Dear David,
I write to object to 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. I urge the Commission to reject the
application in total, citing in support of this view the clear and coherent
response to the application submitted by Cairns Community Legal
Centre.
In addition to endorsing the arguments lodged by the
Cairns Community Legal Centre I wish to add the following comments drawing on my
personal circumstances as a wheelchair user, NSW Government public servant and a
recent customer of Regional Express.
For your information I most recently travelled with Regional Express on
the following routes on the following dates:
·
Tuesday,
27th November:
·
Wednesday,
28th November: Wagga Wagga to
·
Thursday,
30th November:
I am, as you know, in full time employment currently
working for the NSW Government’s Department of Ageing Disability and Home
Care. I manage the staff team that
supports the work of the Disability Council of NSW, which is an autonomous
advisory agency to the State Government on matters of disability policy. It is an essential requirement of my
employment that I can travel to local communities in regional, rural and remote
NSW as well as between other States or Territories and NSW. I use road, rail and air transport to
reach required destinations making judgements as to the mode of travel based on
the usual factors such as distance, location, journey duration and length of
stay. As a person with disability,
however, I am also required to give consideration to factors such as the
availability of professional personal assistance staff (carers) at my
destinations and/or the personal care regimen I must follow (which can, from
time to time, require me return home on the same day as departure. This was the case in my recent series of
trips to south west NSW).
I use a manual wheelchair as a consequence of spinal
cord injury (C5/6 quadriplegia). I
require assistance to transfer from my wheelchair to an aircraft aisle chair.
Depending on the configuration of
each aircraft in which I travel I may or may not require assistance to transfer
from the aisle chair to a passenger seat.
In Boeing 737, 767 and 747 aircraft operated by QANTAS (for example) I
use the Eagle 2 lift to access my seat.
In the DASH 8 Series used by QANTAS Link and the SAAB 340 Series used by
Regional Express I can transfer without assistance (and with greater ease if a
transfer or sliding board is available for my use).
The basis of my objection to the Regional Express
application to place restrictions on passengers who cannot transfer without
assistance is simple. Comparatively
low cost technical, design and/or human solutions exist and are currently in use
by Regional Express and other airlines (notably QANTAS) to provide ‘full lift’
assistance to passengers who either cannot transfer in any circumstances or who
require varying degrees of assistance.
The suite of options available to Regional Express (some of which it
currently utilises while others are utilised by other carriers) are wholly
consistent with best practice Occupational Health and Safety policies. The solutions one has in mind (both
human and technological) are affordable by Regional Express, which in its most
recent Shareholder Briefing (
·
A 29% growth in
revenue to $225 Million
·
A 50.4% increase in
profits after tax to $23.5 Million
·
A 58% growth in
assets to $158 Million
·
A share price
increase of 176%
·
An 18% increase in
passenger traffic to 1,416,250 passenger journeys
·
Projected earnings
growth of 10% in this financial year.
Regional Express is the sole operator on 31 of its 39
routes. The Company’s value
statement begins with these words: “What
does it profit a Company if it gains the whole world and loses its own
soul?” It’s a valid question, the answer to
which the Company seems to have forgotten by submitting its exemption
application.
In
contradiction to what I understood to be HREOC policy (established through
precedent) Regional Express does not seek exemption for a time limited period
whilst it adjusts current practice with the longer term aim of eradicating
disability discrimination. The
airline simply seeks to place restrictions on passengers like me who, as
recently as last week, it was prepared to carry.
In
seeking to address legitimate concerns about employee and passenger Occupational
Health and Safety, Regional Express seeks to both re-define the intention of
Occupational Health and Safety laws as well as transfer the duty of care from
the operator to the customer. Neither outcome would be desirable nor
should they be made permissible by the Commission through granting the
application for exemption.
Regional Express has a duty to reduce and manage
Occupational Health and Safety risks.
The Company’s application abrogates responsibility for this duty of care
by seeking to eliminate (not reduce and manage) risks by excluding an entire
category of passengers. Given that
technological, design and human solutions exist (and are currently in use by
Australian operators including Regional Express) the blanket restriction on a
single passenger group is like taking a sledgehammer to crack a
peanut.
Regional Express could implement all or some of the
following options to facilitate the carriage of passengers such as me (those
with varying degrees of need for mobility related
assistance):
·
Safe manual handling
practices involving one or two people (these arrangements currently operate in
each of the four airports I passed through last week with the assistance of
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.
Regional Express has not presented an argument or set of
arguments for exemption that are consistent with or could justify approval of
their application. I remind the
Commission of its own clarification that: “the Commission has
not been prepared to
grant exemptions simply to certify that discrimination may continue, on the
basis of unjustifiable hardship or other defences.”
Regional Express asks you to do precisely that even though its current
practice is within reasonable risk management parameters and cold be improved in
ways I suggest above.
I remind the Commission also of
the decision by (then) Deputy Disability Commissioner Innes in the Kendall
Airlines case that he “would not be prepared
to recommend any exemption giving a carrier complete discretion over which
passengers to carry, and note that the United States Department of
Transportation in its regulatory process likewise rejected the concept of
complete carrier discretion.”
Yet again, however, this is precisely what Regional Express asks of the
Commission.
Please reject the
application. The airline has a
monopoly on 31 routes. It can and
does carry passengers, like me, who require assistance including varying degrees
of lifting. The airline could
improve its practice to bring it into line with the industry’s best practice
(see QANTAS in Australia or British Airways or Flybe in the UK all of whom
operate similar services to those of Regional Express AND carry passengers who
require manual handling). The
assistance I (and others) rely on can be provided in ways (and using procedures)
that do not breach Occupational Health and Safety policies, regulations or laws.
Meeting the support levels required
by passengers like me will not damage revenue or profits of the Company (indeed,
it will probably boost business).
Yours
sincerely,