Response on behalf of Tiger Australia to submissions on application for temporary exemption under s.55 of the Disability Discrimination Act

We have reviewed the various submissions to the  Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission ( "HREOC" )  in relation to Tiger Australia's application for Temporary Exemption under s 55 of the Disability Discrimination Act,  and respond as follows:

General Response

Tiger Australia took all necessary steps to ensure that all ground handling services would be available in time for its proposed start up of operations on 23 November 2007. The Disabled Person Lifter was the one and only aspect of ground handling services that could not be made available in time despite best endeavours.  Tiger Australia decided not to cancel its commencement of operations due to this one issue. Tiger Australia believes that it s position is adequately set out in its application dated 20 November 2007. We note that the application for temporary exemption only relates to the period  up to 29 February 2008.

Response to Specific Submissions

As to the specific submissions filed with HREOC, Tiger Australia  comment s as follows:

1. Cairns Community Legal Centre Inc

CCLS opposes the application , but on grounds which ignore Tiger Australia 's primary submission. This submission does not bear on the application.

2. Blind Citizens Australia

BCA does not oppose the application. This submission does not bear on the application.  Tiger Australia  is however very happy to address BCA's concerns separately.

3. Disability Services Commission

DSC does not oppose the application. Tiger Australia will be happy to consult as requested to develop an action plan.

4. Gold Airways

Gold Airways does not hold an Air Operators Certificate . Tiger Australia does not  know who they really are. Gold Airways appear to  have ignored the detail of Tiger Australia 's submission. Tiger Australia submits that it  did its best in the circumstances and continues to do so. Tiger Australia suggests that this  submission is generally incompetent for self-evident reasons.

5. Australian Federation of Disability Organisations

AFDO do not oppose the application. Tiger Australia  seeks the opportunity to discuss the  specific conditions sought by AFDO with HREOC in the upcoming months.

6. Australian Government - Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government

The Federal Government does not oppose the application.

Conclusion

We ask that a determination  not be made without  providing us  with the opportunity of discussing these issues with HREOC further, or making further submissions to HREOC,  as required. We  look forward to the opportunity of discussing the matters arising, if any, with HREOC. Please contact us should you have any enquiries.