6th National Deafblind Conference
Disability Rights
6th National Deafblind Conference
|
Dr Sev Ozdowski OAM Sydney |
 |
Introduction
Allow me to commence by paying my respects to the traditional custodians
of the land on which we meet.
I acknowledge participants from overseas and interstate
As a former South Australian let me particularly acknowledge Arnold Cielens
and other friends from South Australia
As well as our hosts from the NSW DeafBlind Association including volunteers
and interpreters.
I am very pleased to have the honour of opening this sixth national deafblind
conference.
I have two main themes in my remarks today:
- I want to promote greater recognition of deafblindness issues as human
rights issues. - I would like to seek opportunities for greater engagement between
my organisation, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission,
and deafblindness organisations and advocates.
Access to communication
One of the central topics of papers for this conference, and also of
previous deafblind conferences, is the importance of communication.
This includes the importance of deafblind people being provided with
the assistance they need to achieve effective communication.
Communication is central to our identity as human beings - for all of
us as individuals, and as members of communities.
Communication is also increasingly important to the economy in modern
societies.
Almost every day there seems to be some new development in information
and communications technology. Technologies which did not exist a few
years ago are now worth many billions of dollars each year in economic
activity.
One exciting aspect of this is that digital technologies have opened
up new possibilities for access to information and communication for people
with disabilities.
In particular, email and the worldwide web have the ability to deliver
information in a variety of formats - such as print, large print, audio
or Braille according to the user's requirements.
For example I noticed on the web recently that some deafblind organisations
are now conducting their meetings by email and so saving the cost of interpreters
for face to face meetings.
But many people with disabilities are not benefiting as much as they
could from these possibilities. Many people simply cannot afford the price
of the technology required, particularly where they need specialised equipment
like a computer with Braille input and output.
The valuable papers given at previous deafblind conferences have also
emphasised that the communication needs of deaf blind people vary widely.
So technology is not and cannot be the answer to all communication requirements.
Some deafblind people will still need intensive, one on one human assistance
to achieve effective communication, whatever developments in technology
there are.
But there is a clear message, from experts, advocates and the deafblind
community, that deafblind people can communicate effectively - if they
have access to appropriate assistance and supports.
It is also clear that many people are not getting this assistance and
support sufficiently or even at all.
Human rights and communication
The rights to freedom of information and freedom of expression are fundamental
human rights. They are recognised in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. They are also recognised in more specific legally binding treaties
such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which
have been ratified by Australia.
These are rights which the Australian government has agreed to respect
and ensure for all people within Australia. That means all people, not
just people who do not have a disability affecting communication.
Effective access to communication is a basic human right in itself. It
is also the key to being able to exercise most other human rights.
Equitable access to communication essential if deafblind people are to
have any prospect of equality of opportunity and access in
- education,
- employment,
- access to citizenship rights including voting,
- access to services such as health care or transport ; and
- other areas of social and economic participation.
Human rights in practice or only in theory?
It is one thing to declare human rights in theory. It is another to achieve
them in practice.
Let me take the very important area of employment as an example.
Accurate statistics on participation by deafblind people seem even harder
to come by at present than for people with disabilities in general. But
I note that research in Britain referred to in one of the conference papers
at the national deafblind conference two years ago indicated that as few
as 5 percent of deafblind people are in employment.
The DDA - a tool for equality
What can be done about this? Must equality for deafblind people stay
in the too hard basket?
The Disability Discrimination Act (I will call it the "DDA"
for short) is one tool for working towards equality for people with disabilities.
It makes discrimination unlawful in employment; education; provision of
goods and services among other areas.
The DDA has been in operation for almost ten years.
It is clear that during that time the DDA has not been nearly as effective
as was first hoped in dealing with equal opportunity in employment
On the other hand it has been an effective tool in addressing some accessibility
issues including some communications accessibility issues.
Examples of successful use of the DDA
Here are a few examples of successful use of the DDA on communications
access issues:
Access to telecommunications
A complaint under the DDA in the Scott v Telstra case succeeded in having
access for TTY users included in the standard telephone service in Australia
.
Accessibility of the worldwide web
Mr Bruce Maguire's complaint against the Sydney Organising Committee
for the Olympic Games over the lack of accessibility of their web site
for people using screen readers has had a major impact in raising awareness
among providers of web pages in Australia about the need for accessible
design. We will be following up this issue later this year with an access
survey process and further awareness raising.
Accessible information formats in education
In response to several complaints from university students about problems
with access to course materials in accessible formats we recently held
a national forum which involved most of Australia's universities on this
issue. The forum made substantial progress towards improved systems for
ensuring that students get accessible materials without unreasonable delays.
More use of the DDA needed on deafblind issues
Some of the issues I have just listed will be relevant to deafblind people.
I am aware, though, that most information access issues under the DDA
so far have come to us either as issues for blind and vision impaired
people or as issues for deaf and hearing impaired people.
We have seen very little if any use of the DDA to address deafblind issues
specifically as deafblind issues with the different dimensions that this
could bring.
I know that working out how to use legislation effectively can be a complex
business particularly for community organisations.
That is why when the DDA was passed the Commission supported establishment
of a network of DDA legal advocacy services in each state. I would like
to see disability organisations, including deafblindness organisations,
making more use of this network in making effective strategic use of the
DDA.
At the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission our complaints
staff are also ready and willing to discuss with you whether an issue
you may wish to complain about fits within the legislation.
We would be particularly interested to have feedback on the accessibility
of the complaint process. As you may know there is now provision for complaints
to be made by email. Details are in the complaints information section
of the HREOC website, www.humanrights.gov.au.
The disability rights policy team which I lead would also be happy to
have further discussions with deafblind advocates and activists about
effective strategic use of the DDA.
So I want to give a strong message to encourage you to consider using
the DDA to advance issues of access to communication for deafblind people.
Limitations of the DDA
But at the same time we need to be clear that the DDA is not an all purpose
tool.
As I have said, it covers many areas, such as employment and education,
but it does not cover all of day to day life.
It does not cover communication needs before people enter education systems,
in the crucial stage of acquiring language and effective ability to communicate.
It covers communication through the telecommunications system but it
does not cover ordinary day to day face to face communication with friends
or family.
Another major limitation is that DDA is a discrimination act, not an
act establishing positive rights to receive whatever assistance and services
may be required to secure equal participation and opportunity.
I have to say that this distinction can be confusing and unclear, even
for lawyers.
The DDA does require wide ranging positive actions:
For example very large scale changes to make public transport accessible
are being driven by DDA.
But there is a distinction between requiring accessibility of the services
which are provided - which the DDA does require - and requiring services
to be provided which are not - which the DDA does not require.
This is not a distinction which necessarily makes sense to someone who
is seeking equality and access , but it is a distinction which is there
in the law as we have it.
The DDA also has some practical limitations in dealing with the issues
it does cover .
Some deafblind people require highly individualised communications assistance
.
It is reasonable to expect that communications systems and technologies
should apply universal design principles, to be useable by the widest
possible range of people. And to some extent the DDA requires this to
happen.
But where one to one interpreting is required, it is obviously just not
possible that each shop you come to and each bus you get on will have
available a person who can deliver each of the required skills for each
different deafblind person.
How to advance a broader human rights agenda?
I do not mean by this that it is acceptable for us as a whole society
to say we do not have the resources to provide equal access.
As a society we should be in a position to ensure that a person who needs
full time communications assistance gets it ; and that a person who needs
communications assistance only for particular interactions has effective
assistance available for those interactions.
These are the sorts of needs which are all too commonly discussed in disability
circles as "unmet needs". And all too commonly these needs are
not discussed in wider public and political debate at all.
But if as a society we are serious about human rights then these needs
must not remain unmet.
The numbers of deaf blind people have been estimated to be relatively
small, with around 1500 Australians under 65. The proportion of deafblind
people in the population over 65 is likely to be higher, of course, but
the overall number is almost certainly no more than a few thousand.
The position of deafblind people as a small minority even among people
with disabilities no doubt has contributed to concerns about deafblindness
issues being overlooked.
The small numbers involved though mean that the overall costs of a national
program to provide each deafblind person with adequate communication support
and assistance would also be small.
There are quite shocking stories on the websites of Australian deafblindness
organisations about the loss of human rights which is resulting from a
lack of adequate communications assistance.
Stories of people not being able to have effective access to educational
opportunities, despite all the promise of modern technologies - because
of reduced funding for interpreting and other assistance.
Even more horrifying, stories of some deafblind people in institutions
going for years without any effective communication at all.
This clearly constitutes cruel inhuman and degrading treatment as it
is defined in Australia's international human rights treaty obligations.
It would not be regarded as acceptable for the worst criminal in prison.
Of course we should not tolerate such a situation for a person simply
because he or she is deafblind.
Let me be blunt about this.
If we can afford overseas trips for politicians, or spending on elite
sports, or other indulgences of a prosperous society, certainly we can
afford to provide Australians with the means of exercising their right
to communicate.
For example, our national government has recently received billions of
dollars from the sale of national transport and communications assets
- in the sale of part of Telstra and Sydney airport . Communications technologies
generate tens of billions of dollars of economic activity each year.
Is it too much to expect a small dividend, a few million dollars perhaps
to address the communication needs and rights of some of the most disadvantaged
and isolated of Australia's people?
As I have said earlier in my remarks, I do not have legal powers to
compel governments to make resources and programs available where they
are lacking.
We do not have a legally enforceable bill of human rights in Australia.
Even if a Bill of Rights is introduced in future, it is not at all clear
that it would confer positive rights to equality, including a right to
receive necessary resources, rather than only negative or defensive forms
of liberty and non-discrimination rights.
But on behalf of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission I
do want to offer what assistance and cooperation we can in pursuing deafblindness
issues in Australia more effectively as human rights issues using the
powers that w have available now.
Let us begin with more discussion of what issues the Commission may be
able to assist you with, and how we can work together. Let us begin with
better communication.
Thank you.