RESPONSE OF AUSTRALIA TO THE VIEWS OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES IN COMMUNICATIONS NO. 11/2013 (G.B. v AUSTRALIA) AND 13/2013 (M.L. v aUSTRALIA) The Australian Government (Australia) presents its compliments to the members of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (the Committee). Australia has given careful consideration to the Views of the Committee expressed in Communications No. 11/2013 (G.B. and 13/2013 (M.L. adopted v Australia) v Australia), 1 April 2016 and published 25 April 2016. These Views have been published on the website of the Australian Attorney-General’s Department. Australia acknowledges its obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (the Convention) and takes its obligations under international human rights law seriously. The NSW Government is committed to removing structural and attitudinal barriers to access and participation that impact on the lives of persons with disabilities. It seeks to foster an inclusive society that enables persons with disabilities to fulfil their potential as equal participants in society. However, Australia respectfully disagrees with a number of the that Committee’s views Australia has violated the rights under the Convention. authors’ Article 5(1) and (3) Equality and Nondiscrimination – The Committee formed the view that the State party argues that the use of [Auslan ‘while interpreters/stenographers] has an impact on the complexity, cost and duration of trials, it does not provide any data or analysis to demonstrate that it would constitute a disproportionate or It further considered that the confidentiality undue burden’. ‘while principle of jury deliberations must be observed, the State party does not provide any argument justifying that no adjustment could be made to enable the Auslan interpreter to perform his/her functions without affecting the confidentiality of the deliberations of the jury such as a special oath before a court’. The Committee also accepted that a certain margin of States parties ‘enjoy appreciation’ in assessing the reasonableness and proportionality of accommodation measures, but must such an assessment is made in a thorough and objective manner, assessing all ensure ‘that the The Committee concluded that Australia had refused to provide pertinent elements’.
RESPONSE OF AUSTRALIA TO THE VIEWS OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES IN COMMUNICATIONS NO. 11/2013 (G.B. v AUSTRALIA) AND 13/2013 (M.L. v aUSTRALIA) The Australian Government (Australia) presents its compliments to the members of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (the Committee). Australia has given careful consideration to the Views of the Committee expressed in Communications No. 11/2013 (G.B. v Australia) and 13/2013 (M.L. v Australia), adopted 1 April 2016 and published 25 April 2016. These Views have been published on the website of the Australian Attorney-General’s Department. Australia acknowledges its obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (the Convention) and takes its obligations under international human rights law seriously. The NSW Government is committed to removing structural and attitudinal barriers to access and participation that impact on the lives of persons with disabilities. It seeks to foster an inclusive society that enables persons with disabilities to fulfil their potential as equal participants in society. However, Australia respectfully disagrees with a number of the Committee’s views that Australia has violated the authors’ rights under the Convention. Article 5(1) and (3) – Equality and Nondiscrimination The Committee formed the view that ‘while the State party argues that the use of [Auslan interpreters/stenographers] has an impact on the complexity, cost and duration of trials, it does not provide any data or analysis to demonstrate that it would constitute a disproportionate or undue burden’. It further considered that ‘while the confidentiality principle of jury deliberations must be observed, the State party does not provide any argument justifying that no adjustment could be made to enable the Auslan interpreter to perform his/her functions without affecting the confidentiality of the deliberations of the jury such as a special oath before a court’. The Committee also accepted that States parties ‘enjoy a certain margin of appreciation’ in assessing the reasonableness and proportionality of accommodation measures, but must ensure ‘that such an assessment is made in a thorough and objective manner, assessing all the pertinent elements’. The Committee concluded that Australia had refused to provide
G-B-v-Australia-Australian-Government-Response.DOCX