13 June 2000
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
GPO Box 5218
Sydney NSW 1042
Re: Application for exemption by the Olympic Roads and Traffic Authority
The Equal Opportunity Commission of Victoria (EOCV) has considered the
application for exemption by the Olympic Roads and Traffic Authority (ORTA) and the
working paper dated 2 June 2000 prepared by HREOC and makes the following
comments.
The application raises issues of competing priorities for limited
resources. It is regrettable that the
application by ORTA has been made within such a short time of the commencement
of the Olympics. It means there is
little time to explore ways of minimising the impact upon those who will be
affected should the application be granted.
This lack of forethought reflects an unacceptable disregard for the
rights of people with disabilities.
The EOCV does not wish to engage in a debate as to whether the rights of athletes, spectators and officials attending the Olympic Games outweigh the rights of people in Victoria who require accessible buses in the ordinary course of their lives (for work, education, etc.). Nor does it seem useful to consider the issue of whether Australia will demonstrate to the international community its commitment to issues of disability access more effectively by ensuring adequate accessible transport for the Games or by doing so for the benefit of people in the ordinary course of life. The submission made by some that the disadvantage should fall more heavily on people in Sydney rather than in other places seems unnecessarily punitive. It is not a matter of settling for a hierarchy of needs but endeavouring to ensure that disadvantage is minimised and redressed as far as practicable.
It is agreed that in determining this application HREOC should have
regard to whether the objects of the Disability
Discrimination Act 1992 are advanced and whether the exemption is
consistent with the spirit of the legislation.
It is understandable that many people feel angered and marginalised by
the seeming priority of an international event over the reality of their
everyday lives. For people who have
agitated for many years for the rights of people with disabilities to have
access to services and facilities and for an equal opportunity to engage
meaningfully in employment and education the decision to grant an exemption may
well seem a regressive step.
On a very practical level some people may experience considerable
difficulties in getting to work or to their place of education. Some people may find themselves isolated and
without alternative means of transportation to get to medical appointments, job
interviews, important family events, etc.
Without a doubt, some people will incur expense in obtaining alternative
forms of transportation and others may find themselves reliant on the goodwill
of family and friends.
In their application ORTA state:
“The Games will showcase Australia’s ability to provide equal access for people with a disability. ORTA’s bus transport services for the Games can demonstrate to a worldwide audience that equal access services are both possible and necessary to remove discrimination against people with a disability.”
ORTA recognise that equal access to services is both necessary and possible. However, in their
exemption application they do not address how they propose to ensure this
happens not just for people attending and participating in the Olympic and
Paralympic Games but also for members of the community as they go about their
everyday lives.
This exemption application affords an opportunity to bring to the
attention of the Australian and the international community the issues of
limited services for people with disabilities, the gains that have been made
and the unmet need which is yet to be addressed. Ensuring that the considerable demand for accessible transport is
met without disadvantaging anyone can make a positive message.
It is further stated by ORTA in the application that:
“ … the exemption sought will technically work to the detriment of the status quo in accessible services by removing them from their regular routes.”
It is not a technical
detriment, it is an actual detriment that will be suffered. And it is this actual detriment that needs
to be addressed. According to comments
made by Paul Willoughby during a radio interview (and supported by information
on HREOC’s web-site) Victoria has a total of 170 low floor buses and ORTA
require 20-45 of these. In effect, the
availability of accessible buses in Victoria will be reduced by approximately
20% for a period of more than two months.
This will make a considerable impact upon the lives of many people.
The fact that some Olympic events will take place in Melbourne does not
seem to have been addressed in ORTA’s application or in HREOC’s working
paper. The requirements of people with
disabilities wishing to attend these events will be in addition to the daily
needs of people resident in Victoria and in itself will place an additional
strain on Victorian resources.
It is contended by ORTA that unless the exemption is granted public and private bus operators will be
reluctant to make their accessible buses available as they anticipate that
complaints of discrimination may be lodged against them. The corollary to this seems to be that if
that possibility is nullified by the granting of the exemption then those bus
operators will in fact make some of their accessible fleet available. Presumably, they will do so because of a
commercial imperative. It is intended
by ORTA that no inconvenience be afforded to those who attend or participate in
the Games. It seems therefore that it
is only people with disabilities (and their carers and families) who are not
going to the Games who are expected to bear the brunt of the reality of limited
resources to meet an extraordinary demand.
In the light of this it is the EOCV’s view that the exemption should
only be granted if conditions are
attached to alleviate the disadvantage and inconvenience for those who will
have reduced service and that any financial
disadvantage be compensated:
1)
A cap be placed on the number of buses which can be removed from any
State or particular locality;
2)
No buses be removed from localities where there is no reasonable
alternative accessible mode of transport;
3)
Alternative arrangements for accessible transport be negotiated for
those whose level of service is compromised; and
4)
Any associated costs by met by ORTA.
ORTA will need to consult with those people who will be disadvantaged
should the exemption be granted to ensure these conditions are met.
It is the view of the EOCV that the responsibility for ensuring
appropriate alternatives and any associated costs should fall upon ORTA and not
upon those people for whom the Disability
Discrimination Act was enacted.
The EOCV will be making a submission in these terms to the Victorian
Civil and Administrative Tribunal in respect of the exemption application
sought under the Victorian Equal
Opportunity Act 1995.
Yours sincerely
Dr Diane Sisely
Chief Executive