It is also noted in respect of these provisions, that the Full Bench of the Federal Court ‘indicated that anti-discrimination law meanings of play no special or central role in the “discriminates” interpretation of discrimination in the industrial context’. This approach raises the very real possibility, indeed probability, that concepts and interpretation of employment discrimination in the discrimination law context will diverge from those in the industrial law context. Such a divergence is arguably not helpful to ensure equal employment opportunity for people with disability. Similarly, Chapman, Gaze and Love note the different interpretation of being applied in ‘disability’ industrial law under the FWA. This too is likely to give rise to unhelpful and inconsistent outcomes and may give false comfort to employers who are more focused on their obligations under industrial law than those in discrimination law. Unfortunately, along with false comfort will the continuation of discriminatory practices affect the employment opportunities of people with disability. Implementing existing national standards that support employment participation Barriers to the successful employment of people with disability may be structural as well as cultural. Access to accessible and affordable public transport, for example, is critical to enabling people with disability to work; as is the ability of people with disability to access the places where they work. The Disability (Access to Premises Buildings) Standards 2010 (Cth) (the Premises Standards), – Disability Standards for Education 2005 (Cth) (the Education Standards) and the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002 (Cth) (the Transport Standards) are legally binding regulations established under the DDA setting out minimum levels of service delivery and facility access to be achieved. Access to transport and to the premises in which people are employed is vital for full social inclusion. Until full accessibility is achieved, employment opportunities for people with disability will continue to be curtailed. For Tasmanians who are wheelchair-reliant, for example, the availability of appropriate private and public transport options remain extremely limited. Accessible bus options are almost outside of urban areas and even within metropolitan areas, limited options are available. Implementation of the Standards has been patchy and is widespread concern about the extent to which progress has been made in implementing key commitments under the regulations. Whilst primary responsibility for the Standards exists elsewhere in the Federal Government, it remains important that the AHRC continue to be engaged in the implementation and monitoring of the Standards, including identifying strategies to ensure that obligations are implemented and that identified timeframes are met.
It is also noted in respect of these provisions, that the Full Bench of the Federal Court ‘indicated that anti-discrimination law meanings of “discriminates” play no special or central role in the interpretation of discrimination in the industrial context’. This approach raises the very real possibility, indeed probability, that concepts and interpretation of employment discrimination in the discrimination law context will diverge from those in the industrial law context. Such a divergence is arguably not helpful to ensure equal employment opportunity for people with disability. Similarly, Chapman, Gaze and Love note the different interpretation of ‘disability’ being applied in industrial law under the FWA. This too is likely to give rise to unhelpful and inconsistent outcomes and may give false comfort to employers who are more focused on their obligations under industrial law than those in discrimination law. Unfortunately, along with false comfort will the continuation of discriminatory practices affect the employment opportunities of people with disability. Implementing existing national standards that support employment participation Barriers to the successful employment of people with disability may be structural as well as cultural. Access to accessible and affordable public transport, for example, is critical to enabling people with disability to work; as is the ability of people with disability to access the places where they work. The Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010 (Cth) (the Premises Standards), Disability Standards for Education 2005 (Cth) (the Education Standards) and the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002 (Cth) (the Transport Standards) are legally binding regulations established under the DDA setting out minimum levels of service delivery and facility access to be achieved. Access to transport and to the premises in which people are employed is vital for full social inclusion. Until full accessibility is achieved, employment opportunities for people with disability will continue to be curtailed. For Tasmanians who are wheelchair-reliant, for example, the availability of appropriate private and public transport options remain extremely limited. Accessible bus options are almost outside of urban areas and even within metropolitan areas, limited options are available. Implementation of the Standards has been patchy and is widespread concern about the extent to which progress has been made in implementing key commitments under the regulations. Whilst primary responsibility for the Standards exists elsewhere in the Federal Government, it remains important that the AHRC continue to be engaged in the implementation and monitoring of the Standards, including identifying strategies to ensure that obligations are implemented and that identified timeframes are met.
16.01.30-EoT-Submission-to-Willing-to-Work-National-Enquiry-into-Employment-Discrimination-Against-Australians-with-Disability.DOCX