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.