At my local shops, the cafe and the butcher have taken it upon themselves to remove steps at the front of their premises, and the deli owner installed an accessible toilet. But the newsagent has not removed a single 10cm step so I can’t buy a newspaper. In nearby suburbs, such as Concord in Sydney’s inner-west, you can see evidence of co-operation between business and the local council delivering excellent access to shops and restaurants in the form of disabled parking, easy street crossings, footpath dining and ramped access. But in other nearby suburbs, such as Leichhardt, you see no such partnership and much of Norton Street remains inaccessible. These issues cry out for a national approach. Why does Bill Shorten not take an interest? As Cynthia Banham also correctly identifies, these things are essential for staying connected to society.
Shorten’s working party was announced on 27 October last year with the aim of achieving ‘substantial progress’ within 6 months. 7 months have now passed. Perhaps the progress has met Shorten’s definition of substantial. Banham says the details are still being ‘nutted out’ but proposals will be made to government soon. If the Government is returned, I guess we may see some progress in the next term.
Don’t get me wrong, Bill Shorten has done more to move disability issues forward than ministers before him. My beef is that his steps are small. And as anyone with mobility issues knows, a small step can remain a big barrier.
Tags: access, Bill Shorten, government policy, media, mobility, universal design