Access Insight - Autumn 2021 by ACAA

AUTUMN 2021

Design for people with mental illness David and Goliath Battle for Inclusion All Gender Toilets Hearing Augmentation Comparison NCC 2019 requirements for access to and into swimming pools

A Canadian Innovation for Universal Design Access Consulting meets Community Consulting

THE MAGAZINE FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

IN THIS ISSUE

ACAA COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT

From the President’s Desk..................3

PRESIDENT: Lindsay Perry

Congratulations from the Committee of Management.................4

VICE PRESIDENT: Farah Madon

ACAA State Access Consultants' Network..........................4

SECRETARY: Mrs Anita Harrop

A Canadian Innovation for Universal Design................................6

TREASURER: Mr Howard Moutrie ORDINARY MEMBERS:

Access Consulting meets Community Consulting......................10

Nick Morris John Moulang Lynda Wilem Mr Francis Lenny Mr Richard Seidman

Design for people with mental illness...................................14 David and Goliath Battle for Inclusion.....................................18 All Gender Toilets – We just want to go to the toilet!.............................20 NCC 2019 requirements for access to and into swimming pools associated with Class 1b, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9 buildings................26 Hearing Augmentation Comparison.....................................30 Revision to ISO 21542 (2011) Building Construction - Accessibility and usability of the built environment....................32

Address: 20 Maud Street, Geelong VIC 3220 Email:

office@access.asn.au

Phone: +61 3 5221 2820 Web:

www.access.asn.au

Editor:

Anita Harrop aieditor@access.asn.au

Autumn 2021 Issue Cover photo credit: iStockphoto

Hot apps and websites.....................34

Please email the Editor if you would like to showcase your project on the Cover of the next Access Insight

FROM THE PRESIDENT’S DESK by Lindsay Perry

President of the Association of Consultants in Access Australia

elcome to another edition of Access Insight! I am not exactly sure where this year is going – I thought last year went quickly but 2021 is giving 2020 a run for its money. There are quite a few things going on that affect access consultants at the moment. The eagerly awaited AS1428.1 (2020): Design for access and Mobility Part 1: General requirements for access – New building work is due for release in May with the update to AS1428.5 (2009): Design for access and Mobility Part 5: Communication for people who are deaf or hearing impaired rumoured to follow shortly after. On the 31 March 2021, myself and some fellow ACAA members joined an online focus group discussion as a part of The Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010 review. Building industry representatives have been encouraged to get involved to help identify changes or improvements to the Premises Standards. The discussion was very positive and well facilitated.

Our CPD webinars are up and running – the first two being a huge success and very well attended. Thank you all for making this little project become a reality. It’s not quite the same as a conference but it does, I think, provide a friendly and welcoming atmosphere to learn more about what we love to do. If you have any ideas for future topics/ subjects don’t hesitate to make suggestions. Hopefully we can all meet face-to-face soon. This edition of Access Insight offers a diverse range of subject matter from legal battles to swimming pools; all gender toilets to international standard reviews; and mental illness to Canadian innovations in universal design. Thank you to all our contributors for your time, knowledge and passion. Our next issue will take an international look at the world of access. Enjoy this issue!

Autumn 2021

ACAA MATTERS

Congratulations from the Committee of Management The ACAA Committee of Management congratulates the following members on upgrading to Accredited and Associate membership and welcomes our new Affiliate members! Congratulations all!

ACCREDITED MEMBERS • Dishana Liang • Luke Trento • Emma Keith • Michael Zora • Yolanda Wang

ACAA State Access Consultants Networks NEW SOUTH WALES Contact: ACAA NSW Chairperson Robyn Thompson SOUTH AUSTRALIA Contact: ACAA SA Chairperson Grant Wooller QUEENSLAND Contact: ACAA QLD Chairperson Angela Chambers VICTORIA Contact: ACAA VIC Secretary Mr Paul Eltringham WESTERN AUSTRALIA Contact: ACAA WA Chairperson Anita Harrop

ASSOCIATE MEMBERS • Pooja (Pia) Chandoke

Editor’s Note

• Thomas Clark

I am particularly excited about this edition of Access Insight as it includes the voice of our members, sharing their personal and professional experiences that have clearly shaped the skills and experience each of them brings to their professional practice and more broadly, the access consulting world.

• Greg Clark

AFFILIATE MEMBERS • Kamran Basiri • Adele Gianfriddo • Michael Leahy • Greg Fisher • Jeremy Soden • Claire Mulqueen • Cian Mulqueen • Ellen Naismith • George Douros • Jillian Coram Parker

Our magazine celebrates fresh ideas and interpretations, broad thinking, healthy, professional debate and the value and experience each of us brings to the advancement of equity of access to the built environment for people with disability. Congratulations and thank you for your very worthy contributions.

THE MAGAZINE FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

FEATURED ARTICLE

A Canadian Innovation for Universal Design by Rebecca Blissett

Rebecca Blissett is a writer for the Rick Hansen Foundation, a Canadian-based non-profit organization dedicated to improving the lives of people with disabilities by creating an accessible and inclusive world. Rebecca has been a storyteller through using the written word and photographs her entire adult life. Her experience in journalism gave her a deep appreciation for telling untold stories, particularly when it comes to people with disabilities.

ravellers love Vancouver International Airport (YVR) for its cascading waterfalls, open spaces, and First Nations totem poles. Rarely do they say they love it because it’s accessible, but that’s only because its thoughtful design elements are seamlessly integrated. In December 2019, prior to tight travel restrictions brought on by the Covid-19 pandemic, the airport had a record year welcoming over 26 million passengers through the doors. In order to maintain their reputation as one of the best airports in North America, it conducted exit surveys – a tool that measures traveller satisfaction for performance insights. The surveys revealed that people with disabilities

ranked their experience at YVR as being 'great' but were often unable to pinpoint why. “And that’s the perfect answer,” said Brad McCannell, Vice President of Access and Inclusion at Canada’s Rick Hansen Foundation. “Because if you don’t know why, it’s because you weren’t segregated. Your whole airport experience was normalized. You moved through the airport along with everyone else. It was ‘great’ because, as a person with disability, you were included.” In 2018, YVR became the first airport in Canada to achieve a Gold rating through the Rick Hansen Foundation Accessibility Certification™ (RHFAC) program, an innovative rating system that measures the holistic level of meaningful accessibility for people of varying disabilities affecting their mobility, vision and hearing. In Canada, building codes often differ between provinces and territories. A consistent national benchmark is a much-needed and welcome measurement. The Rick Hansen Foundation (RHF) launched RHFAC in 2017 with extensive input from the disability community and professionals in the built environment. The program trains industry

THE MAGAZINE FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

FEATURED ARTICLE professionals to rate the accessibility of buildings, sites and design plans, and is designed so they stay current with rating system updates every three years. RHFAC Certification professionalizes the delivery of accessible design, setting an aspirational goal for the industry and allows organizations to celebrate their achievements. RHF has a long history of advocating for the creation of a world without barriers, dating back more than 35 years. Rick Hansen established the Foundation in 1988 following the completion of his incredible Man In Motion World Tour where he wheeled 40,000-kilometers over two years, two months, and two days to raise awareness of the potential of people with disabilities. While RHF’s headquarters are located on the West Coast of British Columbia, RHFAC is regarded across Canada as the driving force of improving accessibility of the built environment. More than 1,300 buildings have received RHFAC ratings to date, and that number continues to grow.

A PRINCIPLED MEASUREMENT TOOL YVR received their 93% score through meaningful Universal Design features such as high-contrast flight information displays (FIDS) positioned low and out of the path of travel, accessible service counters, and acoustic wall, ceiling and floor treatments to control ambient sound levels. Other features include adaptive public address systems, universal and full ‘Changing Places’ style washrooms, and intuitive wayfinding that utilises tactile surfaces, sound scaping, and an advanced signage program that includes welcoming video messaging in American and International sign languages. Universal Design is a critical element in ensuring a seamless experience for all users of a space. While the foundational pillars of accessibility and inclusivity are not a stretch to meet to ensure everyone can go everywhere, builders often fall short despite the best of intentions, pointed out Stanis Smith, architect and member of the RHF Board of Directors.

Autumn 2021

FEATURED ARTICLE “There’s not much point in having an automatic door opener if there isn’t enough space for a wheelchair user to get out of the way of the door as it swings open,” said Smith. “This may seem obvious, but you’d be surprised how often it is forgotten.” Accessibility not only looks good, but feels good. It’s no surprise to learn YVR was named North America’s best airport (20-30 million passenger category) in 2020 for the 11th year in a row along with moving up 4 places in the global list to placing 13th in the world in 2020 by Skytrax, an organization that ranks airports based on passenger comfort and airport design.

addition to future-proofing buildings and sites, using RHFAC methodology benefits everybody – not just those living with disabilities. “Those adopting RHFAC will be perceived as visionary leaders. It enables you to attract staff and customers that are more inclusive and diverse,” said Smith. “Everyone wins.”

LEAVE THE JOB TO THE PROFESSIONALS People with pre-requisites in architecture, engineering, urban planning, or building construction are eligible to enroll in RHFAC Training offered in person through post-secondary institutions across Canada and online at Athabasca University. Through a combination of theory and hands-on practice, the course helps professionals understand accessibility from the perspective of those with disabilities. After passing an independently audited exam, students are awarded an RHFAC Professional designation which qualifies them to rate buildings using the RHFAC rating system. RHFAC brings common language and methodology to every site assessed under the RHFAC. RHFAC Professionals operate independently of RHF. Much like the sustainability movement that took the building industry by storm at the beginning of the millennium, the accessibility movement is here to stay. It’s one based on human rights considering the billions who have a disability, permanent or temporary, and the world’s aging population. Beyond the altruistic argument for accessibility, there are pragmatic reasons. Those who have their buildings and sites rated through RHFAC achieve market differentiation and competitive advantage. Ratings also arm building owners and designers with the knowledge to build with foresight, welcoming more employees and visitors through the door and reducing the risk of costly retrofits as building codes catch-up. In

THE MAGAZINE FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

FEATURED ARTICLE IT’S NOT ABOUT BEING SPECIAL, IT’S ABOUT BEING INCLUSIVE Change happens when people are vocal. This was the case with Vancouver Island University (VIU). Many barriers existed on the hilly campus for the 1,000 students and employees registered with the school’s disability office. It wasn’t until VIU professor Linda Derksen, who suffered a broken hip and began using a wheelchair, realised just how difficult it was to navigate the campus. Derksen championed a movement at VIU and university leadership along with other departments quickly jumped on board to facilitate Universal Design through its new Universal Access Committee. Using the RHFAC to clearly establish the existing barriers to people with disabilities on campus, the Committee developed a long-term plan to prioritise upgrades that included accessible washrooms for 12 buildings, student housing upgrades, and a wayfinding map that identifies accessibility upgrades across campus – the first of its kind in North America. VIU aims to be the most inclusive university in Canada. Ultimately, like with Vancouver International Airport, the goal is to make accessibility a part of the culture of their facilities and operations. “Meaningful access is about more than just counter heights, ramp slopes, and increased light levels,” McCannell added. “It’s about professionalizing the delivery of accessible spaces. It’s about changing design culture to recognize the return on investment that real accessibility brings. It’s about including accessibility as part of the normal design process. It’s about making accessibility, accessible.” To learn more about RHFAC visit RickHansen.com/RHFAC or email access@rickhansen.com

Autumn 2021

FEATURED ARTICLE

Access Consulting meets Community Consulting by Jenna Cohen

Jenna works as a Senior Associate at Loop Architecture, Melbourne and has recently started access and community consulting through Honeycomb Access & Design (www.honeycombaccess.com.au). Jenna is also a member of the Victorian Access Committee under the Australian Institute of Architects. Contact: jenna@honeycombaccess.com.au

n my past life, I was the co-founder of Flying Fox, an organisation that provides social experiences for young people with disability. Through that experience, I worked alongside and developed friendships with hundreds of young people with diverse backgrounds, interests, abilities and diagnoses. Over the last 15 years I have developed a passion for combating the

exclusionary practices of society and to do as much as I can to promote inclusion. A few months ago, I went shopping with a friend for some new bathers. This friend has high support needs; she is blind, non-verbal and uses a wheelchair. Together we picked out a few different bathers to try, but when we reached the change rooms there were no accessible spaces where my friend, her wheelchair and I could fit to try on the bathers. This problem is easily avoidable. By having one accessible change room, my friend and I would have been treated as equal, valuable members of society who are entitled to shop for a quality pair of bathers, just like anyone else. Every day I see my friends being excluded from full participation in all that society has to offer

THE MAGAZINE FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

FEATURED ARTICLE

because our built environment is just not accessible enough for those members of our community with disability. I have a passion for creating an accessible world for people with disability. I have seen the impact of an inaccessible world on my friends, and I have seen the impact of small tweaks to our built environment on the lives and wellbeing of so many.

To do this, we need to engage the community at every step of the way to inclusion. We need to seek feedback and input, and wherever possible, to empower people with disability to guide and lead the process themselves.

Accessibility is the interaction between the built environment and the community. Access Consultants have a responsibility to work on behalf of the community to ensure that the built environment is designed with the community in mind. This can only be achieved if Access Consultants know the community, are a part of the community, and work with the community.

The process of community consultation is empowering for everyone involved. To sit and have a coffee with an individual with disability and to hold the space for them to share their views on the big questions of life; where they want to live, who they want to live with, and what they want to have on their bookshelves. The empowerment is palpable. By providing an individual with the space to express their needs and wishes for their life gives them choice, an experience many of whom engage in for the first time in their lives when we do our jobs properly.

Furthermore, Access Consulting is often transactional. We write reports and performance solutions, ticking boxes to ensure that compliance is covered. These transactions cannot be effective without understanding the user, and the only way to understand the user is to listen.

I recently interviewed a very independent guy about his Specialist Disability Housing (SDA) requirements. He knew what he wanted and he knew what he hated about his current living arrangements. He expressed his frustration at not being ‘allowed’ to have his girlfriend visit. He expressed his frustration at not being allowed

Autumn 2021

FEATURED ARTICLE to go to the kitchen to get a snack whenever he wanted to. He expressed his frustration at not living with the simple freedoms that everyone deserves. I have not been able to shake the outrage that I felt at hearing of the boundaries placed on someone with disability for no reason other than no-one had held the space for this individual to express his wishes. When individuals aren’t given choice, their lack of freedom constitutes a human rights infringement. By simply hearing stories of freedom, and lack thereof, I am better equipped with the knowledge to design and construct a built environment that considers the rights, needs and personalities of the individual. We have an opportunity and a privilege as Access Consultants to change the

conversation and to hold the space for our community members who will be the users of the designs we co-create. Why does all of this matter? Have a read of this feedback I received from a parent of a recent participant in a community consultation project:

“Thanks for reaching out to Jeremy*. It is heart-warming to know that his voice can be heard on this topic. Conversations that extend beyond the basic human needs are important for inclusion and the person’s total outlook. Jeremy has no motivations other than to be loved and feel safe.” *name has been changed for privacy reasons.

THE MAGAZINE FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

FEATURED ARTICLE

It’s all about access & freedom Para Mobility specialises in the design, manufacture and distribution of disability equipment. Our key Australian made products include: • • • • • •

Pool access hoists Pool access platforms Lift and change facility equipment Ceiling hoists & tracks Wall mounted adult change tables Building code compliant equipment

Phone 1300 444 600 sales@paramobility.com.au www.paramobility.com.au

Australia’s only Type A inspection body accredited by the National Association of Testing Authorities, Australia (NATA) for slip resistance & recognised globally through the ILAC mutual recognition agreement to AS ISO/IEC 17020 for the inspection and conformity of slip resistance and luminance contrast testing.

02 9621 3706

www.SafeEnvironments.com.au

Autumn 2021

FEATURED ARTICLE

Design for people with mental illness by John Van der Have

John Van der Have is the principal of Bio-Building Design Pty Ltd - Architects and Access Consultants, based in the City of Blue Mountains, NSW. He is a member of ACAA, and also a member of the Australian Institute of Architects. He has served as access consultant on several hospital projects, including psychiatric wards.

he Premises Standards Review Consultation Paper issued in February 2021 by the Commonwealth Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources1 flagged an issue that has not so far been included in the Access-to-Premises Standards. That issue was referred to as ‘Environmental sensitivities’. The paper elaborated: ‘Some reported how buildings or building designs interacted with people’s extreme sensitivity to noise, psychosocial disabilities, anxiety issues …’2. The Consultation Paper reported that individuals affected by ‘environmental sensitivities’ experience symptoms that impact their health and wellbeing. As an example, one person commented: ‘Carpet and flooring patterns should be considered in the designing process as this

may cause the perception/illusions for those with … anxiety’3. How do we go about designing for people who experience anxiety or other mental health conditions? What is the extent of mental illness in Australia, and can it be addressed in the Premises Standards, the Building Code of Australia or Australian Standards?

CURRENT REGULATORY SITUATION At present, AS 1428 - Design for access and mobility - makes detailed provisions for design for people with mobility impairments, and also for people with some sensory impairments. The AS 1428 series of standards, however, makes no provision for people with impairment or disability associated with mental illness. The Premises Standards 2010 likewise currently contain no explicit mention of design for people with issues relating to mental illness.

THE MAGAZINE FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

FEATURED ARTICLE The National Construction Code (NCC) does contain a few scattered references to the diverse needs of people with mental health conditions. For example, Clause D2.21 makes special allowances for door latches in mental health facilities4. We can conclude that the regulatory documents that govern much of what access consultants do on a day-to-day basis contain little prescriptive information regarding design for people with impairment or disability related to mental ill-health. However, the over-riding legal document in this area is the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA). Under the DDA, disability is defined as:

How big is the issue that we are talking about? Let’s look at a few statistics, to get a perspective on how big this issue is.

MENTAL ILLNESS IN AUSTRALIA The following statistics are taken from the Productivity Commission Inquiry Report into Mental Health6: • Approximately one in five people in our country will experience mental illness this year. • Almost half of all Australians will be diagnosed with a mental health condition in their lifetime.

‘(a) total or partial loss of the person’s bodily or mental functions; or …

• Poor mental health and self-harm cost Australia $200 billion a year. To put that in context, this is just over one-tenth of the size of Australia’s entire economic production in 2019.

(g) a disorder … that affects a person’s thought processes, perception of reality, emotions or judgment or that results in disturbed behaviour’.5

• Just over 3000 people are lost to suicide each year in Australia, an average of more than 8 people per day. Two thirds of people who die by suicide had a reported mental illness.

Under the DDA it is unlawful for anyone to discriminate against a person with a disability, including a mental disability, in the provision of access to public buildings. So, notwithstanding that Australian Standards, the Premises Standards and the BCA have little to say on the topic, those who design and construct buildings have a responsibility, under the over-arching provisions of the DDA, not to discriminate against people with mental illness or disability.

• Suicide has been the leading cause of premature death in Australia’s young adults, accounting for around one-third of deaths among people aged 15-24. • Suicide rates of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are more than double those of non-Indigenous Australians. A graph describing the prevalence of mental illness in Australia follows:

Distribution of mental health among the Australian population (Source: Productivity Commission, Mental Health, Inquiry Report, Volume 1, June 2020)

Autumn 2021

FEATURED ARTICLE What do we mean by the term mental illness or disability? A mental illness is ‘a health problem that significantly affects how a person feels, thinks, behaves, and interacts with other people.’7 The terms ‘mental disorder’ or ‘mental disability’ can also be used. There are many other forms of mental illness or disability, varying in degrees of severity. Some of the common groups of mental health conditions include:

systems are doctors, all of whom are bound by the Hippocratic Oath, the principal tenet of which is ‘Do no harm’. Based on that tenet, clinicians who lead hospitals that include psychiatric wards are ethically bound to not allow those within their jurisdiction to cause harm, including self harm. As a result, they regularly decide to overrule adherence to prescriptive deemed-to-satisfy regulations, rather than to allow patients to self-harm.

• mood disorders (such as depression or bipolar disorder) • anxiety disorders (including panic disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and phobias) • personality disorders • psychotic disorders (such as schizophrenia) • eating disorders • trauma-related disorders (such as post-traumatic stress).

DESIGN RESPONSES Buildings can be designed to meet the specific needs of people with mental illness. For example, for the benefit of those who have claustrophobia - a type of anxiety disorder - a wide open stairway or ramp can be installed as an alternative to a lift. For the benefit of those who have agoraphobia - another form of anxiety disorder - large public spaces can include secluded sheltered areas, where people can take refuge. People with the most serious of mental health disorders, that may result in self-harm, require a distinct response in building design terms. Decision makers within hospital management

In practice, this means that no ligature points can be included within in-patient areas of psychiatric or forensic hospitals. This entails departures from the prescriptive Deemed-to-Satisfy provisions of the regulations when it comes to details such as grab rails, shower roses, tap sets, door handles, etc. Special thought needs to be given to curtain rails. Such requirements are applicable also to other premises where there may be high concentrations of people with mental illness or disability, such as prisons and detention centres. In dealing with patients or clients who may have distorted views of reality, careful consideration needs to be given also to workplace health and

THE MAGAZINE FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

FEATURED ARTICLE safety. Emergency call buttons and dual withdrawal pathways for staff may be appropriate in facilities such as community health centres.

CONCLUSION The prospects of reform of the Premises Standards to accommodate the needs of people with mental illness or disability are bleak. Given the complexity of the issues involved, the potential of conflict between the needs of people with mental illness and those with physical disabilities, and the painfully cumbersome and slow pace of regulatory reform, it is unlikely that reform to meet the needs of those with mental illness will take place at any time in the near future. The Consultation Paper implied as much, suggesting that there may be other ways to address this issue8. Notwithstanding this, the requirements of the DDA remain. Under this over-arching legislation it is an offence to discriminate against people with disabilities, including people with mental disabilities, in the provision of access to premises.

POST SCRIPT: GOOD NEWS Beyond the bleak prospects of regulatory reform to address the needs of people with mental illness, as described above, there is good news.

The good news is that architects today can avail themselves of techniques and strategies in the design of buildings that will foster positive mental health outcomes. These approaches to architectural design are proven palliatives that alleviate the symptoms of people actively experiencing mental illness. Such techniques and strategies are beyond the scope of this brief introductory article.

REFERENCES: 1. Department of Industry, Science, Energy and

Resources, February 2021 - Premises Standards Review Consultation Paper - 2020 Review of the Disability (Access to Premises - Building) Standards 2010

2. Ibid p 14 3. Ibid p 14 4. Building Code of Australia, Volume One, 2019: Clause D2.21(b)(iii)(B).

5. Disability Discrimination Act 1992 Clause 4 Interpretation

6. Productivity Commission 2020, Mental Health, Report no. 95, Canberra

7. Commonwealth Department of Health website <www1.health.gov.au> accessed 04.04.21

8. Department of Industry, Science, Energy and

Resources, February 2021 - Premises Standards Review Consultation Paper - 2020 Review of the Disability (Access to Premises - Building) Standards 2010 p 14

Autumn 2021

FEATURED ARTICLE

David and Goliath Battle for Inclusion by David Cawthorn

David Cawthorn is a disability advocate and the respondent in the High Court case of Citta Hobart Pty Ltd and Anor v Cawthorn. David’s complaint is supported by the ParaQuad Association of Tasmania with legal support from the Hobart Community Legal Service and a number of barristers.

The following article was originally published in The Mercury newspaper on 24 February 2021.

or almost four and half years, a David and Goliath battle has been fought through the legal system, from Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Tribunal to the Supreme Court to the Full Court of the Supreme Court and now the High Court of Australia. I am the David in this story. At its core, the case is about ensuring equal access to Parliament Square, the $200M+ public plaza being developed behind Parliament House in Hobart. While there are two accessible entrances to the Square off Murray St and Salamanca Place, anyone coming from the Hobart waterfront to the Square would have to travel a considerable distance up these steep

roads to get to them because the closest (and lowest) entry point has only a flight of stairs. We want a lift installed at this flight of stairs so that people using wheelchairs, families with prams and older people do not have to fight their way up the steep incline on Murray St or have to push an extra 250 metres around Parliament House and up Salamanca Place to access the public plaza with its open spaces and amenities. My original complaint under state anti-discrimination law was about access to a public space and not about access to any particular building. The complaint did not resolve through conciliation so was referred to the Tasmanian Anti-discrimination Tribunal for determination. In support of my case, two Access Consultants had both prepared detailed reports and were both due to fly into Hobart to give evidence. However, just before the Tribunal was due to hear the case, the developer argued that the Federal Premises Standards override the State Act (and therefore knock out the complaint made under that Act) and that the development as a whole complied with those Standards.

THE MAGAZINE FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

FEATURED ARTICLE We have argued that compliance with the Premises Standards does not prohibit a state Tribunal from hearing a complaint about access to a public space and even if the Premises Standards do apply, the development does not comply with those Standards.

Court of Australia that Tasmania’s bedrock protections in the Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 (Tas) should be weakened.

The Tribunal accepted the developer’s argument, deciding it could not make a determination on my complaint. We appealed to the Supreme Court which found that the Tribunal should hear the complaint and make a determination. But the heart of the case is unlikely to be heard for some time yet, with the developer and owner appealing to the High Court against the Tasmanian Supreme Court’s decision which was 3-0 in my favour. It is extraordinary enough in the 21st Century to have to fight for the installation of a lift for me and other people with mobility disabilities. But recently the Tasmanian Attorney-General, who has a long and proud history of supporting people with disability, intervened in the High Court on behalf of the State. To my surprise, the State is not defending the Tasmanian Act or even our Supreme Court’s decision. It is not defending equal access for all Tasmanians and it is not defending my right to have the case dealt with by the Tasmanian Tribunal. Rather, it is supporting the multi-million-dollar developer and Parliament Square’s multi-millionaire owners. Alarmingly, the State of Tasmania will be arguing before the High

On the corner of Murray and Morrison St looking up at the North East corner of Parliament Square 8 Dec 2020

An important consideration for me, as the person with disability making a complaint, is the imbalance of financial power and the risk to me of having to stump up the respondents’ legal costs which could run to tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. In her most recent Annual Report, Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Commissioner Sarah Bolt said the developer’s challenge set a dangerous precedent because some complainants “will have no avenue to have their complaints heard” and that it “creates a real barrier to access to justice”. It beggars belief that our Attorney-General is acting against the advice of the State’s discrimination law officer and against its own anti-discrimination law: a law that people with disability use to ensure their rights to equality. It is simply incomprehensible that the State Government of Tasmania would support the position of the developer which would result in a weakened State discrimination law. This case has far wider implications for the future operation of state and territory anti-discrimination laws. If the High Court agrees with the developer, the access door will be closed to many because of the difficulties facing discrimination complainants under the federal system.

Looking at the Northeast corner of Parliament Square 7 Nov 2019

Autumn 2021

FEATURED ARTICLE

All Gender Toilets – We just want to go to the toilet! by Ms. Joe Manton Director Access Institute ACAA Fellow Williamson Fellow • Fellow of the Association of Consultants in Access Australia • Fellow of Leadership Victoria • Diploma of Access Consulting • Certificate IV in Training and Assessment Joe established one of the first access consultancy companies in Australia in 1993 and subsequently developed Access Institute a Registered Training Organisation (RTO) that developed and delivers the only nationally recognised qualifications in access in Australia in both the Certificate IV and Diploma of Access Consulting.

n an ABC Opinion piece by Rory Blundell posted on Tuesday 4 April 2017, Rory states:

‘Like most people who consume almost a litre of soft drink while seeing a movie at the cinema, I really need to pee. A familiar, prickly feeling of anxiety grows as I try to decide which bathroom I'll fit in to most. In a moment of panic, I rush into the women's and beeline for the nearest stall.

I feel like I've betrayed myself, once again, by not feeling able to do something so simple as use the men's toilet. I identify as non-binary (or more specifically, trans-masculine), meaning that although I was assigned female at birth, I have never identified as a girl. Whilst I dress in typically ‘masculine’ clothing and wear a chest binder, I haven't undergone hormone replacement therapy and often get mis-gendered or mistaken for a girl. This can make using a public bathroom extremely difficult, as I'm faced with a choice: mis-gender myself and feel like I'm betraying my identity or feel like I don't quite belong and feel physically unsafe’. You only need to undertake a Google search look to identify the vast range of research that has been undertaken relating to the issue of ‘bathroom anxiety’. This impacts on the use of public toilets by many people.

Now I just have to make my exit without encountering anyone else. After 10 minutes waiting in the stall, listening for other people, I decide the coast is clear. Predictably, however, as I'm at the sink, someone enters and stares at me, clearly puzzled. A part of me is happy that I look masculine enough to confuse people, but mostly I feel deeply uncomfortable, and humiliated by how much attention I'm drawing to myself.

THE MAGAZINE FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

FEATURED ARTICLE

One study, conducted by researchers at UCLA's Williams Institute, found that 70% of trans participants had experienced some form of verbal harassment or physical assault when accessing gender-segregated public toilets. Cambridge University Press in July 2020, identifies that: ‘According to the largest survey of the experiences of trans people in the USA to date: • 59% of respondents sometimes refrained from using a bathroom outside of their home in the previous year. The main rationale was fear of confrontation. • 24% were asked at least once in the previous year whether they were in the right bathroom and 9% were denied or stopped from using one. • 12% of respondents were “verbally harassed, physically attacked, and/or sexual assaulted when accessing or while using a bathroom in the past year • 32% refrained from drinking or eating to avoid bathroom use • 8% developed a urinary tract infection or other kidney-related problems due to refraining from using the bathroom. The situation is even worse for some subgroups.’ If communities are committed to supporting access and inclusion for everybody, then the provision of All Gender toilets must be an important part of achieving this. Myths regarding the abuse of All Gender toilets for activities that may be seen as unacceptable to the broader community abound, and are more often unsubstantiated, compared to similar activities in any other toilet facility. Often a bias against provision of All Gender toilets can be found in historical, discriminatory attitudes towards gender diverse people.

WHAT ARE ALL GENDER TOILETS? All Gender toilets are facilities that can be used by everyone. They do not have gendered signage, and do not require the person using them to define into a gender. Some All Gender toilets incorporate additional facilities e.g. accessible toilets, baby changing facilities, or showers. Installation of All Gender toilets, along with other types of toilets e.g., single gender, unisex accessible, ambulant, Accessible Adult Change Facilities (AACF) and Assistance Animal Relief Areas support the principles of access and inclusion. They provide the opportunity for people to make choices about which toilet they may need or prefer to use based on their individual requirements. According to Melbourne University, research indicates that ‘Bathroom Anxiety’ is a phenomenon experienced by gender diverse people when an appropriate toilet facility is not provided. This leads to increased levels of anxiety and depression and lower levels of class attendance at the University. Extensive consultation found that the term ‘All Gender’ is preferred to ‘Gender- Neutral’ or ‘Unisex’ and is the most inclusive of the broad spectrum of gender. Everyone needs to feel comfortable and safe when using a toilet.

AREN’T UNISEX ACCESSIBLE TOILETS THE SAME AS ALL GENDER TOILETS? A Unisex Accessible toilet can be used by anyone. However, there are a few reasons why some people do not feel comfortable using these facilities. Firstly, the attitudes of others can have an impact on whether a person will use an accessible toilet. There is a perception in the community that a unisex accessible toilet should only be used by Autumn 2021

FEATURED ARTICLE a person with a disability. There may be a good argument for this as there are often not enough of these facilities to cater for the needs of the target group. This is usually because these facilities are only installed to meet minimum compliance requirements, when from a functional perspective it would make more sense to provide increased numbers of accessible toilets so that people who do not have a disability can also feel comfortable in using them for a variety of reasons that do not relate to disability. Self-appointed ‘toilet police’ will often judge and sometimes abuse users of accessible toilets if they think that the user does not have a disability. This ill-informed and judgmental behavior sends a clear message to users that they have some responsibility to prove they are ‘eligible’ to use the toilet. People using wheelchairs are not the only people who need to use accessible toilets. For example, a person using toileting equipment, a person with an assistance animal who needs more room or a person using a pram that that requires a larger circulation space and other supports to meet their needs. In addition, a neurodiverse person may need support in understanding and using a toilet, so more room in necessary for two people to be in the same space. Being trans or non-binary is not a disability and therefore some people feel uncomfortable about using an accessible toilet as this is signed for use by people with disabilities. Having to use the accessible toilet on an ongoing basis if there is no All Gender facility can incline an individual and society to perceive that a person’s trans or non-binary self-identification is in some way a disabling condition which can impact negatively on an individual’s self-image and reinforce societal stereotypes. How a person is perceived by others can have significant influence on their feelings of self-worth

and should not be underestimated in terms of the impact on their mental health.

ARE ALL GENDER TOILETS SAFE? Safety of girls and women is often cited as a reason not to install All Gender toilets. The Cambridge University Press identifies that a recent study found one instance of a transgender person who allegedly committed a sex crime in a changing room; one case where a cisgender man claimed to identify as a woman and allegedly committed a sex crime in a women's locker room; and 13 cases in the USA since 2004 and 5 overseas cases where cisgender men dressed up as women and entered bathrooms or changing rooms to commit crimes. This is a relatively small number of cases over 15 years, which appears to vindicate the view of some who construe the panic around access to bathrooms as being a moral panic – a panic about morality being under siege – rather than a real concern over safety.

DO ALL GENDER TOILETS MAKE USERS UNCOMFORTABLE? Discomfort can occur for a range reasons. General queasiness, the presence of a medical condition, modesty and privacy are considerations that are often the basis for objection to the provision of All Gender toilets. This discomfort can often be overcome by ensuring there are enough other alternative toilets and that All Gender toilets are not the only option for users. Choice supports inclusion. The design and location of the facility will also play an important role in the level of discomfort a person may feel when using any toilet in a public place or work environment.

WILL ALL GENDER TOILETS MEET EVERYONE’S NEEDS? The short answer is no. Not everyone will wish to or be able to use All Gender toilets. It is therefore

THE MAGAZINE FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

FEATURED ARTICLE not appropriate to consider replacing other facilities with All Gender toilets but instead providing additional facilities. There will always be a need to provide single gender facilities, accessible toilets, ambulant toilets, accessible adult change facilities, etc, to meet the needs of the wide variety of people. For example, Kate Luckins article in the Australian Design Review, considers how other cultural groups feel about all gender bathrooms. Muslim communities have beliefs about modesty, gender and gender segregation. ‘As a Muslim in North America, there are few spaces where I can comfortably wash-up before each of the five daily prayers,’ explains blogger Miss Muslim NYC. When working with a leading Australian University, there were nine students surveyed who identified as non-binary and thousands of Muslim students. By focusing on gender inclusion and promoting All Gender bathrooms, we potentially exclude another cultural group, therefore shift the problem’. Organisations must consider the broader implications and needs of everyone if they are to demonstrate and act on inclusion.

WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF INSTALLING ALL GENDER TOILETS? Research indicates that there are many advantages and benefits to installing All Gender toilets. • People of all gender identities and expressions can use All Gender toilets They provide a space for people who may not feel comfortable or safe using the binary gendered female or male toilets and work towards making the community more inclusive. All Gender toilets reduce ‘bathroom anxiety’ experienced by many users. • All Gender toilets benefit parents and guardians accompanying children and people requiring the assistance of a carer, regardless of gender. • In low usage and small occupancy time differential environments expected waiting time for both men and women decease. • In high use or large occupancy time differential environments expected waiting times for women substantially decrease while for men they slightly increase.

WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF INSTALLING ALL GENDER TOILETS IN WORKPLACES? In an age where people place a significant amount of importance on office culture, organisations that are known as people-friendly, are seen in a very positive light by potential employees. Workplaces that provide All Gender toilets support an inclusive environment that demonstrates that the organisation values diversity and affirms differences. It sends a clear message that the organisation does not just talk about diversity and inclusion, it acts. It sends a message that the organisation respects and values every person for who they are and what they contribute, not by what sex they were assigned at birth or their gender identity. Research indicates that the majority of Millennial and Generation Z employees believe that All Gender toilets should be the norm, so if an organisation values its younger employees' opinions, it will install appropriate facilities. Provision of All Gender toilets positively impacts users who may feel at risk of exclusion.

WHAT ORGANISATIONS ARE LEADING THE WAY? Across Australia there are a range of organisations that are taking a leadership role in recognising the importance of installing All Gender toilets. These organisations in most part take an inclusive approach to bathroom use. They do not provide All Gender toilets only, but provide a range of toilets so people can choose what suits their needs. Universities including Melbourne, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, University of Technology Sydney, Curtin University in Western Australia, Sunshine Coast University in Queensland, all provide All Gender toilets as part of their toilet offerings. All gender toilets have been installed at Rod Laver Arena. "Please use the toilet that's most comfortable for you. Anyone can use these toilets, regardless of gender identity or expression," the sign reads. There are also a range of other toilets available for use. Autumn 2021

FEATURED ARTICLE Marvel Stadium in Melbourne and the Commonwealth public service in Canberra are all prioritising All Gender toilets to foster greater inclusivity.

WHAT IS HAPPENING INTERNATIONALLY? – A SNAPSHOT USA The “Potty Parity’ debate has raged in the USA for many years. Historically women have been discriminated against in relation to equal access to toilets both in terms of toilet numbers and toilet waiting times. This forms part of a broader debate regarding equal rights. The provision of All Gender toilets has been an extension of this debate and continues to create a divide amongst American States. More conservative states such as North Carolina, in recent years enacted a law which meant people were required to use the toilet that matched the gender on their birth certificates. Legislators pushed for the so-called Bathroom Bill after the City of Charlotte passed an ordinance allowing transgender people to use restrooms according to gender identity. The law prompted a huge backlash from campaigners, businesses and artists, with stars such as Bruce Springsteen and Ringo Starr cancelling concerts in the state. In response the then Obama administration hit back, issuing a directive ordering public schools to allow transgender students to use the toilet that corresponds to their gender identity. Since then, 12 states have announced they will sue the federal government over that directive, including Texas, Alabama and Wisconsin. It should be noted that All Gender toilets have been increasingly introduced across many other states in the USA over recent years.

Europe In Europe a more enlightened and inclusive understanding of the need for everyone to use a toilet that meets their needs, has led to the installation of All Gender toilets across many precincts, public spaces and organisations for many years. It is not uncommon for the only standard toilet facilities to be All Gender along with accessible and ambulant toilets. Most public bathrooms in Denmark and Sweden are All Gender. China According to China Daily in 2017, both domestic and foreign tourists usually have unpleasant experiences or impressions with China’s public toilets: ‘inadequate, dirty and chaotic’. In 2015, the China National Tourism Administration (NTA) launched a three-year ‘Tourism Toilet Revolution’ across the country. The NTA announced that all 5A scenic spots will build All Gender toilets and plans to build 604 All Gender toilets across the country. While the provision of All Gender toilets has been primarily raised as a gender equity and human rights issue in the West, China has a different focus largely from the infrastructure perspective. According to the NTA, an All Gender public toilet can simply be viewed as a ‘family toilet’, which specifically targets children, the elderly, people with disabilities and anyone else who may require the assistance from other family members. Canada Canada has been a pioneer in advocating All Gender toilets. In April 2014, Vancouver became the first municipality to impose compulsory requirements on public buildings to install All Gender toilets.

THE MAGAZINE FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

FEATURED ARTICLE United Kingdom According to wired.co.uk, All Gender toilets have ‘really taken off’ in recent years. Google and Facebook were among the big tech companies in the UK to join employers like WeWork, the BBC, Channel 4, Lloyds of London, Barclays, RBS, Wagamama, HSBC and the British Army in offering All Gender toilets.

AWARENESS RAISING Given there is no debate about the fact that everyone needs to use a toilet, it appears that awareness regarding the need for All Gender toilets to be included in the provision of toilets, alongside the other options such as single gender, accessible, ambulant, children’s toilets and AACF is the key to ongoing change. Debunking the perception that All Gender toilets are any more unsafe than single gender toilets is critical. Demonstrating inclusive practices, particularly by larger well-known organisations will assist and support the installation of All Gender toilets in the broader community. Normalising the installation of All Gender toilets underpins the basis for understanding and inclusion. Providing All Gender toilets in schools, alongside other options, demonstrates that diversity and difference is valued and is an important part of a mature and inclusive society.

In addition, we need to consider the location of all toilets in public places to ensure that all toilet users feel safe, comfortable and at ease when using the facility. We also need to ensure that where toilets are installed, appropriate cleaning and maintenance regimes that reflect the rate of usage are implemented, as this is more often the reason that many people do not like to use public toilets. Moving forward it is important that legislation, standards and building codes respond to and reflect community needs in an inclusive manner. Recently the need for Accessible Adult Change Facilities in some larger buildings was recognised in legislation and incorporated into the National Construction Code (NCC) in 2019, in response to identified needs of the community, All Gender toilets are no different in this regard. It is time that we addressed this issue in the same way as with any other discriminatory practice and remove the barriers to inclusive participation in community life.

ClearaSound B R I N G I N G

C L A R I T Y

T O

H E A R I N G

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Kate Luckins, in the Australian Design Review argues that ‘Rethinking Bathroom Design’ is an important consideration in the provision of All Gender toilets. To achieve this, we need much more than just a new accessible, All Gender toilet sign. We need to rethink the whole public bathroom design. To be truly inclusive, we need to design accessible, All Gender bathrooms with wider, closed stalls with private wash basins. There are several examples that serve as a precedent for this approach including aeroplane bathrooms, domestic bathrooms and single-use cubicle bathrooms often found in cafes. For new buildings, taking the All Gender approach means the bathroom layouts become more flexible’.

HEARING Augmentation specialist

PA SYSTEMS Counter loop FM & Infrared systems

INVISIBLE

Hearing loop installation

02 9481 9750

www.clearasound.com.au sales@clearasound.com.au

Autumn 2021

FEATURED ARTICLE

NCC 2019 requirements for access to and into swimming pools associated with Class 1b, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9 buildings by Paul Eltringham Stonehenge Consulting Pty Ltd.

The following NCC technical advice has been prepared by Paul Eltringham, Stonehenge Consulting Pty Ltd.

isinterpretation of the NCC is a constant topic of conversation in the construction industry which is generally due to the way it is written. There certainly are some grey areas which could be interpreted in different ways. As such, I recommend getting advice from more than one qualified Building Surveyor/Certifier in order to get a reliable interpretation. The Guide to the NCC (freely downloaded from the ABCB website) should be the first port of call when unsure about how to interpret a clause from the NCC. If still unsure about an interpretation, you can email the

technical department of the relevant Building Authority in your state ie the VBA in Victoria, the Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB) or the Australian Institute of Building Surveyors (AIBS). The advice in this article is based strictly on the minimum level of NCC compliance required which is all that a Building Surveyor/Certifier can legally require in order to issue a Building Permit. Of course Architects and designers may design above the minimum NCC requirements and are encouraged to do so. Access Consultants should also advise their clients of the NCC requirements yet can provide additional value by offering recommendations for a higher level of

THE MAGAZINE FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

FEATURED ARTICLE accessibility. At the end of the day though, the client needs to know what level of compliance is mandatory to comply with the NCC and not what an Access Consultant or Building Surveyor feels is fair and reasonable based on their gut feeling or personal belief. Therefore, understanding the NCC requirements is essential. Table D3.1 BCA (Volume 1) determines the requirements for access for people with a disability based on the class of building. When a provision in the BCA is applicable to a specific class or classes of building, that reference to a building may be a reference to the whole building or part of the building. For example, Table D3.1 references Class 10b swimming pools when associated with other classifications. For Class 1b, 2, 3, 9b and 9c buildings, Table D3.1 states that access is required to and within various common areas and one of the common areas listed is a room or space that contains a swimming pool. Table D3.1 also states that Class 5, 6, 7 and 8 buildings must be provided with access to and within all areas normally used by the occupants. Slightly different wording but essentially means the same.

For any word in the BCA highlighted blue in italics, one can refer to the Definitions which are located in Schedule 3 BCA. Mouse clicking on the word will also take you to the definition. A ‘swimming pool’ means any excavation or structure containing water and principally used for swimming, wading, paddling or the like including a bathing or wading pool or spa. As a side note, swimming pools are also called up in Part G1.1 BCA Volume 1 which states that swimming pools that are capable of being filled with more than 300 mm of water must be protected with a child proof barrier in accordance with AS 1926.1. All states in Australia have their own special and specific levels of adoption of this Australian Standard yet for new swimming pools associated with Class 1b, 2, 3, 9b or 9c buildings, a barrier at least 1200 mm high with at least one self closing and self latching swinging gate or door (always swinging away from the swimming pool) with a latch or handle generally located at a height of 1500 mm minimum unless the latch is on the inside of the

When Class 1b, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9 buildings are listed as a class of building, the table requires access to and within the room or space where the swimming pool is located. The BCA requirement for access into the actual swimming pool is determined in accordance with Clause D3.10 BCA.

Autumn 2021

FEATURED ARTICLE swimming pool barrier and is shielded by a radius of 450 mm (typically a glass pool gate scenario). Clause 13.5.3 – AS 1428.1 states that the height of door or gate latching devices or controls to swimming pools must comply with the relevant Australian Standard since life safety takes precedence over access for people with a disability. Clause D3.10 (d) BCA also clarifies this issue. Table D3.1 states that only swimming pools with a perimeter greater than 40m that are associated with Class 1b, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9 buildings need to be accessible in accordance with one of the methods listed in Clause D3.10. (unless the swimming pool is for exclusive use of a particular SOU). Therefore, to comply with the access requirements of the NCC, access into a swimming pool is only mandatory if the pool perimeter is more than 40m. It is therefore not deemed an offence under the Premises Standards or the DDA to not provide access INTO a swimming pool if the NCC does not make it a mandatory requirement. Disabled access in accordance with AS 1428.1 (2009) however should be provided to the common area around the swimming pool in accordance to comply with the Deemed to Satisfy provisions of the BCA. However, as we know a Performance Solution to not provide wheelchair access to the swimming pool room or space may be a possibility if it can be supported by a qualified and experienced Access Consultant and also accepted by the Building Surveyor although this carries considerable risk of a DDA complaint. Clause D3.10 (c) also states that when a swimming pool has a perimeter more than 70m when associated with a Class 1b, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9 building, then at least one accessible water entry/ exit to the swimming pool must be in accordance with D3.10 (b) excluding a sling-style swimming pool lift option. The key point that can be confusing and is sometimes misunderstood with Table D3.1, is that when disabled access is required to the common areas of Class 1b, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9 buildings, this requires disabled access only to the room or space where the swimming pool is located. Access into the Class 10b swimming pool, when associated with those other classifications required by the Table D3.1, is only required when the total perimeter of that swimming pool exceeds 40m, as replicated here: 28

THE MAGAZINE FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

To and into swimming pools with a total perimeter greater than 40 m, associated with a Class 1b, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9 building that is required to be accessible, but not swimming pools for the exclusive use of occupants of a Class 1b building or a sole-occupancy unit in a Class 2 or Class 3 building. The various access options into swimming pools with more than 40m perimeter are listed in D3.10 BCA, as summarised below: • a fixed or movable ramp and an aquatic wheelchair; or • a zero depth entry at a maximum gradient of 1:14 and an aquatic wheelchair; or • a platform swimming pool lift and an aquatic wheelchair; or • a sling-style swimming pool lift. The NCC is published in 2 Volumes – Volume 1 for Class 2 to 9 buildings (including Class 1b and 10b swimming pools when associated with Class 1b, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9 buildings), and; Volume 2 for Class 1a and 10 buildings and structures (apart from swimming pools associated with Class 1b, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9 buildings). Access for persons with disabilities to Class 10b swimming pools associated with Class 1a dwellings (or to and within Class 1a dwellings) is not required by the NCC. In reality, most swimming pools associated with a residential development (Class 2 apartments or 3 hotels) with a perimeter more than 40m but less than 70m have a zero depth entry or a ramp which enables persons using wheelchairs to be self sufficient and not rely on external assistance to use a lift. However, you would be surprised how many swimming pools associated with Class 2 or 3 buildings particularly have been designed with a perimeter marginally under 40m in order to not trigger the requirement to provide disabled access into the pool in accordance with one of the D3.10 methods.

Autumn 2021

FEATURED ARTICLE

Hearing Augmentation Comparison by Andrew Stewart

Andrew Stewart is the Managing Director of Hearing Connections, a company specialising in technology for people with hearing loss. Andrew is hearing impaired, and wears two cochlear implants, together with eight other family members with a combination of hearing aids and cochlear implants. He is qualified in electronics, and together with his lived experience of hearing loss, has been researching, designing and installing hearing augmentation systems for over 35 years.

WHY DO WE NEED HEARING AUGMENTATION? People with hearing loss commonly use hearing devices, like hearing aids or cochlear implants to improve their hearing. These hearing devices are generally great one to one, with no background noise. But in an auditorium, the person with hearing loss hears the noise, but cannot understand what is being said. This is due to the “echoes” in the room (also called reverberation) which people cannot distinguish, but “blurs” the sound. The solution is to install a Hearing Augmentation system, which allows a deaf, hearing impaired or hard of hearing user to hear the output signal directly in their ear using a hearing device. With such a device the user can hear the sound without reverberation or background noise. Furthermore, they can hear speech clearly

where otherwise they would have struggled or been unable to understand anything. The overarching principle is that hearing augmentation must be suitable for people who are deaf or hearing impaired.

WHAT ARE HEARING AUGMENTATION SYSTEMS? Hearing Augmentation systems typically connect to the output of an existing PA/sound system/sound source. This can include wireless microphones, TVs, and music systems both in the home and in public places. The systems are received by the consumer using a hearing aid or cochlear implant on the telecoil setting (previously known as the "T Switch"), however all systems can be used with headphones if the user does not wear hearing devices. There are two types of Hearing Augmentation Systems: 1. Hearing Loop Systems 2. Receiver Systems - Which consist of either: • FM/Digital wireless Systems • Infrared Systems

FM / DIGITAL SYSTEMS FM/Digital systems can include smartphone systems, only if the latency is less than or equal to 40ms. Latency is the time delay between what is heard from the loudspeakers vs what is heard from the smartphone vs what is seen (for the

THE MAGAZINE FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

FEATURED ARTICLE

purpose of lipreading) has so far made these systems unusable in the majority of cases. The latency must be less than 40 ms for the system to be suitable for people who are hearing impaired. The latency is end to end, which means it includes the Wi-Fi system and the receivers/smartphones. The receivers must be provided by the venue, in the same way as any other receiver system. This is particularly relevant as the latency varies between smartphones. FM/Digital systems can also include SoundField systems, where receivers are included in accordance with NCC D3.7. A common question is what about Bluetooth, as many hearing aids have Bluetooth. Unfortunately, there is no commercial system that is compatible with the Bluetooth profiles fitted to hearing aids.

HEARING LOOP SYSTEM A hearing loop (sometimes called an audio induction loop) is a system for use by people with hearing devices with a Telecoil. Alternatively, receivers are available for those not using hearing devices or whose hearing devices do not have a Telecoil. Hearing loops require installation by a professional experienced in hearing loops (such as Hearing Connections). If not installed correctly users may be required to tilt their head at an awkward angle to pick up the signal or find unexpected dead spots in the area.

Hearing Loop concept where no metal is present in the building structure

Complex Hearing Loop arrays for adjacent areas, concrete and steel framed buildings. Autumn 2021

FEATURED ARTICLE COMPARISON OF FEATURES Compares hearing loop, FM/digital, infrared, sound field, wi-fi and personal assistive listening systems.

HEARING AUGMENTATION

NOT HEARING AUGMENTATION

To comply with NCC legal requirements, DP9 and D3.7.of the NCC must be met

Hearing Loop

Complies with NCC Legal Requirements without receivers

FM/ Digital/ WiFi

Infrared SoundField with Receivers

SoundField no Receivers

Note 1

Note 2

Wifi including Smart phones

Personal Assistive Listening

Note 3

Yes

Connected to venue’s Audio System

Yes

Note 1

Note 2

Yes

User Preferred

Yes

2nd option

Venue Preferred

Yes

2nd option

Note 2

Lowest Maintenance

Yes

Easiest to Install

Yes

Maximum Privacy

Yes

Various

Up to 750m

Various

20m

Note 4

Complies with NCC Legal Requirements with receivers

No Note 3

Note 4

Range

Various

No Note 5

10m/20m Note 6

Note 1: SoundField may be used as an amplification system or a combined amplification and hearing augmentation system. Only when used with receivers is it a hearing augmentation system. SoundField Systems are typical used in classrooms for children with mild fluctuating hearing loss. Students requiring hearing augmentation must use receivers or connect their own personal system to the SoundField system. Not all students own personal systems for this purpose. 32

THE MAGAZINE FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

FEATURED ARTICLE Note 2: An installed SoundField system without receivers is an inbuilt amplification system. Not all SoundField systems are capable of having receivers. Those that are not cable of, and/or not supplied with, receivers are not hearing augmentation systems. Note 3: A personal assistive listening system is not a hearing augmentation system. It is not owned by the venue and is typically owned by the user or provided by the hearing service provider to the user for their personal use, and will typically be a single microphone and a receiver. Note 4: Does not comply with DP9 of the NCC when the latency is greater than 40mS. Note 5: The Personal Assistive Listening System transmitters have built in batteries, and therefore are not suitable for permanent connection to a venue’s audio system (as the batteries will eventually corrode and may destroy the transmitter). Note 6: When used at greater range than 20 metres, repeater units with internal batteries are required. These are not suitable for permanent connection to a venue’s audio system as the batteries will eventually corrode and may destroy the repeater.

LEGAL REQUIREMENTS There are numerous legal requirements involving Hearing Augmentation Systems, and signs for them. • NCC - National Construction Codes (previously BCA - Building Codes of Australia) – DP9, and Sections D3.6 and 3.7 • DDA - Disability Discrimination Act 1992 – The Premises Standards - DP9, and Sections D3.6 and 3.7

All signs display the International Symbol for Deafness, and the appropriate wording – both as required by: • National Construction Codes / Building Code of Australia 2019 – D3.6 • Disability (Access to Premises - Buildings) Standards 2010 – D3.6 Some signs modify the International Deafness Symbol with a “T” – this is not compliant with the legal requirements in Australia.

• Fit for Purpose (each state has its own fair trading laws requiring all systems to be fit for purpose) • Australian Standard AS 1428.5 - 2010 (applies if listed in a contract).

SIGNAGE Braille Signs are required at the entry to indicate the room or area has a hearing augmentation system (Hearing Loop, or Receiver system – i.e. FM/Digital or Infra-red system). Printed signs are required inside the room. Both signs require the International Symbol for Deafness to be included.

Correct Symbol

Not Valid in Australia

Visit our website to for updates at www.hearconnect.com.au If you have any questions, email Hearing Connections at team@hearconnect.com.au

The symbol must be white on blue, and the blue must be Ultramarine B21 or equivalent.

Autumn 2021

FEATURED ARTICLE

Revision to ISO 21542 (2011) Building Construction - Accessibility and usability of the built environment by Robyn Thompson and Angela Roennfeldt

n 2017 revision of the first edition of the International Standard - Accessibility and useability of the built environment commenced. Standards Australia is represented on the ISO committee by 2 members of the Australian committee on Access and Mobility (ME64), Angela Roennfeldt and Robyn Thompson. A wide range of countries are represented on the committee including Argentina (IRAM) Australia (SA) Austria (ASI) Belgium (NBN) Brazil (ABNT) Canada (SCC) China (SAC) Colombia (ICONTEC) Denmark (DS) France (AFNOR) Germany (DIN) Ireland (NSAI) Italy (UNI) Japan (JISC) Norway (SN) Russian Federation (GOST R) Saudi Arabia (SASO) South Africa (SABS) Spain (UNE) Sweden (SIS) Switzerland (SNV) Turkey (TSE) United Kingdom (BSI) Uruguay (UNIT) with comments submitted by ANEC, Egypt (EOS) Working groups were initially created to review the sections of the Standard proposed for updating. It is important to realise that not all sections of the Standard were to be reviewed in detail. The process for review is that a proposal for a review of certain sections is put forward to ISO by one of the member countries. The proposal is sent to ballot and if enough countries support review of the sections identified and the work proposal is accepted by ISO, then work proceeds. The sections identified in the current standard review were as follows: • General: Improvement of terminology, general design considerations, misprints and errors • Exceptional considerations

• Fire safety for all • Visual impairments • Hearing impairments • Ramps • Lifts, escalators and moving walks Working groups were established for each of the identified areas. The outcomes of these working groups were issued to members for comment and then the main committee would meet to discuss the acceptance or rejection of the comments and the inclusion of the proposed revised sections into the draft standard - a slow and challenging process when members come from countries with such diverse topography, climate and economic conditions! In addition, a working group on accessible housing and the requirements for children with a disability were added. Work on the requirements for children with a disability has continued and is anticipated to become part of the next revision. Prior to the introduction of Covid-19 travel restrictions meetings were held in person over 4 days in both Madrid and Oslo. With the limitations of travel in 2020 and 2021 all ISO meetings went onto Zoom. Despite attempts to adjust meetings to suit everyone, being in Australia made joining meetings late in the evening and participating into the early hours, challenging. At the time of writing the draft standard (ISO 21542 revision 2) has been finalised and the voting process, which closes in mid-April 2021, is underway, so that hopefully the revised

THE MAGAZINE FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

FEATURED ARTICLE

standard will then be published after the committee's next meeting in June. The 2011 version ISO standard on accessibility, for those unfamiliar with it, is similar to the Australian access and mobility standard - AS1428.1, although the ISO standard includes more informative information as it is not limited by needing to be referenced by a code such as the NCC that requires measurable outcomes. The 2011 ISO standard is focused on access to and within buildings to which the public has access. As the international standard requires 25 countries to agree on minimum requirements for circulation spaces, ramp gradients, measurement of luminance contrast and the like, consensus is often difficult to achieve. However, it has been interesting to hear the approach taken by various countries to accessibility issues and to understand the various expectations of different user groups, as well as the findings of international research. Conclusions included in the Standard are sometimes a compromise and often there was a recommendation by the Committee, that ongoing review of various sections is required. Standards are all living documents! The main changes to the ISO Standard compared to the previous include the following: • A restructuring of the document and editorial revision to make the document more user friendly.

• Modification of the approach to exceptional considerations, which will now only apply to existing buildings. Previously new building work in developing countries was included in these exceptions to the minimum requirements. • Revision to the sections on tactile walking surfaces (TWSI) which references the new standard ISO 23599:2019. • Revision to the provisions of visual contrast. • Complete revision and enlargement of the specifications on acoustics and emergency warning systems. • Inclusion of clauses related to (fire) emergency evacuation, ie, Emergency egress is included, as well as access into a building. • Introduction of a new informative annex on housing. • Inclusion of additional information on accessibility requirements for lifts, which is no longer provided in the European standards. A working group continues to review design requirements for children with a disability and work has commenced on including a section entitled 'Accessibility of the immovable cultural heritage' - which is to cover accessibility in heritage buildings. It would have been helpful to have included more detail in this update however as the ISO standard is still in draft, we will have to provide more commentary in the future when you all have a copy!

A number of the ISO 21542 committee meeting in Madrid. Autumn 2021

HOT APPS

HOT APPS AND WEBSITES By Jen Barling

SMART CITIES FOR ALL G3ict – The Global Initiative on Inclusive Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs), aims to eliminate the digital divide for people with disability and older people in Smart Cities around the world. They partnered with leading technology companies and civil society organizations, like Microsoft, AT&T, and World Enabled, to launch the Smart Cities for All initiative to define the state of ICT accessibility in Smart Cities worldwide. Their Smart Cities for All Toolkit contains four tools to help Smart Cities worldwide include a focus on ICT accessibility and digital inclusion. https://smartcities4all.org

G20 GLOBAL SMART CITIES ALLIANCE The G20 Global Smart Cities Alliance on Technology Governance unites municipal, regional and national governments, private-sector partners and cities’ residents around a shared set of principles for the responsible and ethical use of smart city technologies. The Alliance establishes and advances global policy norms to help accelerate best practices, mitigate potential risks, and foster greater openness and public trust. The World Economic Forum, the International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation, serves as secretariat for the Alliance. https://globalsmartcitiesalliance.org

INTERNATIONAL WELL BUILDING INSTITUTE The WELL Building Standard version 2 (WELL v2) is a vehicle for buildings and organizations to deliver more thoughtful and intentional spaces that enhance human health and well-being. WELL includes a set of strategies—backed by the latest scientific research—that aim to enhance human health through design interventions, operational protocols and policies and a commitment to fostering a culture of health and wellness. WELL draws expertise from a diverse community of WELL users, practitioners, public health professionals and building scientists around the world. Projects pursuing WELL Certification can earn points based on performance outcomes for various policy, design and operational strategies and can achieve one of four certification levels: Bronze, Silver, Gold or Platinum. https://www.wellcertified.com

THE MAGAZINE FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSULTANTS IN ACCESS AUSTRALIA

HOT APPS

HOT APPS AND WEBSITES (continued) SDA TOOLS The SDA Tools App contains 3 calculators to assist designers, SDA Certifiers and SDA developers. 1. NDIS SDA Density Calculator This calculator can be used to determine the number of participants permitted on a single parcel of land based on interpretation of the NDIS SDA Rules 2020. 2. Luminance Contrast Calculator Select colours to satisfy the minimum 30% luminance contrast requirements as noted in the NDIS SDA Design Standards for Improved Liveability Design category dwellings. 3. Slope/Gradient Calculator This calculator is to assist designers to convert measurements of slope and gradients between a percentage, degrees or as a ratio. https://apps.apple.com/au/app/sda-tools/id1551113071

Autumn 2021

ADVERTISING OPPORTUNITIES

CLICK HERE CLICK HERE for our

Advertising Rate Card

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

CLICK HERE for a Free Subscription to Access Insight

The content of this magazine 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 magazine have been provided by such organisations without verification by ACAA. ACAA does not guarantee, support nor endorses any product or service mentioned in this magazine, 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 magazine. In this magazine, 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 magazine may be reproduced without the prior written consent of the ACAA Committee of Management.

20 Maud Street, Geelong VIC 3220 +61 3 5221 2820 office@access.asn.au

Access Insight - Autumn 2021

Articles inside

HOT APPS AND WEBSITES

Revision to ISO 21542 (2011) Building Construction - Accessibility and usability of the built environment

All Gender Toilets – We just want to go to the toilet

Hearing Augmentation Comparison

NCC 2019 requirements for access to and into swimming pools associated with Class 1b, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9 buildings

A Canadian Innovation for Universal Design

Design for people with mental illness

David and Goliath Battle for Inclusion

Access Consulting meets Community Consulting

From the President’s Desk