STM 037

Mr D Mason

Disability Rights Unit

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission

GPO Box 5218

SYDNEY NSW 1042

Dear Mr Mason

I refer to your recent e-mail concerning a complaint received alleging discrimination by the New South Wales Electoral Commission in the Local Government elections conducted in New South Wales in 1999.

Local Government elections conducted in Western Australia differ from those in NSW in that they are not compulsory. An option also exists for the election to be conducted as an in-person ballot (generally by the local government) or by postal ballot (conducted by the Western Australian Electoral Commission). The Commission has designed voting packages for these postal voting elections with a customer focus in mind and in an endeavour to allow easy use by all electors.

The Commission, as with all other State agencies, is required to develop a Disability Services Plan in accordance with the Western Australian Disability Services Act, 1993. Within this Plan, the Commission was required to identify ways in which we intend working towards providing appropriate services and facilities for people with disabilities. This includes identifying barriers that exist; strategies to overcome the barriers; and a timetable for these solutions to be implemented. A copy of the Plan is enclosed.

As a result of these requirements, the Electoral Commission set about identifying barriers to the electoral process and a range of improved services which could be implemented to negate or reduce these barriers at a State General Election. Part of this exercise included regular consultation with the State's Disability Services Commission and key organisations representing the interests of people with a particular disability and meetings of the Electoral Commission's Disability Services Committee.

The specific issue of car parking bays and the problems confronted by people with disabilities when attending polling places, were examined and appropriate efforts were made to address these barriers wherever practical.

In the lead-up to the election an audit of all likely polling places was conducted by our 57 Returning Officers. This involved a physical inspection of facilities and an assessment of accessibility by people with disabilities. The access rating criteria developed was based on the ability of a person in a wheelchair to park close to the polling place, travel to the entrance, enter and to cast his/her vote without any significant obstacles. This information was collated centrally by the Project Leader, Voters with Special Needs who in consultation with the Returning Officers then determined whether the polling place would be advertised as "Best Wheelchair Access and Parking" and provided with disabled parking signs. (See samples of completed Polling Place Information form enclosed from the 1996 State Election).

In the ideal situation, disabled parking places would be within 50 metres of the polling place entrance; one and a half to two car widths in size; and on a hard flat surface with no obstacles such as kerbs between the parking place and the polling place entrance. This varied significantly between polling places and some with a greater distance to travel than 50 metres were rated as acceptable.

Parking signs were only provided for those polling places that were determined to have reasonable and close parking and also designated as accessible in all other respects. Where a polling place had excellent parking but poor wheelchair access to the building, parking signs were not provided. It was made clear during training that under no circumstances were disabled parking signs to be used where parking did not meet the parking criteria. An emphasis was also placed on Returning Officers taking a common sense approach when assessing polling place access and for Polling Place Managers to adopt a similar attitude when supervising or dealing with any parking issues at polling places on Election Day.

In discussions with the Disability Services Commission and our relevant Committee representative (who is wheelchair bound), good parking was considered to be somewhat of a bonus. It was therefore of less importance than the access to the polling place building and accessibility to vote in a similar way to others attending at the polling booths.

Other initiatives by the Commission aimed at electors with disabilities have been the use of hearing cards at issuing points, special magnifying screens (CCTVS) for the visually-impaired (at selected poll place locations); and captions on TV advertisements for the hearing-impaired. The feedback from State Election 1996 was positive, but the actual usage by the target groups is difficult to gauge. Nonetheless, we anticipate increased usage rates at the next State Election by improving the method that these facilities and services are promoted. Attached are extracts from the Commission's Annual Report 1996-97 and the 1996 State General Election Report highlighting the initiatives undertaken by the Commission.

While no specific complaints have been received about disabled parking or access since the election, I am aware that some minor problems occurred at a limited number of polling places due to inappropriate placement and usage of the signs. This issue will be specifically addressed at future staff training sessions.

As part of our commitment to the ongoing improvement of services to people with disabilities, further consultation will be undertaken with the Disability Services Commission and appropriate representatives in the disability area prior to the next election to identify any necessary refinements to parking and other relevant access issues.

Yours sincerely

24 February 2000

Enc.