My assistance DOGS provided for under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 [DDA] [go to HAIG REPORT home frames]
new My writing disability due to hyper-extended
right thumb: a partial loss of a bodily function, as per definition of
Disability in DDA.
I
am disabled.
"You
talk'in to
me???"
These are my
two
assistance dogs, PYOSIK and POOKH.
Both Sections 6 and 9 [as below] apply to me and my assitance
dogs.
"Section 6 Indirect
disability discrimination
For the purposes of this Act, a person (discriminator)
discriminates against another person (aggrieved person)
on the
ground of a disability of the aggrieved person if the
discriminator requires the aggrieved person [ie me - Russell
Mathews] to
comply with a requirement or condition [ie to not take my dogs with me inside many
premises]:
(a) with which a substantially higher proportion of persons
without the
disability comply or are able to comply; and
(b) which is not reasonable having regard to the
circumstances of
the case; and
(c) with which the aggrieved person does not or is not able to
comply.
"Section 9
Disability
discrimination—guide dogs, hearing assistance dogs and trained
animals
(1) For the purposes of this Act, a person (discriminator)
discriminates against a person with:
(a) a visual disability; or
(b) a hearing disability; or
(c) any other disability;
(aggrieved
person) if the discriminator treats the aggrieved person less
favourably because of the fact that the aggrieved person possesses, or
is
accompanied by:
(d) a guide dog; or
(e) a dog trained to assist the aggrieved person in activities
where
hearing is required, or because of any matter related to that fact; or
(f) any other animal trained to assist the aggrieved
person to
alleviate the effect of the disability, or because of any
matter
related to that fact;
whether or not it is the discriminator’s practice to treat less
favourably any person who possesses, or is accompanied by, a dog or any
other
animal.
(2) Subsection (1) does not affect the liability of a person
with a
disability for damage to property caused by a dog or other animal
trained to
assist the person to alleviate the effect of the disability or because
of any
matter related to that fact."
As an experienced
full time
teacher and full time University Tutor and fully trained as a Lawyer,
with many
years experience in Civil and Criminal courts, and currently a PhD
student in
Law, I will interpret the legal significance of these sections.
Section 6 is a general section applying to the matter of
"Indirect
discrimination". Section 9 [and also sections 7 and 8]
are
particular examples of the application of Section 6, where the
PROOF
REQUIREMENTS are particularily specified and so simplified.
For example, if Section 9 was abolished, then a blind person with a
guide dog
would be permitted to take his guide dog with him per Section 6, but
would need
to prove the conditions (a), (b), and (c) of Section 6, as well as
being
disabled, but with Section 9 in existence, all that is necesary is to
prove
that he has a visual disability and is accompanied by a guide
dog.
That is the point of Section 9 [and of sections 7 and 8 too]: to
SIMPLIFY THE
PROOF REQUIREMENTS.
In fact, that blind
person with
the guide dog will qualify under both Sections 6 and 9, AS DO I.
Unfortunately the
public sector
"administrators" such as at the those at the Brisbane
City Council [BCC], Queensland Rail [QR] [I know
about
perjurying public sector parasites at QR, as I used to work there -
prior to my
having any university degrees] and the TransLink division of QR,
and The University of Queensland, fancy themselves as
"you
beaut lawyers" and really mess up the interpretion to suit themselves
with
the response, "sue us if you disagree with us", which means one has
to effectively apply through the CORRUPT HUMAN RIGHTS [AND EQUAL
OFFORTUNITY (??)] COMMISSION [HREOC] which is still
corrupt
and has been for decades.
For instance, they
try to say,
DDA applies to only "trained" dogs, because
Section 9 specifies trained dogs. They are referring to a
principle of
"Statutory Interpretation" which states that if the
legislation refers to a subsection of a group and does not refer to the
rest of
the group [ie untrained dogs] then the remainder of that group
["untrained
dogs"] are excluded. What these simpiltons fail to understand is
that "untrained dogs" are excluded from only
section 9; the SIMPLIFIED PROOF REQUIEMENTS.
They
are NOT EXCLUDED from the DDA.
However, MY dogs ARE
TRAINED to meet the requirements of the DDA. The act does not
state that
they have to be trained in any special way or by any special person or
type of
person. In fact, cases have been decided favourably for the
disabled
person with assistance dogs, that the training can be by the actual
disabled
person, provided that the animal has been "trained to assist the
aggrieved person to alleviate the effect of the disability"
. In my case, as per the Medical Certificate/Report from Dr
Moyle, a
Psychiatrist, so a specialist, the benefit to me is that my dogs give
me my
"only positive interactions". My training of them, is a large
part of that interaction. All the time I am interacting with them
I am
training them.
However, in my case,
qualification can be gained also under section 6 [in fact,
mathematically,
those instances that quailify under section 9, (AND sections 7 or 8)
are a
subset of those cases that qualify under section 6: ie all instances
which
qualify under sections 7, 8 or 9 will, without exception, also qualify
under
Section 6]. Ss (a) and (c) of S6 are self explanatory. For
S6(b),
the phrase, "assists the aggrieved person to alleviate the
effect
of the disability" of S9(f) is indicative of what is
"reasonable". However, that the animal is "trained"
is not a requirement of section 6. Hence, if exception is
taken as
to the "training" of my dogs, my dogs qualify as assistance dogs
under section 6. So, regardless of whether my dogs are classed as
trained, or not, it is without doubt, that they assist me to
alleviate the effect of my disability.
It has been
noted that I have TWO assistance dogs.
Translink of Queensland Rail and The University of Queensland, have
tried to
take issue with that and state, that ONLY ONE could ever be
countenanced. [Just hassling me over my assist dogs is illegal
indirect discrimination per the DDA.]
However, the
legislation does not
state that only one dog is ever possible to accompany me. Some
may resort
to dependance upon "common sense", but the legislation
is not really silent on this. The "common sense"
consideration would be met by reference to Section 11 DDA,
Unjustifiable
hardship.
"Section
11 - Unjustifiable
hardship
For the purposes of this Act, in determining what constitutes
unjustifiable
hardship, all relevant circumstances of the particular case
are
to be taken into account including:
(a) the nature of the benefit or detriment likely to accrue or be
suffered by any persons concerned; and
(b) the effect of the disability of a person concerned; and
(c) the financial circumstances and the estimated amount
of
expenditure required to be made by the person claiming unjustifiable
hardship;
and
(d) in the case of the provision of services, or the making
available of
facilities—an action plan given to the Commission under
section 64."
My larger dog is
called Pyosik
and the smaller is called Pookh or Pushok. Pyosik is a
Parson
Russell Terrier of which breed, the Jack Russell is a dwarf version and
of
similar nature. Pyos weighs 11.8kg. Pookh is a Maltese Poodle
cross [a
Moodle or a Maltoodle] and weighs 4.3kg. together they weigh
16.1kg.
That is far lighter than a
TOPIC Category Directories
Listing:
Worm
farming, Composting and Recyling:
Australia's
WATER CRISIS:
Open
Letters:
.About
HAIG: Who is HAIG?
Bullies
Gallery:
About
the AUSTRALIAN COURTS and JUDICIARY
.CORRUPTION
in the BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL [BCC]
CORRUPTION
in AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITIES
How
the AUSTRALIAN CORRUPTION has inspired EVIL Hughie
Corruption
in the Australian Anglican Church.