Presentation toRound Table on Information Access For People with Print Disabilities

Presentation toRound Table
on Information Access For People with Print Disabilities

Annual Conference

April 27, 2003

Bruce Maguire

Policy/Project Officer,

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission

Good morning everyone. I begin by acknowledging the traditional owners
of the land on which we are meeting today.

I've always had a yearning to be in the Guinness Book of Records, and
so I decided, in preparation for today, to give the shortest presentation
ever made by a staff member of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity
Commission. My presentation thus consists of just seven letters: a question
of 4 letters, and an answer of 3 letters. The question is SSDD, and the
answer is DDA.

I won't ask whether you would like me to expand on this presentation,
just in case you say no. During the past week I have been reading Stephen
King's novel Dreamcatcher. It's as scary and gruesome as you would expect
from the author of The Shining and Pet Cemetery. There are five main characters
in Dreamcatcher, discounting those cute little alien creatures with tails
who bite people's faces off. These five have been friends since childhood,
and they have developed a vocabulary of colourful expressions. One of
these is SSDD: same shit, different day. They use it as a statement, but
today I'm using it as a question. SSDD? Or, to put it another way: has
access to information for people with a print disability improved during
the past 10 years, or has nothing changed? SSDD? The answer, I believe,
can be summed up in the 3-letter abbreviation DDA, which, as I'm sure
you all know, is an abbreviation for the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination
Act 1992, and a code word for progress in the inclusion of people with
a disability into the social, Cultural and economic life of Australian
society.

I might must admit that I also feel nostalgic when I asked to give presentations
at a Round Table conference. I have had an involvement with the Round
Table since 1990. I think that these annual conferences provide a unique
opportunity for the print disability sector to come together to network,
support each other and exchange information and ideas. I remember visiting
the UK in 1996 and hearing envious comments that they would love to have
an organisation like the Round Table. We should never make the mistake
of taking the Round Table for granted, lest we lose it and the aliens
come and capture our dreams for a more accessible information society.
The Commission certainly values and appreciates the opportunity to present
updates at these conferences.

By "Commission", I mean the organisation that is at present
the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (abbreviated
to HREOC). I am a Policy and Project Officer within the Commission's Disability
Rights Unit, and the main function of our unit is to promote the objectives
of the Disability Discrimination Act. The Disability Discrimination Act
1992 (DDA) is the key piece of Commonwealth legislation that relates to
discrimination against the more than 1 million Australians who have a
print disability. The DDA is one of a number of legal instruments relating
to human rights that is administered by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity
Commission.

The DDA makes it unlawful to discriminate against a person on the grounds
of a disability. The objects of the DDA include eliminating, as far as
possible, discrimination against people with disabilities, and promoting
recognition and acceptance within the community that people with a disability
have the same fundamental rights as the rest of the community.

The DDA uses a broad definition of "disability" that includes:

" Physical

" Intellectual

" Psychiatric

" Sensory

" Neurological, and

" Learning disabilities, as well as

" Physical disfigurement, and

" The presence in the body of disease-causing organisms.

The DDA sets out specific areas in which it is unlawful to discriminate.
These areas include access to premises; accommodation; education; employment;
the provision of goods, services and facilities; and the administration
of Commonwealth laws and programmes. The definitions of "goods"
and "services" in the DDA include financial and information
services provided, for example, by banks and other financial institutions,
retail shops, churches, cinemas, television stations, as well as services
and equipment provided by telecommunications companies. An organisation
such as a government department that provides services is also liable
for complaint under the DDA if those services are not accessible to people
with a disability.

The DDA defines two kinds of discrimination: direct discrimination is
when a person with a disability is treated less favourably because of
that disability. An example would be if a university refused to allow
a blind student to enrol, or if a shop assistant refused to serve a person
because they were accompanied by a dog guide. Indirect discrimination
refers to treatment that, on the face of it, is not discriminatory, but
which actually has a disproportionate impact on people with a particular
disability. For example, an employer might require that applicants for
a particular job have a driver's license, even though the job does not
involve driving. Such a requirement would indirectly discriminate against
people who are blind or who have another disability that prevents them
from driving a car. Providing emergency service information only in audio
form may also involve indirect discrimination, as it would not be accessible
to many people who are deaf or hearing-impaired.

The DDA recognises that, in certain circumstances, providing equitable
access for people with a disability may cause "unjustifiable hardship"
for an individual or organisation. I'll return to this in a moment.

Where a person with a disability believes they have been discriminated
against, they can make a formal complaint to the Commission, which will
investigate the complaint and, where appropriate, attempt to conciliate
a solution between the two parties. Where conciliation is not possible,
the complainant may take their complaint to the Federal Court or Federal
Magistrates Service, which have the authority to determine whether unlawful
discrimination has occurred, and what constitutes "unjustifiable
hardship". If the court concludes that removing discrimination would
cause unjustifiable hardship, then the complaint is not upheld, that is,
although there may be a finding of discrimination, there is no finding
of unlawful discrimination.

There are two points to keep in mind about this notion of unjustifiable
hardship: firstly, it implies that removing discrimination may involve
some justifiable hardship - it is not enough for an organisation defending
a complaint of disability discrimination to say that removing discrimination
will be hard. Rather, the question is when that hardship becomes unjustifiable,
and the answer will depend on a number of factors that can be considered
by the court. Secondly, the concept of unjustifiable hardship recognises
that not all discrimination can be removed, and that the rights of people
with a disability are part of a social matrix whose diverse and sometimes
incompatible elements must be balanced.

Having said that, It is important to note that the defence of "unjustifiable
hardship" is not available where a complaint relates to the administration
of Commonwealth laws and programmes. This reflects the government's view
that it has a particular responsibility to promote the objectives of the
DDA, and to eliminate discrimination against people with a disability.
In the context of information access, this means that if a person who
has a print disability lodges a complaint that alleges discrimination
in the way a particular Commonwealth law or programme is administered,
then the Commonwealth cannot claim unjustifiable hardship, and so if the
complaint is upheld, it is obliged to take steps to eliminate the discrimination.
One example of such a complaint would be in relation to an inaccessible
Commonwealth government website, or the use of basically inaccessible
file formats such as PDF without accessible alternatives in publishing
web content.

The DDA works mainly through the complaints mechanism that I have just
outlined, but there are other important aspects of the legislation. For
example, the DDA allows for the development of what are known as DDA standards,
in certain specific areas, these areas being accommodation, education,
employment, the administration of Commonwealth laws and programmes, transport,
and, most recently, access to premises. DDA standards provide much more
specific information about what needs to be done to comply with the DDA
in a particular area. Once a DDA standard comes into force, then contravening
the standard amounts to a breach of the DDA itself; but, on the other
hand, if an organisation is complying with a DDA standard, then they are
deemed to be complying with the DDA in the area in question, and so a
complaint cannot be successful. It is therefore important that DDA standards
be developed with full consultation and consideration, and so far the
process has been rather slow. Last October, the first DDA standard came
into force, the Accessible Public Transport standard. It is hard to overestimate
the long-term significance of this standard: over the next 20 years, people
with a disability will find that public transport will become more and
more accessible as a result of the biggest change to society in which
the Commission has been involved. And the development of the transport
standards was sparked by a DDA complaint made by an individual with a
disability.

The Transport Standard contains a number of provisions that will have
direct benefits to people who have a print disability. For example, signage
must comply with the Australian standard AS1428.2. Tactile ground surface
indicators (TGSIs) must be installed on access paths to indicate stairs,
ramps, overhead obstructions below a height of 2 metres, and on the edges
of railway platforms and wharves, and at bus stops. Information about
public transport services must also be available to all passengers.

The Standard contains many detailed specifications, but there is also
provision for transport providers to develop equivalent access solutions.
This is an acknowledgement that making public transport fully accessible
is an increasingly complex task, and that it may not always be possible
to specify how it should be done in particular cases. If a transport provider
needs to develop an equivalent access solution, then Section 33.4 of the
Standard requires that they consult with people with a disability or their
representative organisations about any proposals for providing equivalent
access. It is therefore important for self-help and advocacy organisations
to become familiar with the Standard, and to discuss it so that they can
provide input into further development. Information access is not just
about access to books and reading material.

At the moment, a lot of work is going into the development of a DDA standard
dealing with access to premises. This will have important benefits for
people who are blind, vision-impaired or who have another print disability;
as a first step in the development of this standard, the Building Code
of Australia's access provisions have been extended, and they include,
for example, requirements for accessible signage and paths of travel.
We also now have voluntary standards dealing with electronic banking services,
including automatic taller machines (ATMs), EFTPOS, Internet banking,
and telephone banking. I don't have time this morning to go into detail
about these; the key point is that it is in your interest as people with
a disability or members of the Round Table to become familiar with them
and use them as a tool for lobbying to make our society more accessible.
One comment that I have heard a few times from industry is how few people
request braille copies of documents such as the banking standards. I urge
you not to become complacent. More public and request-for-comment documents
are available in braille now than there were ten years ago, but don't
take it for granted, lest the aliens come and hijack our dreams of a more
braille-friendly world.

So there has been considerable progress over the past ten years in making
public transport, the built environment and services such as banking more
accessible to people who have a print disability. So let me ask the question:
SSDD? Same shit, different day? No way, thanks to the DDA.

There are probably many things for which US then Vice-President Al Gore
won't be remembered, but he will certainly earn a place in history as
the originator of the phrase "information superhighway". Some
of us like it, some of us don't, but we all now live within sight, sound
or touch of it, and that highway is bringing more information into our
lives than ever before. But, like most highways, the information superhighway
has come at a price: we have information, but we also have information
overload; we have more spam than Monty Python could ever have imagined;
and some sections of our society continue to experience information traffic
snarls.

The would-be information prophets told us that we'd son have the paperless
office, and that print books would soon be housed only in museums (where,
presumably, you'd pay a dollar and a half just to see 'em, to paraphrase
a Joanie Mitchell song). Like most prophets, they were wrong, of course:
the information highway has given us more print than ever before in human
history, along with all the other newer technologies such as the Internet
and mobile phones. Having a print disability today is far more challenging
than it was in the days of papyrus and hieroglyphics. With each new revolution
in the development of our civilisation, people with a disability have
had to develop new strategies for turning challenges into opportunities.
In many respects, the forum on accessible tertiary materials that the
Commission organised in May last year is part of this ongoing process
of adapting to change.

The higher education sector is changing rapidly; the number of students
with a print disability is increasing, but so are the costs of producing
materials in braille, large print, e-text, and other alternative formats;
the range and complexity of course materials is increasing, and students
are expected to be computer-literate enough to send email, participate
in online conferences, search electronic databases, and download lecture
notes from the Web. The result is that many university students with a
print disability have experienced frustrating traffic congestion and dead
ends on the information superhighway.

Early last year, the Commission was asked by Blind Citizens Australia
(BCA) and students themselves to investigate ways of improving the situation.
We felt that the most effective way forward was to convene a forum that
all Australian universities would be invited to attend, to initiate the
development of strategies for providing curricular materials in accessible
formats in a cost-effective, efficient, and needs-appropriate way.



The forum was held on May 29; approximately 90 people participated, representing
35 of Australia's 39 universities, university librarians, government departments,
publishers, and students. Prior to the forum, on May 28, a session was
held to clarify and discuss copyright legislation and regimes as they
impact on students with a print disability. Most participants in the forum
also attended this session on copyright. In organising the forum, the
Commission received strong support from the Australian Vice-Chancellors'
Committee, and I want to acknowledge their contribution to the forum itself
and also to the work that has taken place as a result.

The forum included the presentation of a number of "perspective
papers" that examined relevant issues from a variety of standpoints,
including student, academic, disability support staff, and government.
These papers are on the HREOC website, along with other background material,
including the discussion paper that the Commission wrote to provide an
overview of the issues to be discussed. Anyone unfamiliar with the issues
would probably find it useful to begin by reading this discussion paper,
and then move on to the perspective papers and other materials.

After the various presentations, the forum divided into 5 discussion
groups, each group dealing with a specific topic area:

1. Approaches to Production;

2. Copyright and Publishing;

3. Digital Libraries and the Sharing of Information in Accessible Formats;

4. Sector and Cross-sector Standards and Guidelines

5. University Policies, Practices and Procedures.

Each group was asked to develop recommendations aimed at improving access
to curricular materials by students with a print disability. The complete
list of recommendations is also available on our website, but I would
like to highlight some of the recommendations that we feel are the most
significant in terms of the benefits that will flow from their implementation.

A key aspect of providing accessible curricular materials is ensuring
that they are produced in a cost-effective and efficient way. Achieving
this goal has implications for all sections of what we can think of as
the "commodity chain" for accessible-format materials, from
a lecturer who writes a set of lecture notes, disability support staff
who liaise with lecturers, specialist producers of accessible-format material,
and, of course, students themselves. To ensure that there is a unified
and consistent approach to the production chain as a whole, it was recommended
by the forum that a working group be established to examine production-related
issues, including the current and projected demand for accessible-format
materials, the extent of production that is occurring both within the
sector itself and via outsourcing to specialist producers, and ways of
facilitating the sharing of existing material and preventing unnecessary
duplication.

A second key group of recommendations that was developed by the forum
relates to publishing and copyright. One of the most exciting opportunities
that the information superhighway makes possible is the use of source
files from publishers as the basis for producing accessible-format versions
of books. This would substantially reduce the time and cost of production,
since there would be no need to scan the print book or type it into the
computer. The forum's recommendations in this area envisage the creation
of a national clearing-house of publishers' files to which producers would
have access. This is clearly a medium- to long-term project, but it is
one that will have significant benefits for students.

An associated recommendation calls for greater discussion of the ways
in which copyright laws and regulations can be used to enhance, rather
than restrict, access to materials by students with a print disability.
Continuing my earlier metaphor, the copyright stretch of the information
superhighway is full of deep potholes, and our task is to re-tar the surface
so that people with a print disability don't become stranded.

The forum provided a unique opportunity for the higher education sector
and the disability community to share their expertise at the beginning
of a process of achieving systemic change through consensus. The recommendations
were directed towards achieving greater access by improving current processes,
and by opening up mainstream channels. For the forum to be effective,
however, requires ongoing work by the sector. Shortly after the forum,
the Commission held discussions with AVCC to decide how best to go about
the task of implementing the forum's recommendations. We decided to establish
a Steering Committee on Accessible Curricular Materials for Universities.
The main role of this committee is to develop strategies for implementing
the forum recommendations. The committee is chaired by Prof. Sue Johnston,
who is the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching and Learning) and the University
of Tasmania; Kerri Allen, who is Chair of the University of South Australia's
Disability Advisory Group, was the other university representative until
her sad and untimely death some weeks ago; other members of the committee
are AVCC, Blind Citizens Australia, Department of Education, Science and
Training, the Tertiary Education Disability Council of Australia (TEDCA),
and the Commission.

The first meeting of the Steering Committee was held in Sydney on November
1, and the second meeting was held recently. Notes from these and future
meetings can be found on the Commission's website Commission's website,
but I will summarise some of the key outcomes that have been achieved
so far:

first, a working group has been established to consider the forum recommendations
relating to production It had its first meeting earlier this month, and
the Round Table is represented by Jane Evans. The group will, in the coming
months, be surveying the higher education sector to gain a more in-depth
understanding of how much material is being produced in accessible formats
for use by students with a print disability; the results of this survey
will form the basis for subsequent work to develop national approaches
to production.

A second outcome from the meetings of the Steering Committee is the compilation
by the Tertiary Education Disability Council of Australia (TEDCA) of a
list of producers of accessible-format tertiary material. This is the
first such list to be compiled in Australia, and it will be an invaluable
resource to disability support staff in universities and other tertiary
institutions.

The work of the Forum and the Steering Committee is, to be sure, only
a beginning, but it is an important beginning, and represents encouraging
progress. So, if I ask my original question, this time with reference
to accessible curricular materials: SSDD? Hardly! Thanks to the DDA, and
the way in which its objectives are being promoted.

Allow me to read a short extract from the minutes of the Round Table's
Production Subcommittee meeting that was held on April 5, 1993. The scene
is a discussion of copyright:

"(a) Further correspondence from C.A.L. [Copyright Agency Limited]
added to the confusion regarding distinctions in the Copyright Act between
physically handicapped and intellectually handicapped readers. The definitions
of print handicap issue needs to be resolved by Round Table - forming
its own definitions and then urging conformity from Attorney General,
C.A.L. and N.L.A. Bill Byrne will follow up with C.A.L.

(b) The possibility of contradictions between Disability Discrimination
Act and the Copyright Act were discussed and it was resolved to ask the
Round Table Executive to investigate this matter. "

It is quite sobering to read the list of people who were present at that
meeting and to reflect that almost all of them are no longer involved
in the work of the Round Table. But copyright issues seem to go on and
on. Surely, this is a case of SSDD. Maybe Stephen King's weasel-like aliens
could chew up the Copyright Act. Last year I offered two words on Copyright:
confusion, and hope. Today I offer a third: progress. The Commission has
recently established a Copyright and Publishing Roundtable to work towards
removing barriers to information access that have resulted from the operation
of legislation and procedures in the area of copyright and publishing.
The Roundtable had its first meeting on March 21 this year. The meeting
was attended by representatives from the Australian Copyright Council,
the Australian Publishers Association, the Australian Vice-Chancellors'
Committee (AVCC), Blind Citizens Australia, Commonwealth Attorney-General's
Department, Copyright Agency Limited (CAL), National Information and Library
Services (NILS), Pearson Education Australia (publishers), the Round Table
on Information Access for People with Print Disabilities Inc., and the
Commission. The minutes of the meeting will soon be available on our website,
but I will mention the most important outcome, which is that we are compiling
a list of frequently-asked questions (FAQ) about copyright and print disability.
Some questions have clear answers, but others will require further work,
and will help us set the directions for the future activities of the group.
Foe example, is it legal for an individual with a print disability to
scan their own books? What about sharing those books with others via a
website? Do organisations need to get permission from the copyright holder
before they can tr4anscribe a musical score into braille? We are keen
for individuals and organisations to submit questions, so how is your
opportunity to contribute to the accumulation and development of knowledge
in this area. If you have a question that you would like included in the
FAQ, please send it to the Copyright Council at email address info@copyright.org.au.
The message should have a subject line of "FAQ for Copyright and
Publishing Roundtable". Our long-term goal is to establish a national
clearing house of publishers' texts in electronic format that could be
used by producers and individuals to streamline the conversion into accessible
formats.

Stephen King's Dreamcatcher is a large book: 882 pages. In order to read
it, I scanned it - page by page. I became increasingly frustrated to think
that this, and over 12,000 other books, are already available in electronic
format on a US website called bookshare.org. These books are only available
to US citizens at present, but the Commission is hoping to change that
through discussions with publishers and other bodies such as the US Library
of Congress.

The work that the Commission is doing is founded on the aims and objectives
of the DDA, that is, to eliminate disability discrimination as far as
possible. There is much work yet to be done, but we are starting to make
progress. SSDD? Definitely not.

Well, you didn't believe me when I said I was only going to talk for seven
letter, did you? Truth to tell, the scope of information access is constantly
expanding: the built environment, public transport, banking, books - the
list is almost endless, and in order to cover all aspects of information
access I would find myself in the Guinness Book of Records for giving
the longest presentation by a staff member of the Commission. I do want
to mention one more project in which we are involved, because we believe
that it will have important implications for people with a print disability.

Late last year we commissioned the preparation of a discussion paper
looking at the accessibility of telecommunications products and services
to people with a disability. Those of us with a print disability will
be familiar with not being able to read the SMS messages that people send
us, or to change the settings on our mobile phones. Last week I was asked
if I could meet with a blind man here from Sweden. I offered instead to
talk with him on the phone. But although he had a mobile phone and was
able to make calls with it, he couldn't read its number, and so no-one
could make calls to him. Other groups of people with a disability are
also experiencing difficulties accessing telecommunications services.
Deaf people, for example, cannot use their TTYs with digital mobile phones
or the growing number of wireless loop and Internet-based telephone networks.
Bill Jolley, whom most of you will know, was appointed to produce the
discussion paper, and I am pleased to report that we will be launching
it next month. We will be using the paper and the recommendations it contains
to determine how the Commission can most effectively contribute to making
telecommunications more accessible.

This year marks the 10th anniversary of the DDA, and as part of our celebration
of this historic event, the Commission has produced a publication that
showcases the progress that has been made through use of the DDA on an
individual and systemic level. But there is much more that could be done.
By and large, the DDA is only effective if people are prepared to use
it by lodging complaints. Sometimes people are reluctant to use the DDA
because they think complaining is the same as whingeing, and that people
with a disability should just accept things the way they are. The print
disability field in Australia has been enriched by the personal advocacy
of people such as Joan Ledermann and Leah Francis, and those who seek
to preserve their memory and build on their achievements should be inspired
by their examples. Discrimination against people who are blind, vision-impaired,
or who have another print disability can be eliminated; society can be
changed. We don not have to fall prey to the alien dreamcatcher. We in
the Commission's Disability Rights Unit are always available to discuss
the DDA and how you and your organisations can use it effectively.

But remember: the DDA is not the government's Act; it is not the Commission's
Act; it is your Act. May I conclude by revisiting the question that showed
so much promise of ending my presentation before it began. Have we made
progress in improving information access for people with a print disability?
Yes. SSDD? Most emphatically not, thanks to the DDA. But there is an even
shorter answer - a one-letter answer if you will. So my presentation is
reduced from seven letters to five. Progress in removing disability discrimination
is made possible by the DDA, but if the momentum is to continue, if the
dream is to become a reality, then the ultimate answer to the question
SSDD, depends on U (you).