AUSTRALIAN ASSOCIATION OF THE DEAF and DISABLED PEOPLE'S INTERNATIONAL (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED v TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED

AUSTRALIAN ASSOCIATION OF THE DEAF and DISABLED PEOPLE'S

INTERNATIONAL (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED v TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED

Nos. H95/34, H95/51

Number of pages - 1

COURT
HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Disability Discrimination Act 1992
Sir Ronald Wilson (Inquiry Commissioner)

HRNG
Sydney, 28-29 August 1995 (hearing), 6 September 1995 (decision)
#DATE 6:9:1995
#ADD 24:6:1997

Counsel for complainant:      Mr John Basten QC

Counsel for respondent:       Mr Alan Archibald QC

ORDER
  Order for relief made.

JUDGE1
Sir Ronald Wilson (Inquiry Commissioner)
BACKGROUND

1. I refer to the decision of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity
Commission ("the Commission") dated 19 June 1995 in respect of this
matter in which I found the complaint of discrimination alleged by
Disabled People's International (Australia) Limited ("DPI") pursuant to
the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) to be substantiated.

A hearing into the relief, if any, to be granted in this matter was
held by the Commission on 28 and 29 August 1995.

ORDER AS TO JOINDER
2. Prior to the hearing into the question of relief, the Commission
received notification from the solicitor for DPI that DPI had been
placed in receivership and was unable to continue with the proceedings.
A Notice of Motion dated 17 August 1995 to the Commission requested
orders that the Australian Association of the Deaf ("AAD") be
substituted for DPI in the inquiry into relief.

3. At the commencement of the inquiry into relief, I made the order
that pursuant to s.84 of the DDA, AAD be joined as a party to the
proceedings.


RELIEF
4. In respect of the relief to be granted to the complainants, I make
the following orders:
    (a) In accordance with paragraphs (b) to (g) hereunder, the
    respondent shall be obliged to provide a tele-typewriter ("TTY") to
    persons who are certified by an audiologist to be profoundly deaf.

    (b) The respondent discharge its obligation to supply TTYs by
    providing or causing to be provided to each eligible applicant the
    following voucher or vouchers:
      (i) one voucher for $600 for the acquisition of a TTY; and
      (ii) not less than 5 years after the provision of a voucher under
      sub-paragraph (i) or alternatively an additional voucher under
      sub-paragraph (iii), one additional voucher for $600 for the
      acquisition of a replacement TTY; and
      (iii) within 5 years of the provision of a TTY under sub-
      paragraph (i) in the event of uninsured total failure or
      destruction of the original TTY through no fault of the user, one
      additional voucher for $600 for the acquisition of a replacement
      TTY.

    (c) Each such voucher in (b)(i) to (iii) above may be applied
    towards the acquisition of a TTY costing less than $600, provided
    that any balance beyond the actual price of the TTY may be
    available to be applied towards maintenance costs. Alternatively,
    the voucher may be applied towards the acquisition of a TTY costing
    $600 or more.

    (d) The respondent is not obliged to supply a TTY to a profoundly
    deaf person who is eligible for the Commonwealth Government's
    equipment access program pursuant to its Disability Strategy Policy
    provided that the detailed prescription of this clause shall be
    subject to liberty to apply prior to the grant of the first
    voucher, it being my intention that this clause should not operate
    to the prejudice of an eligible applicant.

    (e) The respondent's obligation to supply TTYs shall be limited to
    a single unit for each household in respect of which a permanent
    resident is a person within the class described in paragraph (a).

    (f) The provision of vouchers pursuant to paragraph (b) shall
    commence upon the earlier to occur of:
      (i) 1 March 1996; or
      (ii) the expiration of two weeks after the determination of the
      proceeding instituted by the respondent in the Federal Court of
      Australia (No. G519\1995) to review the decision of the
      Commission referred to in paragraph (a) of this determination.

    (g) The parties shall have liberty to apply to the Commission for
    amending orders or for further or other orders as the circumstances
    require.