Presentation to TEDICORE Think Tank on Accessible Mobile Telecommunications

Bruce Maguire, Policy Officer, HREOC

Melbourne

May 21, 2007

Introduction

Good afternoon everyone. I begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which we're meeting today.

I must admit that I've been in a bit of a dilemma determining the correct protocol for today's event. Normally I would switch my mobile phone off during presentations, but is that what you're supposed to do at a forum on accessible mobile telecommunications? Perhaps it would be better to leave my talking mobile switched on so I can demonstrate how I accidentally delete all my SMS messages just like everyone else does. Fortunately, the decision was taken out of my hands when one of the crucial keys fell off my phone recently, and I won't be able to operate it properly until my fingernails grow long and pointy enough to fit into the slot.

In 1987 I went to a telecommunications exhibition where I was shown the latest, cutting-edge technology: it was a car-mounted mobile phone, and I was assured that it could be mine for three thousand dollars. Feigning serious contemplation, I asked whether these phones would become smaller and cheaper in my lifetime. “Oh, I doubt it,” replied the enthusiastic salesman, “this is as good as it gets”. Today my mobile phone charger is larger than the phone itself, and I'm reminded that the one constant in telecommunications is that today's innovations are tomorrow's museum pieces. And it doesn't end there: if you're a canny chooser of plans, you can get your phone for free.

Of course, if you're a person who is blind or has low vision and live in Australia , there's not a lot you can do with that free phone. If you need a phone that talks or has screen magnification software, then you'd better go find that money you put aside for a rainy day (that is, before global warming). Innovative technology is, as we all know, a two-edged sword, with elements of both solution and problem; but innovative policies, regulatory frameworks and strategies are essential if people with disabilities are to have equal and independent access to the telecommunications environment that is becoming such a cornerstone of our economy, culture and other structures of society. I therefore want to warmly commend Gunela and TEDICORE for their initiative in organising today's think-tank. I look forward to stimulating presentations, thoughtful discussions and some real progress in the development of solutions, by the time we adjourn later this afternoon.

As I'm sure you are aware, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has had a keen interest in access to telecommunications for many years. In 2003 we released a comprehensive issues paper titled “When the Tide Comes in: Towards Accessible Telecommunications”, which was written by William Jolley, who is an expert in both the telecommunications and disability fields. The paper is extremely well-researched, and contains 26 key recommendations for improving access to telecommunications for people with disabilities. On November 28 2003, the Commission convened a one-day forum to consider the most significant issues affecting telecommunications access, and in June 2005 we issued a Telecommunications Update that offered some analysis of the various initiatives that were taking place in accessible telecommunications. In the issues paper, at the forum, and in the Update, access to mobile telecommunications was identified as a high priority, and so it is no accident that it is the subject of today's gathering.

Observing the Conventions

A few moments ago I referred to protocol. From there it is only a small linguistic leap to “convention”, and for those of us in the disability rights field, the word “convention” connotes but one thing at present, the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 13 December 2006. Australia was among the first countries to sign the Convention when it opened for signature on March 30 2007.

Now, you might think that a UN Convention has little to do with being able to read an SMS message or engage in a mobile Auslan conversation, but it actually has quite a lot to do with it. For one thing, the Convention is far-reaching in its scope, and over time, it is likely to have a beneficial impact on changing the worldwide perception of disability and, hence, a positive impact on many aspects of life for people with disabilities. For another, it specifically identifies access to telecommunications as part of an ensemble of fundamental rights that should be enjoyed by people with disabilities. I think it is useful to keep the Convention in our minds as we discuss mobile telecommunications today, and so I'll provide you with a very brief overview of its content and sketch the procedures for its ratification.

Don Mckay, the Chair of the committee that negotiated the Convention, summarised its basic purpose: “What the Convention endeavours to do is to elaborate in detail the rights of persons with disabilities and set out a code of implementation”.

The Convention itself contains 50 articles. There is also an 18-article Optional Protocol on Communications that allows individuals and groups to petition the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (which is established by Articles 34-39 of the Convention) if all national recourse procedures have been exhausted.

Article 3 of the Convention establishes the 8 general principles on which it is founded, namely:

a. Respect for inherent dignity, individual autonomy including the freedom to make one's own choices, and independence of persons;

b. Non-discrimination;

c. Full and effective participation and inclusion in society;

d. Respect for difference and acceptance of persons with disabilities as part of human diversity and humanity;

e. Equality of opportunity;

f. Accessibility;

g. Equality between men and women;

h. Respect for the evolving capacities of children with disabilities and respect for the right of children with disabilities to preserve their identities.

Article 4 sets out the general obligations that parties to the Convention undertake to meet, including the development of policies, laws and administrative measures for securing the rights recognised in the Convention, and the abolition of laws, regulations, customs and practices that constitute discrimination against people with disabilities.

Article 6 requires that countries ensure the equal rights and advancement of women and girls with disabilities; Article 8 requires protection of children with disabilities, and Article 10 obligates countries to guarantee that persons with disabilities enjoy their inherent right to life on an equal basis with others.

Under Article 15, countries must guarantee freedom from torture and from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and prohibit medical or scientific experiments without the consent of the person concerned.

Under Article 17, countries must protect the physical and mental integrity of persons with disabilities, just as for everyone else.

Other Articles in the Convention deal with access to justice (article 13), independent living (Article 19), access to information (Article 21), education (Article 24), health (Article 25), work and employment (Article 27), and culture, leisure and sport (Article 20).

Probably the article of most direct relevance to our topic today is Article 9, which is titled “Accessibility”. I'll quote it in full, because it has significant and far-reaching implications for access, including access to mobile telecommunications:

1. To enable persons with disabilities to live independently and participate fully in all aspects of life, States Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure to persons with disabilities access, on an equal basis with others, to the physical environment, to transportation, to information and communications, including information and communications technologies and systems, and to other facilities and services open or provided to the public, both in urban and in rural areas. These measures, which shall include the identification and elimination of obstacles and barriers to accessibility, shall apply to, inter alia:

a. Buildings, roads, transportation and other indoor and outdoor facilities, including schools, housing, medical facilities and workplaces;

b. Information, communications and other services, including electronic services and emergency services.

2. States Parties shall also take appropriate measures to:

a. Develop, promulgate and monitor the implementation of minimum standards and guidelines for the accessibility of facilities and services open or provided to he public;

b. Ensure that private entities that offer facilities and services which are open or provided to the public take into account all aspects of accessibility for persons with disabilities;

c. Provide training for stakeholders on accessibility issues facing persons with disabilities;

d. Provide in buildings and other facilities open to the public signage in Braille and in easy to read and understand forms;

e. Provide forms of live assistance and intermediaries, including guides, readers and professional sign language interpreters, to facilitate accessibility to buildings and other facilities open to the public;

f. Promote other appropriate forms of assistance and support to persons with disabilities to ensure their access to information;

g. Promote access for persons with disabilities to new information and communications technologies and systems, including the Internet;

h. Promote the design, development, production and distribution of accessible information and communications technologies and systems at an early stage, so that these technologies and systems become accessible at minimum cost.

There is a lot to digest and analyse here, and unfortunately I don't have time to do either. Suffice to say that I look forward to conversations in the coming months with and between the disability sector, government and industry about the application of this article to those areas covered by the DDA, including access to premises, transport, and the provision of telecommunications products and services. I also encourage TEDICORE to play a leadership role in focussing attention on the implications of this article, and the Convention generally for access to mobile telecommunications.

Australia was among the first countries to sign the main Convention, but it is important to stress that the Convention won't come into force until it is ratified. Before Australia is in a position to ratify a UN treaty (of which the Convention is an example), it must be tabled in both houses of parliament. Treaties are tabled in the Parliament with a National Interest Analysis which notes the reasons why Australia should become a party to the treaty. Where relevant, this includes a discussion of the foreseeable economic, environmental, social and cultural effects of the treaty action; the obligations imposed by the treaty; its direct financial costs to Australia ; how the treaty will be implemented domestically; what consultation has occurred in relation to the treaty, and whether the treaty provides for withdrawal or denunciation.

So there is some way to go yet before we ratify the Convention (so far, Jamaica is the only country to have done so), and there will be ample opportunity for discussion and analysis of the implications of the Convention for Australia . In the Commission's Disability Rights Unit, we have already started to explore how we can use the Convention as a thematic structure for our activities; we are also hoping to organise a workshop to which we will invite representatives from the peak disability organisations and state/territory disability advisory councils, to discuss resources and materials that will be needed to facilitation discussion and consultation prior to ratification of the Convention.

Section 508 Refresh

Moving now from the UN to the US . In 1968, almost one year before man walked on the moon for the first time, the US Congress enacted the Architectural Barriers Act, which was designed to make US federal government facilities fully accessible to people with disabilities. By 1973 it was clear that the Act's implementation was patchy at best, and so the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board was created, to monitor compliance and develop minimum technical standards. Throughout the 70's and 80's, this Board (which came to be known as the Access Board) had its authority strengthened, and the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 extended its mandate to include: developing the accessibility guidelines for facilities and transit vehicles covered by the law; providing technical assistance and training on these guidelines; and conducting research to support and maintain the guidelines.

In 1996, the Board's mandate was extended still further when Section 255 of the US telecommunications Act required that telecommunications products and services be accessible to people with disabilities when such access is “readily achievable”. The Board was empowered to make guidelines on what access means in practice.

In 1998, a further extension of the Board's mission took place, to include access to electronic and information technology. On August 7, 1998, President Clinton signed into law the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998 which cover access to federally funded programs and services. The law strengthens section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act and requires access to electronic and information technology provided by the Federal government. The Board is responsible for developing accessibility standards for such technology for incorporation into regulations that govern Federal procurement practices. The first version of the Board's guidelines issued under Section 508 was published in December 2000.

Last year, the Board announced its intention to revise the Section 508 guidelines and harmonise them with a revision of the guidelines produced under Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act. An overarching committee, the Telecommunications and Electronic and Information Technology Advisory Committee (TEITAC) was set up to oversee this work. It had its first meeting in September 2006, and I thank the Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association (AMTA) for its financial support for my attendance at this meeting as one of a number of international representatives. Since then, there have been two further meetings, and a fourth meeting will take place this week. I'll be participating by telephone as the representative from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. The TEITAC committee comprises just over 40 members, drawn from the disability sector, government and industry. At its September, it established 7 subcommittees to carry out the technical work in revising the guidelines. These subcommittees are:

• Subpart A (Purpose, Application, General Exceptions, Definitions, Equivalent Facilitation)
• Audio/Video
• Desktops, portables, peripherals, and other computer hardware
• Documentation and technical support (§508 Subpart D)
• Self contained, closed products
• Software, Web and Content;
• Telecommunications

These subcommittees carry out their work by teleconferences (some with more than 50 participants) and email, and report back to each meeting of the overarching committee. After this week's meeting, there will be two further meetings, one in July and a final meeting in September. All the subcommittee reports will be compiled into a final report, which will be submitted to the Access Board.

The TEITAC committee's activities are public and open, and their website provides comprehensive information, including meeting minutes and draft reports. While there is still a considerable amount of work to be done, I think it's fair to say that the revisions to the Section 508 and Section 255 guidelines will be significant. The current guidelines have had a major impact on improving access to a wide range of products, including software and telecommunications products, and demonstrate the value of accessible public procurement policies. It is our hope that the revised guidelines may provide a useful model for the development of similar procurement policies in Australia over time. And, of course, many of the products that are manufactured or developed for the US market are also available in Australia sooner or later, so trends towards greater accessibility initiated in the US have an international impact.

Standard Telephone Service

And so back to Australia . If you had asked me before I began working at the Commission to define a standard telephone service, I would have replied with supreme assurance – and been supremely wrong. Over the past couple of years, there has been quite a bit of discussion in the context of access to mobile telecommunications of what does, or should, constitute the Standard Telephone service, as defined in Section 6 of the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act of 1999. It would be courageous indeed were I to attempt to deconstruct the Act in a short presentation such as this and, in any case, such an attempt would by-pass the key issue here. Telecommunications technologies are evolving rapidly, fluid concepts are seldom captured by static definitions, and community expectations are changing. People with disabilities have a reasonable expectation that they can use the products and services that are available to the rest of the community. If that expectation cannot be met within the current legislative and regulatory framework, then it is the framework that needs attention not the expectation.

Much of the discussion about the STS has arisen in the context of the provision of accessible telecommunications equipment to people with disabilities. It is pleasing to note the release in March 2007 of the Review into the current arrangements for providing such equipment that was commissioned by the Commonwealth Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA). I don't think I've found anyone in the disability sector who believes that the current arrangements are adequate, and the Review report contains much useful information, and material to promote lively discussion about the most effective and needs-appropriate way of providing equipment to people with disabilities to ensure equitable access to the telecommunications environment.

Conclusion

The increasingly convergent information and telecommunications environment of the 21st century has many dimensions, but few boundaries. Amid calls for charters of rights, individual consumers often feel imperiled by impersonal, global trends that they feel powerless to influence. People with disabilities are certainly enjoying some of the benefits of innovation: as mobile phones become smarter, they can be more easily customised to provide speech and braille output; as bandwidth increases and codecs become more refined, real-time Auslan conversation via mobile phone is becoming feasible. However, people with disabilities tell me that they often feel included more by accident than by design. It is encouraging that there has been some recent progress in developing codes and guidelines in this area, and it is to be hoped that the current review of the Section 380 Disability Standard will explore possibilities for including mobile telecommunications equipment in a future version. In the meantime, initiatives such as the UN Convention and the revision of US Section 508 accessible public procurement guidelines offer valuable opportunities for advocacy and lobbying in Australia , and I congratulate TEDICORE for organising think-tanks such as this so that we can explore them.