Inclusive housing in Australia – a voluntary response

The lack of inclusive housing in Australia contributes to the marginalization and exclusion of people with disability and older people from family and community life. The Australian government has handed over the responsibility of increasing the supply of inclusive housing to the housing industry through an agreed national access standard and a voluntary strategy. Voluntary strategies have not been successful in other constituencies and little is known about what would work in Australia today. Findings from a research project into the voluntariness of the housing industry indicate that a reliable and consistent supply is unlikely without an equivalent increase in demand. The strategy has, however, an important role to play in the task of changing housing industry practices towards building more inclusive communities.

Getting in the door : the voluntary provision of accessible housing in Australia

This paper outlines the methodology used in a PhD qualitative research study on the agency of the housing industry in Australia in the provision of accessible housing. Previous studies have identified the need for an increased supply of accessible housing to optimise the inclusion and participation of all people, yet the demand for accessible housing by new home buyers is minimal and voluntary strategies to increase supply have typically failed. In 2010, housing industry leaders agreed to adopt a national voluntary access guideline for housing (Livable Housing Design) and a strategy to provide minimum access features in all new housing by 2020. This study explores the “escaped” phenomenon; how individual agents within the housing industry respond to such initiatives. As the paper is written mid-study it uses a preliminary theme in the findings, that is, minimal demand, to illustrate the methodology of the research.

Livable Housing Design : Who will take responsibility?

Current housing design and construction practices do not meet the needs of many people with disability and older people, and limits their inclusion and participation in community and family life. In spite of a decade of advocacy for regulation of access within residential environments, the Australian government has opted for a voluntary approach where the housing industry takes responsibility. Housing industry leaders have indicated that they are willing to transform their established practice, if it makes good business to do so, and if there is a demand from home buyers. To date, there has been minimal demand. In 2010, housing industry and community leaders formalised this commitment in an agreement, called Livable Housing Design, to transform housing design and construction practices, with a target of all new housing providing minimal access by 2020. This paper reports on a study which examined the assumption behind Livable Housing Design agreement; that is, individuals in the housing industry will respond voluntarily and take responsibility for the provision of inclusive housing. From interviews with developers, designers and builders in Brisbane, Queensland, the study found a complex picture of competing demands and responsibilities. Instead of changing their design and construction practices voluntarily to meet the future needs of users over the life of housing, they are more likely to focus on their immediate contractual obligations and to maintain the status quo. Contrary to the view of the government and industry leaders, participants identified that an external regulatory framework would be required if Livable Housing Design’s 2020 goal was to be met.

Research participation by people with intellectual disability and mental health issues : an examination of the processes of consent

Balancing the demands of research and ethics is always challenging and even more so when recruiting vulnerable groups. Within the context of current legislation and international human rights declarations, it is strongly advocated that research can and must be undertaken with all recipients of health care services. Research in the field of intellectual disability presents particular challenges in regard to consenting processes. This paper is a critical reflection and analysis of the complex processes undertaken and events that occurred in gaining informed consent from people with intellectual disability to participate in a study exploring their experiences of being an inpatient in mental health hospitals within Aotearoa/New Zealand. A framework based on capacity, information and voluntariness is presented with excerpts from the field provided to explore consenting processes. The practical implications of the processes utilised are then discussed in order to stimulate debate regarding clearer and enhanced methods of gaining informed consent from people with intellectual disability.

Conflicting notions of risk : the chasm of conflict between institutions and the public

The trust and credibility gap between institutional regulators and the public is based on fundamental social and cultural differences related to power and authority. It is also associated with the 'distance' of a bureaucracies from those whom they serve. The nature of public concern about risk may be investigated by considering specific cognitive decision making 'rules' such as 'familiarity' of a hazard or 'voluntariness' of exposure. A more complete appreciation of the 'how' and 'why' of public response to danger from industrial hazards can be gained by appreciating these 'rules' within the broader context of mis-communication between 'elite' regulators and a highly diverse public. If the results of risk assessments are expressed in technical terms alone, it is unlikely that any real communication will occur. Further, if issues related to the 'remote' nature of much institutional decision making are not addressed, closure of the 'gap' may be difficult to bring about.