Bridge platform example of too many rules, WA tourism body says

Daniel EmersonThe West Australian
VideoIt means they'll be able to see the view from the top of the footbridge platform.

The Swan River pedestrian bridge linking East Perth and Burswood will include a pulley system so patrons with disabilities can be hoisted to a 70m-high viewing platform.

While the development has been welcomed by the disability sector, it has been highlighted by the tourism industry as an example of the ever-increasing pressure to make sure attractions can be accessed by every section of the community, regardless of mobility.

WA Transport Minister Rita Saffioti has confirmed the private sector will compete for the rights to take thrillseekers up the Matagarup Bridge, prompting disability advocates to query the level of access.

“As part of the revised design of the bridge, I understand there will be capacity to accommodate a hoist operation that will allow people with disabilities to access the viewing platform at the apex of the two primary arches,” she said. “When the operation of the bridge walk is publicly tendered, I expect a condition will be that the operator must provide disability access to the platform.”

Camera IconAn artist’s impression of the viewing platform planned for the Maragarup Bridge. Credit: unknown/Supplied
Read more...

Under the Federal Disability Discrimination Act, it is unlawful for the operator of premises (including any structure) or services (including entertainment or recreation) available to the public to exclude people with disabilities.

There are exceptions if doing so would amount to an “unjustifiable hardship” for the provider after considering circumstances including cost, financial capacity and the nature of the detriment caused to the disabled consumers missing out.

Tourism Council chief executive Evan Hall said operators were happy to cater for people with disabilities when it was possible or feasible but conditions were routinely slapped on proponents without any market research into demand.

“We end up having no attractions because there are all these rules that say it’s got to be available to everyone, even though everybody doesn’t want it and it just makes it commercially unviable or illegal,” he said. Mr Hall said until an attraction was tested by legal action, it was difficult to know whether a proposal would fall foul of the Act, prompting regulators to take a risk-averse approach to permits.

Get the latest news from thewest.com.au in your inbox.

Sign up for our emails