General News
Do you think my claim is without substance?
I am writing to let you know the details of a very disturbing letter that I, through my solicitor, have received from Professor Gillian Triggs, President of the Australian Human Rights Commission. This letter is attached for your information.
At the basis of this letter is the termination of my claim against two Federal Departments, in respect of my case against Virgin Airways. Before you read the Professor's letter let me set out the chronology in relation to the contents of the Ms. Trigg's letter.
The complaint of discrimination was based on Virgin Airways' two wheelchair assistance policy, which limits the carrying of two wheelchairs (and therefore two passengers with mobility aids) on any one flight.
The USA Federal Department of Transport in its document '14 CFR Part 82 - Non discrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel" states: A number limit permits a carrier to say to a passenger, in effect `As a person with a disability, we will deny you transportation on this flight solely because some number of other persons with disabilities are on the flight". Such a response to a passenger is intrinsically discriminatory.
On the 23rd July 2010 I sought to travel from Hervey Bay to Sydney to attend a meeting of the Federal Government's Aviation Access Working Group, as the representative of AFDO. I wished to travel on a Virgin flight on the 18th August 2010, and return on the 20th August 2010. I was advised by Virgin's Mobility Assistance Department that they could book me onto a flight from Hervey Bay to Sydney, but could not return me to Hervey Bay on the 20th August 2010 as I wished. It was suggested that I fly back to Hervey Bay on the 21st August 2010. As this would have involved me staying in Sydney for an additional night/day, with all the extra costs that involved, I decided not to attend the meeting.
On the 2nd August 2010, I again sought to travel on a Virgin flight from Hervey Bay to Sydney for a further meeting of the Federal Government's Aviation Access Working Group, as the representative of AFDO. I wanted to fly to Sydney on the 14th September 2010, returning to Hervey Bay on the 16th September 2010. I was told this booking could not be accepted because Virgin already had two mobility aids booked on both flights, and their two wheelchair policy had already been invoked. I therefore was unable to attend this meeting.
On the 17th September 2010 these two instances were the subject of a complaint of discrimination by the writer to the Australian Human Rights Commission. Conciliation was unsuccessful and a Notice of Termination was issued by the AHRC.
On the 9th August 2011 I sought to travel on a Virgin flight from Hervey Bay to Sydney on the 9th September 2011, to attend a Board meeting of People With Disability Australia, returning to Hervey Bay on the 11th September 2011. I was advised by the Mobility Assistance Department of Virgin Airlines that they could book me on the flight from Hervey Bay to Sydney, but could not return me to Hervey Bay on the 11th September. The Customer Service Operator offered me a seat on `another day'. I declined and did not attend the Board Meeting. This latter matter never went to conciliation.
These three matters were then joined as one case which is ongoing.
As well as my complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission I, through my solicitor, made a complaint of discrimination in these three matters against the Commonwealth of Australia (Attorney-General's Department of Infrastructure & Transport) and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, claiming they had, for different reasons, acted or engaged in acts of discrimination that denied my rights under the United Nations Convention On The Rights Of Persons With Disability.
In her letter of the 21st November 2012, the President of he AHRC advised my solicitor, that under Section 20(2)(c)(ii) of the AHRCA, the Commission may decide not to continue to inquire into an act or practice, if the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is lacking in substance.
The President of the AHRC in her letter continued: I have considered all the information that has been provided. I have decided not to continue my inquiry into Ms. King's complaint pursuant to section 20(2)(c)(ii) of the AHRCA on the basis that the Commission is of the opinion that the complaint is lacking in substance.
The President's reasons for this termination included the following statement:
I note that Ms. King has not been prevented from accessing air transport. It appears that she was denied access to a particular flight on a particular airline on a particular day and time. It appears that she was offered alternative flights by that airline and could have booked a flight with another airline. The material before the Commission does not suggest that the Commonwealth has failed to ensure that minimum essential levels of the right to access transport services has been provided to persons with mobility disabilities.
This statement shows that the President of the AHRC was misinformed in her comments for the following reasons:
Her remark: I note that Ms. King has not been prevented from accessing air transport. It appears that she was denied access to a particular flight on a particular airline on a particular day and time. It appears that she was offered alternative flights by that airline and could have booked a flight with another airline.
This comment is way off the mark because Virgin Airways is the only airline which flies directly from Hervey Bay to Sydney. Virgin only has one flight a day to Sydney from Hervey Bay and the airline was never in a position to offer me an alternative flight on the day I wished to fly. The only alternative airline which leaves Hervey Bay is QantasLink, which departs from Hervey Bay and flies to Brisbane. My mobility scooter is deemed by QantasLink to be too long by 50mm to go into the hold of the Dash 8, which is the aircraft which services the route from Hervey Bay to Brisbane..
About 7 years ago I did fly with this alternative airline. Because of the scooter problem I flew with my manual wheelchair, which involved me having to engage a paid carer in Sydney. On that occasion when I flew via QantasLink, the connecting flight at Brisbane Airport to Sydney involved me sitting in a small very uncomfortable aisle chair, which could not be moved independently. I sat in that aisle chair for nearly 4 hours, unable to go to the toilet or get a drink etc.
The USA Federal Department of Transport in its document 14 CFR Part 82 "Non discrimination on the basis of disability in Air Travel" states: The carrier and its contractors may not leave a passenger unattended in a wheelchair or other device in which the passenger is not independently mobile for more than 30 minutes.
It is, and was, obvious to me that I could not go to Sydney via that route again. Therefore, it is patently clear that the President's comments that I could accept an alternative airline was, and is, untrue.
Information of Interest in Relation to Airlines
In it's response to my complaint against CASA, they advised that any rights to access must be balanced with safety issues and safety may be prejudiced if a legislative instrument required an operator to carry an unlimited number of passengers with mobility aids.
In discussing the limit of wheelchairs on flights, the USA Federal Department of Transport in its document 14 CFR Part 82 "Non discrimination on the basis of disability in Air Travel" states: The Department discussed this issue in the preamble to its original ACAA rule (5 FR 8025-8026: March 1990), and our view of the matter has not changed. If anything our view of the matter has been strengthened by the fact that during the 17 years since the original rule was issued, we are not aware of any instances of safety problems resulting from the existing rule's prohibition on number limits.
It is interesting to note that CASA did not expand on the reason they felt that safety may be prejudiced if an operator carried an unlimited number of passengers with mobility aids.
The President of the Australian Human Rights Commission should have been aware of the contents of the USA's Department of Transport document sited above before she decided that there was no substance to my claims.
It also has to be asked why the Attorney-General's Department (Infrastructure & Transport) said it had no authority to act unilaterally on the two wheelchair policy. If the Attorney General has no such authority - who has? I know! - the Courts - but why should each person who has to prove discrimination because of this discriminatory two wheelchair policy, have to go to court? It requires the Government via the Attorney General to condemn and outlaw this policy. As stated above, CASA's only reason for not doing so is that the two wheelchair policy is a safety issue.
In her reasoning to dismiss my claims of discrimination by the Commonwealth Ms. Triggs quoted Articel 4(2) of the Convention On The Rights Of Persons With Disability which states "that each State party undertakes to take measures to the maximum of its available resources and where needed within the framework of international co-operation, with a view to achieving progressively the full realisation of these rights without prejudice to those obligations contained in the present Convention that are immediately applicable according to international cooperation, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of these rights, without prejudice to those obligation contained in the present Convention that are immediately applicable according to international law. This Article makes a distinction between measures that are required to be undertaken immediately, and those that are required to be undertaken, progressively, and in accordance with a State's 'available resources' to achieve realisation of particular rights.
She continues: "I consider the language of Article g of the CRPD suggests that accessibility is to be achieved progressively. ln particular, Article 9(1) provides that the measures to be taken include 'the identification and elimination of obstacles and barriers to accessibility.
I believe the President is clutching at straws, as this text is clearly intended to refer to things like buildings that cannot be made accessible immediately. In my opinion "bad practices" by an airline should be quite easy to change - and quickly! The reference to "...in accordance with a State's 'available resources" is also a red herring! Is the President seriously saying that the various States in Australia lack available resources to make an effective an non-discriminatory policy for its passenger transport services?
It is very obvious that Ms. Triggs does not comprehend the humiliation and anguish which is suffered by a person with a disability who is constantly barred from flights by the budget airlines, to either carry out their volunteer work or enjoy a social life which sometimes necessitates utilising the services of these budget airlines.
As well, it is obvious that Ms. Triggs does not carry out her duties with due diligence, otherwise she could never had stated: I note that Ms. King has not been prevented from accessing air transport. It appears that she was denied access to a particular flight on a particular airline on a particular day and time. It appears that she was offered alternative flights by that airline and could have booked a flight with another airline when it was clearly obvious from all the documented information before her that her comments were ill founded and not researched.
If you wish to ask me questions on this documentation please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sheila King
Additional Information
Country: Australia
Website: N/A
Email: inwwd@yahoogroups.com
Phone: N/A
Contact Person: N/A
Source: Sheila King
When: 14/4/2013
