DISABILITY (ACCESS TO PREMISES – Buildings) amendment standards 2020

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

Issued by authority of the Attorney-General

Disability Discrimination Act 1992

Purpose and operation of the Instrument

The Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010 (Premises Standards), made on 15 March 2010 is a legislative instrument made by the Attorney-General under section 31 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA).

This instrument amends the Premises Standards following a review conducted in 2016. The amendments are technical in nature to clarify policy intent, improve interpretation of existing clauses, and reflect updates to the National Construction Code (NCC) 2019. This instrument also introduces a new requirement to include Accessible Adult Change Facilities (AACFs) in certain classes of buildings. This new requirement will provide people with complex disability needs greater access to public buildings by better meeting their toileting needs. It will also lead to increased quality of life and social participation for those with a complex disability, as well as their carers.

These amendments align with the objects of the DDA and Australia’s international obligations with respect to promoting dignity, equality and independence for people with disabilities under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).

Authority

Subsection 31(1) of the DDA provides that the Minister may, by legislative instrument, formulate standards in relation to any area in which it is unlawful to discriminate against another person on the ground of a disability of the other person under Part 2 of the DDA.

Section 23 of the DDA (a provision of Part 2) makes it unlawful to discriminate against another person on the ground of the person’s disability in relation to a number of aspects of access to, or use of, premises.

Purpose of the Premises Standards

The purpose of the Premises Standards is to provide a nationally applicable set of provisions that detail what must be done to provide people with disability non‑discriminatory access to public buildings.

The Premises Standards partially codify the requirements of Part 2 of the DDA in relation to unlawful discrimination in the provisions of access to premises.

The Access Code (Schedule 1 to the Premises Standards) sets out the Performance Requirements and optional Deemed-to-Satisfy Provisions that must be met to satisfy the DDA. 

The Access Code is replicated in the access provisions of the National Construction Code 2019 Volume One, which is developed by the Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB). This ensures consistency between the DDA and the NCC in relation to access to buildings.

The NCC is given legal effect by the relevant building, plumbing and related legislation of each State and Territory, ensuring a consistent approach to disability access to premises across Australia.

The Australian Government Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources (the Department) and the Attorney-General’s Department share policy responsibility for the Premises Standards.

Review of the Premises Standards

According to Part 6 of the Premises Standards, the effectiveness of the Premises Standards in achieving its objectives must be reviewed every five years by the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology, in consultation with the Attorney-General.

The first review of the Premises Standards was completed in April 2016. The Review of the Premises Standards Report (Review) found that the Premises Standards have made some improvements in providing people with a disability dignified, equitable, cost effective and reasonably achievable access to public buildings.

The Review made six primary recommendations:

1. Amend the Premises Standards where necessary to clarify policy intent, improve interpretation and reflect updates to the National Construction Code, and consider options to harmonise with the Transport Standards where appropriate.
2. Develop guidelines to help stakeholders better appreciate the content and scope of the Premises Standards.
3. Improve education and training to raise awareness and understanding (for example, in relation to improved marketing of accessible accommodation rooms in hotels, and the unjustifiable hardship exemption) of key issues covered by the Premises Standards.
4. Develop guiding principles for coordinated data collection, analysis and audits and gain the cooperation of responsible organisations (including State and Territory governments) to enable monitoring and reporting for future reviews.
5. Establish a governance structure to oversee a forward work program. This would involve a governance group comprising the Department, the Attorney-General’s Department and the Department of Social Services to oversee the work.
6. Establish expert advisory groups under the governance group as needed to provide technical advice and guidance on relevant matters. Expert advisory groups should include representatives relevant to the work program (such as the Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB), state and territory building regulators, local government, building and construction organisations, design professionals, access consultants, disability organisations and accommodations and tourism stakeholders).

Technical Amendments

The Review also made 67 sub-recommendations, including 30 technical and editorial amendments to re‑align the Premises Standards with the NCC.

On 3 March 2017 the Government published the Review and its Response to the Review, which agreed to a number of the recommendations including 21 of the technical amendments.

Accessible Adult Change Facilities

Recommendations 6b and 6f of the Review recommended the Australian Government “investigate whether, and how, accessible adult change facilities (AACFs) should be included in the Standards.”

AACFs are sanitary facilities with additional features (like adult-sized change tables, hoists, larger circulation spaces, and a ‘peninsula-type’ toilet) to assist people with more profound or complex disability who are unable to use standard accessible facilities independently.

At the April 2017 Building Ministers’ Forum (BMF), Ministers directed the ABCB to conduct a Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) on the inclusion of AACFs in the Premises Standards and the NCC. This formed part of the ABCB’s 2017-18 work plan, and was funded by the Commonwealth (refer to Decision RIS at Attachment A).

In November 2018, following a RIA process, the ABCB agreed to amend the NCC to require the construction of separate AACFs in certain Class 6[1] and 9b[2] buildings.

Documents incorporated by reference

This instrument makes reference to the following documents:

• the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002 (Cth)
• Australian Standards 1428.1 (2009 Design for access and mobility, Part 1: General requirements for access—New building work)
• Australian Standards 1428.4.1 (2009 Design for access and mobility, Part 4: Means to assist the orientation of people with vision impairment – Tactile ground surface indicators)
• Australian Standards 1735.12 (1999 Lifts, escalators and moving walks (SAA Lift Code) Facilities for persons with disabilities (incorporating amendment 1))
• Australian Standards 2890 (2013 Slip resistance classification of new pedestrian surface materials (incorporating amendment 1)).

There is also reference to the Education and Care Services National Law Act 2010 (Vic). These references are also mentioned, where applicable, within this document.

In general, the above Australian Standards are referred to in order to provide further technical detail to support the provisions of the Access Code. The Access Code sets out the Performance Requirements and optional Deemed-to-Satisfy Provisions that must be met in order to satisfy the DDA. The Access Code is replicated in the access provisions of the NCC, which ensures consistency between the DDA and the NCC in relation to access to buildings.

The NCC is given legal effect through relevant state and territory building, plumbing and related legislation, creating a consistent approach to disability access to premises across Australia. If there is a difference between the technical requirements of the Access Code and any document referenced in the Access Code, including Australian Standards, the Access Code takes precedence.

The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 does not authorise the incorporation of material ‘as in force from time to time’, nor do the Amendment Standards reflect such an intention. The Premises Standards only requires compliance with the specific editions of Australian Standards referenced in the Access Code. Later and earlier versions of those Australian Standards are not recognised. However, this would not prevent a building owner from complying with newer Australian Standards as an alternative solution, if it would satisfy the Performance Requirements of the Access Code. Similarly, the reference to Part B2 of NCC Volume Three in subclause F3.5(7) of Schedule 1 of the Amendment Standards is a reference to the relevant part of the National Construction Code 2019 in force at the time the Amendment Standards commenced (30 September 2020).

Australian Standards may be obtained from Standards Australia on a user-pays basis and from public and some university libraries. Consumers who have complex needs or issues are able to contact the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources to seek advice and assistance to access referenced Australian Standards on a case by case basis. There is a substantial amount of guidance material available to assist builders and people living with disability to understand the requirements under the NCC and Premises Standards. More information can be found at the Australian Standards’ website (www.standards.org.au).

The Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002 can be obtained free of charge from the Federal Register of Legislation (www.legislation.gov.au).

Consultation

The possible impact of the inclusion of new requirements for AACFs was considered as part of a Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) for the NCC and the Premises Standards. There was extensive public consultation with a range of government agencies, industry bodies, special interest groups, people with disability and carers. An initial consultation comprising a consultation paper and a series of in-depth interviews with representative groups of potential end users and their carers directly impacted by the issue was conducted to test the feasibility of the AACF technical specification being developed. An extensive 6-week public Consultation RIS process then followed to inform a Decision RIS on the benefits and costs of including AACFs in the Premises Standards and NCC. This was prepared and conducted in accordance with Council of Australian Governments (COAG) RIS requirements.  

In relation to the other changes, an extensive consultation process was undertaken as part of the Review, including with access consultants, disability advocates and industry groups. The Department of Social Services, Attorney-General’s Department and the then Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development were also consulted.

Prior to the finalisation of the amendment standards, the Attorney-General, as required by subsection 31(3) of the DDA, also wrote to his state and territory counterparts responsible for matters relating to disability discrimination to consider comments on the amendment standards.  

Regulation Impact Statement

The Office of Best Practice Regulation (OBPR) within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has confirmed that a Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) is not required for the proposed technical amendments (OBPR ID 21803).

The Decision RIS for Accessible Adult Change Facilities in Public Buildings was assessed by the OBPR as compliant with the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) RIS requirements and published by the ABCB in December 2018 (Attachment A).

Three options were considered in the Final RIS:

• Option 1: to retain the status quo (i.e. do nothing option).
• Option 2: a non-regulatory option that considered expanding existing State and Territory incentive programs into a national program.
• Option 3: a regulatory option, further split into three sub-options:

̶            Regulatory Option 3A[3]: Co-located facilities

̶            Regulatory Option 3B[4]: Separate facilities

̶            Regulatory Option 3C[5]: Fully conforming Changing Places facilities (also separate)

From a quantitative perspective, each option returned a net benefit. However, in accordance with the 2007 COAG Principles of Best Practice Regulations Guidelines which must recommend in favour of the option with the highest net benefit, the RIS supported the adoption of Option 3A, co-located facilities.

At the November 2018 ABCB meeting, the options identified in the AACF Decision RIS were considered. In considering the qualitative benefits that AACFs would make in terms of significant improvements to the daily lives of people living with complex disabilities and their carers, in addition to the quantitative benefits identified by the RIS, the ABCB agreed that NCC 2019 would adopt Option 3C, fully conforming with Changing Places facilities.  This option was determined to be more likely to meet the needs of disability community stakeholders and meet commitments to improve life outcomes for people with disability and their carers under the National Disability Strategy, while imposing only small additional costs compared to Option 3a. This took effect in the NCC 2019 on 1 May 2019. The amendments to the Premises Standards adopt the AACF provisions of NCC 2019 to ensure consistency in relation to access to buildings and to reflect the obligations expressed under the DDA and international obligations with respect to dignity, equality and independence.

Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights

Prepared in accordance with Part 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011

Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Amendment Standards 2020

These Standards are compatible with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared in the international instruments listed in section 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.

Overview of the Legislative Instrument

The Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Amendment Standards 2020 (Amendment Standards) amends the Disability (Access to Premises) – Buildings) Standards 2010 (Premises Standards) to give effect to technical amendments recommended by the Review of the Premises Standards Report (Review). The effect of these amendments is to clarify the policy intent of the Premises Standards, improve interpretation of existing paragraphs, and reflect updates made in the National Construction Code (NCC) 2019.

The Amendment Standards also introduce a new requirement to include Accessible Adult Change Facilities (AACFs) in class 6 and 9b buildings. AACFs are sanitary facilities with additional features (like adult-sized change tables, hoists, larger circulation spaces and a ‘peninsula-type’ toilet) to assist people with more profound or complex disability who are unable to use standard accessible facilities independently. This new requirement is designed to provide people with a complex disability greater access to public buildings by better meeting their toileting needs.

Human rights implications

These Amendment Standards engages a number of rights and freedoms under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD):

• Equality and non-discrimination – Article 5
• Accessibility – Article 9
• Living independently and being included in the community – Article 19

Right to equality and non-discrimination

Article 5 of the CRPD recognises the right to equality and non-discrimination as a fundamental human right that is essential to the protection and respect of all human rights. As a party to the CRPD, Australia is required to take all appropriate steps to ensure that reasonable accommodation is provided for persons with disabilities.

The Amendment Standards promote this right by ensuring that the practical effect of the technical specifications for accessible buildings align with the needs of persons with disabilities. For example, the new clause DP7 at Item 16 creates requirements for lifts that are to be used in the event of evacuation. These requirements ensure that persons with disabilities are given the appropriate accommodation in the event a public building is evacuated.  

The introduction of requirements for AACFs recognises and ensures that reasonable accommodation is provided for persons with complex disabilities. Ensuring that the toileting needs of those with complex disabilities are met promotes the right to equality and non-discrimination by requiring public buildings to be accessible and accommodating to all.

Summary

The Amendment Standards engages and promotes the right to equality and non-discrimination enshrined in Article 5 of the CRPD.

Accessibility

Article 9 of the CRPD recognises the right for persons with disabilities to live independently and participate fully in all aspects of life. As a party to the CRPD, Australia is required to take appropriate measures to ensure persons with disabilities have access, on an equal basis with others, to facilities open and provided to the public.

The Amendment Standards promote this right by ensuring that the practical effect of the technical specifications for accessible buildings align with the needs of persons with disabilities to live independently and participate in all aspects of life. For example, the introduction of requirements for AACFs provide accessibility for those with complex disabilities to participate in all aspects of life through improvements to the toileting facilities in public buildings.

Summary

The Amendment Standards engages and promotes the rights enshrined in Article 9 of the CRPD.

Right to live independently and be included in the community

Article 19 of the CRPD recognises the equal right of all persons with disabilities to live in the community, with choices equal to others and to full inclusion and participation in the community. As a party to the CRPD, Australia is required to take appropriate measures to ensure that facilities for the general population are available on an equal basis to persons with disabilities and are responsive to their needs.

The Amendment Standards promote this right by ensuring that the practical effect of the technical specifications for accessible buildings align with the needs of persons with disabilities to live independently and be included in the community. For example, item 23 strengthens technical specifications for braille and tactile signage. These requirements provide accessibility for those with vision impairments to interact with public buildings and therefore be included in the community.

Further, the introduction of requirements for AACFs promotes the right to live independently and be included in the community through ensuring that the toileting needs of those with complex disabilities are met. Ensuring that their needs are met facilitates greater inclusion in the community through improved access to public buildings.

Summary

The Amendment Standards engages and promotes the right to live independently and be included in the community enshrined in Article 19 of the CRPD.

The Amendment Standards promote the rights of persons with disabilities by clarifying the policy intent of the Premises Standards, reflecting updates made to the NCC, and adding a new requirement for AACFs. These changes support the aims of the CRPD to further enable independent living and full participation in all aspects of life for people with disabilities.

The new requirement for AACFs recognises that some people with complex disabilities are not having their toileting needs met with standard accessible toilets. The absence of appropriate facilities leads to restrictions on the freedom of people with complex disabilities to access and limits inclusive activities in public buildings. This new requirement is necessary to address these issues and it aligns with the CRPD to promote the facilitation of greater freedoms for people with disabilities.

Conclusion

The Amendment Standards are compatible with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared in the international instruments listed in section 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.

Senator the Hon Michaelia Cash

Attorney-General

NOTES ON SECTIONS

Section 1 – Name of Standards

1. This section specifies the name of the Standards as the Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Amendment Standards 2020 (the Amendment Standards).

Section 2 – Commencement

2.                   This section provides that the Standards commenced on the day after registration on the Federal Register of Legislation.

3.                   However, in accordance with subsection 31(4) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, the Standards do not take effect before the end of the period in which it could be disallowed in either House of Parliament.

Section 3 – Authority

4.                   This section sets out the Amendment Standards are made under subsection 31(1) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.

Section 4 – Schedules

5.                   This section is a machinery clause that allows the Schedule to operate according to its terms and conditions.

SCHEDULE 1 – AMENDMENTS

Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010

Item 1 – Paragraph 4.5(2)(b)

6.                   This item makes changes to the wording of paragraph 4.5(2)(b) of the Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010 (the Premises Standards). It removes the words “or an affected part” to address an ambiguity that implies toilets alongside an “affected part” must also be upgraded, which was not the intention when the Premises Standards were drafted.

7.                   Clause 4.5 provides a concession for existing accessible sanitary compartments that are included in an application for new building work approval. The concession provides that existing accessible sanitary compartments or existing sanitary compartments suitable for use by people with a disability do not have to comply with AS 1428.1—2009 Design for access and mobility, Part 1: General requirements for access—New building work. Compliance with this standard is generally required by the Access Code. The concession recognises that there is a significant cost of upgrading existing sanitary facilities that meet previous accessibility requirements.

8.                   The requirements for the concession are set out in paragraph 4.5(2)(b). The previous wording stated that the concession was available if the existing sanitary compartment complied with the requirements of AS 1428.1—2001 and is located in either a new part, or an affected part of the building. The inclusion of the phrase “or an affected part” created ambiguity since toilets are not captured under the definition of “affected part”.

Item 2 – Clause A1.1 of Part A1 of Schedule 1 (definition of BCA)

9.                   This item updates the definition of “BCA” in the Access Code. The revised definition specifies that the edition of the BCA, which was current at the time of enactment of the Premises Standards, is to be used when interpreting the requirements of the Access Code. It aligns the definitions with the same definition in the NCC, which was updated before the preparation of the Amendment Standards.

Item 3 – Clause A1.1 of Part A1 of Schedule 1

10.              This item inserts a new definition of “drainage”, which is consequential to the amendment at Item 38, which adds a technical specification for AACFs.

Item 4 – Clause A1.A of Part A1 of Schedule 1 (definition of early childhood centre)

11.              This item updates the definition of “early childhood centre”. It aligns the definition with the same definition in the NCC, which was updated before the preparation of the Amendment Standards. The change does not alter the technical requirements of the Premises Standards.

Items 5, 7 and 8 – Clause A1.1 of Part A1 of Schedule 1

12.              These items insert a number of new definitions to assist the interpretation of the Access Code and maintain consistency between the Premises Standards and the NCC.

13.              Item 5 inserts new definitions of “electric passenger lift”, “electrohydraulic passenger lift”, “inclined lift”, “low-rise, low-speed constant pressure lift”, “low-rise platform lift”, “small-sized, low-speed automatic lift”. These additions are consequential to the amendments at Items 34 and 35. The new definitions do not alter the technical requirements of the Premises Standards.

14.              Item 5 also inserts a new definition for “fire safety system” and “private bushfire shelter”. The definition of “fire safety system” is consequential to the amendment at Item 16, which inserts new emergency egress provisions for emergency lifts to align with revisions to the NCC. The definition of “private bushfire shelter” is consequential to the amendment at Item 11. The new definitions do not alter the technical requirements of the Premises Standards.

15.              Item 7 inserts a definition for “stairway platform lift, which is consequential to the amendment at Items 34 and 35.

16.              Item 8 updates the definition of “swimming pool” for consistency with the same definition in the NCC, which was updated before the preparation of the Amendment Standards. This change does not alter the technical requirements of the Premises Standards.

Item 6 – Clause A1.1 of Part A1 of Schedule 1 (paragraph (d) of the definition of sole-occupancy unit (SOU))

17.              This item makes a minor editorial change to reflect the current referencing to Class 9c buildings in the NCC. Since the Premises Standards were prepared, the method of referring to “Class 9c aged care buildings” has changed. Class 9c buildings, by definition, can only be aged care buildings so the need to refer to them as “aged care buildings” is redundant.

18.              Item 6 removes the words “aged care” from the definition of “sole-occupancy unit”. This change does not alter the technical requirements of the Premises Standards.

Item 9 – Table 1 Schedule of referenced documents

19.              This item updates Table 1, which lists documents incorporated by reference in the Premises Standards and the relevant provisions of the Access Code where the documents are referenced.

20.              References to AS 1735 Parts 1-3, 7, 8 and 14 have been removed as they were no longer referenced in the Premises Standards as a consequence of Item 35.

21.              The amended table includes a new reference to AS 4586 Slip resistance classification of new pedestrian surface materials (incorporating amendment 1), which is referenced in the new provisions for AACFs inserted by Items 37 and 38. Australian Standards may be obtained from Standards Australia. More information can be found at www.standards.org.au.

22.              The amended table also includes a new reference to the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002 to correct an earlier error which omitted that document from the list despite its reference in paragraph H2.1 of the Premises Standards. The Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002 can be obtained free of charge from www.legislation.gov.au.

Item 10 – Clause A4.1 of Part A4 of Schedule 1 (at the end of the definition of Class 10)

23.              This item updates the classification of Class 10 buildings. It adds “private bushfire shelter” as a new Class 10c building classification for consistency with the NCC. At the time of preparation of the Premises Standards, NCC Class 10 buildings only included “Class 10a Non-habitable buildings (carport, garage)” and “Class 10b Structures, swimming pools, fences.” A new Class 10c private bushfire shelter has since been added to the NCC building classifications. There are no access requirements applied to Class 10c private bushfire shelters.

Items 11-14 and 17-18 – Part D of Schedule 1

24.              These items make editorial changes to update the headings for the performance requirements for access and egress. The readability of paragraphs DP1, DP4, DP6, DP8 and DP9 is improved through the use of descriptive headings that identify the relevant performance requirement to be met in each paragraph. These changes ensure consistency between the Access Code and the NCC. The changes do not alter the technical requirements of the paragraphs.

25.              Items 12-14 and 17-18 amend the subheadings to be descriptive, whilst removing the descriptor that each paragraph is a performance requirement. Item 11 is a consequential amendment to update the heading for Part D to clarify that each paragraph is a performance requirement.

Item 15, 20 and 21

26.              Items 15, 20 and 21 correct a number of minor editorial errors and formatting issues identified in the Premises Standards by the Review of the Premises Standards and an examination of the revised NCC 2019.

27.              Item 15 amends clause DP6 of Part D of Schedule 1. It improved readability of the sentence by inserting a missing “a”.

28.              Item 20 amends Table D3.1. It makes minor formatting changes to improve readability of the requirements relating to Class 3 sole occupancy units. The requirements for sole-occupancy units (SOU) have been combined into a single row and the sentences in column 2 commencing with “Not more than 2…” and “Where more than 2…” have been relocated to the end of the cell.

29.              Item 21 amends Figure D3.2. The amended figure is identical to the one it replaces but is of superior quality and improved clarity and legibility.

30.              These changes do not alter the technical requirements of the Premises Standards.

Item 16 – After Clause DP6 of Part D of Schedule 1

31.              This item inserts a new clause DP7 to align with the additional emergency egress measure that have been incorporated into the NCC. The new clause DP7 lists those issues which must be considered when a lift is intended to be used in addition to the existing required exits as a means of assisting people in the evacuation of a building, including those with a disability or other health conditions.

32.              Paragraphs DP7(a) to (d) require consideration of the travel distance to the lift, characteristic of occupants, function of the building and the number of storeys connected by the lift. These considerations are similar to those required by clause DP4, which specifies which requirements for the number, dimension and distribution of exits, but this paragraph includes additional specific requirements where a lift is proposed to assist in an evacuation.

33.              The intent of paragraphs DP7(e) to (h) is to ensure a high level of safety and engineering reliability in an evacuation solution that involves a lift. This requires appropriate consideration of the installed fire safety system, waiting and travel times, capacity, reliability, and the evacuation procedures for the building.

34.              An evacuation solution would more commonly utilise a passenger lift, however it may include a goods lift as the primary mechanism to achieve compliance with the safety aspects required by clause DP7.

Item 19 – Clause D3.0 of Part D3 of Schedule 1

35.              This item amends clause D3.0. It amends the structure of the section to correct the numbering of the first paragraph to “D3.0(1)”. It also inserts a new subclause “D3.0(2)” as a consequence of the insertion of the new performance requirement DP7 by Item 16. New subclause D3.0(2) clarifies that performance requirement DP7 is only required to be complied with if lifts are to be used to assist occupants to evacuate a building.

Item 22 – Paragraph D3.5(d) of Part D3 of Schedule 1

36.              This item amends paragraph D3.5(d). The amended paragraph addresses a potential ambiguity in the provision of accessible car parking to clarify that while at least one accessible car parking space complying with AS2890.6 is required in any carpark covered by the Premises Standards, signage and markings designating an accessible car parking space are only required in a car park with more than a total of five spaces. Where an accessible car parking space is provided in a car park that has in total five or fewer car parking spaces, there is no requirement for signage and markings to designate the accessible car parking space. All other requirements such as minimum dimensions and gradient must still be provided.

Item 23 – Paragraph D3.6(a) of Part D3 of Schedule 1

37.              This item amends paragraph D3.6(a) to improve readability and correct errors. Paragraph D3.6(a) requires accessible (braille and tactile) signage to identify sanitary facilities and spaces with a hearing augmentation systems. However, a concession is available for signage which provides that accessible signage is not required where it would not otherwise be provided (i.e. where the sanitary facilities would be readily apparent such as within a Class 3 hotel room).

38.              The amended paragraph has been restructured to create new subparagraphs D3.6(a)(i)(A) and (B), and inserts new subparagraphs D3.6(a)(ii)(A) and (B), and D3.6(a)(i)(B)(aa) to (cc).

39.              The amended subparagraph D3.6(a)(i) contains text previously found in paragraph D3.6(a). Likewise, new subparagraphs D3.6(a)(i)(A) and (B) contain text previously found in subparagraphs D3.6(a)(i) and (ii).

40.              New subparagraph D3.6(a)(i)(A) also extends the concession for accessible signage to a SOU in a Class 9c building (aged care building), which is a similar circumstance to a SOU in a Class 3 building (hotels/motels). It also removes an incorrect reference to a SOU in a “Class 1b” building and instead refers to a “bedroom in a Class 1b building”, as a Class 1b building cannot contain a SOU.

41.              New subparagraph D3.6(a)(ii) replaces the previous text, which has been relocated to D3.6(a)(i)(B). New subparagraph D3.6(a)(ii) and its subparagraphs D3.6(a)(ii)(A) and (B), and D3.6(a)(ii)(B)(aa) to (cc) insert requirements for the provision of accessible exit signs. The new subparagraphs provide that each door required by paragraph E4.5 of the BCA to be provided with an exit sign, must have braille and tactile signage that is compliant with Part D4 of the Access Code and states “Exit”, “Level” and either:

a)      the floor level number;

b)     a floor level descriptor; or

c)      a combination of the above.

42.              This requirement to provide braille and tactile exit signs already exists in the NCC, so including the requirement in the Premises Standards does not introduce a new requirement. However, aligning the Premises Standards with the NCC provides additional protection against a DDA complaint on this matter.

Item 24 – At the end of clause D3.6 of Part D3 of Schedule 1

43.              This item inserts new paragraph D3.6(a) to require signage at sanitary facilities to indicate the location of the nearest AACF in certain Class 6 and 9b buildings. The signage required to be installed by this paragraph must comply with Part D4 of Schedule 1 of the Premises Standards.

Item 25 – Subclause D3.8(3) of Part D3 of Schedule 1

44.              This item makes a minor editorial change to reflect current referencing to Class 9c buildings in the NCC. Class 9c buildings, by definition, can only be aged care buildings so the need to refer to them as “aged care buildings” is redundant. This change does not alter the technical requirements of the Premises Standards.

Item 26 – Subclause D3.8(3) of Part D3 of Schedule 1

45.              This item amends paragraph D3.8(c) to align with the requirements for tactile indicators (Handrails and Domed Buttons) with AS 1428.4.1 rather than AS 1428.1.

46.              Paragraph D3.8(c) provides a concession from the requirement to provide Tactile Ground Surface Indicators (TGSI) at stairways and handrails in certain buildings if a raised dome button is provided on the handrail. The concession exists in recognition that TGSIs can provide a trip hazard for some occupants, particularly the aged, and that sufficient warning of a change in level can be provided by the presence of a domed button on a handrail. However, since publication of the Premises Standards, the provisions for raised dome buttons have been relocated from AS 1428.1 to AS 1428.4.1, which does not contain ‘requirements for stairway handrails’.

Items 27 and 28 – Subparagraph D3.9(b) of Part D3 of Schedule 1

47.              These items repeal subparagraph D3.9(b)(iii) to correct an error which introduced conflicting requirements for wheelchair seating spaces in cinemas, and amends the end subparagraph D3.9(b)(ii) due to the repeal of (iii).

48.              Previously the requirement for wheelchair seating in a cinema to be “representative” appeared in Clause D3.9 and Table D3.9 (for 801-10,000 seats and more than 10,000 seats), with the requirement being different depending on whether the clause or table was applied. If the clause was applied, representative seating was required regardless of the size of the cinema, however if the table was applied, representative seating was only required for cinemas with more than 800 total seating capacity.

49.              The original intent of Clause D3.9 was that the total seating capacity of the facility should determine the extent and distribution of wheelchair seating spaces to be provided (e.g. in small venues with fewer than 800 seats all spaces can be provided on one level, but for large venues with more than 800 seats the range of seating has to be representative). The revised approach acknowledges that there is generally only one point of entry in venues with seating capacities less than 800 and providing “representative” wheelchair seating would be impractical where seating is tiered.

Item 29 – Paragraph D3.10(2)(b) of Part D3 of Schedule 1

50.              This item amends Paragraph D3.10(2)(b) to remove a duplicative reference to the level of gradient for zero depth entry swimming pools, which is already contained in Paragraph D5.3 – Zero depth entry.

Item 30 – Subclause D3.10(3) of Part D3 of Schedule 1

51.              This item amends subclause D3.10(3) to clarify that swimming pools are measured by their perimeter not length.

Item 31 – Subclause D4.3(2) of Part D4 of Schedule 1

52.              This item amends subclause D4.3(2) to correct editorial errors in the numbering of subparagraphs D4.3(2)(a) and (b), and correct an error which incorrectly referenced ‘sentence case’ rather than ‘title case’. The existing description given in subclause D4.3(2) for sentence case (i.e. “uppercase for the first letter of each main word and lower case for all other letters”) is a description of title case.

53.              Item 31 also makes a technical amendment to subparagraph D4.3(2)(b) to clarify the intent, readability and usability of the specification by specifying that lower case tactile characters must have a “minimum”, rather than absolute, height of 50% of the related upper case characters.

54.              Item 31 introduces an exception for title case on exit signs, which must “have a height of not less than 20 mm” as compared to not less than 15 mm for other signs. This exception is consequential to Item 21, which requires exit signs to have braille and tactile signage that is compliant with Part D4 of the Access Code.

Item 32 – Part D5 of Schedule 1 (figure D5.7)

55.              This item replaces Figure D5.7 with an updated and clearer version which is consistent with the BCA and accepted drafting protocols and styles. There is no technical difference from the previous version.

Item 33 – Paragraph E3.6(a) of Part E3 of Schedule 1

56.              This item makes an editorial amendment to paragraph E3.6(a) to remove the unnecessary references to “lift”.

Item 34 and 35 – Clause E3.6 of Part E3 of Schedule 1

57.              Since the Premises Standards were prepared, the method of referring to types of lifts in the NCC has changed from referring to the Australian Standard for Lifts, escalators and moving walks (AS 1735) in Tables E3.6(a) and (b), to a description of the types of lifts.

58.              Item 34 amends Table E3.6(a). It removes the various references to AS 1735 Parts 1-3, 7, 8 and 14 in Column 1 to ensure consistency with the NCC.

59.              Item 35 amends Table E4.6(b). It replaces the various reference to AS 1735 Parts 1-3, 7, 9 and 14 in Column 2 with the relevant lift type. For example, replacing the reference to “AS 1735.7” with “Stairway platform lift”.

Item 36 – Clause F2.4 of Part F2 of Schedule 1 (tables F2.4 (a) and F2.4(b), column headed “Class of building”, cell dealing with Class 3 and Class 9c)

60.              This item makes a minor editorial change to reflect the current referencing to Class 9c buildings in the NCC. Class 9c buildings, by definition, can only be aged care buildings so the need to refer to them as “aged care buildings” is redundant.

61.              Item 36 removes the words “aged care building” from Column 1 of Table F2.5(a) and Column 1 of Table F2.4(b). This change does not alter the technical requirements of the Premises Standards.

Item 37 – Part F2 of Schedule 1

62.              Item 37 inserts a new clause F2.9, which introduces requirements for the provision of Accessible Adult Change Facilities (AACF) in certain public buildings and mirrors the new AACF requirements introduced in NCC 2019.

63.              An AACF is a type of sanitary compartment that includes a hoist and adult size change table in addition to a peninsula-type toilet pan and other fixtures and fittings. Its purpose is to provide a suitable toilet for people with more complex or profound disability who may be unable to use standard accessible toilets of the types required by clause F2.4.

64.              New subclause F2.9(1) requires all AACFs required by new subclause F2.9(2) to be constructed in accordance with the technical specifications provided in new Part F3 – Accessible Adult Change Facilities (refer to Item 38).

65.              Subclause F2.9(1) also requires that AACFs are provided separately and in addition to any other sanitary compartment, and cannot be counted when determining compliance with clause F2.4.

66.              New subclause F2.9(2) sets out the types of public building where at least one unisex AACF must be provided.

67.              Subparagraphs F2.9(2)(a), (b)(i), (c) and (d) are based on design occupancy which must be calculated in accordance with subclause F2.9(3).

68.              Subparagraph F2.9(2)(b)(ii) ensures that where a swimming pool in a Class 9b building is required to be accessible, it is provided with an AACF.

69.              Paragraph F2.9(2)(e) ensures that accessible adult change facilities are provided in terminal buildings at airports. This provision only applies to airports that are also required to comply with the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002. Subclause F2.9(3) specifies that paragraph F2.9(2)(e) only applies to airport terminals that have the appropriate design occupancy, as calculated in accordance with clause D1.13 of the BCA. AACFs are also not required in airport terminals if they fall under the exemption in clause D3.4.

70.              New subclause F2.9(3) outlines how design occupancy must be calculated, and provides for certain areas to be excluded from such a calculation. The purpose of the exclusion is to ensure that buildings are assessed only on the basis of areas likely to be used by people with disability, thus ensuring consistent application of clause F2.9 between different building layouts and sizes.

Item 38 – After Part F2 of Schedule 1

71.              Item 38 inserts a new part F3 – Accessible Adult Change Facilities (AACF), which provides the design specifications for AACFs to ensure a consistent approach to the design and construction of AACFs.

72.              Part F3 is based on the Changing Places Information Guide and Technical Standard (June 2017 edition), which can be obtained free of charge from the Changing Places website at: https://changingplaces.org.au/.

F3.1 Scope

73.              Clause F3.1 provides that the purpose of Part F3 is to set out the requirements for how AACFs should be designed and the equipment, fixtures and fittings that must be included in each facility.

F3.2 General requirements

74.              Subclause F3.2(1) requires AACFs to be self-contained and, where an AACF is unisex, not be located in a place reserved for only one sex.

75.              Subclause F3.2(2) outlines the design requirements in relation to AACFs and the fixtures and fittings that must be installed. The minimum specifications for each of these requirements are outlined in new clauses F3.3 to F3.11.

76.              Figure F3.2 provides technical illustrations of the minimum turning spaces required to enable unimpeded movement within an AACF. The notes to Figures F3.2A, F3.2B and F3.2C give additional details to assist in understanding those Figures. For example, roman numerals are used in Figures F3.2A, F3.2B and F3.2C and the notes detail what these roman numerals represent. 

F3.3 Hoist

77.              Clause F3.3 defines the minimum capabilities of hoists, which are required by Clause F3.2 to be installed within AACFs.

F3.4 Toilet pan, seat, backrest and grabrails

78.              Clause F3.4 defines the location and minimum design requirements for toilets installed within an AACF, and the installation of grabrails to assist in the use of the toilet.

F3.5 Washbasin and tap

79.              Clause F3.5 defines the minimum design requirements for washbasins and taps associated plumbing installed within an AACF.

F3.6 Fixtures and fittings

80.              Clause F3.6 requires the installation of mirrors, washroom sanitary accessories (such as towel dispensers, hand dryers, soap dispensers and waste bins) and clothing hooks in AACFs. A sling hook is also required to be installed to store the sling/hoist when not in use.

81.              The minimum capabilities and design requirements for each fixture or fitting are specified in subclauses F3.6(1) to (8).

F3.7 Change table

82.              Clause F3.7 provides the minimum specification for a change table. They are intended to ensure the table is safe and cannot be easily removed, that its height can be adjusted to suit an assistant’s preferred working height and that it is suitable to be used by an adult.

83.              Subclause F3.7(3) prevents the change table from encroaching on a circulation space. This includes tables that are able to be folded away while not in use.

F3.8 Changing rails

84.              Clause F3.8 requires the installation of wall-mounted rails to enable an individual to support themselves while they are being assisted with putting on or removing clothing.

F3.9 Door and door controls

85.              Clause F3.9 defines the requirements for the automatic door and its controls.

86.              This clause adds to AS 1428.1 a requirement that self-closing doors have a hold open function. This enables a person to pass through the door without needing to hold it open, which can be difficult for a person who may be using both hands to operate a wheelchair.

87.              Paragraphs F3.9(d) and F3.9(e) provide for safety controls that allow for a user to safely travel through the doorway to reduce the risk of impact to users of the facility.

F3.10 Signage

88.              Clause F3.10 provides the minimum requirements for external signage for the facility. This is to ensure that users are aware of the facilities that meet their needs.

89.              Subclause F3.10(3) requires that the signage must be in braille and tactile signage complying with clause D3.6.

90.              Figure F3.10.1 includes the symbol that needs to be incorporated into the signage.

F3.11 Operating instructions

91.              Clause F3.11 requires that internal signage should include operating instructions and the safe working load limit for the hoist and change table. This is to ensure the facility can be used safely and to its full potential.

Attachment A: Regulation Impact Statement

NOTICE

Ernst & Young was engaged on the instructions of the Commonwealth of Australia as represented by the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (“the Department”) to develop a Consultation RIS (“Regulation Impact Statement”) on a proposal to include requirements in the National Construction Code for accessible adult change facilities to be provided in Class 6 shopping centres and Class 9b assembly buildings, in accordance with the engagement agreement dated 26 October 2017. Following the development of the Consultation RIS, Ernst & Young was engaged to prepare a Final RIS, in accordance with the Deed of Variation dated 23 May 2018.

The results of Ernst & Young’s work, including the assumptions and qualifications made in preparing the report, are set out in Ernst & Young's report dated September 2018 ("Report"). The Report should be read in its entirety including the applicable scope of the work and any limitations. A reference to the Report includes any part of the Report.  Our work commenced on 23 May 2018 and was completed on 5 September 2018. Therefore, our Report does not take account of events or circumstances arising after 5 September 2018 and we have no responsibility to update the Report for such events or circumstances.

The Report will be used for the purpose of assessing the need for accessible adult change facilities in public buildings as described above (the “Purpose”).

Ernst & Young has prepared the Report for the benefit of the Department and has considered only the interests of the Department. Ernst & Young has not been engaged to act, and has not acted, as advisor to any other party.  Accordingly, Ernst & Young makes no representations as to the appropriateness, accuracy or completeness of the Report for any other party's purposes.

This Report was prepared on the specific instructions of the Department solely for the Purpose and should not be used or relied upon for any other purpose or by anyone else for any purpose.

No reliance may be placed upon the Report or any of its contents by any party other than the Department (“Third Parties”). Any Third Party receiving a copy of the Report must make and rely on their own enquiries in relation to the issues to which the Report relates, the contents of the Report and all matters arising from or relating to or in any way connected with the Report or its contents.

Ernst & Young disclaims all responsibility to any Third Party for any loss or liability that the Third Party may suffer or incur arising from or relating to or in any way connected with the contents of the Report, the provision of the Report to the Third Party or the reliance upon the Report by the Third Party. Accordingly, if any Third Party chooses to rely upon any of the contents of this Report they do so at their own risk.

No claim or demand or any actions or proceedings may be brought against Ernst & Young arising from or connected with the contents of the Report or the provision of the Report to the Third Party. Ernst & Young will be released and forever discharged from any such claims, demands, actions or proceedings. Throughout the report we have quantified (where possible) whole-of-economy impacts of the addition of accessible adult change facilities based on a range of hypothetical assumptions and parameters. The outcome could be different, had a different set of assumptions and parameters been used. As future events and circumstances frequently do not occur as expected, the differences may be material. We take no responsibility that the projected outcomes will be achieved, if any.

Our Report is based, in part, on the assumptions stated and on the information provided to us by the Department, including information provided by the Department on 27 October 2017, as well as information obtained from a range of sources believed after due enquiry to be reliable and accurate. We do not imply, and it should not be construed that we have performed audit or due diligence procedures on any of the information provided to us. We have not independently verified, or accept any responsibility or liability for independently verifying, any such information nor do we make any representation as to the accuracy or completeness of the information. We accept no responsibility or liability for any loss or damage, which may result from your reliance on any research, analyses or information so supplied.

Ernst & Young has consented to the Report being published electronically on the websites of the ABCB, Office of Best Practice Regulation, industry.gov.au, and the Attorney General’s Department (AGD) website for informational purposes only. Ernst & Young have not consented to distribution or disclosure beyond this. The material contained in the Report, including the Ernst & Young logo, is copyright and copyright in the Report itself vests in the Department. The Report, including the Ernst & Young logo, cannot be altered without prior written permission from Ernst & Young.

Ernst & Young’s liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

Table of contents

Executive summary

Summary of consultation responses

1. Introduction

1.1 Current NCC Requirements

1.2 Defining the purpose of the analysis

1.3 Structure of this report

1.4 What are accessible adult change facilities?

1.5 Overview of approach

2. What is the problem?

2.1 The current provision of accessible adult change facilities

2.2 Obligations under national and international legal frameworks

2.3 The lack of accessible adult change facilities has a range of negative consequences

3. Objectives

3.1 What are the objectives of the proposed regulatory change?

4. Options for addressing the problem

4.1 The Status Quo

4.2 Non-Regulatory Option

5. Defining the population

5.1 Defining the core cohort

5.2 Defining the non-core cohort

6. Measuring the costs and benefits

6.1 Costs

6.2 Benefits

7. Impact analysis

7.1 Case study analysis

7.2 Whole-of-economy analysis

7.3 Regulatory Burden

8. Summary

8.1 Implications of the analysis

9. Conclusions

Appendix A Modelling assumptions

Appendix B Assumed building profile

Appendix C Consultation approach

Appendix D International Comparisons

Appendix E Consultation questions

List of tables

Table 0‑1: Illustrative whole-of-economy impacts – Net Present Value (Regulatory Option A)

Table 0‑2: Summary of qualitative benefits

Table 2‑1: Estimated number of AACF users by jurisdiction

Table 5‑1: Difficulty accessing locations due to disability in the last 12 months

Table 6‑1: Summary of qualitative benefits

Table 7‑1: Modelling results for case studies

Table 7‑2: Modelling results for airport case study

Table 7‑3: Modelling results for public aquatic facilities case study (Regulatory Option A)

Table 7‑4: Australian museums by floor space and exhibition size

Table 7‑5: Modelling results for non-regulatory scenario

Table 7‑6: Illustrative whole-of-economy benefits – Shopping Centres

Table 7‑7: Illustrative whole-of-economy benefits – Museums

Table 7‑8: Illustrative whole-of-economy benefits – Stadiums

Table 7‑9: Illustrative whole-of-economy benefits – indoor aquatic facilities

Table 7‑10: Illustrative whole-of-economy impacts – Net Present Value (Option A)

Table 7‑11: Average annual regulatory burden (from business as usual)

Table A‑1: Distance travelled and travel time assumptions

Table A‑2: Design occupancy, floor space and visitation assumptions

Table A‑3: Estimating the ‘catchment’ population

Table A‑4: Refining the ‘catchment’ population

Table A‑5: Assumed entry fee and spending, museums and stadiums

Table B‑1: Assumed number of buildings constructed, regulatory and non-regulatory scenarios

Table C‑1: Location of research participants

Table C‑2: Key questions

List of figures

Figure 2‑1: Number of Changing Places Facilities and AACFs as at August 2017

Figure 5‑1: Bottom up approach to estimating the core cohort

Figure 7‑1: Reasons for inability to use some or all forms of public transport

Acronyms

Definitions

Executive summary

Introduction

In 2015-16, the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (the Department), in consultation with the Attorney-General’s Department, undertook a five year review of the Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010 (the Premises Standards).[6]

The Premises Standards are made under Section 31(1) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (C’th). The requirements of Schedule 1 of the Premises Standards are reflected in the National Construction Code (NCC). The NCC is given legal effect by relevant building, plumbing and related legislation of each State and Territory.

Recommendations 6b and 6f of the Premises Standards Review relate to the provision of accessible adult change facilities (AACFs) in public buildings. Recommendation 6b recommends that the Australian Government “investigate whether, and how, accessible adult changing facilities should be included in the Standards.”[7]

This Final Regulation Impact Statement (Final RIS), follows the release of a Consultation Regulation Impact Statement (Consultation RIS) in March 2018 and a consultation period that received comments until the close of business on 13 April 2018. The Final and Consultation RISs have been undertaken on a proposal (this proposal) to amend those Standards and the NCC to require AACFs to be provided in:

Class 6 shopping centres: Class 6 is the NCC building classification applicable to shopping centres.

Class 9b assembly buildings: a building where people may assemble for civic, social, political or religious purposes; entertainment, recreation or sporting purposes (including indoor swimming pools); or transit purposes, for example a railway station or an airport.

This Final RIS considers comments provided in response to the Consultation RIS and updates the economic and social impacts of a range of options that address the problem as described. The approach is consistent with the OBPR Best Practice Regulation (2007),[8] Australian Government Guide to Regulation (2014)[9] and Cost Benefit Analysis Guidance Note (2016).[10]

The scope of the analysis is threefold:

First, we consider six hypothetical case studies, consisting of a major shopping centre, a smaller shopping centre, a museum, a stadium, an airport and a public aquatic facility. We qualitatively consider major public transport buildings, libraries and theatres.

Second, we conduct an aggregate analysis estimating the whole-of-economy impacts of the proposed policy.

Finally, we qualitatively consider those benefits which are not able to be quantified.

What is the problem?

AACFs are currently not required by NCC 2016 or the Premises Standards.

The recent Premises Standards review assessed the effectiveness of these standards and examined any barriers to the participation of people with a disability in accessing new and upgraded public buildings in Australia since May 2011.[11]

Participation of people with a disability within their communities could include social, cultural, or economic participation.

The Premises Standards review acknowledged that the biggest issue identified through the submission process was the absence of AACFs. In addition to 120 submissions forming part of the Changing Places campaign, 70 further submissions called for AACFs to be part of the Premises Standards.

This Final RIS identifies that the current provision of AACFs is insufficient to account for the needs of people with a complex disability.[12] This is inconsistent with national and international legal frameworks, and prevents social and economic participation of occupants with complex disability in our community.

How can the problem be addressed?

This Final RIS considers three options for addressing the problem:

The Status Quo: regarded as a baseline from which the incremental impacts of the proposals and alternative options will be assessed.

Non-Regulatory Option: considers how stated objectives can be achieved through a non-regulatory approach.

Regulatory Option: considers how stated objectives can be achieved through a regulatory approach, which would involve amending the Premises Standards and the NCC to mandate the provision of AACFs in prospective Class 6 shopping centres and Class 9b assembly buildings. Within the regulatory option we consider three discrete options:

Option A, which is intended as minimum necessary specification AACFs that are assumed to be co-located with standard accessible sanitary facilities (SASFs).

Option B, which is intended as minimum necessary specification AACFs that are assumed to be a separate facility from SASFs.

Option C, which is fully conforming Changing Places / Lift & Change specification.

Under the non-regulatory option, modelling assumes that facilities will meet the minimum necessary specifications for a co-located AACF, but that fewer overall will be constructed.

Defining the population

The population considered in this Final RIS is divided into the core and non-core cohort, and covers a broad spectrum of people with disability:

Core cohort: We estimate that approximately 350,350 people in Australia live with a complex disability.[13] These people will be considered as the core cohort. This represents an implied disability rate of 1.5% of the total Australian population.

Non-core cohort: There are a range of people outside of the core cohort who will also potentially benefit from the provision of AACFs. These might include carers, non-users of the facility, and government.

Measuring the costs and benefits

For the purposes of this Final RIS, the costs and benefits are as follows:

Costs: The costs of this proposal are divided into capital expenses and ongoing operating expenses associated with the installation and maintenance of an AACF.

Quantifiable benefits:

For shopping centres, museums and stadiums, we estimate the direct (or ‘use’) value of an additional trip to a Class 6 shopping centre or Class 9b museum or stadium for a person with a complex disability as a result of AACFs being provided. Our analysis initially calculates the ‘break-even’ value of utility; the value of utility at which the estimated use values are just enough to cover the estimated capital and operating costs of an AACF for all case studies. Following that, estimates of the potential benefits that the trip may generate are applied to the same analysis in order to calculate a range of benefits that may accrue.

In the case of airports, the analysis focussed on a range of different patronage figures from a selection of small, medium and large airports across Australia,[14] combined with estimates of the travel propensity for people with a disability[15] to provide an indication of the benefit per trip that would be required in order for the installation of an AACF to be justified from a cost-benefit perspective.

For public aquatic facilities, estimates of the therapeutic benefits of hydrotherapy were combined with assumptions regarding the frequency of use of the facility, in order to generate estimates of the whole-of-economy benefits from extending the requirement to these facilities, as well as an estimate of the ‘break-even’ feeder population; the amount of benefit that would be required on a per trip basis in order to just cover the estimated capital and operating costs of installing an AACF.

For major public transport buildings, a variety of factors led to a recommendation of AACFs not being mandated for installation in prospective train stations. This recommendation should not be interpreted as a suggestion that the potential benefits of greater public transport accessibility are unimportant; merely that the installation of an AACF is not considered to be the best catalyst for the realisation of those benefits. The reasons for this are described in Section 7.1.2.

Qualitative benefits: in addition to the usage values described above, the provision of AACFs has the potential to deliver a variety of long-term benefits for a person with a disability and their carers. The expected benefits are numerous and include improved quality of life, improved community and social participation, and improved wellbeing and mental health outcomes. These benefits are considered qualitatively throughout this report drawing on feedback from those impacted by the problem.

Quantitative results

The estimated net benefits and costs from a whole-of-economy perspective of mandating the installation of AACFs in the quantifiable cases are presented in the table below. It is worth noting that, as will be discussed at length throughout this Final RIS, the benefits quantified relate only to the value of individual trips made to the respective buildings. They do not capture longer term benefits such as improved psychological health or social equality. The quantified benefits in all likelihood, represent only a fraction of the total benefits.

Notwithstanding the limitations, a few key points can be made with respect to the findings below:

First, it is clear that the benefits are more pronounced for shopping centres than for other buildings. This reflects the far greater usage of shopping centres - a shopping centre is more of a ‘day to day’ like venue, whereas museums, stadiums and swimming pools tend to be attended less frequently. 

Public aquatic facilities generate the next highest benefits in an overall sense, which reflects the potentially considerable benefits gained from hydrotherapy and immersion in water for people with disability.

Extending the requirements to museums with a design occupancy exceeding 1,500 and stadiums with a design occupancy exceeding 35,000 is estimated to generate small net benefits.

Table 0‑1: Illustrative whole-of-economy impacts – Net Present Value (Regulatory Option A)

Notes:

1. Present Values have been calculated over a ten year period for both costs and benefits using a real discount rate of 7%.[16]
2. The findings above should be read in conjunction with the assumptions detailed in Appendix A.
3. Whole-of-economy impacts are derived by multiplying the estimated benefits per trip and break-even points from the case studies by the assumed number of buildings of each type expected to be developed over the next 10 years

Qualitative Results

Based on in-depth consultations and stakeholder feedback, the qualitative benefits that might result from the provision of AACFs being mandated in selected buildings are listed in Table 0‑2.

Table 0‑2: Summary of qualitative benefits

Recommendations

The findings of this report support the following amendments to the National Construction Code in respect of Class 6 shopping centres and Class 9b public buildings:

The installation of an AACF is required for all new shopping centres or redevelopments with a design occupancy greater than 3,500.

The installation of an AACF is required for all new museums or redevelopments with a design occupancy greater than 1,500.

The installation of an AACF is required for all new theatres or redevelopments with a design occupancy greater than 1,500.

The installation of an AACF is required for all new stadiums or redevelopments with a design occupancy greater than 35,000.

The installation of an AACF is required for all new indoor aquatic facilities where the main swimming pool area’s perimeter exceeds 70m (typically sufficient to capture a 25m swimming pool and above).

The installation of an AACF is required for all new airports or airport redevelopments.

Themes of consultation responses

Following the release of the Consultation RIS stakeholders were invited to provide their feedback from the period 1 March 2018 to 12 April 2018. Stakeholders were asked not only to provide answers to specific consultation questions (refer Appendix E), but to also provide general feedback and commentary in relation to the problem and analysis described throughout the Consultation RIS.

Approximately 70 submissions were received from a range of government agencies, industry bodies, special interest groups, people with disability and carers.

Throughout this Final RIS, specific consultation questions, along with stakeholders’ commentary against those questions, are provided in grey call out boxes in the relevant sections of the report. The intent is that the document can be read without reference to the call out boxes, with the latter being provided so as to enable the reader to easily identify the views of stakeholders against specific questions.

The below themes were often present across responses to multiple consultation questions. It is acknowledged the frequency of their discussion may be influenced by the purpose and function of organisations that submitted responses. The themes are presented in alphabetical order.

Accessibility and existing utilisation

The operational costs attributed to AACFs in public transport buildings are considered to significantly increase due to vandalism and misuse when accessibility is not restricted.

Existing utilisation estimates of AACFs in public transport buildings indicate that notwithstanding awareness of facilities and other factors, usage of existing facilities is low, with the AACF at Flinders Street Station in Melbourne being used on average only three times per day.

Equity in assessment and delivery

The provision of AACFs in public buildings was often noted as a social justice or human rights issue with qualitative dignity, wellbeing, disability awareness and discrimination reduction benefits commonly noted as superseding the results of economic analysis.

Provision of AACFs in regional, rural and remote areas was often considered an area in need of further consideration in the future.

Feasibility of introducing AACFs to rail stations

Infrastructure, space, cost and operational constraints were commonly noted when discussing the feasibility of introducing AACFs to rail stations.

It was also commented that usage of existing facilities is quite low, and that public transport buildings are transitory destinations, not destinations in their own right.

Inclusive features

Peninsula toilets as specified in the Changing Places design were noted by some stakeholders as exclusionary to large numbers of people with a disability.

1. Introduction

The Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010 (‘Premises Standards’) have been subject to a five yearly review that commenced in 2015 and was completed in May 2016. The review was undertaken by the Commonwealth Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (the Department) in consultation with the Attorney-General’s Department, with input provided by the Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB). A copy of the report can be found on the Department's website.[17]

The Premises Standards are made under Section 31(1) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (C’th). The requirements of Schedule 1 of the Premises Standards are reflected in the National Construction Code (NCC). The NCC is given legal effect by relevant building, plumbing and related legislation in each State and Territory.

Recommendations 6b and 6f of the Premises Standards review relate to the provision of accessible adult change facilities (AACFs) in public buildings. It recommends that the Australian Government “investigate whether, and how, accessible adult changing facilities should be included in the Standards.”[18]

At the Building Ministers’ Forum held in April 2017, Building Ministers agreed that a Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) be undertaken to consider expanding the NCC to include requirements for AACFs to be provided for people with complex disabilities.[19]

EY was engaged by the ABCB to prepare a Consultation Regulation Impact Statement (Consultation RIS), and has subsequently been engaged to prepare this Final Regulation Impact Statement (Final RIS), to conduct an estimation of the benefits and costs of including AACFs in the Premises Standards and the NCC.

This RIS examines the extent to which a problem exists that might appropriately be addressed through regulatory action. The problem under examination is that the provision of AACFs is insufficient to cater for the needs of the population, and that this insufficiency potentially places new buildings constructed in Australia at odds with national and international legal frameworks regarding accessibility for people with a disability.

Current NCC Requirements

The Premises Standards require that sanitary facilities be provided in buildings, appropriate to the building’s use, the number and gender of its occupants, and the disability and other needs of those occupants.[20] This requirement is reflected in the NCC as Performance Requirement FP2.1. Both the Premises Standards (Schedule 1) and the NCC are performance-based, meaning that they are formulated as a series of mandatory Performance Requirements along with a set of corresponding, optional Deemed-to-Satisfy (DtS) Provisions.

Performance Requirements are high level statements that describe what a building must achieve. DtS Provisions are prescriptive, technical specifications that may be complied with as one way to meet the Performance Requirements. Solutions outside of those prescribed in the DtS Provisions are also acceptable on the condition that they can be demonstrated to be able to meet the Performance Requirements.

The current DtS Provisions for Class 6 shopping centres and Class 9b assembly buildings require at least one accessible sanitary facility on each storey where standard sanitary facilities are required; where a storey contains multiple banks of toilets, at least half must also include an accessible facility. The DtS Provisions require accessible sanitary facilities to be designed in accordance with AS 1428.1, which does not include specifications for accessible adult changing equipment.

Current Premises Standards Requirements

The specifications for the construction of accessible sanitary facilities are included in the Premises Standards through reference to the Australian Standard AS 1428.1:2009 – Design for access and mobility – Part 1: General requirements for access – New building work (AS 1428.1-2009).[21]

The introduction of the Premises Standards and corresponding provisions in the NCC significantly increased the number of accessible facilities required. By referencing AS 1428.1-2009 the Premises Standards also increased the dimensions of accessible facilities to meet the 90th percentile wheelchair dimensions.[22]

The consultation process for the Premises Standards review asked respondents whether there were any issues regarding the requirements for accessible sanitary facilities which should be addressed.[23] The majority of respondents felt that the lack of AACFs in public buildings was inequitable because people with more complex disabilities are unable to use existing accessible sanitary facilities. A lack of suitable facilities results in undignified, often unhygienic alternatives, many reporting having to resort to using the floor of a sanitary compartment (refer Section 1.4 for the definition of AACF).

Defining the purpose of the analysis

The purpose of this Final RIS is twofold. First, it is to establish the extent to which a problem exists that might appropriately be addressed through regulatory action and having established that there is a problem, to examine alternative options for rectifying the problem, taking account of stakeholder comments received in the Consultation RIS and the economic and social impacts of the options under examination. The specific options examined in this RIS are described in Section 4.

Structure of this report

The structure of this report is set out as follows:

Section 2 defines the problem this Final RIS is seeking to address, in particular that the current provision of AACFs is insufficient to account for the needs of people with a complex disability. This is inconsistent with national and international legal frameworks and creates considerable impacts at an economic and societal level.

Section 3 describes the objectives of the proposed regulatory change.

Section 4 explores options for how the problem can be addressed. These options include the status quo, a non-regulatory option and the regulatory option. This section also looks at the objectives of the proposed policy change.

Section 5 defines the population of users whom we believe stand to benefit the most from a greater provision of AACFs. It includes a bottom up analysis of the population, a cross reference with other estimates and approaches, and identifies the limitations of our analysis.

Section 6 provides a description of the costs (including capital expenses, ongoing operating expenses, regulatory burden costs and other costs) and benefits (including both quantifiable and qualitative benefits).

Section 7 details the impact of the proposed options.

Section 8 summarises what the results mean for policy makers and discusses some high level implementation considerations.

Section 9 sets out the conclusions of this Final RIS.

What are accessible adult change facilities?

General description

AACFs are essentially sanitary facilities with additional features that provide amenity and assist people with more profound or complex disability who are unable to use standard accessible facilities independently. Such features may include an adult-sized change table, hoist, larger circulation spaces and a ‘peninsula-type’ toilet.[24]

Changing Places

A ‘Changing Places’ facility is an accessible sanitary facility that is designed and accredited according to the Changing Places Technical Standard (CPTS) which is one model for the design of AACFs.[25] As a condition of accreditation, Changing Places facilities must be provided in addition to, and separate from, standard accessible sanitary facilities.

Changing Places facilities provide additional specifications to those listed above for a general AACF. The Changing Places specifications include:

A height adjustable adult-sized bench

A tracking hoist system, or mobile hoist if this is not possible

Adequate space in the changing area for the person and up to two carers

A centrally placed toilet with room either side

A screen or curtain to allow some privacy

Wide tear off paper roll to cover the bench

A large waste bin for disposable pads

A non-slip floor.[26]

Changing Places was first established in the United Kingdom and is currently led by a consortium of organisations working to support the rights of people with profound and multiple learning disabilities and / or other physical disabilities. The consortium campaigns for Changing Places to be installed in all large public spaces.[27]

Lift & Change

Lift & Change facilities are required to comply with the New South Wales (NSW) Lift and Change Facilities Master Checklist.[28] Technically, the Checklist is consistent with the CPTS mentioned above. It is also consistent with the CPTS requirement for an additional standard (i.e. AS 1428.1 compliant) accessible sanitary facility to be provided nearby each Lift & Change facility; this is to ensure that a facility remains available for people who require a standard accessible sanitary facility.[29]

Overview of approach

Options considered

The Consultation RIS considered two broad types of AACF for the analysis:

Option A as a minimum necessary specification.

Option B as fully conforming to all the Changing Places / Lift & Change specifications.

The Final RIS has been amended to reflect stakeholder advice and now incorporates three regulatory sub-options:

Option A, which is intended as minimum necessary specification AACFs that are assumed to be co-located with SASFs.

Option B, which is intended as minimum necessary specification AACFs that are assumed to be a separate facility from SASFs.

Option C, which is fully conforming Changing Places / Lift & Change specification.

As will be discussed in Section 7.2, stakeholder comments revealed a range of potential downsides to Options B and C. This, combined with their considerably higher costs relative to Option A, leads to Option A being assessed as the preferred option.

Coverage of this analysis

Not all types of Class 9b assembly buildings have been considered in this Final RIS because some are outside the scope of the proposal; others have been assessed qualitatively only due to a lack of data.

The approach taken for each different type of Class 9b assembly building within scope is outlined as follows:

Stadiums, museums, airports and public aquatic facilities have been quantitatively assessed.

Bus stations, railway stations, and ferry terminals (public transport buildings) are considered quantitatively to the extent possible, noting research regarding barriers to use and that there is no clear, reliable way of delineating between 'major' and other public transport hubs.

Cinemas are assumed to be located within shopping centres and therefore considered as part of the analysis for shopping centres.

Libraries, theatres and public halls are considered qualitatively.

The following building types have not been considered as part of this analysis:

Schools, pre-schools and early childhood centres, places of worship, buildings used for political purposes and discotheques, nightclubs and bars have been excluded due to being outside of the scope of the relevant recommendation of the Premises Standards review.

It is important to note that while the question referred to the selection of buildings for analysis, most responses referred to selection of buildings for exclusion from the requirement to install an AACF. Of those responses that did refer to the selection of buildings for analysis, the types of Class 9b assembly buildings considered was generally considered appropriate in addressing the defined problem of a shortage of AACFs in public buildings. The selection of types of Class 9b assembly buildings also supports the relevant recommendations of the Premises Standards review and was considered appropriate by most stakeholders.

Of the responses that referred to the selection of buildings for exclusion from the requirements to install an AACF, the majority were concerned with the inclusion of transport buildings, specifically train stations and airports.

Modelling

While the following chapters discuss quantifiable benefits, it is critical to note that those benefits are just one component of a broader range of benefits. Benefits such as improved quality of life or increased equality for people with a complex disability, for example, are inherently difficult to quantify, and yet were commonly noted by many stakeholders as more relevant to the consideration of this proposal than the quantified benefits.

With that in mind, the scope of this analysis is threefold.

First, six hypothetical quantitative, and two hypothetical qualitative, case studies were considered, which are similar to existing buildings but not tied to any known development project.

Second, an aggregate analysis estimating the whole-of-economy costs and benefits of the proposed policy change for prospective investments was conducted.

Finally, qualitative aspects of those benefits which were not able to be quantified were considered.

Case study analysis

Given the uncertainties involved with estimating the potential development pipeline of public buildings over the coming years, a large part of the analysis is around hypothetical case studies.

These case studies have been devised so as to be recognisable as examples of common types of developments within each of the building classes that would be affected by the proposed change. While they refer to developments with a common use, it is acknowledged each development may contain multiple structures.

In consultation with the ABCB, six case studies were selected for quantification:

A major shopping centre.

A medium sized shopping centre.

A stadium with a capacity of 35,000 people.

A medium sized museum or cultural facility.

An airport with terminal buildings that offers passenger services.

A public aquatic facility.

Further, the following uses were considered qualitatively:

A major public transport building such as a bus or ferry terminal, or a major train station.

Libraries, theatres and public halls.

These case studies have been selected as they provide the broadest overview of Class 6 shopping centres and Class 9b assembly buildings, are representative of stakeholder feedback, and produce the biggest variability in results. An overview of the case studies and their key characteristics is provided in the following sections.

Case Study 1 – ‘Major’ shopping centre (Class 6)

The 'major' shopping centre case study is based on a shopping centre that has a lettable floor area of at least 130,000m2.

Case Study 2 – ‘Medium’ shopping centre (Class 6)

The 'medium' shopping centre case study is based on a shopping centre that has a lettable floor area of at least 45,000m2.

Through desktop research of the websites of major shopping centres (and shopping centre groups such as Westfield, Stockland and the Queensland Investment Corporation), a comprehensive database of over 100 shopping centres Australia wide was developed, complete with number of shops, total lettable area, and annual visitation data.

The shopping centre case studies have been selected to be reflective of one major and one medium sized shopping centre. Key parameters for the case study, such as estimated floor space and implied visitation, were obtained by analysing this database. Further detail is provided in Appendix A.

Case Study 3 – ‘Major’ Stadium (Class 9b)

The stadium case study is based on a stadium with a seating capacity of at least 35,000 people. This is assumed to be the minimum number for a stadium to be considered 'major'. Stadium capacity is based on the expected capacity of known stadium developments in the coming ten years.

Case Study 4 – ‘Medium’ sized museum/cultural centre (Class 9b)

This case study is based on a museum, cultural centre or similar which has annual visitation of at least 1,000,000 people. This is based on publicly available visitation data from the websites of 13 major museums around Australia.[30]

Case Study 5 – An airport with terminal buildings that offers passenger services (Class 9b)

This case study is based on an airport with terminal buildings that offers domestic or international passenger services.  The case study models the benefits that would be required under a range of different passenger assumptions, based on patronage data from small, medium and large airports around Australia.[31]

Case Study 6 – A public aquatic facility (Class 9b)

This case study is based on an average of Australia’s public aquatic facilities, with an assumed $26.39 worth of improved health outcomes per visit and an average of 4.4 visits per person per annum.[32]

Qualitative case studies

Public transport buildings are considered qualitatively based on stakeholder feedback and insights from the Survey of Disability, Ageing and Carers into the patronage of public transport by people with a disability.

The Consultation RIS considered art galleries, libraries, theatres and public halls under the broad term “museum”. Since the Consultation RIS, libraries, theatres and public halls have been considered separately due to their varying uses. While these buildings are now considered qualitatively in this Final RIS, the term museum is still considered an architype for art galleries and the like.

Whole-of-economy analysis

While it is important to derive some estimate of the whole-of-economy impacts of a prospective regulatory change, there are difficulties associated with estimating the development pipeline. In particular:

There is no complete data set available that presents the extent of relevant buildings to be constructed. Furthermore, future large scale developments of shopping centres, stadiums and museums are infrequent, compared to other building classes meaning the results are influenced by the known small development pipeline.

The scale (and location) of the prospective benefits is dependent on the number and type of buildings being constructed.

There will likely be an element of diminishing marginal returns: given that many of the benefits to be calculated are dependent on scale, as more and more buildings begin to install AACFs, the additional quantitative benefits from each additional facility could be expected to diminish (but not diminish entirely).

With these limitations in mind, the aggregate quantitative figures presented in this Final RIS are best considered illustrative.

Consultations

Core cohort consultation

Initial consultation undertaken by EY Sweeney used a series of in-depth interviews with a small, representative group of potential end users and their carers. This consultation phase was not designed to be statistically representative, but to obtain lived experience insights from parties directly impacted by the problem.

The information collected through the consultation process was analysed to identify key themes, determine consistencies between the different cohort groups, as well as key points of difference. The information was also explored through a series of lenses, including:

The need for, and the suitability and availability of, AACFs.

Benefits and challenges associated with AACFs.

Minimum standards and legislative requirements.

Discrimination and community participation.

The intent of the information collected through the qualitative research component was to ensure that the voice of the end user, along with their thoughts, ideas, experiences and perceptions are incorporated as a key consideration in this Final RIS.

Throughout the remainder of this Final RIS, insights from the consultation undertaken by EY Sweeney are highlighted in yellow text boxes where relevant to the in-text discussion. All insights and associated quotations are anonymised so that no individual participant can be identified.

Public consultation

Following the release of the Consultation RIS, comments were sought from interested parties for a period of six weeks. This Final RIS incorporates and summarises the comments received during the public consultation period, and presents our conclusions based on the analysis and the views of all those who provided feedback during the consultation period.

Limitations

The estimated benefits are just one small proportion of the potential total benefits of the proposed inclusion of AACFs in the Premises Standards and the NCC.

What we have quantified is the relatively small component of overall benefits that might be deemed ‘use values’; specifically, the value of trips made to Class 6 shopping centres and Class 9b assembly buildings (where sufficient data was available) as a result of the installation of AACFs.

Factors such as potential improvements to physical or mental health, quality of life, or any other psychological, physical or societal benefits have not been quantified. Feedback on the Consultation RIS from many stakeholders noted that these intangible benefits are more relevant to the consideration of the proposal than the quantified benefits and suggested that a cost-benefit framework for evaluating the problem is inappropriate based on adult change facilities being a need rather than a desire for a proportion of the population.

The qualitative analysis applies a more holistic lens to identifying potential benefits that the inclusion of AACFs in the Premises Standards and the NCC is likely to generate.

Matters that are out-of-scope

In line with the scope of the Premises Standards and the NCC, certain matters will fall outside the scope of what can be considered by this Final RIS. These include:

Restricting access

This Final RIS does not consider regulating to require that access to AACFs be restricted as a requirement of the Premises Standards or the NCC. This is consistent with the current approach whereby:

There are no access restriction requirements applicable to sanitary facilities (accessible or otherwise).

The Premises Standards and the NCC do not regulate security or property protection matters.

This limitation of scope would not prevent building owners electing to restrict access voluntarily, such as when accessible sanitary facilities, along with other facilities, are locked when the building is closed. Building owners would also be able to elect to install an MLAK system[33] to restrict access to an AACF even when the building is open, should they consider it necessary to do so.

However, it is important to note that restricting access to accessible sanitary facilities (including AACFs) in a way that is more onerous than for non-accessible sanitary facilities in the same building may be considered discrimination under the DDA.

Ongoing maintenance and cleaning

Ongoing maintenance and cleaning is outside the scope of the Premises Standards and NCC. This means these matters are also outside the scope of regulatory changes that can be considered in this Final RIS.

That said, the analysis has considered ongoing operating expenses, including those relating to the ongoing maintenance of facilities, devised by the Property Council of Australia in its 2017 Benchmarks Survey of Australian shopping centres. It is assumed that the operating costs for AACFs do not differ by location.

It is acknowledged that some stakeholders noted the variance in ongoing maintenance and cleaning costs depending on the building that contains an AACF. Such variances are expected to have a minor impact on the analysis and have not been considered in this modelling.

 Accreditation

An AACF designed and installed according to the NCC would not be subject to any mandatory third-party accreditation requirement under the NCC (e.g. Changing Places accreditation). This is because it is outside the scope of the NCC to create administrative obligations. However, this would not preclude anyone from voluntarily seeking accreditation by a third party, as currently occurs.

What is the problem?

The Premises Standards review acknowledged that ‘the lack of accessible sanitary facilities incorporating adult change facilities is affecting people with more complex disabilities and their ability to use sanitary facilities when out in public.[34] This can limit the participation of people with complex disabilities in the social, cultural, civic, political and economic opportunities available within their communities.

Although accessible sanitary facilities are currently required by the NCC and the Premises Standards, these do not include equipment that can be used by people with more complex disabilities.[35]

This section describes why the current level of provision of AACFs is insufficient to account for the needs of persons with a complex disability, and why the uptake of facilities is inconsistent with national and global legal frameworks, and how this creates considerable impacts at an economic and societal level.

The current provision of accessible adult change facilities

As of August 2017 there were 52 AACFs and 30 Changing Places facilities already in existence across Australia.[36] The fundamental question underlying this Final RIS is whether or not the current provision of facilities is sufficient to enable the equitable and dignified participation of people with more complex disabilities in the community.

Figure 2‑1 shows that the number of AACFs in each State and Territory varies, with 52 in Victoria, 11 in Queensland, eight in Western Australia, seven in NSW, two in South Australia, one in both the Northern Territory and Tasmania, and none in the ACT.

Figure 0‑1: Number of Changing Places Facilities and AACFs as at August 2017

Source: Changing Places 2017

Although uptake is increasing, a comparison of the number of facilities with the number of people in each jurisdiction potentially in need of those facilities (the core cohort assessed in this Final RIS) indicates that the number of facilities may still be insufficient (refer Table 2‑1). The core cohort is based on the definition outlined in Section 5.1, which calculates that there are 350,357 people with a disability and profoundly or severely limited in core activities who have either had difficulty accessing buildings or facilities in the last 12 months or who do not leave home.

Even in Victoria, which has more AACFs than any other jurisdiction, there are only 52 facilities for approximately 100,000 potential users State wide (refer to Figure 2‑1 and Table 2‑1).

Based on this information, it is clear that the provision of AACFs across the country is insufficient to account for need, particularly when compared with wheelchair accessible facilities and general public facilities which are commonplace across the country.[37] 

Table 0‑1: Estimated number of AACF users by jurisdiction

Source: ABS Survey of Disability, Ageing and Carers, EY estimates

Obligations under national and international legal frameworks

The avoidance of discrimination against people with a disability is a basic human right that is reflected in Commonwealth legislation and international conventions, in particular the DDA and the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of People with Disability. Both instruments are intended to prevent discrimination against people with a disability.

Feedback obtained from the Premises Standards review highlighted a clear delineation between the objectives of the frameworks below and the day to day experiences of people with a complex disability. Throughout the development of the Consultation RIS we met with people living with complex disabilities and were told of several instances where people affected by the problem believed that one or both of the below frameworks are clearly not being adhered to.

The Disability Discrimination Act (1992)

The DDA prohibits discrimination against people with disability in several areas, including the provision of access to premises.[38] It aims to influence community attitudes and behaviour through its objectives and the setting of a series of standards, including:

To eliminate, as far as possible, discrimination against persons on the basis of their disability in a range of areas including premises used by the public.

To ensure that, as far as practicable, persons with disability have the same rights before the law as the rest of the community.

To promote recognition and acceptance that persons with disabilities have the same fundamental rights as the rest of the community.

The DDA is complaints based legislation, meaning that members of the community are able to make complaints where they feel the Act has not been complied with. Various complaints regarding accessibility of facilities have been made over the years, with most of these complaints resulting in the issue being rectified.[39] Although such cases might, on the one hand, be interpreted as evidence that the DDA is functioning as intended (by providing an outlet for people to voice their concerns), it is also likely the majority of people who are affected by a lack of accessibility do not raise such complaints. Thus, the fact that complaints are being raised could also be seen as evidence that for a large majority of people with complex disability, their accessibility needs are not being met.

United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with a Disability

Australia has international obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of People with a Disability. Australia ratified the Convention in 2008 in an effort to promote the equal and active participation of all people with disability. In 2009, Australia became a party to the Optional Protocol to the Convention. This sets out with clarity the obligations on countries to promote, protect and ensure the rights of people with disability, and specifically prohibits discrimination against people with disability in all areas of life.

The Convention further states that signatories must take “appropriate measures to ensure persons with disabilities [have] access, on an equal basis with others, to the physical environment, and to other facilities and services open or provided to the public, both in urban and in rural areas.”

The National Disability Insurance Scheme and an insurance approach to social welfare

While not directly related, it is worth pointing out the broader alignment between the current regulatory proposal and the overarching goal of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). The NDIS was introduced after the Productivity Commission conducted a review in 2011 which identified considerable shortcomings of Australia’s disability support system.

An overarching premise of the NDIS is that it is operated as an insurance type system; one that focuses on improving independence through greater social and economic participation, therefore reducing long term reliance on government funded supports.

To the extent that increased social and economic participation of some of the most vulnerable members of our society will drive better outcomes, not only for people with a disability but also for people close to people with a disability, the current regulatory proposal could be seen as an important enabling factor for the ongoing success of the NDIS.

The lack of accessible adult change facilities has a range of negative consequences

It is acknowledged that the implications from a lack of facilities are wide-ranging and can include health, psychological and social, and economic impacts. These impacts are discussed below.

Health impacts

An absence of AACFs provides a great challenge when going out in public for people with a complex disability and their carers. For example, consultations uncovered instances of carers delaying or tweaking medication to enable public outings. Although the necessity of such work arounds is apparent, so too are the potential unintended health impacts, for example urinary tract infection or increased digestive issues as detailed in the consultation findings below.

Another major health impact is detailed within responses from the Premises Standards review[40] which describe how carers have had to change their loved ones on the floor of a SASF. In addition to the obvious hygiene issues and risks of disease associated with this, there are also considerable dignity issues for people with a complex disability and their carers.

Psychological and social impacts

The absence of AACFs in public places means that both those with a complex disability and their carers are often unable to access and utilise facilities that support social connectivity. This can affect the psychological development and wellbeing of both groups, and can lead to feelings of isolation and disengagement.

There is a large body of literature detailing the psychological benefits of behavioural activation, which aims to improve mental health outcomes by increasing engagement in social activities[41]. For example, one study found that behavioural activation may be a feasible approach to tackling depression in people with intellectual disabilities.[42] Another study noted that although there were a number of methodological problems in studies conducted to date, behavioural activation may be effective in the treatment of depression.[43] In summary, the simple act of increasing participation of people with complex disabilities in social activities such as attending a shopping centre, museum or stadium, could itself generate improved mental and physical health outcomes.

Economic impacts

Many people with a disability have difficulties reconciling their physical needs with the rigours of daily life. For example, as noted above people often adopt ‘work arounds’ where such inconsistencies exist. In addition to the obvious health ramifications, this also clearly affects the extent to which people with a disability, as well as their carers and broader social and family networks, can participate in the broader economy to the same extent as able bodied persons.

Objectives

What are the objectives of the proposed regulatory change?

The objective in addressing the need for AACFs relates to the appropriate and dignified access to suitable accessible sanitary facilities for people with a complex disability in new Class 6 shopping centres and Class 9b assembly buildings, and has the following overarching purpose:

To ensure an appropriate level of economic and social inclusion in new buildings, for people with disability and their carers.

To ensure that the Premises Standards and the NCC reflects the obligations expressed under the DDA and international obligations with respect to dignity, equality and independence.

Options for addressing the problem

There are three options for addressing the problem. These options are as follows:

The Status Quo.

Non-Regulatory Option.

Regulatory Option.

The Status Quo

Under the 'status quo', or business as usual option, no change would be made to either the Premises Standards or the NCC, and no new non-regulatory initiatives would be commenced to encourage the provision of AACFs in public buildings.

Existing non-regulatory initiatives would be assumed to continue, with the number of AACFs being built continuing at the current rate, based on the information below.

In Australia, Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia, and NSW offer funding to support the construction of AACFs, as follows:

Victoria: The Victorian Government provides up to $100,000 in funding to support not-for-profit organisations and/or local government authorities to construct Changing Places facilities.[44] When the current funding round is complete, there will be a network of 32 Victorian Government funded Changing Places facilities state wide with a total of 52 AACFs in Victoria as of August 2017 (refer to Figure 2‑1).[45]

Western Australia: In May 2015, the Western Australian Government committed $2 million to support local governments to establish a network of Changing Places across the State. In January 2016, the City of Geraldton was the first local government in Western Australia to open a Changing Places facility.[46]

South Australia: South Australia’s 2017-18 Budget announced $200,000 to fund partnerships to build five Changing Places facilities.[47]

New South Wales: NSW is running a Lift & Change Facilities Trial in partnership with local governments to promote the benefits of Lift & Change facilities, and contributing a co-contribution of up to $35,000 to provide these facilities in local communities.

Queensland: Brisbane City Council has also updated its ‘Public Toilet Design Guidelines’ to reflect the demand for Changing Places facilities.[48]

The status quo will be regarded as a baseline from which the incremental impacts of the different options will be assessed.[49]

Where the incremental impacts of other options would result in more costs than benefits, or would be ineffective in addressing the problem or achieving the objectives, the Final RIS will conclude in favour of retaining the status quo.

Non-Regulatory Option

The non-regulatory option considers how stated objectives can be achieved in the absence of regulation. This may include financial incentives, such as grants, or recommendations that build on existing market incentives to build AACFs, in addition to those that are already in operation. 

Other possibilities under the non-regulatory approach could include:

A national grant scheme or other mechanism to support the construction of AACFs.

Publication of a guidance document (for example an ABCB handbook) that outlines how an AACF should be constructed, should a building owner elect to do so. Alternatively, governments could endorse an existing publication, such as the Changing Places Technical Standard, which may increase its reach and uptake.

Of all Australian States and Territories it is clear that Victoria is the most advanced at promoting AACFs. Analysis of this option assumes that, as is the case with Victoria, some form of financial grant or incentive is provided by government to building owners to construct AACFs in order to facilitate a continuous rate of uptake.

Refer to Table 7‑5 for the modelling results for the non-regulatory scenario.

Regulatory Option

The regulatory option, which involves amending the Premises Standard and the NCC to mandate the provision of AACFs in Cass 6 shopping centres and Class 9b assembly buildings, has a number of variations, or sub-options, all of which were canvased at consultation.

The modelling and analysis provided throughout this RIS considers three discrete regulatory sub-options:

Option A, which is intended as minimum necessary specification AACFs that are assumed to be co-located with SASFs.

Option B, which is intended as minimum necessary specification AACFs that are assumed to be a separate facility from SASFs.

Option C, which is fully conforming Changing Places / Lift & Change specification.

However, feedback on the analysis was unanimous in the view that the option mandated through regulation should be the minimum necessary specification option. A further concern raised in relation to the Changing Places specification (Option B of the Consultation RIS and Option C of the Final RIS) to install a peninsula toilet, which is not considered accessible by several members of the disability community. Under Option A and B of the Final RIS, a peninsula toilet is not a component of the specification, so as to alleviate these concerns.

In relation to the co-location versus separate issue, several stakeholders raised a preference for the co-location option. This caused a shift in focus relative to the Consultation RIS, where the separate option was considered the preferred option. The reasons for this change in focus are described in Section 7.2.4.

There is international precedent for introducing regulatory options to encourage the uptake of AACFs in Canada and the United States (California), as described in Appendix D.

Defining the population

In order to define the population we believe is most likely to benefit from greater provision of AACFs, we first define two distinct groups, or cohorts: the core cohort, for which we will directly attempt to measure the costs and benefits; and the non-core cohort, in which we include those people who do not have a direct need for AACFs but will nevertheless be benefitted by their installation.[50]

Defining the core cohort

In 2015, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) published the results from the Survey of Disability, Ageing and Carers (SDAC),[51] which is the primary data source used to estimate the core cohort. Throughout the remainder of this Final RIS, we have used the term complex disabilities to define those in our estimated core cohort, in order to differentiate this cohort of people from those with profound disabilities. The term ‘complex’ disability is consistent with terminology used on the Changing Places Australia website.[52]

There is no single dataset that specifies how many Australians have complex disabilities that prevent them from being able to use existing accessible sanitary facilities independently. The approach we have adopted is a ‘bottom up and cross referencing’ approach. In other words, we started with various estimates from the SDAC of the number of people with disabilities and the number of people for whom the presence of core activity limitations inhibits the participation in daily activities, and refined those estimates in order to most closely reflect those who we believe are likely to benefit the most from AACFs. Once that approach was complete, we then cross referenced the estimate with other independent estimates to gain a final ‘sense check’.

Figure 0‑1: Bottom up approach to estimating the core cohort[53]

Source: SDAC, EY estimates

‘Bottom up’ analysis

The SDAC found that almost one in five Australians reported living with a disability (18.3%, or 4.3 million people). The SDAC also allows us to separately identify those who need assistance with core activities such as toileting and other daily tasks; this comes to 3.4 million people (so there are approximately 900,000 people living with disability but who do not experience core activity limitations).

This 3.4 million figure can be further broken down by the estimated severity of core activity limitations:

People with profound limitations (721,985 people or 3.1% of the population).

Severe limitations (647,136 people or 2.8% of the population).

Moderate limitations (598,899 people or 2.6% of the population).

Mild limitations (1.4m or 6.1% of the population).[54]

In the first instance we started with the sum of the ‘profound’ and ‘severe’ core activity limitations, which totals 1.4 million. However, we know from other literature sources[55] that this figure is a considerable over-estimate. The reason is that the classification of ‘profound’ or ‘severe’ limitations is inherently subjective; limitations, which are deemed as moderate by some, might be considered as profound by others, and vice versa.

In order to further refine the 1.4 million figure, we also cross referenced that group of people with those who reported difficulty accessing buildings or facilities in the last 12 months, as this was thought to reduce the subjectivity in the measure.[56]

The result was 327,985 people with profound or severe core activity limitations, and who have had difficulty accessing buildings or facilities in the last 12 months.  Furthermore, there are 22,372 people with a disability, and profoundly or severely limited in core activities, who do not leave home.[57]

In total, based on the above, it can be estimated that there are 350,357 people with a disability and profoundly or severely limited in core activities who have either had difficulty accessing buildings or facilities in the last 12 months or who do not leave home. This is the group of people that we have considered as the core cohort.  This represents an implied disability rate of 1.5 per cent of the total Australian population, which is used in both the case studies and the aggregate analysis to estimate the impacts of each option.

A detailed breakdown of the process described above is provided in Table 5‑1, where the bold figures indicate those that we have included as part of our core cohort.

Table 0‑1: Difficulty accessing locations due to disability in the last 12 months[58]

Source: SDAC, EY estimates

Note: Figures in bold are those which are included as part of the estimated core cohort.

Cross referencing with other estimates/approaches

In estimating the core cohort, we also cross referenced with other estimates and approaches, including the Changing Places approach in both Australia and the UK, and expected NDIS recipients.

Changing Places approach (Australia)

Changing Places (Australia) estimates that there are around 200,000 people with severe incontinence who have a disability and are profoundly limited in core activities. This estimate is based on the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare’s (AIHW) report on Incontinence in Australia.[59]

For the purposes of the AIHW Report, people with a disability were “identified as having severe incontinence if they:

Answered ‘yes’ to having difficulty with controlling bladder or bowel functions and ‘yes’ to needing help with managing this difficulty (either always or sometimes needing help); and / or

Answered ‘yes’ to using continence aid(s).

It is to be expected that this figure would be a subset of our estimate, since in our estimation having a complex disability doesn’t necessary mean being incontinent.

Changing places approach (UK)

Another alternative would be to base the population estimate on the specific types of disabilities identified in the 2009 UK Changing Places Report, which estimates potential users of these facilities based on the number of people with certain types of disability.[60] However, this approach risked not only excluding people with profound or severe core activity limitations who would not be captured by the specific list of conditions, but also could include people captured by the list, but who did not define themselves as having profound or severe core activity limitations. (Note that conditions have a broad spectrum of severity).

Expected NDIS recipients

As a final ‘sense check’ it is worth noting that when fully implemented in 2019-20 the NDIS is expected to benefit approximately 450,000 - 475,000 Australians.[61] While not directly relevant for the purposes of estimating our cohort, it is intuitive that our cohort would be roughly similar in magnitude to the expected number of NDIS recipients. While the NDIS relates to people under the age of 65, it is also expected that some people eligible for the NDIS will not require AACFs.

Limitations of our analysis

Although the estimated core cohort is expected to be more inclusive than other estimates, that is not to say that it is fully inclusive. We acknowledge that our estimated cohort likely excludes some people, including:

People who have self-reported a moderate core activity limitation, but whose limitations might be considered profound or severe by others.

People whose disability is so profound that they simply have not attempted to access buildings or facilities in the last 12 months (although to an extent this group is likely captured in the ‘does not leave home’ category).

People who may have suffered from a one off injury which has left them with a temporary disability.

Finally, an inherent limitation of this type of analysis is that it is static, measuring the level of disability in the community at a point in time. Over time though, there will be inflows and outflows:

People ‘on the margins’ of our core cohort – e.g. those who have reported a moderate core activity limitation, but whose condition is expected to worsen in severity over time – and would be expected to enter the cohort in the coming years.

Some will leave the cohort in future periods, either through death or improvement in their condition.

An implicit assumption underpinning our analysis is that the inflows roughly equal the outflows in any given year, keeping the overall figure constant. A truly accurate estimation of the core cohort would require detailed life-cycle modelling, taking into account a range of variables such as projected mortality rates, disability rates, fertility rates, and migration rates.

Defining the non-core cohort

There are also a range of people outside of the core cohort who will also potentially benefit from these facilities. Those in the non-core cohort might include:

Elderly people: People without a specific disability but face difficulties with core activities.

People with short-term injuries: People that do not usually need change facilities but due to unforeseen injuries may have a short-term need for such facilities.

Industry / business: Class 6 shopping centres and Class 9b assembly building owners/operators.

Carers: People who assist core cohort users accessing sanitary facilities.

Non-users of the facility: Other people who attend Class 6 shopping centres and Class 9b assembly buildings, due to a reliance on other facilities.

Government: State/Territory and Commonwealth Government.

While the focus of this Final RIS is primarily on the ‘core’ cohort, given that there is no proposal to mandate the restriction of access to the facilities, it also captures the potential benefits for ‘non-core’ users.

Measuring the costs and benefits

This Chapter describes the methodology employed in estimating the costs and benefits expected to accrue from mandating the provision of AACFs in selected Class 6 shopping centres and Class 9b assembly buildings.

Costs

The costs of this proposal are divided into capital expenses and ongoing operating expenses and are informed by two key reports:

The updated ‘Report on [the] Cost of Installing Typical Accessible Adult Change Facilities ─ Costs for Installation of [an] Incorporated and New Facility’, prepared by Donald Cant Watts and Corke (DCWC) and provided to EY by the ABCB on the 6th of June 2018.

The 2017 Benchmarks Survey of Operating Costs, Retail, Shopping Centres prepared by the Property Council of Australia.

Capital expenses

Capital expenses include those relating to the supply, construction, and installation of the new facilities as well as any associated additional works required to comply with the new regulation. Following the cost estimates provided to inform the Consultation RIS, DCWC provided updated cost estimates. This Final RIS relies on the updated cost estimates developed by DCWC.

Based on that updated report, the DCWC estimate of an average capital cost of $28,500 for an Incorporated or Co-located Facility, and $46,200 for a Separate Facility, was applied to this analysis.

The costs for a Co-located Facility refer to the extra costs of an integrated facility that encompasses the additional accessible sanitary requirements whereas a Separate Facility refers to the capital costs of providing additional walls and fitout of a separate accessible facility. The estimates relate to both Class 6 shopping centres and Class 9b assembly buildings and are based on an updated specification (rationalised since public consultation).

The estimated capital expenses include a design and construction contingency, and allowances for builder’s preliminaries, margins and overheads.

Ongoing operating expenses

The ongoing operating expenses include those relating to the ongoing maintenance of facilities. This Final RIS relies upon cost estimates devised by the Property Council of Australia in its 2017 Benchmarks Survey of Australian shopping centres. It is assumed that the operating costs for AACFs do not differ by location.

For the purposes of this analysis an average operating cost of $287 per square metre has been assumed to apply for operating costs, being the average metropolitan cost from the Property Council’s benchmark report. We have further assumed an average square meterage of 2.04m2 per facility for an Incorporated Facility, and 7.68m2 for a Separate Facility based on the specifications provided by DCWC.

Regulatory burden costs

The Australian Government has introduced the ‘Guide to Regulation’, which discusses the importance of cutting red tape.

A key principle for Australian Government policy makers in the Guide to Regulation is that the ‘cost burden of new regulation must be fully offset by reductions in existing regulatory burden’.[62]

All regulatory costs, whether arising from new regulations or changes to existing regulation, must be quantified using the Regulatory Burden Measurement Framework. The framework must also be used for quantifying offsetting regulatory savings, where applicable.

The only costs relevant to this analysis are capital and operating costs. Given that the regulation is proposed to apply only to prospective developments, there is not assumed to be any extension to construction periods, and thus there is not expected to be any delay or disruption cost. Similarly, as there is not expected to be a need for any additional staffing or administrative requirements from a government perspective, the cost of administering the regulatory amendment is expected to be minimal.

The ABCB has advised that an appropriate estimation for the regulatory offset is one-ninth of the total cost (proportional to the Commonwealth’s share). This regulatory offset is calculated separately to the estimation of capital and operating costs and is not included in the total cost estimate.

Governments of the States and Territories are not required under Council of Australian Governments (COAG) policy to identify regulatory offsets. Some jurisdictions may have their own mechanisms regarding regulatory offsets, which would be a matter for those jurisdictions to consider.

Benefits

This Final RIS considers two types of benefit: quantifiable benefits and qualitative benefits.

Quantifiable benefits – shopping centres, museums and stadiums

Quantifiable benefits estimate the ‘use’ value of an additional trip to a Class 6 shopping centre or Class 9b assembly building for a person with a complex disability.[63] The idea behind this approach is that any form of trip must hold some intrinsic value; this intrinsic value can be thought of as the utility gained from making a trip, over and above the cost of getting there.

For all case studies, our analysis initially calculates the ‘break-even’ value of utility, which is the point where estimated use values are just enough to cover the estimated capital and operating costs of an AACF. Following that, estimates of the potential benefits that the trip may generate are applied to the same analysis for shopping centres, museums and stadiums in order to calculate a range of benefits that may accrue.

We have used the cost of making the trip as a proxy for the upper bound value of the trip. Thus, if it costs say $50 to travel to a Class 6 shopping centre or Class 9b assembly building, the utility (over and above the travel cost) must also be $50.[64]

There are a number of important points to make about the quantification of benefits:

First, what we are measuring is the value of additional trips as a result of AACFs being included in prospective developments. We are not measuring the value of toileting needs being met. The latter is noted below as a qualitative benefit.

Second, it is worth noting that by definition, the estimates that we have undertaken, most likely underestimate of the ‘true’ willingness to pay, for two reasons:

We are not considering the possibility for additional utility to exceed the travel cost (and based on our consultations and stakeholder feedback, it is fair to say that for some people it almost certainly will).

We have also not considered that buildings provide value for people merely by providing them the option to attend the building, even if they do not actually attend; in other words, people benefit merely from the existence of a building. In economics terms this is known as the ‘existence’ or ‘option value’.

Third, we have also not taken into consideration the potential value that carers and/or family members might derive from a trip with their loved ones.

Finally, as will be described in the following Chapter, the parameters that have been used for the modelling have been deliberately chosen to be as conservative as possible.

Quantifiable benefits – swimming pools and Airports

In the case of public swimming pools and airports, the methodology used for the above uses was not considered appropriate due to an assumption that the majority of trips made to a swimming pool for people with a complex disability would be made for therapeutic rather than recreational purposes, and trips made to an airport were not made for the purpose of attending an airport, but rather for the purpose of reaching an end destination.

Thus, in both cases the analysis began by assessing the minimum value of an individual trip that would be required in order for the installation of AACFs to be warranted. In the case of swimming pools, an estimate of the potential benefit for individual trips was available from the literature. This allowed the break-even analysis to be conducted on the basis of possible feeder populations for prospective swimming pools (See Section 7.1). In the case of airports, benefits for an individual trip were not known. As a result, the analysis focussed on a range of different patronage figures from a selection of small, medium and large airports across Australia, to provide an indication of the benefit per trip that would be required in order for the installation of an AACF to be justified from a break-even perspective.

Qualitative benefits

A regulatory change such as that being considered by this analysis will inevitably generate a range of benefits that are not directly caused by the trip to a Class 6 shopping centre or a Class 9b assembly building, but will nevertheless flow over time. It is worth noting from the outset that these effects are not quantifiable and instead are considered through stakeholder feedback and the detailed consultation period undertaken by EY Sweeney. 

At a high level, these benefits are likely to flow both to the person with a disability and their carers as well as to society in general, and are likely to range from improved quality of life,[65] improved wellbeing[66] and improved mental and physical health outcomes.[67]

We consider these benefits to be potentially very substantial, and in fact in our view the qualitative benefits will almost certainly outweigh the quantitative benefits discussed in the following Chapter. One stakeholder related the story of a young man who had unexpectedly become severely limited in core activities, and how to that gentlemen the loss of toileting abilities had had by far the greatest impact on his day to day life.

“I met a young man recently when I opened a lift and change facility …He had severed his spinal cord in an accident eight years earlier. He told me that his greatest loss was not the loss of the use of his legs but the loss of his bladder and bowel control.”

The Australian Human Rights Commission noted in its submission that:

"The provision of adult change facilities has the potential to deliver various long-term, qualitative benefits for a person with a disability and their carers. The expected benefits include improved quality of life, improved community and social participation, and improved wellbeing and mental health outcomes.”

For example, the introduction of AACFs could facilitate improved social inclusion for people with a disability as a result of improved accessibility and mobility.[68] Over time, the consultation findings suggest that this might also help to reduce stress, improve social participation, and improve the quality of life and mental or physical health of not only people with complex disabilities but also their carers.

A summary of potential qualitative benefits is provided in Table 6‑1.

Table 0‑1: Summary of qualitative benefits

Responses commonly reiterated the significance of the short and long term qualitative benefits of reduced stress and anxiety, and improved mental health and wellbeing for those with a disability and carers. The Victorian HHSBA suggested that increased revenue and patronage for venue owners could be substantial, with a range of 20-25% increased turnover for universally accessible retail environments compared to non-accessible retail environments.

Discussion of the potentially greater significance of qualitative benefits has been added to the discussion of quantitative benefits throughout this Final RIS. While it is acknowledged that potential spending and revenue benefits could be considerable, these have been deliberately excluded from the analysis owing to uncertainty over the extent to which such spending is truly ‘additional’. In other words, not only is it difficult to establish the amount of spending benefits, but it is also difficult to establish the amount of spending that would not have occurred in the absence of installing an AACF.

Impact analysis

This Chapter presents modelling results to give an indication of the scale of benefits that might accrue as a result of additional trips being made to Class 6 shopping centres or Class 9b assembly buildings following the introduction of an AACF. The Chapter is presented in three sections:

Section 7.1 presents the results of the six quantitative case studies as well as provides a discussion of those case studies considered qualitatively.

Section 7.2 presents whole-of-economy estimates, including thresholds, based on a range of assumed construction profiles for each of the regulatory options and the non-regulatory option.

Section 7.3 considers the regulatory burden of the proposed change.

Case study analysis

The estimated benefits and costs of the proposed policy change for each of the quantified case studies are provided in Table 7‑1. These results are driven by a range of assumptions regarding the distance and time involved to travel to each facility, population and visitation, and spending. A detailed overview of the assumptions is provided in Appendix A.

These case studies are presented using co-located Option A as a central case for analysis. This is based on stakeholder feedback on the design requirements from the Consultation RIS that have been revised for the Final RIS to recognise reduced costs, without a corresponding loss in benefits. 

Shopping centres, museums and stadiums

The case study analysis for shopping centres, museums and stadiums measured the ‘use value’ of each additional trip that could be considered representative of a Class 6 or Class 9b assembly building. The basis of our modelling approach for these case studies can be found in the environmental economics literature – specifically, the value of a particular site is often estimated by using the cost of travel to and from that site. Although sufficient data were not available to use the Travel Cost Method in its entirety, the underlying rationale remains the same.

Our analysis for shopping centres, museums and stadiums consists of estimating the level of benefit that would be generated under three scenarios:

Break-Even Scenario – This can be considered as the minimum value willingness to pay (WTP) that would be required in order for use values to exceed capital and ongoing costs. In other words it can roughly be thought of as the ‘break-even’ point, at which the total benefits equal total costs.

Estimated travel cost per visit – The assumption here is that in order for people to make a trip to a shopping centre, museum or stadium, their consumer surplus (‘utility’ or ‘enjoyment’) would have to be at least as much as what it costs them to get there.  In other words, if a person is going to spend $50 (including travel cost and entry fee) to go to a football match, they would want to get at least $50 worth of additional enjoyment, over and above the $50 cost.  We have assumed that this is the upper bound value for WTP.

Mid-Point – The mid-point between the Break-Even scenario and the estimated travel cost is provided in recognition of the range of different benefit levels produced.

Airports

Accessibility to transport networks was noted by many stakeholders as a policy imperative. However, unlike public transport it was considered that air travel is less likely to be substituted for other forms of transport. The provision of AACFs at airports would therefore have a more profound impact on the core and non-core cohorts. This assumption is supported by the views of stakeholders who described the differing characteristics of journeys that involve air travel compared to journeys that use other modes of transport.

A disability advocate highlighted the challenges of air travel in particular by describing the following journey:

“Imagine taking a plane trip from Sydney to Melbourne. As we live on the South Coast of NSW that's a three hour journey to the airport. We check in one hour prior to departure, have one hour travel time to Melbourne and minimum of another hour to reach a CBD hotel. For our Adult child that's a minimum of 6 hours until he can be changed from his soiled nappy.”

This analysis aims to consider the merits of mandating AACFs for airport terminals with passenger services.

A practical difficulty in assessing the case of an airport is the uncertainty with regard to the individual trip benefits. Noting that the value in this instance is derived from the value of the end destination rather than the value of a trip to the airport itself, the ‘total’ trip value actually encompasses a number of unique trips, the amalgam of which make up the ‘total’ trip value. From a modelling perspective, it is impossible to accurately disentangle the value of individual components of the ‘total’ trip from the overall value, and thus the value of a trip to an airport is not able to be estimated using the same method that was used for the other case studies.

As a result, in lieu of estimating individual trip benefits, this analysis has focussed on the value a benefit would need to be in order for the costs of installing an AACF to be covered by the benefits.

Key methodological points include:

Patronage data for a range of small, medium and large Australian airports have been sourced from the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (within the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities).

From overall patronage, the number of people with a complex disability expected to travel has been estimated by applying the share of the overall population in the ‘core cohort’ (which is 1.5%), and further applying an estimated propensity for people with a disability to travel, which has been sourced from the literature.[69]

Public aquatic facilities

As outlined in the Premises Standards review,[70] a number of submissions called for AACFs to be included at swimming pools, commenting that “if accessible entry and exits are required, then appropriate changing and sanitary facilities also need to be provided.” This case study aims to consider the merit of mandating AACFs for indoor swimming pools.

The Royal Lifesaving Society estimated the total health benefits of a trip to a swimming pool to be $26 per trip.[71] This estimate has been used as a benchmark assumption in the generation of whole-of-economy benefits for swimming pools. Two points are worth noting in applying this estimate:[72]

First, the estimate of $26 per trip was for people with ‘minor’ disabilities, not complex disabilities. However, the higher disease burden for people with complex disability relative to minor disabilities means the therapeutic benefits of hydrotherapy would be expected to be higher, meaning the estimate of $26 is conservative for our purposes.[73] In addition to the treatment of conditions, hydrotherapy’s ability to prevent different conditions[74] and the positive relationship between disease burden and susceptibility to the development of secondary conditions[75] lends further credence to the assumption that those with a complex disability would benefit more from hydrotherapy than those with minor disabilities.

Second, the estimate was made on the basis of hydrotherapy in cold water. It is noted that hydrotherapy is primarily conducted in warm water, and this is where the majority of the health and therapeutic benefits lie. That said, immersion in cold water is also likely to be effective in alleviating the symptoms of those with a complex disability (albeit to a lesser extent).

Case study results

The results of the case studies, expressed in terms of the benefit per trip that would be required for the benefits to offset the costs, are provided in the tables below. In the case of shopping centres, museums and stadiums, the estimated benefits from an individual facility over a ten year period are also presented.

Given that the costs are assumed to remain unchanged, the differences in the results for shopping centres, museums and stadiums are due to differences in two variables:

The assumed number of unique visitors within the core cohort of people with a complex disability.

The estimated travel costs, incorporating assumed mileage costs as well as entrance fees, as described in Appendix A.

Table 0‑1: Modelling results for case studies

Notes:

1. Construction costs are incurred at the time of construction (one-off cost).
2. Present Values have been calculated over a ten year period for benefits and operational costs using a real discount rate of 7%.
3. The break-even point calculates the discounted per person, per trip benefit needed to equal the costs over a 10 year period. For example, a person with disability would require $0.69 worth of utility per visit to a major shopping centre for the benefits to offset the costs over a 10 year period.  See Section 6.1.1 for more information.

Modelling results for the airport case study are provided in Table 7‑2. The table presents total annual patronage for a range of small, medium and large airports across Australia, as well as the estimated patronage from within the core cohort, based on two estimated travel propensities of people with a disability – one being 22%, which is the mid-point of the estimated propensities in Dwyer and Darcy’s study on accessible tourism[76] and one at 11%, to demonstrate what the break-even point would be if travel propensities were half the midpoint. In both cases it can be seen that the estimated break-even is very low – with the highest being just $12.

To give some context for these results, consider the average cost of a flight ticket. On the assumption that people would not take a flight if they did not expect to receive value at least the same as the cost of a flight, and given that the cost of a flight in Australia is generally in excess of $100, it is considered that the requirements to install an AACF should be extended to all prospective airports or airport redevelopments. Even for the smallest regional airports, these results indicate that the break-even value per trip is considerably less than the cost of a flight.

Table 0‑2: Modelling results for airport case study

Notes:

1. Total yearly patronage figures sourced from Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities.
2. Estimated core cohort patronage figures calculated using the assumed disability rate of 1.5% - See Section 5.1 for further information. 
3. Required break-even amount calculated using a real discount rate of 7% over 10 years.

Table 0‑3: Modelling results for public aquatic facilities case study (Regulatory Option A)

Notes:

1. The ‘feeder population’ is taken to mean the assumed number of all people who might feasibly be expected to patronise a public swimming pool.
2. The estimated break-even value for each feeder population represents the amount of benefit for each trip that would be required in order to cover the costs of installing an AACF. Assumed patronage figures are taken from Dwyer and Darcy.[77]
3. Required break-even amount calculated using a real discount rate of 7% over 10 years.

In summary, the pertinent points to make in relation to the modelling results for each quantified case study are as follows:

For a major shopping centre, the break-even point (where the Present Value of costs is equal to benefits) is $0.72.  Applying the ‘upper bound’ WTP estimate of $13.16 (the estimated travel cost) this generates net benefits of $598,679 in Present Value terms.

For a smaller shopping centre, the break-even point is $2.16.  Applying the ‘upper bound’ WTP estimate of $13.16 (the estimated travel cost[78]) this generates net benefits of $199,560 in Present Value terms.

For museums, the break-even point is $5.71.  Applying the ‘upper bound’ WTP estimate of $23.16 (the estimated travel cost) this generates net benefits of $132,704 in Present Value terms.

For stadiums, the break-even point is $6.66. Applying the ‘upper bound’ WTP estimate of $37.16 (the estimated travel cost) this generates net benefits of $182,458 in Present Value terms.

For airports, the break-even point is estimated to be very low even for the smallest of commercial airports. Given the strong benefits that could flow from accessible tourism,[79] this is considered strong justification for mandating AACFs in prospective airports or airport re-developments. 

For public aquatic facilities, the break-even point is estimated to occur when the feeder population of the facility exceeds 3,000. In other words provided the total potential feeder population of an indoor swimming pool exceeds 3,000, the benefits of installing an AACF (not including qualitative benefits) will outweigh the costs. This is based on an assumed $26.39 worth of improved health outcomes per visit and an average of 4.4 visits per person per annum.[80]

Qualitative case studies

As noted in Section 1.5 we have also qualitatively considered the case of a major public transport facility (e.g. a train station) and a convention centre.

Major public transport facility

In determining the suitability of requiring AACFs in public transport buildings and airports, the provision of public compared to privately provided passenger services was considered, in addition to the substitutability of bus, train and ferry services with other modes of transport compared to flights. It is considered that the core cohort, like the rest of the population have limited alternatives to the use of airports for long distance trips due to a number of factors such as speed and convenience air travel offers.[81] This contrasts with the use of public transport facilities where several feasible alternatives may exist, depending on the nature of the trip.

For regulation to be warranted, it is necessary to make the case that installation of an AACF would lead to a greater number of trips to a public transport facility than would otherwise have occurred. Feedback from stakeholders regarding the utilisation of existing AACFs at train stations in Melbourne and Perth, as well as an analysis of data from the Survey of Disability, Ageing and Carers (SDAC) indicates that at the present time, such a case is unable to be made.

In response to the Consultation RIS, the Australasian Railway Association submission noted that current AACFs at major train stations have low usage: Flinders Street Station in Melbourne has an average daily patronage of approximately 100,000 people while its AACF is used three times per day on average while the Perth Central Train Station has an average daily patronage of 36,000 people and its AACFs is used one to three times per day.

Given the estimates of the average daily patronage of these facilities and use of their AACFs, it is not considered that the presence of AACFs in these buildings is producing a demonstrable increase in patronage as a result of the installation of AACFs.

Notwithstanding these factors, mandating AACFs could still have merit if it were demonstrated that the inability to use current toileting facilities has a marked impact on peoples’ ability (or willingness) to use public transport. Data from the SDAC on the barriers to public transport usage for people in our core cohort (those with a complex disability) indicate that, as would be expected, there are a range of barriers more pertinent than accessibility of toilets, as shown in Figure 7‑1.

Figure 0‑1: Reasons for inability to use some or all forms of public transport

Source: ABS 4430.0, Survey of Disability, Ageing and Carers

These findings suggest that even if AACFs were required in public transport buildings, a number of other outstanding issues would prevent the benefits of the AACF from being realised. In other words, if the objective is to increase the ability for people with a disability to utilise public transport, the factors likely to dominate a decision to travel would also need to be addressed.

In an Australian context, the launch of the Whole Journey Guide,[82] the Government’s response to the 2015 Review of the Disability Standards for Accessible Transport 2002,[83] notes the importance of considering the whole journey at the start of the transport planning process, and that this consideration can go beyond compliance with regulation. This Guide was endorsed by Transport and Infrastructure Council Ministers in November 2017 and provides a best practice guide to increasing the accessibility of public transport.

Given the significance of factors that reduce accessibility for public transport, a regulatory option is not considered the most effective or appropriate mechanism to address the defined problem as described in Section 2. The presence of feasible alternatives and significance of other barriers in terms of access to public transport networks provides a sound case for excluding public transport buildings from a requirement to install AACFs.

However, while a regulatory solution to mandate the provision of AACFs is not considered to be appropriate or effective, this does not diminish the need to provide equitable access to public transport networks. To address this need, various countries have introduced standards or guidelines for the provision of AACFs, namely in the United Kingdom, Canada and the US (California) as detailed in Appendix D.

These policy responses demonstrate an increasing recognition across comparable jurisdictions that while regulatory mechanisms may not be an appropriate response, the accessibility of public transport for people with complex disability is a matter in need of improvement. In an Australian context, this need would be best addressed in a holistic manner through policy instruments such as the Whole Journey Guide,[84] rather than through mandating AACFs in the NCC.

Libraries

It is not recommended that a regulatory solution be pursued in the case of libraries, for a number of reasons.

First, libraries are themselves primarily government owned, owing to the broad array of public benefits that libraries provide (such as contributing to social equity, educational outcomes, as well as providing a sense of community). Approximately 90% of libraries’ funding is typically sourced from governments and the remainder from fees, charges and donations.[85] The broader public benefit of libraries, as well as the degree of control governments can exert on their construction and design, suggests that new libraries may seek to be as inclusive as possible under the status quo. As such, new libraries may opt to include AACFs without the need for regulation. This is consistent with a number of new libraries built since 2014 which includes the provision of AACFs on a voluntary basis.[86]

Second, the library industry is undergoing a period of structural change and consolidation, which has resulted in the number of library establishments declining over the past five years. With continued technological change and increasing urbanisation, this trend is expected to continue.[87] This trend indicates mandating AACFs in new libraries would have relatively little material effect in addressing the defined problem compared to the other types of building considered in this Final RIS.

Third, a likely consequence of the ongoing consolidation noted above is that new library developments going forward are likely to be either part of a broader development which may include other types of Class 6 or Class 9b building, or alternatively situated in close proximity to other buildings. Shopping centres and libraries are increasingly co-located due to the mutual benefits to retailers and libraries of complementary visitation purposes, and convenience for library users and shoppers afforded by shared parking.[88] This suggests that mandating AACFs for libraries could result in unintended clusters of AACFs and undue regulatory burden.

Owing to the reasons outlined above, it is considered that mandating the provision of AACFs in prospective library developments is not warranted. However, as with the case of public transport buildings, this finding should not be taken to mean that greater accessibility of library services is not a desirable goal. Libraries provide a far broader range of public services over and above just loaning books – as noted by the Australian Library and Information Association, public libraries support the information, education, cultural and recreational needs of local communities. They occupy a central place in community life.[89]

This finding simply means that separately mandating the provision of AACFs in library developments is unnecessary, given that the majority of libraries are publicly funded (meaning they would have a greater chance of installing an AACF in the absence of regulation), and that most library developments tend to be located close to other public buildings which would be captured by the requirements.

Theatres

The benefits to attending theatres could, if there were sufficient data, be modelled in the same way as for museums.

It can be said with a fair degree of surety that a strong relationship between seating capacity and overall theatre attendance is likely to exist. However, there is a paucity of data showing patronage at theatres around Australia, and as such it was not possible to verify the extent of the relationship between size and patronage for modelling purposes.

As an alternative, theatres were considered from the perspective of accessibility of people with a disability to the performing arts. It is noted that cultural activities generate considerable economic benefits, estimated to be in the order of $50 billion in 2012-13, or 4.0% of annual GDP.[90]

Specifically on performing arts, 2015 data shows 78 tickets were sold per 100 population with attendance being in the order of 65-75% across the population, though this is notably lower amongst those with disabilities, at 59%.[91] For live performance arts, over half of attendances (and revenues) are accounted for by performances that would typically be held in theatres (53% of both measures).[92] In other words, it is apparent that there is an element of unmet demand when it comes to theatre attendance by people with a disability; demand that could potentially be harnessed were AACFs provided.

However, while the arguments for extending the requirements to theatres are apparent, the threshold above which those requirements should apply is less so. At a broad level, two options were considered:

First, the option of applying the same threshold as that for museums was considered (which would mean theatres with more than 1500 seats trigger the requirements).

Second, the option of not applying a threshold altogether was considered.

Both of these approaches have their own benefits and drawbacks. Applying the same threshold for museums would have the advantage of ensuring the smallest theatres are not unfairly required to install a facility. The drawback of this approach is that it may result in a higher than necessary threshold and result in only very large theatres triggering the requirements.

In contrast, removing the threshold altogether would have the benefit of enhancing accessibility to the arts. However, there is a strong potential for unintended consequences in this approach for the imposition to install an AACF altering the feasibility of smaller theatre developments. This would have the perverse outcome of reducing accessibility to the arts for all people (by preventing otherwise viable theatre developments from going ahead).

In summary, although the need for extending the requirements to theatres is apparent from a qualitative perspective, there is insufficient evidence to definitively establish these benefits will be realised in all cases (as would be the case if no threshold was applied).

Given the paucity of data and the potential for unintended consequences on smaller theatres, it is recommended that AACFs be required for all new theatres with a design occupancy of 1,500 occupants or greater. Whilst acknowledging that this threshold is likely to be conservative, it will allow greater participation of people with complex disabilities in the arts and ensure that net benefits are achieved in major new theatres.

It also recommended that the requirements for theatres be reviewed following implementation once more information becomes available on its effectiveness in addressing the problem.

Public Halls

Public halls across Australia vary considerably, from regularly attended public facilities such as the Albert Hall in the ACT, to small scale regional halls which are rarely frequented. While the former type of hall may warrant the installation of an AACF, the latter category would likely not attract sufficient patronage so as to warrant mandating an AACF. Thus, in the absence of a clear way to distinguish between the two, and also given that the latter far outnumber the former, it is not recommended that AACFs be mandated for public halls.

Whole-of-economy analysis

Notwithstanding the challenges associated with estimating the economy wide impacts of greater provision of AACFs, it is important to obtain an indication of the potential magnitude of those impacts.

Estimating the threshold above which the requirements will be triggered

With any new regulation there is bound to be those who benefit from the change and those who do not. In this instance, primary beneficiaries are those people with disability whose toileting needs will be met, and owners of public buildings for which the increased visitation more than offsets the cost of installing an AACF. There is also a need to minimise costs of regulatory change, in this case ensuring that smaller buildings for which the increase in visitation is not sufficient to offset the cost of installing an AACF are not captured by the proposed requirements.

In an attempt to mitigate the impact on smaller facilities it is possible to derive a threshold above which the requirements will be triggered. In the context of the NCC, the most available method for assessing the number of sanitary facilities required by the DtS Provisions is the design occupancy. This is derived by dividing the overall floor space of a building by a given assumption of occupant density (expressed in terms of m2 per occupant).

The optimal cut-off point was considered on the basis of four overarching criteria:

Cost impact on a prospective building of being required to install an AACF.

Extent to which visitation is likely to offset the cost impact.

Extent to which the threshold might capture or neglect regional areas.

Extent to which the threshold is sound when tested against representative building configurations.

This approach was used to derive thresholds for shopping centres and museums. The relevant areas per person according to use are contained in Table D1.13 of NCC Volume One.[93] The recommendations are set at a design occupancy of 3,500 for shopping centres, and 1,500 for museums. For swimming pools, the recommended threshold is not set in terms of occupancy numbers, but rather the perimeter of the swimming pool, which is recommended to be 70m which is consistent with the requirement for the installation of features to enable use of the swimming pool by a person with a disability.

In relation to shopping centres, a database of over 100 shopping centres Australia wide was developed, including the number of shops, total lettable area, and annual visitation data. An analysis of this database, compared with the estimated travel costs for individual visits as discussed in Appendix A, indicates that the threshold should be no higher than 10,000m2 of overall floor space which equates to a design occupancy of approximately 3,500 occupants based on the shopping centres examined during preparation of this Final RIS.

Setting the threshold at lower than 10,000m2 of overall floor space would risk extending the requirements to predominately neighbourhood shopping centres with a limited line supermarket plus one or two individual stores. Such small centres are not considered large enough, either in terms of annual visitation or in terms of revenue and cost factors, to warrant the mandatory installation of an AACF. For these buildings, AACFs will result in net costs and as such requiring AACFs in all new shopping centres is not recommended.

Finally, the costs of installing an AACF are considered minor when assessed against the capital costs of building or re-developing a shopping centre. It is expected that the requirements will be imposed on any new shopping centre or shopping centre re-development when the total floor space of the shopping centre after development exceeds 10,000m2, or design occupancy exceeds 3,500 occupants.

The final criterion considered in determining an appropriate threshold was the impact on regional Australia.  Analysis of the database described above indicates that setting the threshold at 10,000m2 strikes an appropriate balance between the conflicting objectives of ensuring sufficient coverage of AACFs in regional areas, versus ensuring the cost burden does not fall unfairly on small shopping centres.

In relation to museums and art galleries, an analysis of existing buildings revealed a spectrum of possible sizes of buildings, with a discernible data gap in the middle. At one end of the scale are large, primarily government owned museums, the smallest of which has an overall floor space of 6,500m2. At the other end of the scale are small, neighbourhood museums, often converted houses. These tend to be in the order of 500m2, as shown in Table 7‑4.

Table 0‑4: Australian museums by floor space and exhibition size

 Source: Compiled by EY based on publicly available information

The cost implications of installing an AACF are unable to be assessed due to a lack of data, however it is clear that at the largest end of the spectrum they would be inconsequential.

A ‘sense check’ of buildings on both ends of the size spectrum was conducted to assess the reasonableness of mandating an AACF – two options were chosen: the Australian Museum with 6,500m2 in floor space, and a small woodworks gallery with 500m2 floor space. An analysis (including anecdotally) of the purpose of both buildings as well as the likely visitation indicates that whereas mandating an AACF in the former would certainly be warranted, in the latter it likely would not.

Estimating the number of facilities / buildings

Estimating the total costs and benefits of a regulatory proposal such as this involves first estimating the number of prospective buildings that would be subject to the regulation. For these buildings, this is an inherently difficult task, as data showing the number of new shopping centres, museums, stadiums, airports and public aquatic facilities likely to be constructed in the future is limited.

The most reliable and consistent data set identified for new shopping centres, museums and stadiums is IBISWorld which contains projections of the number of shopping centres, museums and stadiums over a five year projection period. We have therefore adopted this as the ‘base’ estimate of the number of new facilities and cross referenced where appropriate with knowledge on specific investment projects.

For shopping centres, the number of new centres with a floor space of less than 10,000m2 has been estimated on the basis of information provided by the Shopping Centre Council of Australia (SCCA).

For indoor swimming pools, a ‘base’ figure of 1,000 is taken from the Royal Lifesaving Society Report, and it is assumed that the number of swimming pools grows in line with population growth. This results in a figure of approximately 20 ‘new’ swimming pools each year.

Finally, it is acknowledged that the requirements will extend not only to new developments but also to redevelopments alterations and additions. For shopping centres, the number of additions or redevelopments is based on information by the SCCA which indicates that the average shopping centre undergoes a major redevelopment on average every seven to ten years.[94]

Alterations and additions are not modelled for museums, stadiums or swimming pools. It is worth noting however that, provided a prospective alteration or addition will result in a building exceeding the threshold, then the installation of an AACF is considered warranted (in addition to the vast social benefits that would accrue) from a cost benefit perspective.

Estimating the costs and benefits

In estimating the costs and benefits the following important assumptions need to be kept in mind:

It is assumed that each ‘new’ building will incur costs and benefits for a ten year period. In other words, a building constructed in 2018 will incur costs (operating costs) and benefits until 2027, while a building built in 2027 will incur costs (operating costs) and benefits until 2036. The estimated number of ‘new’ buildings constructed in both the regulatory and non-regulatory scenarios are shown in Appendix A.

The benefit for a single trip to an aquatic facility is assumed to be $26 per trip, as described earlier.

Given a lack of information about prospective benefits per trip in relation to airport developments, whole-of-economy results are not provided for airports. The break-even figures are considered sufficiently low so as to easily warrant the mandating of facilities. It is also worth noting that over the next ten years the number of prospective buildings is expected to be relatively low.

The modelling results for the non-regulatory and regulatory scenario should be interpreted as being additional to the status quo.[95]

The modelling results do not assume any form of diminishing marginal returns. To the extent that the estimated development pipeline is relatively narrow, this is likely a reasonable assumption.

Regulatory Options A and B – co-located and separate AACFs

The costs of the regulatory option can be influenced by whether an AACF could also be counted as an SASF for the purposes of assessing compliance with the existing Premises Standards and NCC requirements for the provision of accessible sanitary facilities. Based on the DCWC report, separate AACFs have an estimated capital cost of $46,200 while for co-located AACF’s the estimated capital cost is $28,500.

The co-located facility would have a lesser impact in terms of required floor space (which has an economic value) than a stand-alone facility. In a building where only one SASF is currently required, it would in effect be incorporated with an AACF. Since the Consultation RIS, the technical specifications for AACFs have been revised to ensure the intended dual purpose can be met.

In the Consultation RIS, it was assumed that the AACF would be constructed in addition to a SASF ─ in other words, a separate facility was deemed preferable to a co-located facility. The option to provide separate facilities was considered preferable owing to a concern that usage of co-located facilities would result in those with complex disabilities occupying the facility for large periods of time.

However, stakeholder feedback and data was provided on the use of existing AACFs and suggests such issues are likely to be negligible for a number of reasons.

Firstly, it was commented that usage of AACFs for some populations meaning the time occupied by those using the AACFs is not likely to be significant ─ the facility at Flinders Street Station in Melbourne, a railway station with daily passenger throughput in excess of 100,000 per day, was commented to be used on average only three times per day.

Secondly, one disability advocate commented that separation of the facility could have other unintended consequences.

“Today you regularly see a queue outside a standard accessible toilet, while the huge changing places next door is locked. This scenario is going to create division within and animosity towards the disabled community. If you want to add benefit, moderate the size and expense of L&C, and make them universal." 

Thirdly installation of separate SASF and AACF facilities would not be prevented by the NCC. It is anticipated that this configuration will be the case where required. However, owners may choose to separate facilities, and incur higher costs of constructing a separate facility, and accept an overall lower, yet still positive net benefit.

Finally, the presence of an alternative SASF is more likely in buildings with occupancy that exceed the suggested thresholds. Therefore, an AACF will only be co-located at one of a number of alternative SASF locations that will remain unaffected by the proposed change.

Regulatory Option C – Changing Places

For completeness, the second option (Option B) tested in the Consultation RIS – to mandate the provision of full specification Changing Places facilities – is also discussed and is now Option C in this Final RIS.

This option is not the central case for the following reasons:

It is less desirable from a cost benefit perspective, since the minimum necessary specifications are sufficient for the benefits to be generated.

Stakeholders were unanimous in their commentary that regulation should only mandate the ‘basic’ facilities, as illustrated by the following excerpt from a disability advocate’s submission.

“The basic facilities mandated by regulation should be adequate for the job, not top shelf.”

It was also commented that the peninsula toilets specified in the Changing Places specification would actually serve to exclude certain people in need of an AACF or SASF (those unable to use a peninsula toilet). Shoalhaven City Council stated in its submission:

“Local wheelchair users who self-transfer to the toilet tell us that they are prevented from using the peninsula style toilets because the lift away handrails do not provide adequate support and stability for them to use the toilet independently. Further investigation is needed as to design of peninsula toilet. There may be a perception of segregating persons with disabilities whereas there is an opportunity for inclusivity by enabling all to use the one facility.”

Non-regulatory option

Our analysis assumes that governments incentivise the construction of AACFs by way of direct financial subsidies that are assumed to cover the entire capital costs. These would be in addition to the financial subsidies that already exist. In this instance we have assumed that governments will meet all the capital costs of the AACF, whereby the operator of the building will then meet ongoing operating costs.

The estimated building profile under both the regulatory and non-regulatory scenarios is presented in Appendix B. For the non-regulatory scenario, it is necessary to define the proportion of prospective buildings assumed to install a facility under a grants system. This was estimated as follows:

It is noted that Victoria has 52 AACFs which, given facilities started to come on line from around 2010, equates to approximately 6 facilities per year.

Using this figure for other states (factoring up by the proportional difference in the core cohort population), gives an estimated total of 22 AACFs per year. 

Assuming one facility per building, this equates to, on average, around 60% of the estimated total from IBIS World. Thus, it is assumed that under the non-regulatory option 60% of projected buildings will install an AACF.

Finally, an adjustment is made to ensure whole numbers – for example, a figure of 3.6 is rounded down to 3.

The estimated costs under the non-regulatory option are provided in Table 7‑5.

Table 0‑5: Modelling results for non-regulatory scenario

Estimating the whole-of-economy impacts of the regulatory proposal

Consistent with the approach used for the case studies, the whole-of-economy impacts for shopping centres, museums and stadiums were developed in the following way:

A break-even unit cost was calculated by applying the number of total visits (the process of estimating which is described in Appendix A) to the present value of the total costs. This provides an indication of the minimum level of benefit that would need to be generated to cover the costs. Any benefit above this would generate net benefits overall.

For shopping centres, museums and stadiums, an estimated ‘willingness to pay’ figure was calculated in the same manner as for the case studies. This was determined by estimating the travel costs and entrance fee, where applicable, of the relevant buildings.[96]

The whole-of-economy impacts for public aquatic facilities was generated with reference to the assumed benefit per trip of $26.32, as described in Section 7.1. In order to generate an estimate of the potential benefits, the central case was assumed to be a feeder population of 15,000. Insufficient data exist to definitively test this assumption. In order to provide an anecdotal ‘sense check’ as to the voracity of the 15,000 feeder population assumption, a database was developed of indoor public swimming pools within Canberra. Our analysis revealed there are 20 indoor swimming pools. For a total Canberra population of approximately 400,000, this implies a feeder population per swimming pool of 20,000.

Estimated whole-of-economy impacts of the regulatory proposal

The estimated whole-of-economy impacts for shopping centres, museums, stadiums, airports and public aquatic facilities are shown in Table 7‑10.

The key findings are as follows:

For shopping centres, the break-even point (where the NPV of costs is equal to benefits) is $2.16, $3.45, $4.54 and $2.16 for the co-located, separately located, Changing Places and non-regulatory scenarios, respectively. Applying the WTP estimate of $13.16 (the estimated travel cost) this generates net benefits of $154.6 million, $126.1 million, $101 million and $87.3 million for the respective scenarios. These results are shown in Table 7‑6.

For museums, the break-even point, is $5.71, $9.12, $23.49 and $5.71 for the co-located, separately located, Changing Places and non-regulatory scenarios, respectively.  Applying the WTP estimate of $23.16 (the estimated travel cost) this generates net benefits of $2.7 million, $1.4 million, -$2 million and $38,000 for the respective scenarios. Importantly, the considerably higher costs of the Changing Places specifications make this option not feasible from a benefit cost perspective. These results are shown in Table 7‑7.

For stadiums, the break-even point, is $6.66, $8.25, $10.87 and $6.66 for the co-located, separately located, Changing Places and non-regulatory scenarios, respectively. Applying the WTP estimate of $37 this generates net benefits of $3.2 million, $2.2 million, -$384,000 and $1.4 million for the respective scenarios. These results are shown in Table 7‑8.

For indoor aquatic facilities, the break-even point, is $5.16, $8.25, $10.87 and $5.16 for the co-located, separately located, Changing Places and non-regulatory scenarios, respectively. The estimated whole-of-economy benefit from an NPV perspective assuming a feeder population of 15,000 is $16.1 million, $13.1 million, -$5.7 million and $7.1 million for the respective scenarios. These results are shown in Table 7‑9.

Table 0‑6: Illustrative whole-of-economy benefits – Shopping centres

Notes:

1. Present Values have been calculated over a ten year period for both costs and benefits using a real discount rate of 7%.
2. The break-even point calculates the discounted per person, per trip benefit needed to equal the costs over a 10 year period for a single facility.
3. The non-regulatory scenario assumes the same type of facility is constructed as under Option A, but that fewer overall are constructed. Thus the per facility break-even and WTP estimates are the same in the non-regulatory scenario as in Option A.
4. Whole-of-economy values are derived by multiplying the estimated benefits per trip and break-even points from the case studies by the assumed number of buildings of each type expected to be developed over the next 10 years.

Table 0‑7: Illustrative whole-of-economy benefits – Museums

Notes:

1. Present Values have been calculated over a ten year period for both costs and benefits using a real discount rate of 7%.
2. The break-even point calculates the discounted per person, per trip benefit needed to equal the costs over a 10 year period.
3. The non-regulatory scenario assumes the same type of facility is constructed as under Option A, but that fewer overall are constructed. Thus the per facility break-even and WTP estimates are the same in the non-regulatory scenario as in Option A.
4. Whole-of-economy values are derived by multiplying the estimated benefits per trip and break-even points from the case studies by the assumed number of buildings of each type expected to be developed over the next 10 years.

Table 0‑8: Illustrative whole-of-economy benefits – Stadiums

Notes:

1. Present Values have been calculated over a ten year period for both costs and benefits using a real discount rate of 7%.
2. The break-even point calculates the discounted per person, per trip benefit needed to equal the costs over a 10 year period.
3. The non-regulatory scenario assumes the same type of facility is constructed as under Option A, but that fewer overall are constructed. Thus the per facility break-even and WTP estimates are the same in the non-regulatory scenario as in Option A.
4. Whole-of-economy values are derived by multiplying the estimated benefits per trip and break-even points from the case studies by the assumed number of buildings of each type expected to be developed over the next 10 years.

Table 0‑9: Illustrative whole-of-economy benefits – indoor aquatic facilities

Notes:

1. Present Values have been calculated over a ten year period for both costs and benefits using a real discount rate of 7%.
2. The break-even point calculates the discounted per person, per trip benefit needed to equal the costs over a 10 year period.
3. 15,000 is considered an appropriate central scenario for the feeder population due to the unlikelihood of indoor aquatic facilities being constructed in towns with populations less than that amount.

Table 0‑10: Illustrative whole-of-economy impacts – Net Present Value (Option A)

Notes:

1. Present Values have been calculated over a ten year period for both costs and benefits using a real discount rate of 7%.
2. Whole-of-economy values are derived by multiplying the estimated benefits per trip and break-even points from the case studies by the assumed number of buildings of each type expected to be developed over the next 10 years.

Regulatory Burden

In line with the best practice regulation principles we have calculated the estimated regulatory burden as follows:

Costs are presented over a 10-year duration of the regulation.

The Commonwealth’s share of regulatory burden is assumed to be one-ninth of the total cost.

As stated previously, the results provided above implicitly assume that the burden of construction will fall on the developers - i.e. that the builders/developers of a shopping centre will themselves fund the addition of an AACF as was the case when SASFs were mandated. In other words, under the regulatory option the burden of regulation is assumed to fall entirely on the business sector.

Table 0‑11: Average annual regulatory burden (from business as usual)

Summary

Implications of the analysis

The analysis indicates that the co-location option, where at least one standard accessible facility is provided, reduces the overall costs and delivers a greater level of benefit relative to the other options. While the limitations of the analysis of the case studies are acknowledged, it is considered that they establish the merits and are suitably representative to inform thresholds to the extent feasible for Class 6 shopping centres and Class 9b assembly buildings.

There are a range of considerations associated with amending the Premises Standards and the NCC to require AACFs to be provided in Class 6 shopping centres and Class 9b assembly buildings. This section discusses a few such considerations.

What will trigger the requirements?

As discussed in Section 7.2.1, the imposition of a threshold is considered necessary in order to ensure small buildings are not unfairly required to build a facility that would see little usage and may impact on their financial viability. It is recommended that the requirements be as follows:

The installation of an AACF is required for new shopping centres or redevelopments with a design occupancy greater than 3,500.

The installation of an AACF is required for all new museums with a design occupancy greater than 1,500.

 The installation of an AACF is required for all new theatres, with a design occupancy greater than 1,500.

The installation of an AACF is required for all new stadiums with a design occupancy greater than 35,000.

The installation of an AACF is required for all new indoor aquatic facilities where the main swimming pool area’s perimeter exceeds 70m (sufficient to capture a 25m swimming pool and above).

The installation of an AACF is required for all new airports or airport redevelopments.

Unintended consequences

At the proposed thresholds and being applicable to prospective developments only, it is not anticipated that the proposed regulation would generate many unintended consequences. One potentially noteworthy unintended consequence would be the potential for the requirements to capture smaller buildings, or potentially even buildings of other classifications. The former issue is intended to be treated, to the extent possible, by the imposition of minimum thresholds as described in Section 7.2.1. The latter is a definitional issue of the respective building classifications and is outside the scope of this RIS.

Conclusions

The findings of this Final RIS support the proposal that the NCC and Premises Standards be amended to require co-located AACFs for the following building types:

Class 6 shopping centres with a design occupancy in excess of 3,500.

Class 9b buildings where installation of an AACF is warranted include museums, theatres and art galleries with design occupancy greater than 1,500, indoor aquatic facilities with a main swimming pool area perimeter greater than 70m, stadiums with design occupancy (seating capacity) greater than 35,000, and new airports and airport redevelopments.

Owing to a range of other barriers to public transport usage unrelated to toileting needs, and a wide disparity in the types and likely usage of public halls, it is not recommended that AACFs be mandated in public transport buildings or public halls.

This recommendation reflects new analysis accounting for a revised specification and the views expressed by stakeholders and the public over two rounds of consultation during interviews with end users, and in response to the Consultation RIS. While the limitations of the quantitative analysis are acknowledged, it is considered that it demonstrates a clear economic case for delivering increased equity, dignity and social activation for some of the most disadvantaged members of society. Owing to the broad spectrum of qualitative benefits described in this Final RIS, it is also considered that the quantified benefits represent a lower bound estimate of the full economic and social benefits that will accrue.

Finally, it is considered that that the economic and social benefits from a greater uptake of AACFs would be distributed across society due to increased participation from those directly affected, as well as those around them including their carers and family members.

Modelling assumptions

This Appendix details the range of assumptions necessary to estimate the value of additional trips.

Distance, travel time and value of time

Assumptions regarding the estimated distance travelled and the time taken to make each trip are provided below. The same parameters have been assumed for each option.

The cited distance travelled and duration assumptions that have been selected are deliberately conservative. They have been selected as they are robust estimates available and to ensure results are not over-estimated given the proximity of an end user to a potential facility cannot be known. Thus, it is acknowledged that they may not be representative of extremes in regional, rural and remote areas; equally, these do not reflect travel times during peak travel times in urban areas.

Table Error! No text of specified style in document.‑1: Distance travelled and travel time assumptions

Note 1: Page 110 of the "State of Australian Cities 2014-2015" report states that the length of an average metropolitan trip across Australia's four largest cities is 7.5 kms per trip  (https://infrastructure.gov.au/infrastructure/pab/soac/files/2015_SoAC_full_report.pdf).

Note 2: In Australia most built-up areas have speed limits of 50 km per hour (except NT which has 60 km per hour). At this speed it would take 18 minutes to travel 15 kms. Traffic lights in Australia typically take 50 - 150 seconds to complete an entire cycle. (https://www.driverknowledgetests.com/resources/traffic-lights-australia/). Assuming half that time is spent at a red light (25 - 75 seconds), we will assume 60 seconds at every red light. Further assuming that motorists stop at two red lights during the average return trip, trip duration is estimated at 20 minutes.

Note 3: ATO allowance rate per km for travel costs.

Note 4: Guidance from the OBPR states that "when quantifying regulatory costs to individuals, the default value of an individual’s time while not in paid employment (such as during leisure time) should be valued at $31 per hour" (https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/individuals-guidance-note_0.pdf).

The maximum basic rate of Disability Support Pension is $407 per week (https://www.humanservices.gov.au/individuals/enablers/payment-rates-disability-support-pension).

This is 31.5% of the average weekly earnings for full and part-time workers in 2017 (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/6302.0). 31.5% of $31 is $9.77.

Design occupancy, floor space and visitation

The variables that most affect the results are those relating to the size and the annual visitation of the building in question. It is the latter variable that then affects the estimated number of people in the core cohort who might be inclined to visit the building as a result of an AACF being provided.

Overall visitation

The assumptions below have been made based on the following overarching principles:

The size and visitation is broadly consistent with actual buildings within the same category. This was done based on a desktop review of publicly available data pertaining to shopping centres, museums and stadiums.

The parameter values are broadly ‘reasonable’ in the sense that it is reasonable to expect similar size buildings might be constructed over the coming decade.

Due to data limitations and the sole use of the break-even method, design occupancy and floor space assumptions were not required for the airport and public aquatic facility case studies.

Table Error! No text of specified style in document.‑2: Design occupancy, floor space and visitation assumptions

Note 1: Design occupancy for major shopping centres is calculated on the basis of total floor space divided by 5. In order to obtain design occupancy on a ‘per level’ basis this figure is divided by 2 again (assuming 2 levels for a shopping centre). This is based on Table D1.13 of the NCC.

Note 2: Floor space and visitation assumptions are made on the basis of publicly available data from around 60 shopping centres throughout Australia. It is assumed that annual visitation is a function of the overall floor space of the building.  The major shopping centre is intended to reflect a large, iconic shopping centre in a major city, while the smaller shopping centre is intended to represent a suburban shopping centre which can be found in most medium sized regional towns throughout Australia.

Note 3: A discernible relationship between floor space/design occupancy and annual visitation is difficult to establish. This creates challenges for the RIS because the prospective number of visitors from the core cohort is linked to overall visitation (which in turn is linked to ‘catchment’ population).

Note 4: Selected on the basis of known stadium investment projects in the current year (both greenfield and re-developments).

Note 5: Calculated as (roughly) the average visitation of 5 stadiums across Australia with capacity of between 25,000 and 40,000 people.

Note 6: the airport case study has been considered on the basis of patronage through a range of small, medium and large airports across Australia, sourced from BITRE aviation statistics.[97]

Note 7: Calculated as Australia’s population multiplied by an estimate of average visits per year, divided by an estimate of Australia’s total public aquatic facilities. Four average visits per person per year is a conservative adjustment of the 4.4 visits source figure. The estimate of Australia’s total public aquatic facilities is equal to the source figure.[98]

Defining the ‘catchment’ population

Having estimated the overall number of visitors, the next step is to estimate the potential number of visitors with a complex disability (noting the implicit assumption here that annual visitation is representative of the overall ‘catchment’ population of each case study).

The first step is to convert the overall visitation figures noted above into unique visitors – i.e. the number of individual people who enter a building over a year, irrespective of how many times they go. The potential number of people with a complex disability within the ‘catchment’ population is then estimated by multiplying the number of unique visitors by the estimated disability rate of 1.5% (refer Section 5.1).

Table Error! No text of specified style in document.‑3: Estimating the ‘catchment’ population

Note 1: The International Council of Shopping Centres has estimated that on average people visit shopping centres 2.9 times per months (34.8 per year).[99]

Note 2: Annual visitation/average visits per year for shopping centres, museums and stadiums.

Note 3: Unique visitors per year x disability rate (1.5%) for shopping centres, museums and stadiums.

Note 4: Selected as equivalent to the median visitation of 13 museums around Australia.

Note 5: Weighted average number of trips per year to museum from ABS 4114.0.

Note 6: Equivalent to the average annual attendance at The Gabba, Suncorp Stadium, Sydney Football Stadium, Hunter Stadium, Melbourne Rectangular Stadium, and Canberra Stadium.

Note 7: EY assumption. It is assumed that people with a propensity to go to a stadium in the first place will be those who are likely to make multiple trips.

Note 8: The airport case study uses total annual visitation, the core cohort percentage of the total population and an estimate of persons with disabilities’ propensity to travel per year have been used to determine the potential ‘catchment’ population.

Note 9: Based on data that shows 22% of people with disability recall taking an overnight trip in the past three months[100]. Sensitivity around this assumption is provided in Section 7.2.8.

Note 10: EY assumption. The public aquatic facility case study uses a range of feeder population estimates determined by EY.

Note 11: Four average visits per person per year is a conservative adjustment of the 4.4 visits source figure.[101]

Number of trips, and entry fees

How many ‘additional’ trips will be made due to AACFs?

The estimated number of people with a complex disability who will actually go to a shopping centre, museum or stadium from a ‘catchment’ population now needs to be refined.

In this regard, there are two types of visitor; those who already go to shopping centres, museums or stadiums, and those who do not. Due to data limitations for airports and public aquatic facilities, it was assumed that new AACFs are installed only in areas not currently serviced by such facilities. Therefore, all trips for an airport or public aquatic facility would be additional. These additional trips would meet the propensity to travel for people with disability for airports, and the average visits per year for public aquatic facilities.

For shopping centres, a relatively straightforward assumption is made that all those with a complex disability who reside close enough to the shopping centre will make additional trips to the centre. This assumption was verified through the consultation process.

The next step is then to estimate the number of ‘additional’ trips each person might make. The consultation process indicated that this figure might be considerable.  However, in the absence of independent verification, we have opted to make a conservative assumption that each person with a complex disability located in the ‘catchment’ population of a shopping centre will make one additional trip as a result of the provision of an AACF. As noted above, this is deliberately conservative.

For museums and stadiums the process is more complicated, because it cannot simply be assumed that ‘all’ people within a certain distance of the building will attend – only those who are interested in sporting events and museums will attend. Similarly, it cannot be assumed that only people within a certain distance would attend (see Note below). Thus, further adjustments need to be made to the estimated ‘catchment’ population, by accounting for the share of people with a complex disability who indicated that they would like to leave home more often; as well as the share who indicated that they have actually visited museums or stadiums in the past 12 months. Both of these proportions have been taken from the SDAC.

For museums it is assumed that people in the ‘adjusted catchment’ population would make an additional half a trip each (or more accurately, half of the people will make an additional trip per year). For stadiums it is assumed that people would make an additional 4 trips per year, on the grounds that people making trips to a stadium would be supporting the home team, and thus would want to see more than one match a year. As noted above these assumptions and adjustments are deliberately conservative.

The specific assumptions regarding the number of ‘additional’ trips and the parameters described above are presented in Table A‑4, and sensitivity testing is conducted in Chapter 7.

Note: A major limitation of basing assumed ‘catchment’ population for stadiums and museums on the size of the local population is that it does not account for the people who willingly travel significant distances to see a specific game or event, for example a finals game or a one-off art exhibition that is only staged in one city.

Table Error! No text of specified style in document.‑4: Refining the ‘catchment’ population

Entry fee

The specific assumptions made and an overview of the justification behind each assumption is provided in Table A‑5.

Table Error! No text of specified style in document.‑5: Assumed entry fee and spending, museums and stadiums

Note: Assumed entry fee for museums applies also to art galleries.

Note 1: Some museums charge an entry fee and others do not. $10 is selected as an average, conservative assumption. The deliberate conservative bias of this assumption is acknowledged.

Note 2: Average ticket price for 6 medium stadiums with capacity broadly in line with expected stadium elements looking forward; The Gabba, Suncorp Stadium, Sydney Football Stadium, Hunter Stadium, Melbourne Rectangular Stadium, and Canberra Stadium.

Time period of the analysis

A projection period of ten years for both costs and benefits has been assumed for the analysis – that is, every prospective development (and case study) is estimated to incur costs and receive benefits for ten years. It is acknowledged that this timeframe is shorter than the ‘standard’ assumption of 40 years for benefits.

The reason for including a shorter than normal timeframe for measuring the benefits is that this analysis relies on the fact that AACFs at the thresholds suggested would encourage additional visitation by people with a complex disability to a shopping centre, museum or stadium where one was installed (noting, of course, that the reason for the additional visitation is first and foremost the attraction of the place, not the facilities).

Beyond ten years, there is likely to be an element of diminishing marginal returns in the benefits from new facilities. As AACFs become more common, the number of new trips made to Class 6 shopping centres and Class 9b assembly buildings as a result of AACFs (which comprise the quantifiable benefits considered in this Final RIS) would be expected to decline with each new facility installed. On the other hand, the vast array of qualitative benefits through improved social equity, cohesion and psychological wellbeing of people with a disability, would be expected to increase with the number of facilities.

In other words beyond ten years, the qualitative benefits are expected to become more pronounced while the quantitative benefits become less so, meaning quantification was not considered appropriate beyond this timeframe.

Appendix B                 Assumed building profile

Table Error! No text of specified style in document.‑1: Assumed number of buildings constructed, regulatory and non-regulatory scenarios

Note: construction profile is based on IBIS World estimates for museums and stadiums, and shopping centres over 10,000m2. For shopping centres the profile includes renovations and additions and has been informed by information provided by the Shopping Centre Council of Australia. Swimming pool development has been estimated by assuming the number of swimming pools Australia wide grows in line with population.

Consultation approach

A balanced RIS consists of both primary and secondary data analysis, which allows for a more complete understanding of the proposed regulatory amendment. 

Primary data collection involved consulting with individuals who have a disability, carers, parents of a person with disability, a care group and a disability peak body to obtain insights into the attitudes, perceptions and ideas about AACFs from an “end users” perspective. In addition to this, the availability and suitability of the facilities was explored, along with the perceived benefits and challenges of accessing and using such facilities.

Target audience

Insights were obtained through a series of in-depth and paired interviews, and small group discussions with 10 people, including:

Four (4) people with a disability (spinal cord injury, head injury, encephalitis)

Two (2) parents of teenagers and young adults with a disability (cerebral palsy)

Three (3) care group representatives, including the Manager, disability accommodation services, the holiday co-ordinator and one of the carers

The CEO of a disability peak body (and life time wheelchair user).

The location of research participants is outlined in the table below:

Table Error! No text of specified style in document.‑1: Location of research participants

Interviews and small group discussions

Each session lasted between 30 minutes and one and a half hours, and involved face to face and telephone interviews with one or more participants, as well as a small group discussion.

Recruitment strategy

Participants in the qualitative research component were recruited through a respected well known individual with extensive industry sector knowledge. This individual introduced us to organisations, through who the final participants were recruited.

Research instruments

A discussion guide was developed for use in both the one-on-one interviews and small group discussions.

The key areas of enquiry covered in the guide related to the primary objectives of the RIS, as well as the identification of potential opportunities for improvement. The following table provides an outline of the key questions.

Table Error! No text of specified style in document.‑2: Key questions

These questions were modified to suit the care group and CEO from the disability peak body.

Ethics exemption

An application for ethics exemption was lodged with the Queensland University Human Research Ethics Committee. Ethics exemption was approved and received on 16 November 2017 (Approval number 2017001810).

International comparisons

There is international precedent for introducing changes to building regulations based on issues identified for accessing AACFs. A Canadian research paper on exploring the barriers to shopping mall use by people with disabilities, from the perspectives of people with disabilities, rehabilitation professionals and shopkeepers[102], provides a multi-perspective assessment of the usability. The report also comments on the environmental facilitators and obstacles to social participation in shopping malls. From the perspective of a rehabilitation professional:

“[Toilets] are often located at the far end of a hallway. It’s cramped, it’s not sure that someone with a wheelchair can really get in. There’s not always a raised toilet seat or a support bar. The sink is not at the right height...”

To address such concerns, various countries have introduced standards or guidelines for the provision of AACFs, namely in the United Kingdom, Canada and the US (California). These are summarised below.

United Kingdom

Internationally, the UK is the only country that provides a precedent for non-regulatory solutions driving the uptake of AACFs. Specifically, the British Standard (BS) 8300 provides detailed guidance relating to the provision and design of Changing Places toilets. It recommends (but does not mandate) that Changing Places facilities should be provided in larger buildings and complexes with public access or where visitors are likely to spend a large period of time. The Changing Places website[103] reports that so far, over 1000 toilets have been registered in the UK, with a further 100 venues providing AACFs that include some but not all the requirements of a Changing Places specified facility.

While there is no funding available specifically for Changing Places facilities, some venues in the UK have obtained funding from various sources to build facilities depending on what type of organisation they are or where they are located.

There are ongoing calls in the UK for BS 8300 to be upgraded to mandate the provision of AACFs on the grounds that the current uptake is deemed insufficient to cater for the country’s disabled population.[104] The matter was raised in the House of Commons on the 13th of December 2017, receiving a positive response from the Prime Minister, the Hon Theresa May MP.[105]

The individual countries of the United Kingdom each have their own technical documents providing further guidance on the desirability (but again not mandating) of providing AACFs in public buildings. Further detail is provided below.

England

In England, Approved Document M (Access to and use of buildings (AD M) 2013 edition) Section 5 refers to the provision of sanitary accommodation and Changing Places facilities in larger buildings. Section 5.6 states that in large building developments, separate facilities for baby changing and an enlarged unisex toilet incorporating an adult changing table are desirable (further guidance is provided in Section 12.7 and Annex G of BS 8300).

In addition, Section 5.17 states that in large building complexes, such as retail parks and large sports centres, there should be one wheelchair accessible unisex toilet capable of including an adult changing table.

Scotland

In Scotland, Technical Handbook 2013, Section 3.12 – ‘Sanitary facilities’ acknowledges Changing Places toilets as best practice and includes recommendations for a network of these facilities, as follows:

“A CPT is provided where the building owner chooses to do so and their installation represents best practice. There are many building types best suited for CPT installations including publicly accessible facilities such as shopping malls, entertainment or assembly buildings and transport related facilities. Provision of CPTs within suitable buildings is important to establish a network of facilities at appropriate locations across the country.”

Northern Ireland

In Northern Ireland, Technical Booklet R 2012 – ‘Access to and use of buildings’, Section 6, ‘Sanitary accommodation’ covers the provision of sanitary and changing facilities in dwellings and non-domestic buildings.

In addition, Appendix A, includes the following recommendation for Changing Places facilities:

“People with profound and multiple learning disabilities, who require the help of up to two assistants, need a facility that is a combined toilet, shower and changing room. Such facilities require extra space to accommodate people, often using large wheelchairs having elevated leg rests, a reclining facility or integral oxygen cylinders, and space to fit slings for use with a hoist. It also needs to be possible for a wheelchair to remain within the facility when not in use without compromising the safe access and use of the equipment. A Changing Places toilet includes such extra space and facilities.”

Canada (Ontario)

In 2013, Ontario Regulation 368/13 was filed to amend the new 2012 Building Code, O.Reg. 332/12. The effective date of the amendment was 1 January 2015. At least one universal toilet room is required in all buildings, and, for multi-storey buildings, at least one for every three floors.  Space for an adult change table has to be provided in all universal toilet rooms except in buildings under 300m2 in building area.

US (California)

In California, Assembly Bill No. 662 Public accommodation: disabled adults: changing facilities was enacted as law on 10 October 2015 as Chapter 742 of the California Codes.[106] It added Section 19952.5 to the Health and Safety Code that included the following text:

(a) A person, private firm, organization, or corporation that owns or manages a commercial place of public amusement shall install and maintain at least one adult changing station for persons with a physical disability that is accessible to both men and women when the facility is open to the public, if either of the following occur:

(1) The commercial place of public amusement is newly constructed on or after January 1, 2020.

(2) (A) When an existing commercial place of public amusement is renovated on or after January 1, 2025, and requires a permit or the estimated cost of the renovation is ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or more.

(B) A commercial place of public amusement with an enclosed restroom facility or other similar private facility with an adult changing table in use before January 1, 2025, shall be deemed to comply with this paragraph.

(b) A facility shall ensure that the entrance to each adult changing station has conspicuous signage indicating the location of the station, and, if the facility has a central directory, shall ensure that the central directory indicates the location of the adult changing station.[107]

Consultation questions

The following consultation questions were included in the Consultation RIS, prior to the release of this Final RIS.

Note: These questions were provided as a guide and to stimulate discussion. It was not mandatory to address each and every question. Respondents were welcome to comment on these questions or on any other aspect of the Consultation RIS.

[1] Class 6 buildings are typically shops, restaurants and cafés. They are a place for the sale of retail goods or the supply of services direct to the public.

[2] Class 9b buildings are assembly buildings in which people may gather for social, theatrical, political, religious or civil purposes.

[3] Option A, which is intended as minimum necessary specification AACFs that are assumed to be co-located with standard accessible sanitary facilities (SASFs).

[4] Option B, which is intended as minimum necessary specification AACFs that are assumed to be a separate facility from SASFs.

[5] Option C, which is fully conforming Changing Places / Lift & Change specification, also assumed to be separate from SASFs.

[6] Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (2016), Review of the Disability (Access to Premises—Buildings) Standards 2010. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, https://www.industry.gov.au/sites/g/files/net3906/f/July%202018/document/pdf/review_of_the_disability_access_to_premises-buildings_standards_2010_report.pdf

[7] ibid.

[8] Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (2007) Best Practice Regulation: A guide for Ministerial Councils and National Standard Setting Bodies, https://www.pmc.gov.au/resource-centre/regulation/best-practice-regulation-guide-ministerial-councils-and-national-standard-setting-bodies

[9] Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, The Australian Government Guide to Regulation, https://www.pmc.gov.au/resource-centre/regulation/australian-government-guide-regulation

[10] https://www.pmc.gov.au/resource-centre/regulation/cost-benefit-analysis-guidance-note

[11] Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (2016) Review of the Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010, April 2016, https://www.industry.gov.au/sites/g/files/net3906/f/July%202018/document/pdf/review_of_the_disability_access_to_premises-buildings_standards_2010_report.pdf

[12] Throughout this final RIS the term complex disability is used to define the range of people who have disabilities with complex support needs.

[14] Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics, https://bitre.gov.au/statistics/aviation/

[15] Dwyer, L. Darcy S. (2008) The Economic Contribution of Accessible Tourism to the Australian Economy (p.27)

[16] OBPR (2016) Cost Benefit Analysis Guidance Note

[17] See: https://www.industry.gov.au/data-and-publications/review-of-the-disability-access-to-premises-buildings-standards-2010-premises

[18] Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (2016), Review of the Disability (Access to Premises—Buildings) Standards 2010. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. p 22.

[19] Building Ministers Forum, Communique, 21 April 2017, https://www.industry.gov.au/sites/g/files/net3906/f/July%202018/document/pdf/building_ministers_forum_communique_-_april-2018.pdf

[20] Disability (Access to Premises—Buildings) Standards 2010, sch 1, cl FP2.1.

[21] https://www.industry.gov.au/sites/g/files/net3906/f/July%202018/document/pdf/review_of_the_disability_access_to_premises-buildings_standards_2010_report.pdf , p22.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (2016) Review of the Premises Standards – Published Responses, https://www.industry.gov.au/sites/g/files/net3906/f/July%202018/document/extra/review-of_the_disability_access_to_premises_-_builldings_standards_2010_government_response.pdf

[24] A ‘peninsula-type’ toilet is one where there is at least 900 mm clear space either side of the edge of the pan as required by Changing Places, with drop-down rather than fixed grab-rails to support the user. This differs from AS 1428.1, which requires one side of the pan to be no more than 460 mm from the wall (measured from the centre-line of the pan).

[25] Association for Children with a Disability (ACD). Changing Places Transforming Lives – Information Guide and Technical Standard. Melbourne, Vic: ACD. June 2017.

[26] Changing Places, What are Changing Places Toilets? http://www.changingplaces.org/the_campaign/what_are_changing_places_toilets_.aspx

[27] Changing Places UK, http://www.changing-places.org/about_us.aspx

[28] Local Government New South Wales (LGNSW), Lift & Change Facilities Master Checklist. 2017. p 5.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Including the national Museum of Australia, the National gallery of Australia, the National Portrait Gallery, the Art Gallery of New South Wales, the Australian Museum, the Museum of Contemporary Art in Sydney, the National Gallery of Victoria, the Western Australian Museum, the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory, the South Australian Museum, the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, the Queensland Gallery of Modern Art, and the Queensland Museum.

[31] Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics, https://bitre.gov.au/statistics/aviation/

[32] Barnsley, P. Peden, A. Scarr, J. (2017) Economic Benefits of Australia’s Public Aquatic Facilities, Royal Life Saving Society ─ Australia, Sydney.

[33] MLAK means 'Master Locksmiths' Access Key. An MLAK is a universal key which opens any MLAK configured lock, but which is only obtainable by persons with a disability (or their carer) on application, which must be signed by a medical practitioner.

[34] Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (C’th.), Review of the Disability (Access to Premises—Buildings) Standards 2010. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, p24.

[35] Throughout this report the term ‘complex’ disabilities is used to mean those people expected to be in the ‘core cohort’ of beneficiaries of AACF’s, as defined in Chapter 5.

[36] Changing Places and adult change facilities, updated August 2017, https://www.changingplaces.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/CHANGING-PLACES-FACILITIES-LIST-AUG17.pdf.

[37] Refer https://toiletmap.gov.au/Find#

[38] Section 23, Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (C’th). Hereafter ‘Disability Discrimination Act’.

[39] Refer https://www.humanrights.gov.au/complaints/conciliation-register.

[40] Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (2010) Review of the Premises Standards, https://consult.industry.gov.au/premises-standards-review-team/review-of-the-premises-standards-2010/consultation/published_select_respondent

[41] Ekers, D., Webster, L., Van Straten, A., Cuijpers, P., Richards, D., & Gilbody, S. (2014). Behavioural Activation for Depression: An Update of Meta-Analysis of Effectiveness and Sub Group Analysis. PLoS ONE, 9(6), e100100. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0100100 ; Jahoda, A., Melville, C. A., Pert, C., Cooper, S.-A., Lynn, H., Williams, C., and Davidson, C. (2015) A feasibility study of behavioural activation for depressive symptoms in adults with intellectual disabilities. J Intellect Disability Res, 59: 1010–1021. doi: 10.1111/jir.12175.

[42] Jahoda, A., Melville, C. A., Pert, C., Cooper, S.-A., Lynn, H., Williams, C., and Davidson, C. (2015) A feasibility study of behavioural activation for depressive symptoms in adults with intellectual disabilities. J Intellect Disability Res, 59: 1010–1021. doi: 10.1111/jir.12175.

[43] Tindall, L., Mikocka-Walus, A., McMillan, D., Wright, B., Hewitt, C., Gascoyne, S. (2017) Is behavioural activation effective in the treatment of depression in young people? A systematic review and meta-analysis, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/papt.12121/full.

[44] Victoria State Government, http://www.dhs.vic.gov.au/about-the-department/plans,-programs-and-projects/projects-and-initiatives/changing-places-funding.

[45] Victorian State Government, Changing Places Funding Round 2017 - Funding guidelines and application form, https://vhhsba.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/VHHSBA-Changing-Places-Funding-Round-2017-Guidelines.pdf.

[46] Government of Western Australia, Changing Places improving community access, http://www.disability.wa.gov.au/individuals-families-and-carers/for-individuals-families-and-carers/recreation-and-leisure-/changing-places/.

[47] South Australian Treasury, https://service.sa.gov.au/cdn/statebudget/budget201718/pdfs/budget/2017-18_budget_measures_statement.pdf.

[48] Brisbane City Council (2013) Public Toilet Design Guidelines, December 2013, https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/sites/default/files/public_toilet_design_guidelines_updated.pdf.

[49] Although in reality the status quo option would be expected to see moderate uptake of facilities as has been occurring in recent years, for modelling purposes it is assumed that under the status quo, no new facilities are constructed.  Given the considerable irregularity of AACF uptake in recent years, any attempt to develop an assumed building profile under the status quo would in our view introduce an unacceptable degree of subjectivity into the results.

[50] Note that the latter is assessed qualitatively not quantitatively

[51] Survey of Disability, Ageing and Carers (2015) http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4430.0

[52] Changing Places, www.changingplaces.org.au

[53] ABS SDAC, Productivity Commission, EY estimates.

[54] ABS (2015) 4430.0.30.002 – Microdata: Disability, Ageing and Carers, Australia, 2015.

[55] Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2013. Incontinence in Australia. Cat. No. DIS 61. Canberra: AIHW, p 34, https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/0fc2a011-d290-42ef-a610-85073ef2909e/15387.pdf.aspx?inline=true.

[56] Though we acknowledge that ‘difficulty accessing buildings’ is itself somewhat subjective, we believe that cross referencing the level of severity of disabilities with actual difficulty experienced in accessing specific types of buildings will lessen the overall subjectivity of the estimate.

[57] The inclusion of this group is worthy of further discussion to consider whether the presence of an AACF would encourage (or enable) them to leave the house.

[58] ABS (2015) 4430.0.30.002 – Microdata: Disability, Ageing and Carers, Australia.

[59] Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2013. Incontinence in Australia. Cat. No. DIS 61. Canberra: AIHW, p 34, https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/0fc2a011-d290-42ef-a610-85073ef2909e/15387.pdf.aspx?inline=true.

[60] Hogg, J. (2009) Changing Places Toilets: Estimates of potential users, http://changing-places.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=X7QNBxsyhMU=&tabid=67.

[61] http://www.ncoa.gov.au/report/phase-one/part-b/7-2-the-national-disability-insurance-scheme.html;  http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/ndis-costs/report/ndis-costs-overview.pdf.

[62] https://www.cuttingredtape.gov.au/sites/default/files/files/Australian_Government_Guide_to_Regulation.pdf

[63] It is assumed that all trips are ‘additional’; i.e. they would not have occurred in the absence of an AACF being installed.

[64] The estimation of the willingness to pay which we have used for the scenario modelling is based on the Travel Cost Method. This is an approach commonly used in environmental economics for the purposes of quantifying an intangible good.  We have adopted a similar approach here because it represents the clearest and most robust approach available for measuring the direct value of a trip. 

[65] Jespersen, L., Michelsen, S., Tjørnhøj-Thomsen, T., Svensson, M., Svensson, B., and Due., P.(2018) Living with a disability: a qualitative study of associations between social relations, social participation and quality of life.

[66] Productivity Commission (2011) Disability Care and Support – Productivity Commission Inquiry Report, 31 July 2011, https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/disability-support/report.

[67] Van Asselt, D., Buchanan, A., & Peterson, S. (2015). Enablers and barriers of social inclusion for young adults with intellectual disability: A multidimensional view. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 40(1), 37-48. doi:10.3109/13668250.2014.994170; Welsby, J., & Horsfall, D. (2011). Everyday practices of exclusion/inclusion: women who have an intellectual disability speaking for themselves? Disability & Society, 26(7), 795-807. doi:10.1080/09687599.2011.618731.

[68] Stanley, J., Hensher, D., Stanley, J., Currie, G., Greene, W., Vella-Brodrick, D. (2011) Social Exclusion and the Value of Mobility, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, Volume 45, Part 2, May 2011, pp. 197–222 ; Van Asselt, D., Buchanan, A., & Peterson, S. (2015). Enablers and barriers of social inclusion for young adults with intellectual disability: A multidimensional view. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 40(1), 37-48. doi:10.3109/13668250.2014.994170.

[69] Dwyer & Darcy 2008 Economic Contribution of Accessible Tourism in Australia (p.27) [http://www.tourism.australia.com/en/news-and-industry-tools/building-your-tourism-business/accessible-tourism.html].

[70] Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (2016) Review of the Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010, https://www.industry.gov.au/sites/g/files/net3906/f/July%202018/document/pdf/review_of_the_disability_access_to_premises-buildings_standards_2010_report.pdf.

[71] Barnsley, P. Peden, A. Scarr, J. (2017) Economic Benefits of Australia’s Public Aquatic Facilities, Royal Life Saving Society ─ Australia, Sydney.

[72] Also note that although we consider the approach used by the Royal Life Saving Society to estimate the benefits of hydrotherapy to be appropriate for this kind of analysis, the benefits for such a trip are highly individualised and are best viewed as illustrative.

[73] Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (2017) Related Conditions [https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/disabilityandhealth/relatedconditions.html].

[74] Martin-Valero, R. et al (2012) Evidence-Based Review of Hydrotherapy Studies on Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patients [https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3296/c6ba0621897ef3121465cdb911485b27cd0c.pdf].

[75] Kinne, S. et al (2004) Prevalence of Secondary Conditions Among People with Disabilities [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448273/].

[76] Dwyer & Darcy 2008 Economic Contribution of Accessible Tourism in Australia [http://www.tourism.australia.com/en/news-and-industry-tools/building-your-tourism-business/accessible-tourism.html].

[77] Dwyer & Darcy 2008 Economic Contribution of Accessible Tourism in Australia [http://www.tourism.australia.com/en/news-and-industry-tools/building-your-tourism-business/accessible-tourism.html]

[78] Note that because the estimated travel cost for both the major and the smaller shopping centres are the same, so too is the upper bound WTP estimate

[79] Dwyer, L. Darcy S. (2008) The Economic Contribution of Accessible Tourism to the Australian Economy (p.27)

[80] Barnsley, P. Peden, A. Scarr, J. (2017) Economic Benefits of Australia’s Public Aquatic Facilities, Royal Life Saving Society ─ Australia, Sydney.

[81] IBM Institute for Business Value, (2010) Airlines 2020: Substitution and Commoditisation (p.4).

[82] Australian Government (2017) The Whole Journey: A guide for thinking beyond compliance to create accessible public transport journeys, https://infrastructure.gov.au/transport/disabilities/whole-journey/files/whole_of_journey_guide.pdf.

[83] Australian Government (2015) Review of the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002, https://infrastructure.gov.au/transport/disabilities/review/files/Australian_Government_Response_Transport_Standards_Review_Report.pdf.

[84] Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities (2018) The Whole Journey: A guide for thinking beyond compliance to create accessible public transport journeys.

[85] IBIS World Industry Report, Libraries and Archives in Australia.

[86] https://changingplaces.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/CHANGING-PLACES-FACILITIES-LIST-v2.pdf.

[87] IBIS World Industry Report, Libraries and Archives in Australia.

[88] Australasian Public Libraries and Information Services (2006) Public Libraries in Shopping centres: retail therapy or Social Inclusion?

[89] https://www.alia.org.au/sites/default/files/documents/advocacy/PLSG_ALIA_2012.pdf.

[90] http://www.australiacouncil.gov.au/workspace/uploads/files/the-cultural-economy-fact-shee-54f5fce276550.pdf.

[91] http://www.australiacouncil.gov.au/workspace/uploads/files/arts-nation-final-27-feb-54f5f492882da.pdf.

[92] http://reports.liveperformance.com.au/pdf/2016/LPA-Ticket-Survey-2016.pdf.

[93] 4m2 for museums and 3m2 for shopping centres (assuming single storey buildings) is assumed for this analysis.

[94] http://www.scca.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Briefing-Note-Shopping-Centre-Redevelopment.pdf.

[95] Under the status quo, it is assumed that no new buildings install an AACF over the projection period.

[96] The assumption being that the benefit accrued would be at least equal to the cost of visiting the building; if the level of benefit was lower than the cost of entry then the trip would not be undertaken in the first place. 

[97] https://bitre.gov.au/statistics/aviation/.

[98] Barnsley, P. Peden, A. Scarr, J. (2017) Economic Benefits of Australia’s Public Aquatic Facilities, Royal Life Saving Society ─ Australia, Sydney.

[99] JCDecaux, The Mall Phenomenon, http://www.jcdecauxna.com/sites/default/files/assets/mall/documents/studies/MallPhenomenon.pdf.

[100] Dwyer, L. Darcy S. (2008) The Economic Contribution of Accessible Tourism to the Australian Economy (p.27).

[101] Barnsley, P. Peden, A. Scarr, J. (2017) Economic Benefits of Australia’s Public Aquatic Facilities, Royal Life Saving Society ─ Australia, Sydney.

[102] Swaine, B. et. Al (2013) Exploring the facilitators and barriers to shopping mall use by persons with disabilities and strategies for improvements: Perspectives from persons with disabilities, rehabilitation professionals and shopkeepers, ALTER, European Journal of Disability Research 8 (2014) 217-229.

[103] Changing Places, http://www.changing-places.org/.

[106] State of California (2015)  https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB662.

[107] State of California (2015) https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB662.