Foresight not oversight
Foresight not oversight
Susan Halliday Acting Disability Discrimination Commissioner on receiving Cable & Wireless Optus Disability Action Plan 3 December 1999 |
On
behalf of the Commission I'm very pleased to receive the C & W Optus
Disability Discrimination Action Plan. It's a great way to celebrate this
International Day of People with Disabilities.
It
also marks an important moment when competition in the telecommunications
industry delivers increased accessibility for all. Optus has taken an
important step that deserves acclaim.
I especially
want to congratulate the members of the working group - Robyn Wilkinson,
John Simpson and Andrew Stewart.
The
Commission has always promoted community consultation as the foundation
of a good action plan. The people who participate take on a big responsibility
and usually a substantial burden in time and resources.
I admire
Robyn, John and Andrew because they are active advocates for people with
disabilities and for the commendable work they have done with Optus, just
one of their many contributions.
And
thanks are also due to Optus staff, especially Rosie Rowe and her predecessor
Deidre O'Donnell.
Having
myself worked within large organisations as a change agent, I know what
it's like to try and win hearts and minds, particularly when those hearts
and minds have their own biases and budgets at the fore.
The
Cable & Wireless Optus Disability Action plan is a clear example of
foresight not oversight. It is a matter of course that we acknowledge
the merit of disability action plans because they have the virtue of foresight.
In
reality though, foresight is just the self-evident rationale for any planning
process. But there is something that is particularly important about the
Optus plan, something that the telecommunications industry is well-placed
to demonstrate.
In
that context I would like to take the opportunity to reflect on the Disability
Discrimination Act, action plans and access for all.
Oversight
can have two meanings - and with this emerges a paradox. The first meaning
equates to a mistake, forgetfulness or an omission, the second is to oversee
or supervise, to make an observation.
In
the first sense "an oversight" occurs when someone designs and
builds a marble staircase as the main entrance to their wonderful new
award winning building, puts a service counter in that's too high, makes
a website to slow to download or does not give call centre users the option
of speaking to a "living" person.
Something
has happened here that marginalises and excludes people. These cases are
entirely avoidable if a little foresight is used.
Oversight
also happens when your activities are subject to the eagle eye of an overseer.
Someone who prescribes what you do and checks to see that you are actually
doing it.
Of
course if you are the one who knows your business, knows your customers
and knows your shareholders that type of oversight is not always welcome.
And in fact experience shows that attempts to put varied or lateral human
activities into neat boxes can, due to restriction, have a negative impact
on the an outcome that should serve the broader, diverse community.
To
marginalise and exclude people by narrowly defining the so-called mainstream,
and in turn to treat all others as special, difficult and expensive is
no longer appropriate and sadly lacking business savvy. Once again, foresight
is the answer.
Let
me stress here and now that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
is not an overseer and there are those of us who are less than comfortable
with the term WATCH DOG which is so freely used by the media to describe
us .
The
objects of the Disability Discrimination Act are:
- to
eliminate discrimination - to
ensure equality before the law - to
recognise fundamental rights.
In
short, the D.D.A. is not about special measures or services that are different.
It certainly does not prevent those things but the aim of the D.D.A. is
to make ordinary goods, services, and facilities and the rights and responsibilities
of citizens accessible to all.
This
is where the telecommunications industry and the work that Optus is doing
are so important. We all know that access to communications is now one
of the basic ingredients of a just and productive society.
Access
to communications has become an essential part of participation in economic
life and a major ingredient of participation in education, political,
social and cultural life.
Over
the last few years the telecommunications industry in Australia has undergone
very substantial transformation, and change will continue.
I note
that your corporate Internet site refers to the Commonwealth's 'interest
in advancing the interests of consumers through promoting competition'.
And I agree with you when you say that
continued
development and spread competition into all areas of the telecommunications
industry, which gives consumers real choice and diversity at good prices,
will be a crucial determinant of Australia's continued ability to enjoy
a high standard of living.
The
C & W Optus regulatory group says its mission 'is to promote and safeguard
consumer interests through liberalisation and increasing competition in
the telecommunications industry.'
It
is very pleasing to see these values reflected in your Disability Action
Plan where you commit the organisation to respect for the individual,
customer focus and a performance driven environment.
Our
aim at the Commission is to assist the telecommunications industry to
pursue the values that you have expressed. The Telecommunications Act
provides a regime that emphasises access for all.
Access
for people with disabilities is expressly included.
Under
the Act there is a system for industry to regulate itself subject to general
government supervision.
The
Commission is strongly of the view that the telecommunications industry
must be an example of how self-regulation and competition can deliver
accessibility through foresight not oversight.
Yes
it is true that we're always there ready, willing and able to deal with
complaints lodged under the D.D.A. And of course we are always happy and
well prepared to offer advice on difficult issues.
But
it does not make sense for a person to need to lodge a formal complaint,
under our federal Act administered by a small and specialised human rights
institution just to achieve the ordinary consumer experience of having
a telephone they can use. Or for that matter access to buildings, education,
transport or any of the goods, services and facilities that the community
as a whole has a right to utilise and enjoy.
It
does not make sense in terms of respect for the individual, customer focus
and a performance driven organisation. And it does not make sense in human
rights terms either.
I applaud
the existence of the Optus Disability Action Plan because it addresses
directly the issue of competing to provide accessible communications services.
Telstra
was the only provider in this field for many years and yes they have been
pioneers. But the time has now come for wider recognition that a range
of equipment and services must be provided to suit the needs of a diverse
customer base and the best way to do this is for other companies to take
up the challenge - and they are doing just that.
The
rapid pace of change in telecommunications means that reliance on a single
legally mandated service will become a thing of the past. This will help
ensure that people with disabilities have access to the latest developments
in the same timeframe as they become generally available.
It
is foresight that has led Optus to make its way in this field and I'm
sure the decision has been influenced by business considerations, the
company's commitment to being a good corporate citizen and a sophisticated
position on social justice and human rights issues.
There
is no contradiction in that as far as the D.D.A. is concerned. Good business
practice is a prerequisite for having access issues comprehensively addressed.
Experience
has shown that people with disabilities have generally been understanding
as long as there is evidence of progress and that there is a plan being
implemented.
For
its part the Commission has a legal duty to acknowledge the existence
of an action plan if a complaint is made against a service provider.
Adequate
remedial measures that go towards removing discrimination will be recognised.
If someone has a plan and is actively pursing the undertakings in that
plan, then they will have a fair chance of defending themselves against
complaints.
I am
pleased to note that the Optus Action Plan addresses Internet products.
You may be aware that the Attorney-General has asked the Commission to
inquire into e-commerce issues and their effects on older people and people
with disabilities. We recently sent the Attorney a progress report and
our inquiry will continue until March 2000.
Naturally
we are casting an eye over Internet sites of major service providers in
the public and private sectors.
It
gives me much pleasure to tell you that your corporate Internet site for
Cable & Wireless Optus does very well indeed in terms of accessibility.
I'll
temper that with a suggestion that the Optus site that focuses on your
customers may be in need of a revisit. There is no one guaranteed way
of building an accessible Internet site - trust me - the Commission has
learned that the hard way itself.
It
is reassuring to know that you now have an Action Plan and will no doubt
be working to ensure sound physical access and Internet presence.
It
is not my job to put a stamp of approval on the Optus Disability Action
Plan nor will I say that because of this plan you will never receive complaints.
Your actions, not the plan per se will be the deciding factors.
Optus
has demonstrated corporate leadership by taking this important step. You
have challenged the rest of your industry to do better and introduced
another level of competition. The community will watch carefully to see
how well you go about implementing what has been announced to day. On
behalf of the Commission I wish you every success in making Cable &
Wireless Optus and what it does accessible to all.