[LINK] RFI: Govt Policy re Correspondence Format

[Bernard Robertson-Dunn]

On 3/08/2012 9:40 AM, Tom Worthington wrote:
> On 02/08/12 09:26, Bernard Robertson-Dunn wrote:
>> An analogy would be stairs. People who have to use wheelchairs cannot
>> climb stairs unassisted. Does that mean stairs should be banned?
> Yes, stairs are banned for the entrance to public buildings in Australia:
>
> "... a separate entrance to the one used by the general public is not
> acceptable if the main entrance can be adjusted and therefore made
> accessible without causing an unjustifiable hardship ..."
> http://www.hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/buildings/guidelines.htm#G1

If you read what you have just quoted, it says that " ... a separate 
entrance ... is not acceptable if ...". It is the separate entrance that 
is banned, not the stairs.

And if you read the whole page, nowhere does it define any circumstances 
where stairs are banned.

> > The idea of making sending paper unlawful is as silly as banning stairs.
>
> I expect a court would find it reasonable that an agency could reply to
> email queries by email. Failing to do so would therefore be unlawful.

I don't understand the connection. How does the requirement or 
expectation of replying to an email with an email make the sending of 
paper letters unlawful?

-- 
  
Regards
brd

Bernard Robertson-Dunn
Canberra Australia
email:   brd at iimetro.com.au
website: www.drbrd.com