NZ Government shafts disabled Kiwis
Cabinet Minister Rodney Hide’s recent comments regarding building regulations have outraged the disability community in New Zealand.
On TVNZ’s Close Up programme Rodney Hide recommended that a Christchurch businessman should break the law and not follow accessibility guidelines in building regulations because it was too costly.
CCS Disability Action, the largest pan-disability support provider in New Zealand, believes Mr. Hide’s comments were irresponsible and based on ignorance of critical issues in peoples lives and relegate disabled people to second class citizens.
“This is discriminatory leadership at its worst. Disabled people make up a large proportion of the population in New Zealand, roughly one in five people have a disability, and ignoring the issues and the law around access in this way is unacceptable,” says Viv Maidaborn, CEO of CCS Disability Action.
Rodney Hide’s comments come less than a year after New Zealand ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
“Mr. Hide’s comments go against at least 5 of the UN Convention’s 8 guiding principles. This is an embarrassment for the Government. New Zealand has long been seen as a leader in disability rights and these comments represent a huge step backwards,” says Viv Maidaborn.
Rodney Hide’s comments aside, CCS Disability Action agrees that building regulations need to be made easier for all New Zealanders.
“For a long time building designs have excluded disabled people. Up and down the country there are homes, workplaces, shopping malls and community resources like libraries that are off limits to disabled people because they aren’t accessible,” adds Viv Maidaborn.
CCS Disability Action has been active in this area setting up an organisation to tackle this very problem. Represented by former Consumers Institute CEO David Russell, Lifemark, aims to promote building designs that feature usability, adaptability, accessibility, inclusion and lifetime value without significant costs.
“This isn’t just about one workplace at a fixed point in time. A building that is made accessible for disabled people is also going to be useful for big people, families with pushchairs, elderly people with limited mobility and anyone who has ever picked up an injury playing rugby,” adds Viv Maidaborn.
This is a press release from CCS Disability Action
Mr Hide betrays an arrogance that is obvious to all but him.
I say put him in wheelchair for a week and let’s interview him after that.
Mr Hide and others who complain about the accessability laws really annoy me. About eight years ago I went for a job interview where over the phone the representative of the employer was keen based on my CV but when I walked in the door (well limped in the door) everything changed and suddenly “I wasn’t what they were looking for”. Thanks Logan Glidepath! I took time off work and specially drove all the way over there and didn’t even get my booked interview. In my opinion the same pratt probably whinges about the “bludgers” on the sickness benefit who won’t work”. To me it looked like a cut and dry case of discrimination. Thing is he was possibly just an employee but quite possibly it was just his opinion that barred me from working there. I do agree that in some workplaces accessability shouldn’t be even considered as it is impractical for a disabled person to work there. I do however think that if there is a job there a person with a disability could do then disabled facilities should be included if exclusion isn’t to happen. At worst they could use it for storing cleaners gear! A few years ago I visited a company which had wheelchair accessable toilets at the top of a flight of stairs. I asked them why and they said the council made them put them in. Same council unfortunately didn’t insist on a lift though. Go figure!
You guys are way off the beam here. Rodney Hide did not cricise the need to provised diability access as such. The case under discussion involved the conversion of a private staff toilet in a business where none of the employees are disabled. So owner could see no point in providing access for the disabled. That should rightly be his call and if at some point in the future he were to hire a disabled person, then he certainly must provide the necessary facilities for that person. Of course if he were not to employ someone simply on the grounds that he did not have those facilities then he should be held to account for discimination.
The whole issue is that in my experience a lot of employers won’t hire disabled employees. Six months down the track he could discriminate against someone who had a disability because the facilities weren’t able to accommodate a person with a disability. It was after all an extra $10000 to add a disabled accessable bathroom. I work for a living and have very little assistance from any state organisations. I have also been very clearly discriminated against because of my disability even though it wouldn’t have affected my ability to do the job I was applying for. Unfortunately these things can’t be proven in a court. In my opinion if it is reasonable to expect that a disabled person could do a job within that company then it should go without saying that a disabled accessable toilet should be provided during any alterations. In this case it was a moot point though as the council got it wrong, the shower wasn’t required to be accessable. I also don’t believe that many disabled people could realistically do a job there as a locksmith (who were presumably the ones needing the showers) but it would reasonably be expected someone could work there in an office role so believe accessable showers weren’t required in that case either.
BRMBRM – As regards discrimination because of a disability, people are discriminated all the time. Me for not wearing more modern clothes to an interview, and being older than what they wanted, though my cv was ok.
Regarding Rodney Hide – this government is composed of people like him – they know best, and definately all only connect with people they see as “winners”. An American term I despise.
Glennis
Yes, thay are. Perhaps you can change your clothes but I can’t change my disability. Thing is, my disability didn’t change the fact I could do the job, it just meant I wasn’t considered. I had the qualifications and I had the appointment. I was turned away for the interview and didn’t get the job because of my walk. As a sideline – I have talked to Rodney Hide, he called me a “winner” or words to that effect so he’s not all that bad in my eyes. Haha.
Discrimination is a big thing, I was discriminated against for a course at WINTEC, I had applied for a course in call centre, this I could easily do and knew of many vision impaired people who worked at call centres. WINTEC decided because they were to lazy and we had told them enable could help get equipment, they weren’t going to take me on, to try and get away with this they said they denied me on academic record yet my whole interview was on my vision, my academic record only came up once!.
A contentious comment coming. Discrimination or “shafting” people with disabilities usually only accurs when that disability is obvious. About the same level as discrimination and “shafting” is practiced on people who are outside the “norm” on other appearance or ethnic desires.