Annual Report 2001

Goal 4: Monitoring

Monitoring the goings-on within government related to disability issues and human rights is a key role for DPA, as a policy-driven organisation. DPA's focus continues to be on policy issues, rather than direct service monitoring and in accord with DPA's mission of enhancing the participation of people with disabilities in society, our concerns continue to span many sectors of government.

Clear, concise, consistent, coherent, credible and constructive — these six 'c' words were the mantra of former DPA policy researcher, Owen Hughes, who resigned from the part-time policy role at DPA in July 2000. DPA's policy researcher is the prime 'watchdog' and driver of DPA's policy monitoring activity, assisted by members who are interested and occasionally by the NEC . This role of policy researcher was taken up in August 2000 by long-time disability activist and DPA member, Wendi Wicks of Wellington, after a stringent selection process had decided against 19 other high calibre candidates who had expressed interest in the position. Wendi resigned from her position as vice-president of DPA and of convenor of the Human Rights group in order to take up the 20 hour a week paid position.

The Human Rights Re-evaluation, the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care) Bill, the Fire Safety in Community Housing and the Adoption Bill were the human rights issues that figured large for DPA during the year.

1. Intellectual Disability (Compulsory) Bill

DPA and others lobbied strongly and effectively against the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care) Bill and the parliamentary health select committee revised the format to exclude children and non-offender adults with intellectual disabilities from its coverage. DPA was pleased that what we considered a significant breach of the human rights of people with intellectual disabilities was avoided. The original Bill exposed people with disabilities who had done nothing wrong, to the risk of indefinite preventative detention. Detaining people who have not done anything wrong is likely to be a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act which protects people from discrimination. DPA's view is that people with intellectual disabilities should not be subjected to discriminatory treatment out of ignorance and fear at behaviour perceived to be different. We were very pleased that the original Bill's proposal for the compulsory detention of people with disabilities who had not offended but were merely considered a risk to themselves and others was removed.

2. Vocational Services Guidelines produced

For DPA it has been heartening that the New Zealand Federation of Vocational and Support Services Inc. (VASS) appeared to be listening to the consumer voice, and this year ran a project to establish best practice guidelines for 'sheltered workshops' — those establishments providing vocational services for adults with an impairment or life altering illness.

For the purpose of the project vocational services were defined as: 'Services which focus on supporting a person to occupy themselves during their waking hours, away from their residential situation, related to employment; skills acquisition for work or general 'quality of life' activities, including personal skill development and leisure. The purpose of vocational services is to maximise people's opportunities to contribute to society.'

Project leader, Robyn Klos, said that rather than take the 'expert' view in developing the Guidelines, the project team recognised it was important the Guidelines be evidence-based and use information already published, supported by qualitative information from people who used services, as well as providers and interested people. DPA has previously encountered resistance and antagonism for having condemned the shocking way in which some 'sheltered workshops' have operated and for pushing for their closure. The project team found good examples of 'best practice' within the services on offer, but within a wide spectrum of quality variation.

A revelation for the project team was the discovery that most sheltered workshops operated within a vacuum, without any reliable information about what constituted best vocational services practice. This became really apparent when the New Zealand wide literature search was carried out as part of the research project. For DPA, it was pleasing that The Federation of Vocational and Support Services has now recognised that the environments in which providers operate are changing — people who use services expect a collaborative approach to their service delivery and expect to have a say in how they are delivered.

Robyn Klos said that at the New Zealand Guidelines Group Inc. 2 nd conference the project team became absolutely aware that any guidelines had to be developed in consultation with the consumer group. The process used to develop the evidence based guidelines included:

A research project which included a literature search and a consultation process with consumers, providers and other interested parties.
Quality Assurance appraisal of the research by nominated interested parties.
Development of the draft Guidelines.
Review of the draft Guidelines by nominated interested parties.
Completion of the final draft. Some 200 people were involved in producing the Guidelines which actually proved to be a major learning experience for the members of the project team: Mandy Lacy (Avalon Training Centre); Tom Ringrose (Hawkes Bay Disability Resource Centre); Ian Beker (Southland Enterprises) and Robyn Klos (Gracelands Vocational Services). The Department of Work and Income (National Contracts Division), NZ Guidelines Group Inc, NZ Lottery Grants Board (Welfare Committee) and JR McKenzie Trust helped make the Guidelines possible.
The Guidelines are a resource for providers and people who may use vocational services. It is expected they will be periodically reviewed and enhanced as best practice in the disability sector continues to evolve, and that provider organisations will use them as a tool to develop their own services. People who use vocational services, their family, whanau and support people will find them a useful guide against which they can benchmark their expectations of the services that they use.
Early in 2001 useful dialogue between DPA and VASS executive members was brokered at a client rights seminar held by The Federation of Vocational and Support Services during its first meeting of the year in Wellington on 1 and 2 March 2001. On this occasion DPA chief executive Gary Williams was also given the opportunity to provide 'the last word' at the seminar.

3. Acessibility - NZS 4121:2001

A flagship document for people with disabilities in New Zealand, NZS 4121:2001 Design for Access and Mobility - Buildings and Associated Facilities was launched in April this year by Standards New Zealand. It was the third up-grade of NZS 4121 in its unique almost 35 year history.
DPA played the major role in initiating and chairing the process of production of NZS 4121:2001 - its two predecessors, released in 1971 and 1985, were both initiated by NZCCS, then the NZ Crippled Children Society. NZS 4121:2001 remains unique within the disability and building industry sectors because:

It provided the first and still most successful document translating a legislated human right for people with disabilities, in this case the right of access to and use of the built environment, into practical measurable entitlement, in this case by way of building design requirement.
It is the only NZ Standard document cited in the Building Act 1991. From the point of view of disabled people and particularly DPA, this citing is deliberate as it protects a consensus drafting process that is seen as the most equitable way of ensuring detailed disability entitlement.
Its drafting process can be initiated and equitably managed by the user group whom the legislation is intend to benefit. The current 'consultation' required to produce documents for compliance with the Building Code does not offer the same guarantee for equitable input from user groups in this way.
It provides a one-stop shop for a wide target audience of users and building industry practitioners for all matters to do with access and useability of the built environment for people with disabilities.
It provides users and user groups who are regularly asked to give advice on matters of physical accessibility with all requirements in one document that follows the logical 'accessible route' sequence in which access requirements need to be addressed. Under the Building Code this sequence is fragmented through a number of documents.
Its legal status means it sets a benchmark for the requirements of people with disability that cannot be ignored and must be used continuously in association with the Building Code to establish the best access solutions for people with disabilities.

3.1 Drafting process

The process of drafting NZS 4121:2001 goes back over nearly 10 years when the late Quentin Angus, a great DPA stalwart, began the original draft for this document based on NZS 4121:1985 and MP 4122:1989. The redraft committee met to consider comment and drafts for almost two and a half years concluding late in 2000. The committee comprised representation from DPA, Building Industry Authority, NZ Institute of Architects, Property Council of NZ, NZ Association of Occupational Therapists and Building Officials Institute of NZ working in close cooperation with the Association of Blind Citizens, Barrier Free NZ Trust, National Foundation for the Deaf and Royal NZ Foundation for the Blind. The consensus decisions that were reached reflect the amalgamated viewpoints of the Committee and of the comment received, so that while no one interest group gets everything exactly as they wished, everyone can identify the portions they contributed.

3.2 Content

As the Building Act requires, this document sets basic requirements to provide reasonable and adequate access for people with disabilities to be able to visit and work and carry out normal activities and processes in public buildings. There is no change to the mandatory requirements on access as a result of this new document.However, there is a lot more detail to improve and enhance design possibilities for current levels of mandatory requirement particularly in the areas of accessible accommodation where cooking, washing, laundering and other 'activities and processes' are addressed and outdoor spaces where the Local Government Act applies. Some of the structural and content changes from the previous document include:

Combining the detail of design rules and their application and incorporating much of MP 4122 (the commentary on the previous 4121) into one document.
The document has 14 sections three of the new the accessible route (with enhanced requirements for the visual environment), accessible outdoor public spaces and accessible accommodation.
There are eight appendices including all legislative and Building Code requirements, guidance on alterations to existing buildings and a lot of informative material including how to design a guide dog run.

3.3 Conclusion

NZS 4121:2001 is a design tool, a confirmation of a human right and a view towards the future of inclusive, universally designed buildings that are more efficient, comfortable and potentially safer for everyone to use. NZ has come a long way in the 35 years since the first NZS 4121 when physical accessibility meant the kerb-cut, the ramp, the big toilet and the access symbol. Now it means cooking in motels, tactile ground surface indicators and places for guide-dogs to 'run'. Next time, hopefully not another 15 years away, NZS 4121 will include more on the audio environment. The new code document is a significant tool for anyone who claims expertise in the disability sector and is an absolute essential for anyone offering advice in the area of access to and use of the built environment for people with disabilities. NZS 4121:2001 Design for access and mobility - buildings and associated facilities is available through DPA National Office at Standards NZ membership cost of $63 plus GST. Alternative text formats are also available.

Bill Wrightson, Chair NZS 4121:2001 Review Committee.

4. Fire Safety Overblown

Fire Safety in Community Housing created an uproar from various disability interests when last year the Building Industry Authority (BIA) wanted to introduce various regulations requiring all sorts of disabled people to have fire alarms in their homes. DPA was greatly concerned. IHC took the BIA to court over the matter. The Ministry of Health tried to cut through the bad feelings and competing interests by convening a (very large) round table to discuss a draft policy on this matter. A working group was established to resolve the issues by formulating guidelines, with DPA represented by the CEO, Gary Williams.

5. Needs Assessment

During the year DPA also examined the Needs Assessment Auditing Tool being proposed by the Ministry of Health. DPA was concerned that the draft tool had no apparent linkages with the Health and Disability Sector Standards, appeared to offer little in the way of comparative reliability between assessors and that there seemed to be a lack of understanding that disabled consumers required auditing of their services to involve them.

6. Adoption Act discriminated against disabled

During a parliamentary select committee review of the Law Commission Report #65: Adoption and its Alternatives, (September 2000), DPA took the opportunity to address the matters of discrimination arising from and in the Adoption Act 1955.
Our research suggests a number of disabled people have been denied the right to adopt though they are to all intents and purposes, very suitable parents. Though packaged in different ways and with different rationales, the criterion for refusal has been that they are disabled therefore unable to parent. For our part, we rejected that inadequate and offensive stereotype of prospective parents with a disability, and suggested that disabled people should be assessed according to their abilities, not according to outdated notions of dependency, helplessness and inadequacy. We have realised that decisions about adoption suitability are riddled with assumptions about the unfitness, inadequacies and inabilities of disabled people to be suitable parents and that prospective parents who may be discriminated against because of disability, have few avenues of review. Our submission on adoption generated surprising interest and depth of feeling among people in the disability community.

DPA made other submissions to the:

Health Funding Authority, now Ministry of Health, (20 October 2000), on the Proposed Service Structure for people with Intellectual Disabilities who have high and complex behavioural support needs.
Department of Labour, (27 October 2000), on the Review of the Cost of Treatment Regulations (ACC). Though the regulations were ACC's, the review was conducted by the Department of Labour, assisted by ACC.
Ministry of Health, (1 November 2000), on the NZ Disability Strategy: Whakanui Oranga, Making a World of Difference. A very large number of submissions (approximately 700) were made on this Strategy which was subseqently released on 30 April 2001.
Vocational Services Review Working Group, (20 November 2000), submission on vocational services and the matters covered by the review. The review is still in progress and two DPA nominees are on the advisory group.
Royal Commission on Genetic Modification, (1 December 2000), on Genetic Modification. DPA presented an oral submission, and the four volume GM report was released in August 2001.
Ministry of Health, (7 December 2000), proposed Implementation Process to Designate Audit Agencies. Initial submissions on the outline of implementation process were made and a workshop to discuss the issues in more detail was held on 31 January 2001.
Land Transport Safety Authority, (21 December 2000), Road Safety Strategy 2001 discussion document. A submission was drafted by the transport sub-committee of NEC .
Special Education Service (SES), 31 December 2000, asked DPA for comment on restructuring proposals for SES.
Ministry of Health, (26 January 2001), Physical Disability Service Specifications were being finalised.
Government Administration Select Committee (31 January 2001), conducted a Review of Adoption Laws, following the Law Commission's (2000) report on adoption. DPA made an oral submission to the parliamentary select committee on 1 March. Our study of these laws revealed that there are a number of aspects of adoption laws, policies and practices that are discriminatory to people with disabilities which require critical public evaluation.
Ministry of Justice (9 February 2001), the Human Rights Re-evaluation involved DPA in three public meetings in which there was a presentation on the report's content by the Attorney General. These information-sharing meetings were held at the end of November and beginning of December and were at extremely short notice. The Human Rights Commission has subsequently been re-structured.
Social Services Parliamentary Select Committee (9 February 2001), Housing Corporation Amendment Bill, DPA presented an oral submission. Trafinz: The NZ Local Authority Traffic Institute, (28 February 2001), Draft Pedestrian Guidelines Document.
Transport and Industrial Relations Select Committee (28 March 2001), Injury Prevention and Rehabilitation Bill (ACC) was a complex and lengthy Bill which included the reinstatement of lump-sum compensation and re-emphasised the primary function of ACC in preventing injury. It also set out a focus on the management of injury related information and dealt with the calculation of lump-sum entitlements.
Department of Labour (OSH), Health and Safety Guidelines for Home-Based Health Care (31 March 2001), provided guidelines for workers but had obvious implications for those receiving services.
Social Services Select Committee (18 October 2001), Social Security Bill. In an oral submission DPA expressed concern that the 13 weeks stand down period was too long. Our submission, echoed by numerous other organisations, was taken on board by the Select Committee.
Health Select Committee (18 October 2001), NZ Public Health and Disability Bill. DPA made an oral submission but none of the concerns articulated by DPA were evident in the amended Bill, which has now passed into law.

More from the 2001 Annual Report

Index Vision, Mission, Philosophy Acknowledgements President's Report Chief Executive's Report National Executive Goal 1: Providing Leadership International Relations Charter for the Third Millennium RI Social Commission Vocational Commission Leisure, Recreation and Sport Commission Goal 2: Quality Advice Goal 3: Advocating Goal 4: Monitoring Financial Statements

For previous reports contact gen@dpa.org.nz.

DPA New Zealand