SUBMISSION
to HREOC: ORTA Temporary Exemption -
Section 55 DDA
Date: 11th June, 2000
From: Ms Jenny Stanzel, AM
Subject: ORTA application to HREOC seeking
Temporary Exemption under
Disability Discrimination Act
Section 55
As
an individual, who has had a physical disability for the past 50 years, I am
strongly opposed to the recommendation that Mr Graeme Innes, Deputy Disability
Discrimination Commissioner is proposing regarding the application for a
Temporary Exemption by ORTA for the Olympic and Paralympic Games.
The
Disability Discrimination Act 1992 was enacted so that discrimination against
people with disabilities of Australia would be denied. This proposed recommendation sends out a
clear message to people with disabilities that the 'powerful' are still very
easily able to discriminate against people with disabilities even eight years
after the Act has been passed.
What
makes this proposed recommendation by Mr Innes so unacceptable is that it was
in 1993 that the Australian Olympic Committee was informed by the IOC that
Australia was to host the Olympics in the year 2000. It has taken ORTA until Wednesday 17th May 2000 to
lodge their application seeking a temporary exemption under Section 55 of the
DDA.
ORTA's
Media Release states that 'accessible buses are a very important element of the
bus plan for the Olympic & Paralympic Games'. People with mobility impairment throughout Australia have known
how important accessible transport is for their everyday living ever since
acquiring their disability. For the
Deputy Disability Discrimination Commission to even consider an exemption, no
matter how short a timeframe, must be considered discriminatory against those
people who require accessible buses to access their everyday needs ie
employment, social / recreational activities, professional appointments
etc.
I
suspect that no consideration has been taken into account on what effect this
exemption will have on people who rely on accessible buses throughout
Australia. (I note that Action Buses
ACT is not included in the application).
If accessible buses are to be taken to Sydney from interstate to satisfy
ORTA then satisfactory monetary compensation must be taken into account for
each individual that will be effected by this exemption if it is to be
granted - which I suspect it will be no matter how many submissions are
received by HREOC. A decision by HREOC
on appropriate monetary compensation must be part of the exemption agreement.
Some
of the reasons for my strong opposition to any exemption for ORTA are as
follows:
1. The HREOC Guidelines on applications for temporary
exemption under the Disability Discrimination Act state: General administrative law principles
require that the power of the Commission under the DDA to grant exemptions
should be exercised consistently with the objects of the DDA. These objects are:
§
To eliminate, as far as
possible, discrimination against persons on the ground of disability (in
certain areas);
§
To ensure, as far as
practicable, that person with disabilities have the same rights to equality
before the law as the rest of the community; and
§
To promote recognition
and acceptance within the community of the principle that persons with
disabilities have the same fundamental rights as the rest of the community.
I
believe these principles are clearly in conflict with the application by ORTA
and must not be neglected when any decision is taken. To override these principles, I believe, makes the DDA a weak Act
that cannot work towards fairness and justice for people for which the DDA Act
was intended.
ORTA
knew its responsibilities of providing accessible transport some years ago and
has, I believe, deliberately delayed its application so that people who would
be most disadvantaged by any exemption could do little to stop the exemption.
2. Enquiries have been made by individuals and organisations
to the Olympic Authority and ORTA during the past few years regarding
accessible transport needs for the Olympics and Paralympics and the answers to
many enquiries proved to be most unsatisfactory and even left unanswered on
some occasions.
It
would be obvious to most people that ORTA has obviously known for some time
that there was a crisis regarding accessible transport looming for the Olympics
and Paralympics. That ORTA is unable to
fulfil its obligations regarding accessible transport for the Olympics and
Paralympics should be of no consequence to HREOC. HREOC is there to protect people with disabilities against such
organisations. The issue is to what
extent does a temporary exemption by HREOC, to ORTA, discriminate against the
people of Australia who are reliant on accessible buses as part of their daily
living needs.
3. It is suggested in the Media Release by ORTA that it
has consulted with organisations
regarding the matter of accessible transport needs for
the Olympics / Paralympics and yet
the National Physical Disability Council of Australia
says this has not occurred.
ORTA has, it is suggested, neglected to consult with
the organisations that represent
people who rely on accessible transport before
making application to HREOC. This
suggests that ORTA was aware of the reaction of these
organisations and chose not to
consult. There
has been ample opportunity over the years for ORTA to be open, honest
and transparent and to allay any suspicions that the
disability community has had during
this time regarding the requirements of ORTA to
provide accessible transport for the
Games.
ORTA has not, in my opinion, shown professionalism
with their planning of the detail
necessary to ensure that accessible buses are
available for Olympics and Paralympics
without the need to disadvantage people with
disability. Sydney, as the venue for
these
Games, has the highest population of any other
Australian capital city and still ORTA
has been unable to ensure adequate accessible
transport without disadvantaging people
who have a mobility impairment and who are not
visiting the Games.
In
conclusion I believe that to grant any exemption to ORTA would only confirm
that the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 is the 'toothless tiger' that so
many people with disabilities have felt since it was enacted. It fails to safeguard the people it was
enacted for and it allows the powerful to continue to discriminate against us. If every time an application is sought by a
powerful organisation and granted then it further weakens the DDA.
I
was witness to the Disability Discrimination Act being debated in Parliament
and you, as the then Chairperson of Disability Advisory Council of Australia
and advisor to Minister Howe, would
also remember well the ignorance of some politicians in their inability to
understand the 'spirit' required if the Act was to be successful. Unfortunately I believe that HREOC has
little courage to rule against ORTA and oppose their application on the grounds
that it will definitely discriminate and cause hardship for people with
mobility impairment during the duration of the Games.
If
ORTA is granted this temporary exemption by HREOC, then I am confident that the
disability community will unite across Australia to ensure that the world, by
way of the media, understands the disservice done by this exemption, to the
people of Australia that depend so heavily on accessible transport for their
daily living.
This
submission was written by me but I believe it represents the views of thousands
of people who are striving daily for acceptance within their own communities
but who may be unable to put forward their submission for a variety of reasons. Some of these reasons may be that they have:
§
never heard of HREOC
§
no knowledge of ORTA's
application
§
no email
§
no real way of knowing
that they could write submissions
§
some may not be verbal
whilst others are so damn exhausted by their disability they have no energy to
put forward their thoughts for something that they know is usually lost before
they begin their submission
3.