Submission to HREOC with regard to Regional Express application for exemption from the DDA

 

 

About the Disability Council of NSW

 

The Disability Council of New South Wales, established by the NSW Community Welfare Act of 1987, is the official advisory body to the NSW Government on issues and policy that affect people with disability and their families in NSW.  The Council also has a formal role in advising the Australian Government on the consequences of Commonwealth policies on people with disability in NSW.

 

The Disability Council of NSW currently has fifteen members drawn from communities across NSW.  The majority of the Council’s members are people with disability and every Council member has a direct personal connection to the lived experience of people with disability.  The Council is appointed by the Governor of NSW and reports to the State’s Minister for Disability Services.

 

Regional Express application for exemption

 

The Disability Council of NSW strongly urges the Commission to reject the application by Regional Express Holdings for an Exemption under Section 55 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 from the provisions of Section 23 and 24 of the Act.

 

We object to the terms of the application by Regional Express in its totality. 

 

Adequate powers to decline service already exist in areas of concern

 

Regional Express unnecessarily seeks an exemption from sections of the Disability Discrimination Act with regard to matters of safety covered adequately by other Acts and / or aviation regulations.  We concur with the analysis of the Cairns Community Legal Centre when it observes:

 

“A number of proposed restrictions relate to safety concerns, and current legislation does not require carriage of or assistance to unaccompanied passengers in those circumstances:

·        passenger is unable to understand and follow safety directions

·        provision of medical services required during flight

·        assistance required within the toilet

·        passengers with a prescribed contagious disease

Consequently, it is unnecessary to grant an exemption relating to the above circumstances because there is no reasonable prospect of unlawful discrimination being found.

 

Current legislation already prescribes safe carriage of batteries for powered wheelchairs so granting an exemption relating to this issue is also unnecessary.”

 

·        It is reasonable to speculate that the proposed requirement of Regional Express that a “companion” travel with any person who “is unable to understand and follow safety directions (written or verbal)” is directed unreasonably at people with intellectual, cognitive or psychiatric disability or people with similar disabling conditions.  Given that Regional Express provides verbal and written safety instructions in English only one might wonder why the airline does not propose that all passengers submit to a language test before boarding. 

 

It appears that the airline seeks to use the Disability Discrimination Act exemption process as a convenience to remove corporate responsibility for assessing each and every passenger in terms of airline safety.  The airline already has the power to exclude a passenger if the designated authority deems that passenger to represent a genuine safety risk.  The responsibility for assessing safety matters, case by case and passenger by passenger, therefore must, we believe, remain with the Company and not be transferred via the DDA exemption process to HREOC.

 

·        Similarly, we believe the airline must retain corporate responsibility for the conditions of service it offers to passengers.  We feel that the airline would be wholly justified to make it clear that no assistance can or will be given to any passenger with “the application of medication in flight, or … assistance to the toilet or to eat…” 

 

We are certain that no discrimination exists if, at the point of sale (perhaps in the conditions of sale) explicit clarification to this effect were to be given.  Acceptance of such a condition of sale would indicate the passenger’s acceptance that no assistance could be sought or would be provided. 

 

We strongly believe that no need exists to require a passenger with disability to travel with a “companion” if it is made crystal clear at the point of sale that certain activities are not available to any passenger.  In such circumstances, therefore, no need exists to seek or grant an exemption to the Disability Discrimination Act because no disability discrimination exists when the operator declines to assist with medication, eating or accessing the toilet.

 

Lifting policy

 

It is not reasonable that Regional Express requires passengers who cannot transfer without assistance to arrange third party assistance or travel with a “companion”.  We strongly urge HREOC to reject the application for exemption.

 

It is entirely feasible, reasonable and affordable for Regional Express to continue with its current policy of accepting and assisting passengers who may need varying degrees of lifting or physical support.  Regional Express and other airlines can and do provide such assistance.  It may be the case that improvements in technique or the introduction of new equipment may be required to better align the current practice of Regional Express with Occupational Health and Safety regulations and laws.  It is not necessary, however, to introduce a blanket restriction by means of a DDA exemption application.

 

Regional Express could implement all or some of the following options to facilitate the carriage of passengers with varying degrees of need for mobility related assistance:

 

• Safe manual handling practices involving one or two people.  These arrangements currently operate in airports served by Regional Express staff.  It is not beyond the wit and wealth of a Company reporting post-tax profits of $23.5 Million to organise and pay for the training and remuneration, perhaps with a special duties bonus, of ground staff who would provide assistance in a manner consistent with Occupational Health and Safety policies and laws.
• The Company could purchase slings / lifting harnesses designed to be used (and currently in use in some Australian airports) by two people.
• The Company could purchase one sliding / transfer board for each of its aircraft (the Tech Assist “Banana Board”, for example, costs $130.  Rex could probably negotiate a good price on a bulk order to equip its entire fleet of 36 SAAB 340 aircraft).
• Regional Express could purchase and deploy Eagle 2 and/or Eagle 3 hoists in each of its destinations.  At the 8 destinations where Regional Express is not the sole operator the Company could enter into joint purchasing and shared use agreements with other operators.  There might be a need for some minor alterations of internal cabin space.  It could also be that some adjustment to the aisle might be required (made possible by a low cost portable platform) to ease the use of the Eagle lift.  None of this even begins to make a dent in the Company’s projected earnings growth of 10%.  The costs associated with introducing equipment such as the Eagle lift (or something similar) would be recouped over time.  The lift can be operated by one person, in contrast to current manual handling requirements for two people.

 

Conclusion

 

The Disability Council of NSW sees no merit in the application by Regional Express for an exemption from sections of the Disability Discrimination Act.  If you seek clarification of any aspect of our submission please contact our Executive Officer, Mr Dougie Herd.

 

Andrew Buchanan

Chair

Disability Council of NSW