Agenda of Disability Advisory Panel

Disability Advisory Panel

16 February 2015

Item 5 - Disability Strategy for Auckland

File No.: CP2015/00737

Purpose

1. To consider the council’s response to the Panel’s request for a Comprehensive Disability Strategy for Auckland.

Executive summary

2. At its 28 April 2014 meeting the previous Disability Strategic Advisory Panel passed a resolution requesting the Chief Executive of Auckland Council to consider the Panel’s request for Auckland Council to develop a Comprehensive Disability Strategy for Auckland. The request is in Attachment A.

3. At its 24 November 2014 meeting, the Panel requested a response from Auckland Council on the development of a Disability Strategy. A letter (Attachment B) from Roger Blakeley, Chief Planning Officer, has been provided to the Chair of the Panel in response to this request. The letter proposes that instead of developing a disability strategy, the Council focuses on finding a way to seeking a way to achieve end goals of the Panel, i.e.:

· Ensure that new policies/plans, as well as existing policies and plans, provide for the needs of persons with disabilities in an integrated way

· Ensure that budgeted programmes are sufficient and planned to implement these policies and plans, within the context of what is affordable and achievable

· Ensure that existing barriers for persons with disabilities are addressed.

4. The letter invites the Panel to consider the response and discuss with Roger Blakeley and the Lead Officer Support.

5. The Panel needs to have regard to its role as an advisor to the Council. The Panel may wish to consider the proposal to find a way to achieve the end goals of the Panel as set out in the letter.

6. There are a range of practical and achievable actions and initiatives which if taken would make a positive difference to the quality of life of people with disabilities.

7. The following are examples of actions that could be discussed in order to help achieve the end goals of the Panel:

· Identify existing policies for review

· Provide training for council staff so they are fully aware of the legal requirements in relation to people with disabilities and factors affecting the exercise of their discretion in relation to resource and building consents

· Circulate to staff examples of how the urban environment has changed to provide for universal accessibility within current resources and encouraging this approach in relation to ordinary maintenance and renewals programmes as well as new projects

· Provide affordable and accessible housing in council initiated developments

· Finalise Auckland Transport’s Code of Practice to ensure that transport infrastructure meets required standards of accessibility

· Provide a periodic report that is available for elected members, the Panel and staff to track how the council’s activities are providing for the needs of persons with disabilities and recommended actions arising from the report.

Recommendation/s

That the Disability Advisory Panel:

a) consider Auckland Council’s response to the Panel’s request for a Comprehensive Disability Strategy to be developed.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Request for a Comprehensive Disability Strategy for Auckland	9
b View	Auckland Council letter to DAP re Disability Strategy	17

Signatories

Author	Kevin Wright – Lead Officer Support DAP
Authoriser	Kevin Wright - Lead Officer Support DAP

Disability Advisory Panel

16 February 2015

A Comprehensive Disability Strategy for Auckland

Submission By the Disability Strategic Advisory Panel (DSAP)

March 2014

· Recommendation

1 That the Disability Strategy Advisory Panel recommends to the Governing Body that Council works with DSAP, the disabled people of Auckland and other interested parties to develop a comprehensive strategy to ensure people with disabilities are fully included in all Council activities and services.

· Background

the Disability Strategy Advisory Panel was initially established in 2010. Its purpose is to provide strategic advice on pan-disability issues to the Mayor, governing body, local boards, Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs) and Council on:

b) • the interests and preferences of persons with disabilities in Auckland in relation to regional strategies, policies, plans, and bylaws of the Council;

c) • any other matters that the Panel considers to be of particular interest or concern to persons with disabilities in Auckland; and

d) • processes and mechanisms for engaging with persons with disabilities in Auckland.

We support Auckland's aspiration to be the world's most liveable city. A liveable city is one that is inclusive of all citizens, values participation, encourages social engagement and enables Barrier Free movement for everyone. Since its inception, the DSAP has had input into numerous plans, strategies and policies being developed for Auckland. We acknowledge that some progress is indeed being made in some areas towards achieving this vision for people with disabilities. This paper builds on our earlier submissions, and calls for a more strategic approach to be adopted. Auckland must act decisively if it is to really become more liveable for people with disabilities.

It is no longer appropriate to think of people with disabilities as being a distinct and separate sector within the general public. People with disabilities can be found throughout the entire community. We are tax payers, rate payers, customers, citizens, workers, residents, students at all levels of education, visitors, tourists, and so on. We aspire to participate fully in the community. We seek employment and educational opportunities like everyone else. We contribute like everyone else to the economic life of the city.

Ideally, there should be no need for a strategy focusing specifically on people with disabilities. All the major strategies, plans and policies that guide how Auckland develops and operates should address our needs simply because we are members of the whole public community Auckland serves.

However we have identified that a clear strategy is needed to encourage Auckland to more directly accommodate the needs of people with disabilities. This strategy must focus Auckland's attention on altering certain policies and practices over time that tend to exclude rather than include us. Some of these "sticking points" can be found in existing policies that have not as yet been reviewed by the DSAP. Other sticking points arise from current operational practices that, albeit unintentionally, contribute to our exclusion. We call on Auckland to commit to working with the disabled community to develop a comprehensive strategy to remove the barriers that currently prevent us from being fully included in this most vibrant city.

In early 2012, the DSAP circulated a paper in which we introduced our group to the wider Council, and listed some short-term steps that we believed Council could and should take to deliver effective services to all members of the public, including people with disabilities. Then in October 2012, we wrote to the Chief Executive to ask for a summary of current strategies and plans Council has in place to ensure its services will be fully inclusive of people with disabilities. We recognised that achieving real progress towards Auckland becoming a fully accessible city may take a number of years. We asked for this information to help us recognise all the efforts Council is already making to ensure its services are fully inclusive, and to help lead to the development of a comprehensive disability strategy with time frames to achieve a truly accessible city.

Unfortunately, despite the resolutions of the Governing Body at its meeting on 23 April 2013 requesting the Chief Executive to provide a cross-council response to our points, we have received no response to our questions. This has rather frustrated our efforts to develop a more comprehensive picture of what is needed for Auckland to become more liveable for people with disabilities.

Auckland has a great opportunity to show leadership and set a new high standard in how cities can be disability friendly even within today's legislation and within current resources. We urge Council members, management and staff to see meeting the needs of people with disabilities as an integral part of delivering services to the public in general. No longer should the Council's ability to meet our needs be dependent on and perhaps limited to special allocations of disability-related funding.

· Aspirational Statements

The following statements illustrate what we aspire to as people with disabilities living in a modern society.

f) • people with disabilities have the right to carry out all our everyday transactions with the same equity and dignity as everyone else.

g) • People with disabilities live throughout the community and we should be able to easily find affordable and accessible housing in all neighbourhoods.

h) • People with disabilities should have access to the same information and communications from Council as everyone else.

i) • People with disabilities need to be able to move freely and easily throughout the urban environment like everyone else.

j) • People with disabilities can be found succeeding at all levels of education.

k) • People with disabilities have the same aspirations as everyone else to be fully and productively employed.

l) • People with disabilities should be able to participate fully in the social life of the city.

m) • People with disabilities like to go to concerts, museums, the theatre and to other artistic and entertainment events like everyone else.

n) • People with disabilities can be found actively participating in and contributing to Auckland's local and neighbourhood communities.

· Developing a Comprehensive Disability Strategy

Auckland must now adopt a committed and strategic approach to meeting our needs if we as people with disabilities are to achieve our aspirations. The strategy we envisage should be well researched and considered, and achievable within agreed resources and with agreed milestones and time frames. The Chief Executive should be directly responsible for overseeing the implementation of the strategy.

Currently DSAP does not have the resources to develop the strategy. However with appropriate resources to carry out consultation and consider information received, we anticipate a comprehensive strategy could be developed and ready for formal adoption within 12 months.

The strategy must at least address the following points which we have so far identified as crucial if Auckland is to really deliver on its aspiration of being a truly liveable city for everyone including people with disabilities.

· Accessible Environment

It is crucial that Auckland's physical environment is accessible to people with disabilities, if we are to achieve our aspirations to be fully included in city life. We need to be able to move readily and freely throughout the city and right throughout public buildings.

Unfortunately at this stage, relevant legislation such as the Resource Management Act 1991, the Building Act 2004, New Zealand Standard 4121 and associated regulations do not currently reflect all the aspirations of people with disabilities. But even under the current legislation, there are too many instances of new or recently refurbished buildings that in our view do not comply with accessibility requirements. Until this legislation can be fully reviewed and updated, we would urge Council staff to take a liberal and holistic view of the legislation when issuing such documents as resource and building consents.

Auckland must review all relevant policies that impact on the physical environment to ensure the needs of people with disabilities are fully accounted for. For example, policies that determine which intersections should be controlled by traffic lights seem to depend largely on an assessment of vehicle traffic, with apparently little regard to the needs of the neighbourhood and of pedestrians. An example of such policies at work would appear to be the Onehunga shopping area, which in recent years has changed from being a pedestrian only mall to now being a through-way for traffic with roundabouts rather than controlled intersections. Despite the development of a new railway station and transport hub in the area, which ought to encourage patronage from people using public transport, the result is a shopping area that is particularly disability unfriendly and which even non-disabled people find difficult to negotiate. Surely this is an example of Auckland developing in the wrong direction.

At the same time, staff responsible for maintenance of footpaths, parks, reserves and Council buildings etc. must become fully aware of the needs of people with disabilities and do what they can within current resources to ensure the general urban environment is disability friendly. Areas of Auckland are notorious for uneven and badly maintained footpaths and overhanging trees that are hazardous not just to people with disabilities but to all pedestrians.

· Urban Design

People with disabilities live throughout the community and we should be able to easily find affordable and accessible housing in all neighbourhoods. We no longer live in institutions. There is a need for adequate stocks of accessible housing.

A liveable and accessible city will emerge only if the Unitary Plan backs planners and consents officers with regulatory controls and incentives to match Council's aspirations for inclusion. Everyone will benefit. An up-front commitment by Council to access with dignity for people of all ages and abilities is needed in the final Unitary Plan. The long-term liveability of Auckland depends on having the courage to commit to barrier-free design and project delivery.

We believe that even within today's legislation, Council can work proactively with major developers to ensure all new subdivisions have at least a proportion of houses or apartments that are accessible and disability friendly, or which can be easily made so. With a steadily ageing population, it should be understood that designing the urban environment so it meets our needs ultimately benefits everyone.

· Accessible Information and Communications

People with disabilities should have access to the same information and communications as everyone else. Nowadays it can be safely said that practically all information published by the Council and its CCOs, and almost all items of personal correspondence, originate on a computer. People with various disabilities can readily access computerised information through a variety of end user equipment, provided that information is accessible.

We note with pleasure the efforts Council is already making in this respect. Council has developed and is continuing to improve its operational guidelines for the production of accessible documents in various formats. We noted with appreciation that Council went to considerable effort to ensure people with disabilities would be able to access the draft Unitary Plan in a variety of ways. Our Auckland is another good example of Council publishing information in multiple formats, including making it available on the Blind Foundation's Telephone Information Service.

But there are many examples of communications which are generally inaccessible to many people with disabilities, including rates bills, water bills and even registering a dog. Local information is particularly inaccessible, such as knowing when rubbish collections will take place in an area or being advised of local disruptions to normal services.

Auckland must ensure that well established standards and principles are followed through all stages of the information production process, that maximise accessibility of information to people using a variety of equipment. Auckland must recognise that its communications with the public and individuals covers the whole spectrum from carrying out everyday personal transactions such as paying rates and other charges to participating in the democratic process. Therefore Auckland and Council Controlled Organisations must follow principles of accessibility with respect to all aspects of its websites, documents, reports, brochures, bills, personal correspondence, and other forms of Council communications. Accessibility of information need not be expensive if the right decisions are made at all steps throughout the information production process, and often it is far more expensive to retrospectively make information accessible if correct decisions were not made early in the process.

In practical terms, Council must give thought to how it can deliver its public information through multiple channels and formats, including electronic accessible formats, and in plain language and sign language.

Council must also ensure the front line call centre staff are well versed with the kinds of issues likely to be raised by people with disabilities, so these can be handled most effectively when they arise.

· Accessible and Effective Public Transport

If people with disabilities are to live, work, learn, do our everyday business and recreate in a modern city such as Auckland, then we need to be able to move freely and easily throughout the urban environment like everyone else. Many people with disabilities are unable to drive and are fully reliant on public transport.

We acknowledge real efforts are being made to address the transport needs of people with disabilities. But it is apparent from the proceedings of Auckland Transport's Transport Accessibility and Advisory Group, and from our own lived experience, that there are many on-going difficulties that are taking some time to overcome that seriously detract from people with disabilities being able to easily move throughout the area.

Auckland Council must direct Auckland Transport to develop its own comprehensive plan complete with milestones and time frames, to show how and when it will make public transport fully accessible to people with disabilities. Auckland must ensure the needs of people with disabilities are factored into all levels of planning and implementation of transport services. As vehicles are replaced and upgraded, Auckland Transport should ensure they are physically accessible and equipped with signs and other equipment so people with disabilities can make full use of them with full independence and dignity in the same way as anyone else. This includes knowing which is the right vehicle to use, getting on and off, paying the fare, finding a suitable seat and knowing when to get off. Auckland Transport must also ensure physical facilities such as terminals and bus stops and information such as timetabling are accessible to people with disabilities. Auckland must also remain committed to an effective Total Mobility taxi scheme to provide other transport options for people with disabilities

· Inclusive Events and Access to Arts and Culture

People with disabilities want to participate fully in the social life of the city. We like to go to concerts, museums, the theatre and to other artistic and entertainment events like everyone else. We acknowledge Council's commitment to a comprehensive events policy, and we hope this will lead to people with disabilities participating more in such events, not just as members of the public but also as artistic performers.

Council staff responsible for public events or granting permits must take all reasonable steps to ensure events cater for the needs of people with disabilities. As a matter of course, when allocating funding and/or issuing permits for events, Council staff must give due consideration to aspects such as accessible information and publicity, sign language, guides and helpers, and accessible portaloos.

Auckland must ensure organisations that receive Council funding or which use Council owned venues will take all reasonable steps to include people with disabilities in their activities. Strategies to achieve this may include providing sign language and audio description on certain sittings, making ushers available who can give extra help, and targeted advertising. We note with pleasure that The Edge, which manages some public venues for the Council, is developing such strategies.

Auckland must also ensure its venues are accessible to people with disabilities. Certainly many such venues are accessible. The DSAP has noted however that some venues such as swimming facilities tend not to be accessible or are not properly equipped for people with disabilities. Venues such as concert halls, meeting rooms and recreational facilities are there for public use, and over time Auckland must make every effort to ensure all such facilities are accessible to people with disabilities so we can have the same opportunity to use them as everyone else.

· Local Boards

People with disabilities can be found actively participating in and contributing to Auckland's local and neighbourhood communities. Council must ensure Local Boards have clear objectives and obligations in their plans designed to ensure local community environments are fully accessible and inclusive. We note with pleasure the recent work done to develop an accessibility plan for the Waitemata Local Board and hope that this will serve as a good example for other areas.

· Management and Reporting

A comprehensive disability strategy will have little practical effect unless there is clear reporting to the governing body and to the general public on how Auckland is implementing the strategy and progressing towards being fully inclusive.

Auckland must build into the Performance agreements for the Chief Executive, key management staff and CCOs, an obligation to report on the strategies and procedures that are implemented to ensure the needs of people with disabilities are met.

· Valuing the Voice of People with Disability

A comprehensive disability strategy cannot be developed without the voice of people with disabilities. Auckland must actively involve the entire disabled community. This involves gaining a good understanding of the various groups and organisations that make up the disability community, how they differ and how they should be included in consultation. The DSAP can help ensure consultation with the disability community is effective and fully representative of our diverse needs.

Disability Advisory Panel

16 February 2015

9 December 2014

Dr Huhana Hickey

Chair of the Disability Advisory Panel

huhana@gmail.com

Dear Dr Huhana

Re: Request for Council to develop a Disability Strategy

I am responding on behalf of the Council’s Policy Leadership Team to the Disability Advisory Panel’s request for the Council to develop a comprehensive Disability Strategy for Auckland. This relates to the Panel’s resolutions at its meetings on 28 April 2014 and 24 November 2014:

“Request that Council instructs Auckland Transport to develop a comprehensive plan, in consultation with people with disabilities, and with agreed budgets and time-lines, to make Auckland's public transport system fully accessible to people with disabilities.”

“Request a response from the organisation on the development of a Disability Strategy.”

I want to acknowledge the valuable document “A Comprehensive Disability Strategy for Auckland” that the Panel has produced. It provides useful explanations of what is required for persons with disabilities in relation to accessible environment, urban design, accessible information and communications, accessible and effective public transport, inclusive events and access to arts and culture, Local Boards, and valuing the voice of people with disabilities. There is little, if anything, which I would disagree with in the document. I especially agree that there are a range of practical and achievable actions and initiatives which, if taken, would make a significant and positive difference to the quality of life for persons with disabilities in Auckland. It also requests systematic management of implementation and reporting.

The Policy Leadership Team^{^[1]} has considered the Panel’s request and is seeking a way to achieve the end goals of the Panel, i.e.:

· Ensure that new policies/plans, as well as existing policies and plans, provide for the needs of persons with disabilities in an integrated way

· Ensure that budgeted programmes are sufficient and planned to implement these policies and plans, within the context of what is affordable and achievable

· Ensure that existing barriers for persons with disabilities are addressed.

Your request has come at a time when the Policy Leadership Team, in its advice to the council executive and the Council, is working to take a far more precise, careful and focused approach towards strategy and policy development. This is a council-wide issue and not limited in any way to a specific topic. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the Council and its predecessors have sometimes made an industry out of strategies, policies, plans and action plans, with not so much progress being made in between each strategy. While such products have value as an authorising and also a symbolic indication of the attention given to issues, at the end of the day it is action and results which the community is usually looking for, not more policy. The Policy Leadership Team’s view is that where authority and direction has already been established in a formal council document, there is no need for further effort and resource to be put into creating more subject-specific strategy.

The Policy Leadership Team considers that there is sufficient high level direction, both in the Auckland Plan (see Appendix) and the New Zealand Disability Strategy, in relation to a strategic approach to meeting the needs of persons with disabilities.

However, it is acknowledged that if there is a gap, it is in next level of policies, implementation, resourcing and reporting. The gap that needs to be addressed is in relation to certain policies and plans, programme implementation, addressing existing barriers (physical and attitudinal) and reporting. Again it is our experience that insufficient attention is paid to the steps following strategy, which is where the real gains and results are achieved.

The Policy Leadership Team considers that there is merit in ensuring mainstream policies and plans of the council provide effective solutions for the disabled community. This is a preferred approach, rather than attempting to identify ‘separate’ policies and programmes in a Comprehensive Disability Strategy. The Panel’s request itself notes:

“Ideally, there should be no need for a strategy focusing specifically on people with disabilities. All the major strategies, plans and policies that guide how Auckland develops and operates should address our needs simply because we are members of the whole public community Auckland serves.”

I would like to see council and the Panel targeting particular policies, plans and programmes that need to better deliver the needs of persons with disabilities. The Panel’s work programme for 2014/15 is doing this in relation to new policies and plans. I see an opportunity for the Panel and council staff to identify existing policies and plans that need to be updated. This is considered to be a better use of finite resources and is likely to generate results in a shorter timeframe.

The draft Long Term Plan is an opportunity for council staff to ensure proposed programmes will deliver infrastructure and services that meet needs in an integrated way. The Panel has the opportunity to provide advice directly to the council in this regard. A desired output would be the identification of resources and milestones for delivery to address some of the ‘sticking points” as referred to in the Panel’s request. It is important that this is a focus rather than diverting attention to developing a Disability Strategy.

There is also the opportunity to review existing infrastructure, housing stock, events, etc so that the council can consider what changes are required to provide an accessible environment. We might then see maintenance and renewal programmes that improve the state of infrastructure and avoid going backwards.

I trust that the new Panel will have the opportunity to consider a way forward as outlined in this letter. I am happy to discuss this further with you and involve relevant Councillors and the Lead Officer Support in this discussion.

Yours sincerely

Roger Blakeley

Chief Planning Officer

Auckland Council

Appendix

Auckland Plan direction regarding provision for persons with disabilities

The Auckland Plan contains high level directions regarding provision for persons with disabilities, which are largely consistent with the key outcomes sought in the Panel’s requested Comprehensive Disability Strategy. Below are some of the high level statements in the Auckland Plan relating to persons with disabilities. (This is not an exclusive list of provisions in the Auckland Plan that provide for persons with disabilities).

“There is unrealised potential for Aucklanders with disabilities to contribute socially and economically. Barriers that prevent this, such as attitudes and physical access, must be addressed.” [Para 183]

“Removing structural or institutional barriers so that all Aucklanders are viewed and treated equally is fundamental to improving the well-being of all, and realising the full potential of our diverse populations.” [Para 191

“Around 300,000 Aucklanders have a disability, and this number will grow as the population ages. Persons with disabilities want to be active citizens and to contribute to society, but face barriers to things that most people take for granted, such as access to information, transport, buildings, and the physical environment. However, persons with disabilities say that the biggest barriers are the attitudes others have towards them.” [Para 233]

“Housing incorporating universal design principles should be part of the mix of typologies within neighbourhoods, to provide choice and inclusion for persons with disabilities.” [Para 622]

“…the [transport] system must be designed for safe and universal access for all, including children, older persons and those with disabilities” [Para 755]

Disability Advisory Panel

16 February 2015

Background

The New Zealand General Social Survey (NZGSS) is a two-yearly national survey conducted by Statistics New Zealand that provides information on the well-being of New Zealanders aged 15 years and over. This is the third in the series, since 2008. Face-to-face interviews with 8,550 individuals were conducted by Statistics New Zealand between April 2010 and March 2011.

This report presents data for a representative sample of 1,880 Auckland respondents of voting age. The purpose of this report is to provide a profile of voters versus non-voters in local government elections. Reasons for not voting are also presented.

The results presented are based on survey fieldwork conducted between April 2012 and March 2013. Therefore findings relate to local body elections conducted in 2010.

Results

Respondents were asked the following: Local government elections also happen every three years. The last time you can remember a local government election in an area you were living in, did you vote?

Overall, 62 per cent of respondents aged 18 and over said they had voted in the most recent local government elections they could remember. This level has not changed over previous surveys held in 2008 and 2010.

Figure 1: Comparison of incidence of voting over time

There is a strong relationship between incidence of voting and voter age: the older the respondents, the more likely they are to vote. Of those aged 18 to 24 years, only a third (33%) had voted in local government elections. For those aged 25 to 39 years voting incidence rose to 53 per cent, and for those aged 40 to 64 it rose further to 70 per cent. Highest incidence of voting was 87 per cent for those aged 65 years and over.

Figure 2: Incidence of voting by age

Demographic differences are evident for other demographic groupings. Voting incidence is higher for respondents:

· with a partner (70%) vs. non-partnered (50%);

· couples without children (72%);

· in professional or managerial occupations (both 69 per cent);

· with personal incomes of over $70,000 (73%), and to a lesser extent, those earning $40,001 to $70,000 (66%);

· with postgraduate qualifications (diploma, Masters or Doctoral Degrees) (74%);

· those living in least deprived areas (Deprivation Index 1 and 2: 73%).

These results are shown graphically below.

Figure 3: Incidence of voting by selected demographics

Voting incidence is lowest for:

· those aged 18 to 24 years (33%);

· non-partnered individuals (50%);

· single parents with adult children (41%) and single parents with dependent children (55%);

· those living on their own (53%);

· those not in paid employment (50%);

· technicians or trades people (49%), and labourers, machine operators and drivers (53%);

· those with personal incomes of $20,000 and under (55%);

· those of Asian ethnicity (53%);

· those with high school certificate or equivalent (54%);

· those living in the most deprived areas (Deprivation Index 9 or 10: 54%).

These results are produced graphically below.

Figure 4: Demographic groups showing lower than average incidence of voting

Respondents who had not voted were asked to choose a reason for not voting from a pre-coded list. The main reasons for not voting were I meant to vote but I didn't get around to it or I forgot about it (given by 19 per cent of those who had not voted), I didn't know enough about the people standing for election (13%), I didn't know about the election (10%).

Technical note: Method and sample

Interviews were conducted by Statistics New Zealand between April 2012 and March 2013. The personal questionnaire was answered by 8,462 individuals aged 15 years and over, who were interviewed in their homes. Interview durations averaged 45 minutes. The Auckland sample size was 1,970, including 1,880 aged 18 and over. The overall response rate was 78%.

Data was collected using household and personal questionnaires. Households were selected at random using a multistage sample design. One individual in the household was selected to answer the household questions, which related to all those usually resident there (e.g. family relationships and household income). Then an individual in the household was selected at random to answer the personal questionnaire. Data was collected using computer-assisted personal interviews, supervised by trained interviewers.

Owing to rigorous sample design, findings based on survey respondents can be interpreted as being representative of Aucklanders. However, each percentage point is associated with a margin of error. The size of the margin of error depends on two things, (1) the size of the sample or sub-sample, and (2) the value of p, the percentage value. As to the percentage value, for any sample size, margin of error is maximum when p=50% but is less for values of p above 50% as well as below 50%. Hence it is difficult to prescribe any simple rule of thumb for specifying the margin of error for any specific p value. A rough guide based on sample size is provided by the following table, setting p=50%.

Table: Margins of error by sample size

Sample size	1,970	1,500	1,000	900	800	700	600	500	400	300
Maximum margin of error (%)	±2.2	±2.5	±3.1	±3.3	±3.5	±3.7	±4.0	±4.4	±4.9	±5.7

Sample size	200	100	90	80	70	60	50	40	30
Maximum margin of error (%)	±6.9	±9.8	±10.3	±11.0	±11.7	±12.7	±13.9	±15.5	±17.9

Sample

As stated above, the sample is treated as being representative of people aged 15 and over living in the Auckland region. The following sample description demonstrates how representative the sample actually is by comparing the proportions of the main respondent demographic categories against their proportions as shown by the 2013 Census. These values must agree closely for the sample to be considered as representative of the Auckland population, aged 15 years and over.

Three sets of figures are shown for each demographic group, raw, weighted and Census values. Raw values are the actual numbers and proportions of respondents. The weighted values are the result of statistical procedures used to adjust imbalances as a result of sampling procedures. In any random sample, variations can be expected to occur, resulting in the over-representation of some groups and under-representation of others. These imbalances are corrected for by a statistical weighting procedure.^{^[2]} Census values are the actual occurrences of the various demographic categories. In a well-constructed sample, the weighted percentage values and the 2013 Census values for Auckland should agree closely.

		Unweighted		Weighted		Census Auckland 2013
Sex	male	881	44.7%	946	48.0%	48.6%
	female	1089	55.3%	1024	52.0%	51.4%
	Total	1970	100.0%	1970	100.0%
Age	15 - 24 years	243	12.3%	371	18.8%	18.9%
	25 -39 years	548	27.8%	557	28.2%	26.3%
	40 - 64 years	804	40.8%	758	38.5%	40.3%
	65 years and over	375	19.0%	284	14.4%	14.6%
	Total	1970	100.0%	1970	100.0%
Marital Status	partnered	1055	53.6%	1157	58.7%	59.4%
	non- partnered	915	46.4%	813	41.3%	40.6%
	Total	1970	100.0%	1970	100.0%
Employment Status	employed	1214	61.6%	1269	64.4%	61.5%
	unemployed	95	4.8%	100	5.1%	5.4%
	not in the labour force	661	33.6%	601	30.5%	33.1%
	Total	1970	100.0%	1970	100.0%

..continued

		Unweighted		Weighted		Census
Occupation	Managerial/ professional	519	26.3%	533	27.0%	26.7%
	Clerical/ Service / Sales	382	19.4%	424	21.5%	19.2%
	Trades/ Technical	138	7.0%	146	7.4%	6.8%
	Labourers/ Machine Operators/ Drivers	148	7.5%	135	6.8%	7.5%
	Not in paid employment	783	39.7%	733	37.2%	39.7%
	Total	1970	100.0%	1970	100.0%
Personal Income	$20,000 or under	693	35.2%	737	37.4%	39.0%
	$20,001 - $40,000	516	26.2%	464	23.5%	22.6%
	$40,001 - $70,000	469	23.8%	468	23.8%	22.5%
	Over $70.000	292	14.8%	301	15.3%	15.9%
	Total	1970	100.0%	1970	100.0%
Household income	$25,000 or less	290	14.7%	257	13.0%	14.1%
	$25,001 - $50,000	460	23.4%	406	20.6%	19.0%
	$50,001 - $70,000	296	15.0%	288	14.6%	13.1%
	$70,001 - $100,000	345	17.5%	359	18.2%	17.6%
	$100,001 - $150,000	329	16.7%	342	17.4%	18.6%
	Over $150,000	250	12.7%	318	16.1%	17.6%
	Total	1970	100.0%	1970	100.0%
Educational attainment	No qualification	309	15.7%	254	12.9%	14.9%
	High School Certificate or equivalent	581	29.5%	616	31.3%	36.6%
	Trade Certificate/ Level 4	178	9.0%	170	8.6%	7.0%
	Advanced Trade/ Technical Diploma	285	14.5%	267	13.5%	8.2%
	Bachelor's Degree or equivalent	273	13.9%	293	14.9%	15.1%
	Postgraduate Diploma/ Master's/ Doctorate	214	10.9%	228	11.6%	6.8%
	Not stated	130	6.6%	142	7.2%	11.4%
	Total	1970	100.0%	1970	100.0%

In this sample, weighted values for Sex, Age, Marital status, Employment Status, Occupation, Personal Income and Household Income agree very closely with corresponding Census values. In terms of Educational Attainment, those with High School Certificate are slightly under-represented, and those with Advanced Trade or Technical Diplomas and those with Postgraduate Diplomas, Master’s Degrees or Doctorates are slightly over-represented. Overall, it can be concluded that this is a well-constructed and therefore representative sample.

Disability Advisory Panel

16 February 2015

Item 9 - Disability matters in Draft Long Term Plan 2015-2025

File No.: CP2015/00862

Purpose

1. To consider the provision for people with disabilities in the Draft Long Term Plan 2015-2025 and feedback that the Panel may wish to provide to Auckland Council.

Executive Summary

2. Public feedback is being sought on the Council’s Draft Long Term Plan 2015-2025 (draft LTP) and Auckland Transport’s Draft Regional Land Transport Plan 2015-2025 (draft RLTP). The due date for public feedback is 16 March 2015.

3. The Panel has the opportunity to provide strategic advice to the council on matters affecting the disabled people of Auckland, which could assist the council in its decision-making on the final LTP. This report outlines a proposed structure for providing feedback on the draft LTP.

4. If the Panel wishes to provide feedback on the draft LTP, guidance could be provided at this meeting and authorisation be given to a subgroup finalising the feedback in order to meet the deadline or reporting back to the next Panel meeting. The Panel has the opportunity to take into account feedback from the disabled community at the Have Your Say event on 11 March 2015 which would help inform the Panel’s feedback.

5. The Panel’s feedback could be structured around the key issues identified in the draft LTP or the outcomes sought by the disabled people of Auckland. The transport related aspects of this advice could also be passed on to Auckland Transport for its consideration in relation to the draft RLTP.

6. The summary (Attachment A) of the Draft Long-term Plan notes the following key issues:

· Investing in Auckland – The draft LTP proposes $17 billion of capital spending over the next decade. This includes buying and building new assets (such as roads, parks, property, libraries, and stormwater systems) and upgrading or replacing things the council already owns. The draft LTP proposes to spend around $4 billion a year over the next 10 years on the hundreds of essential day-to-day services that the council provides. These include things like park maintenance, rubbish and recycling collection, civil defence, dog control, upkeep of sports fields, cleaning up graffiti, pollution response, pest management and much more.

· Fixing transport – The draft LTP proposes a basic transport programme which would have “significant reductions in levels of service, fewer public transport improvements, deferring of some projects and maintenance, and drastically reducing the number of key projects to deliver”. However, an expanded transport programme could be provided if additional funding is obtained, with a choice of increased rates and fuel taxes or a motorway network charge.

· Your rates – The draft LTP proposes a 3.5 per cent average rates increase and keeping the fixed portion of rates (known as the Uniform Annual General Charge - UAGC) to its current proportion of 13.4 per cent of rates. Adjusted for the 3.5 per cent rate increase, the UAGC is proposed to be at $385. The draft LTP provides to gradually reduce business property rates from 32.8 per cent of all rates to 25.8 per cent by 2025/26.

· Housing and development – The draft LTP proposes “Standardising rentals for social housing” and is proposing to establish a Council Controlled Organisation called Development Auckland to facilitate the development of intensive housing, including apartments and terrace houses, along with commercial development in places with the best potential. It would redevelop areas in partnership with the private sector, developers, iwi and the government and would not require increases to rates or debt levels.

7. The Panel has previously identified aspirations and outcomes sought by people with disabilities in Auckland and their demographics (Attachment B). These provide good context and could provide a framework for the Panel’s feedback in relation to the budgeted programme in the draft LTP.

8. The Panel may also wish to provide as further context for its advice in relation to the draft LTP that in 2014 the Panel requested the council to develop a Disability Strategy for Auckland. The response from Dr Roger Blakeley was that instead of developing a strategy the council should focus on finding a way to seeking a way to achieve end goals of the Panel, i.e.:

· Ensure that new policies/plans, as well as existing policies and plans, provide for the needs of persons with disabilities in an integrated way

· Ensure that budgeted programmes are sufficient and planned to implement these policies and plans, within the context of what is affordable and achievable

· Ensure that existing barriers for persons with disabilities are addressed.

9. The Panel’s feedback might note that the content of the draft LTP budgeted programmes is at a high level and it is difficult to ascertain the extent to which these programmes will deliver on the needs of people with disabilities. The Panel may request that the council provide some general direction/statement in relation to these programmes or seek assurance from programme managers about the extent to which these programmes will improve accessibility and address existing barriers for people with disabilities. The Panel may request that the council’s LTP incorporate a systematic approach to reporting on delivery of these programmes or reporting on achievement of outcomes sought by disabled people of Auckland.

10. Therefore, this feedback is important ensure that the budgeted programme in the drat LTP helps deliver services that contribute to the needs of disabled people in Auckland. One of the elements that the Panel sought in a Disability Strategy was management and reporting of how council’s programmes meet needs of people with disabilities in Auckland.

11. The Panel may consider providing feedback on specific deliverables in the draft LTP within funding constraints, in order to deliver outcomes sought for disabled people in Auckland, such as:

· Retrofit existing traffic signal sites that have pedestrian facilities with audible signals;

· Ensure an appropriate percentage of housing stock that Development Auckland proposes to supply meets the needs of persons with disabilities;

· Improve accessibility of public information provided by the council and its CCOs, such as information in water bills and accessible information on council’s website.

· Ensure public transport interchange facilities are in place where people are expected to transfer from/to bus services to avoid significant problems for people with disabilities encountering the proposed new system of bus services in Auckland.

· Support the rollout of the electric trains.

· Ensure that the bus fleet will fully comply with the Vehicle Quality Standards by 2017 at the very latest as indicated by Council’s Chief Executive in his letter to the Panel dated 16 December 2013.

· Roll out talking signs and stop announcements on the bus fleet (not just the Link service) within the LTP period. Maintain this service on the trains.

· Ensure that the reduced budget for community facilities will not reduce the requirement to design and provide for universal access for people with disabilities in new community facilities. Ensure that an appropriate amount of funding is allocated to retrofit existing community facilities to provide for universal access.

Recommendation/s

That the Disability Advisory Panel:

a) consider whether it will provide strategic advice to the council on the Draft Long Term Plan 2015-2025 regarding matters affecting people with disabilities.

b) appoint a subgroup to develop this strategic advice, either for finalisation at the next Panel meeting or by 16 March 2015.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Summary of the Draft Long-term Plan 2015-2025	67
b View	Aspirations and outcomes sought by people with disabilities in Auckland and their demographics	83

Signatories

Author	Kevin Wright - Lead Officer Support DAP
Authoriser	Kevin Wright - Lead Officer Support DAP

Disability Advisory Panel

16 February 2015

Aspirational statements

The following statements are grouped here as a summary of what we aspire to as persons with disabilities living in a modern society. Persons with disabilities:

• have the right to carry out all our everyday transactions with the same equity and dignity as everyone else.

• live throughout the community and we should be able to easily find affordable and accessible housing in all neighbourhoods.

• should have access to the same information and communications from Council as everyone else.

• need to be able to move freely and easily throughout the urban environment like everyone else.

• can be found succeeding at all levels of education.

• have the same aspirations as everyone else to be fully and productively employed.

• should be able to participate fully in the social life of the city.

• like to go to concerts, museums, the theatre and to other artistic and entertainment events like everyone else.

• can be found actively participating in and contributing to Auckland's local and neighbourhood communities.

Auckland Plan goals and outcomes sought

DAP is advising the council to work toward outcomes identified in the Auckland Plan which serve persons with disabilities:

• A fair, safe and healthy Auckland, inclusive of all citizens.

• An Auckland of prosperity and opportunity for all.

• A well connected and accessible ‘barrier-free’ Auckland for all.

• A culturally rich, inclusive and creative Auckland in which all citizens can participate directly, and with dignity.

• An Auckland whose facilities, services and amenities intended for public use and enjoyment are available for people of all ages and abilities, unless such provision can be shown to be unreasonable.

Key principles

The DAP has five key principles that it believes should be thoroughly mainstreamed throughout council and CCOs:

1. Accessibility with dignity – raising the bar from merely meeting legal compliance and minimum standards.

2. Planning must take a ‘whole of journey’ approach – the accessibility of a city’s systems (services, products and environments etc.) are only as strong as its weakest link.

3. Universal design principles – must be embedded across all of Auckland Council. Universal design is not limited to just the built environment. The principle of ensuring accessibility to the widest possible audience is applicable to a broad range of council business (e.g. council’s publications).

4. ‘Nothing about us with us’ – persons with disabilities must be involved throughout the whole of the decision-making process.

5. ‘Society must change, not persons with disabilities’ – the attitudes of non-disabled people are the main barriers facing persons with disabilities. A culture shift is crucial if Auckland is to become the world’s most liveable city.

6. `Reasonable accommodation’ - facilities, services and amenities intended for public use and enjoyment need to be available for people of all ages and abilities, unless such provision can be shown to be unreasonable

The DAP uses the term ‘persons with disabilities’ because this aligns with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (of which NZ is a signatory). It also uses a human rights model of disability (which incorporates both the empowering and social models of disability). This means that the onus is on society to make a change in attitude, and that decisions impacting on persons with disabilities should be made by the people who are affected.

‘Universal access design’ means the design of products, environments, programmes and services to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialised design (See UNCRPD, Article 2).

The ‘principles of universal (or inclusive) access design’ are:

• Places people at the heart of the design process;

• Acknowledges diversity and difference;

• Offers choice where a single design solution cannot accommodate all users;

• Provides for flexibility in use;

• Provides buildings and environments that are convenient and enjoyable to use for everyone.

‘Reasonable accommodation’ means necessary and appropriate modification and adjustment not imposing a disproportionate or undue burden, where needed in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with others of all human rights and fundamental freedoms (see UNCRPD, Article 2).

Demographics of the Disability Community

Key facts on prevalence of disability in the Auckland region are set out below (Source: 2013 Disability Survey, Statistics NZ):

In 2013, 24 percent of the New Zealand population were identified as disabled, a total of 1.1 million people.

The Auckland regional disability rate, at 19 percent, (271,000), was lower than the national average.

The increase from the 2001 rate (20 percent) is partly explained by our ageing population.

People aged 65 or over were much more likely to be disabled (59 percent) than adults under 65 years (21 percent) or children under 15 years (11 percent).

Maori and Pacific people had higher-than-average disability rates, after adjusting for differences in ethnic population age profiles.

For adults, physical limitations were the most common type of impairment. Eighteen percent of people aged 15 or over, 64 percent of disabled adults, were physically impaired.

For children, learning difficulty was the most common impairment type. Six percent of children, 52 percent of disabled children, had difficulty learning.

Just over half of all disabled people (53 percent) had more than one type of impairment.

The most common cause of disability for adults was disease or illness (42 percent). For children, the most common cause was a condition that existed at birth (49 percent).

Disability Advisory Panel

16 February 2015

Disability Advisory Panel – Final Work Programme 1 January 2015 to 30 June 2015

Key Programmes and Priorities	Sub-programmes	Other key agencies	Delivery	Implementation	Overlap with other Panels	*Planned* *date*
Employment	Feedback on council’s Inclusive Employment Forum report		Community Development, Arts and Culture	Auckland Council	PPAP	February 2015
Transport	Input to AT (directly and via CPAG and PTAG) to support universal access in its designs and service delivery; including: · ongoing input to support accessible public transport that is user-friendly and safe around rail crossings, terminals and interchanges · promotion of the need for clear signage and audible information on transport movements, destinations and timetables.	Auckland Transport	Community Development, Arts and Culture Auckland Transport	Auckland Transport	YAP SAP	June 2015
Accessibility (buildings, environs, events)	Input into accessible open and recreational spaces, including parks, pools and beaches with accessible toilets, for people of all ages and abilities		Parks, Sports and Recreation	Parks, Sports and Recreation	SAP	June 2015
	Dialogue with the Urban Design Panel to ensure it applies the principles of universal access, reasonable accommodation and personal safety		Council and CCOs	Council and CCOs	SAP	March 2015
	Progress from submission on the Building Code (Built Environment)	Office for Disability Issues	Built Environment	Built Environment		May 2015
Housing	Input to support provision of a range of affordable and social housing designed for safety and convenience, and that accommodates diverse needs	Housing NZ MBIE	Housing Project Office	Housing Project Office	All	March 2015
Long Term Plan Consultation	Input to council’s Long Term Plan consultation approach (joint input from all panels)		Communication and Engagement	Communication and Engagement Community Development, Arts and Culture	All	March 2015
General	Discussions with Councillors and CCO CEs about disability issues and the need for a disability strategy		CPO			February 2015
	Input to council’s Family, Whānau and Sexual Violence Multi-Sector Action Plan		Community and Social Policy	Community Development, Arts and Culture		March 2015
Community Summit(s)	Housing? (tbc)	Tba			All	June 2015

Disability Advisory Panel

16 February 2015

Item 13 - Election of the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson

File No.: CP2015/00486

Purpose

1. To elect a chairperson and deputy chairperson for the Disability Advisory Panel.

Executive summary

2. In accordance with the Terms of Reference for demographic panels, the Disability Advisory Panel must, at its third meeting, elect a chairperson and a deputy chairperson.

3. The panel must decide whether the election will be conducted by open or closed ballot, and choose a voting system. Staff recommend that the Panel adopt one of the two voting systems outlined in the Local Government Act 2002 (explained at paragraphs 12 and 13 of this report).

4. Once the panel has made these choices, the Lead Officer Support will lead the process for the election of the chairperson. Once elected, the new chairperson will in turn lead the process for the election of the deputy chairperson.

Recommendation/s

That the Disability Advisory Panel:

a) decide whether the chairperson and deputy chairperson will be elected by open or closed ballot

b) decide whether the chairperson and deputy chairperson will be elected using voting system A or voting system B (as described in Schedule 7, Clause 25 of the Local Government Act 2002)

c) elect a chairperson

d) elect a deputy chairperson.

Comments

5. The Governing Body appointed the Disability Advisory Panels at its meeting of 30 October 2014 (Resolution no. GB/2014/124). The panel held its first meeting on 24 November 2014.

6. In accordance with the Terms of Reference for demographic panels, the Disability Advisory Panel must, at its third meeting, elect one member to the position of chairperson and one member to the position of deputy chairperson.

7. There is no provision for proxy voting, only members present may nominate and vote for the chair and deputy chair. Candidates can vote for themselves.

Open or closed ballot

8. The panel can choose to elect the chairperson and deputy chairperson by show of hand, which is an open ballot, or by writing their preference on a ballot paper, which is a closed ballot.

9. The other demographic panels have already elected a chair and deputy chairperson at their third meetings. Two chose a closed ballot for the method of election and two an open method.

Voting System

10. The panel needs to decide what voting system it wants to use.

11. Staff recommend to undertake the election in accordance with Schedule 7, Clause 25 of the Local Government Act 2002, and to choose one of the two systems that can be used to elect chairpersons and deputy chairpersons of regional councils and other committees. The two systems are described below.

12. System A -

(a) requires that a person is elected or appointed if he or she receives the votes of a majority of the members of the local authority or committee present and voting; and

(b) has the following characteristics:

(i) there is a first round of voting for all candidates; and

(ii) if no candidate is successful in that round there is a second round of voting from which the candidate with the fewest votes in the first round is excluded; and

(iii) if no candidate is successful in the second round there is a third, and if necessary subsequent, round of voting from which, each time, the candidate with the fewest votes in the previous round is excluded; and

(iv) in any round of voting, if two or more candidates tie for the lowest number of votes, the person excluded from the next round is resolved by lot.

13. System B -

(a) requires that a person is elected or appointed if he or she receives more votes than any other candidate; and

(b) has the following characteristics:

(i) there is only one round of voting; and

(ii) if two or more candidates tie for the most votes, the tie is resolved by lot.

Voting procedure at the meeting

14. The meeting will proceed as follows:

(a) The interim chairperson will call the meeting to order and deal with apologies and the initial procedural items.

(b) The first item of substantive business will be the election of chairperson.

(c) The interim chairperson will vacate the chair and the meeting will be chaired by the lead officer, assisted by the democracy advisor.

(d) The lead officer will call for a decision on whether the ballot will be open or closed. This will be by simple voice or show of hands vote.

(e) The lead officer will then call for a decision on the voting system. Once a member moves one of the systems and is seconded, it will be put to the vote. Again a decision will be by voice or show of hands.

(f) The lead officer will call for nominations for chairperson. Each candidate must be nominated and seconded by a panel member who is present.

(g) If there is only one nomination that person will be declared elected and will assume the chair.

(h) If there is more than one candidate, an election will take place using the voting system agreed earlier.

(i) If it is closed voting, the democracy advisor will undertake the vote, scrutineered by the liaison councillor.

(j) Once elected, the successful candidate will assume the chair and call for nominations for deputy chairperson.

(k) The relevant parts of the process will be repeated for the election of the deputy chairperson.

(l) The meeting will then continue with the next item of business.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

15. There are no local board implications.

Māori impact statement

16. There are no items in this report which impact on matters of significance for Māori.

Implementation

17. There are no significant implication issues.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author

Bruce Thomas - Principal Advisor Panels

Authorisers

Marguerite Delbet - Manager Democracy Services

Kevin Wright - Lead Officer Support DAP

[1] The Policy Leadership Team comprises senior managers and staff (Roger Blakeley; Karen Lyons; Matthew Walker; Harvey Brookes; Michael Quinn; James Bews-Hair; Janet Emery; Denise O'Shaughnessy; Craig Glover). The Policy Leadership Team has prioritised a programme of proposed strategies, policies and plans and has discussed these with the Regional Strategy & Policy Committee over the last two years.

[2] For a discussion of this procedure, refer to the Statistics New Zealand web site:

http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/people_and_communities/Households/nzgss_HOTP2012/Data%20Quality.aspx

Interim Chairperson	Dr Huhana Hickey
Members	Colleen Brown, MNZM, JP
	Dan Buckingham
	Jade Farrar
	John Herring
	David Hughes
	Nicola Keyworth
	Clive Lansink
	Don McKenzie, CNZM, OBE
	Susan Sherrard
Liaison Councillor	Sharon Stewart, QSM

Author	Sarah McGhee - Community Development Programme Manager SCI
Authoriser	Kevin Wright - Lead Officer Support DAP

Author	Martine Abel – Strategic Advisor (Disability)
Authoriser	Kevin Wright - Lead Officer Support DAP