1. GENERAL AND POLITICAL CONTEXT.

 

1. For some time, DDLAS Victoria and indeed the disability rights community have had serious concerns about accessibility of trams, light rail and other trams not to mention the ticket vending machines that are situated on trams. We are aware that the Victorian Government is in the process of selling much of it’s public transport stock and they seem to be clearing the books ready for such sale. We consider this to be very unfortunate as any proposed exemption from the DDA would in my view have to involve action plans which go further than saying that dated rolling stock will be replaced.
2. Another issue which is brought to bear here is that if there are privatised systems there could be some legal debate as to how the current government could bind future governments, owners or subcontractors in the tramways network. These political issues however are the broad concerns many people share about the future. There are a number of issues that are relevant in the here and now which the MET have not addressed in any way shape or form.
2. THE ISSUES.
1. I am sure you have received many submissions about problems in the system. I will outline some of the complaints we have received briefly in the hope that I will be able to speak at a public hearing and listen to what the MET HAVE TO SAY.
2. Older people and people who have disabilities find it difficult to access ticket machines on trams. It is hoped that the MET are only applying for exemption for accessibility to trams rather than a broader exemption as the ticket machine issue is problematic to older people and people with disabilities. When someone who is for what ever reason less able to balance themselves in a moving tram has to buy a ticket on a machine they may fall over and have difficulties. DDLAS Melbourne has received complaints in this regard.
3. As readers may be aware it is impossible to access trams for people requiring wheel chairs.
4. Further issues which affect trams are announcements of destinations, steps, (into a tram) and older people not being able to sit down and falling over buying tickets.
3. COMPLAINTS.
1. As a practitioner in the field, it leaves us with a difficult situation. Modifications to transport systems invariably lead to complaints from clients. Any exemption, which may be offered by HREOC, must be very specific if given which we advise against. Technology will change over the next 5 years and onwards, therefore accessibility issues will be varied from time to time. Whilst each exemption only lasts 5 years, privatised networks may lead to many applications from multifarious interests.
2. The next complaint we often receive and comments that have been made to me by clients is that if rolling stock is redundant after 30 years what if the trams are modified rather than replaced as has happened to some old stock. There needs to be some guarantee that any modifications to old rolling stock be inclusive of accessibility components such as lower steps etc.
3. Finally in this section we at DDLAS often deal with the fact that conservation groups oppose accessibility modifications to old things. Trams are one example, there is opposition from some heritage groups to modifying old trams to make them accessible. Years down the track when we are dealing with replacing trams or today’s trams are heritage trams, there needs to be safety mechanisms in place to insure that accessibility can or will be provided.

4. conclusions.

I am sure that my canvasing of important issues could be added to and there are other issues which I cannot comment on as a result of the fact that I have not heard submissions from the MET. I therefore request the opportunity to make further comments to a hearing as a written submission is rather academic and I am sure other people have raised the general issues I have, and more. The view I express is not the view of DDLAS as a whole, as their case worker however I raise issues which I have been informed of by clients, members of the public and those I have observed being a person who has a disability.

5. further comments.

1. If anyone has questions about this submissions my mobile phone no is 0418 143 174 and I look forward to the chance to make more detailed constructive comments at a hearing. In this submission I raise issues, the real legal debate is of course if this application fulfils criteria for exemption and although I advise against granting any such exemption I would say that if one is to be given, it would have to be so given on the basis of strong evidence of proactive initiatives from the applicants to make accessible tramways a reality. That is to say, what undertakings will the MET give as to their conduct over the next 5 years. On this basis an exemption may be given with strong limitations. The applicants are well aware of the need to become DDA compliant and of the South Australian bus case.

Thankyou for your attention and I look forward to further communications.

Steven D. Hurd. B.A. LL.B. (Mon)