International day for people
with disabilities

Dr Sev Ozdowski OAM, Acting Disability Discrimination Commissioner 3 December 2001 Alice Springs

Introduction

Allow me to commence by paying my respects to the traditional custodians
of this land on which we meet.

It is a pleasure to be here to share with you this International Day
for people with disabilities.

I am here today partly because Michelle Castagna was quick off the mark
in organising me to come before I had accepted any of the numerous other
possibilities for events for the international day.

Another reason is the fact - obvious to all of you here - that people
with disabilities in a place such as Alice Springs and the surrounding
region face human rights and access issues in particularly acute forms.
So I have chosen to spend today in the physical centre of Australia rather
than in one of the larger political or population centres.

I want to talk with you today about some of the initiatives which I and
my colleagues at the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission are
taking to advance the human rights of people with disabilities; and to
ask for your co-operation in finding ways to further advance the human
rights of people with disabilities - wherever they live across this country.

Twenty years after the International Year for Disabled Persons, there
has been progress in some important areas. But people with disabilities
still face unnecessary and unjust exclusion and inequality as part of
the daily realities of life.

Discrimination law is a powerful tool for changing some of these realities

I want to talk about achievements and possibilities in using the Disability
Discrimination Act.

But it must also be acknowledged that not every human rights issue for
people with disabilities can be dealt with, or dealt with effectively,
by discrimination law.

So I also want to talk about options for action on human rights and disability
issues more broadly.

Disability discrimination legislation and practical
agendas

The Disability Discrimination Act was passed by the Federal Parliament
a little over nine years ago now, in November 1992. This was around the
same time that the Northern Territory passed its own Anti-Discrimination
Act, which also covers disability discrimination.

The main object of the Federal Act was clearly stated: "to eliminate,
as far as possible, discrimination against persons on the ground of disability"
- and to do this across a wide sweep of areas of life, from employment
and education, to access to premises, to discrimination in services such
as transport, insurance and government services.

The initial intention of the federal government in developing the DDA
was only to legislate on employment. But this coverage was expanded when
the Commission and disability community organisations pointed out that
legislation covering employment by itself would not have much impact.

You cannot have equal opportunity in employment if you cannot get to
work because of inaccessible transport systems. Or if you cannot get into
the building. Or if you do not have an effective opportunity to acquire
skills through education and training. Or if telecommunications or other
important technologies are inaccessible to you.

So the Disability Discrimination Act is aimed at these practical aspects
of equal opportunity and access rather than only at achieving theoretical
statements of EEO policy.

Unfortunately, it seems to me, human rights and discrimination laws often
seem to be viewed mainly as symbolic commitments rather than practical
agendas for action. As far as I am concerned, though, the point is to
actually make a difference to the freedom and opportunity that people
actually enjoy in practice.

This is the way the Commission has tried to approach the Disability Discrimination
Act. We believe that when the DDA says its object is to eliminate discrimination,
it means what it says, and that it requires practical action to make this
happen.

Implementation provisions

Very few laws achieve their objects automatically or overnight just by
being passed. It is certainly not that simple for human rights and discrimination
laws.

This is why the Act contains various implementation and enforcement mechanisms:

• Provision for complaints to be made, and resolved if possible by conciliation
  but if necessary by enforceable decision;
• Provision for the Commissioner to act as amicus curiae - to assist
  the court with expert opinion in cases of public importance;
• Provision for standards to be set - to define what is required to
  eliminate discrimination and how long it is allowed to take;
  
  Provision for temporary exemptions - to encourage and assist the transition
  from a discriminatory present to a non-discriminatory future;
• A promotional role for HREOC, and for the office of Disability Discrimination
  Commissioner in particular - to ensure that people with rights and responsibilities
  under the legislation know about those rights and responsibilities and
  what they mean.

I do not want to over-emphasise my own role, or the role of the Human
Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, as if all action about human
rights and disability centres on us.

For one thing, all States and Territories - including the Northern Territory
as I have mentioned - also have disability discrimination provisions in
their own equal opportunity or discrimination laws. The Federal legislation
may be the one with disability in the title - with the disability symbol
on the front door, so to speak - but the State and Territory laws and
agencies also have their part to play.

More broadly, if equality and access are to become realities for people
with disabilities across Australia, then the DDA cannot be seen as something
which is just the responsibility, or mainly the responsibility, of a small
Sydney based human rights commission. It has to be the responsibility
of all organisations - government, business and community.

Disability is an issue in all communities

Disability access has to be a central concern whether we are talking
about organisations specifically focussed on disability, or on provision
of more general services, or organisations focussed on specific groups
like women or indigenous people.

Half the disability community are women, and have the same concerns as
other women regarding gender based disadvantage. In fact there is evidence
that women with disabilities are subjected to sexual harassment and abuse
at an even greater rate than other women.

People with disabilities share the ethnic, religious and cultural diversity
of the Australian community.

Australia's indigenous peoples also include people with all kinds of
disability. As people here would know, some disabilities, for example
deafness and hearing impairment, occur at a much higher rate among Aboriginal
people than in the community generally.

Is disability discrimination a priority?

I must admit that it is a challenge to be talking about disability discrimination
in this context: when some sections of our community are experiencing
social and public health disaster which is producing vastly higher rates
of disability, particularly among young people.

Isn't the real human rights issue about deafness in Aboriginal young
people how to stop them going deaf, rather than thinking about how to
give them access to education or employment after it has happened?

Isn't it pathetic to be talking about wheelchair access in communities
where young people need wheelchairs because of the consequences of petrol
sniffing?

Yes: these are human rights issues which are all too real. My colleague
the Social Justice Commissioner Bill Jonas and his predecessor Mick Dodson
have worked for years to gain more public and political attention and
commitment to addressing these issues.

It is also true that disability discrimination law has little or nothing
to contribute to these issues of the causes of unnecessary disability.

But even without these factors of social disadvantage, and in some cases
destructive behaviour, people with disabilities would still be an inherent
part of indigenous communities and of the communities of regional and
remote Australia more generally. Because disability is an inherent part
of the human experience in this world. In every community it is inevitable
that some of us will have disabilities, whether acquired through inheritance
or illness or injury.

So, yes: the epidemic of hearing loss among Aboriginal children needs
to be addressed. But so does the right to equally effective access to
education for those who are already deaf and those who will be deaf in
future even without the effects of social and health disadvantage.

Yes: the scourge of petrol sniffing has somehow to be removed. But all
communities will contain people with brain injury or with physical disabilities
acquired in other ways. Most obviously, disability is going to keep resulting
from a more widely practiced dangerous use of petrol. I mean, putting
it in cars and driving- and of course people outside the inner cities
have little choice about that as part of life.

Roles of HREOC and community

I am not here to hold the disability discrimination agenda out as the
whole human rights agenda or to claim that a human rights commission can
have a decisive role on every issue of concern.

My point is to emphasise that the access and equity issues dealt with
by the DDA and similar legislation are an important part of securing human
rights in practice.

And although HREOC cannot claim sole responsibility for delivering implementation
of the DDA in practice, clearly we do have a leading responsibility, through
our legal and promotional or political roles. We also have a responsibility
to be accountable about how we perform these roles.

In return, can I suggest that the disability community has a responsibility
to be clear in putting to us its expectations on how we should perform
the responsibilities which the legislation gives to us, both under the
Disability Discrimination Act and the broader human rights agenda under
the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act.

We consistently invite input both on what issues we should be addressing
and on the detail of actions and decisions on those matters we are dealing
with.

One of my first actions after taking up my position as Commissioner
was to send an open letter, directly to all organisations on our mailing
list as well as through our web site, seeking input on priorities and
projects, as well as on issues of how we communicate with the community.

The number of responses we received was really very limited. I should
say though that we had more response from people here in Alice Springs
than from some much larger centres.

In a country the size of Australia, of course one Commissioner with two
hats to wear and a handful of staff cannot promise frequent face to face
meetings everywhere. What I can promise is to take communication seriously
as a two way process.

The fact that every 8 weeks or so my reports to my colleagues on the
Commission are also made available to the public is one part of that commitment.
But again I want to emphasise that we are looking for more input in return
- on the broad level of issues which we should be taking up as priorities,
and on the detail of how we implement projects and make decisions.

I will be holding a summit meeting with national peak disability representative
organisations to :

• Discuss how far we have come in implementation of the DDA;
• Review effective strategies for using the DDA and
• Begin the process of formulating an appropriate agenda and plans of
  action for implementation of the DDA into its second decade.

We will of course be reporting back to the community as soon as possible
on the results of this summit and seeking feedback broadly on proposals
which come out of it.

Public inquiries

Public inquiries are one of the most important methods which the Commission
has used to collect views and information on pressing human rights issues,
and to gain increased attention for and action on those issues.

The type of national inquiries which Brian Burdekin made his trademark
- the homeless children and mental illness inquiries - and the inquiry
led by Ron Wilson on separation of Aboriginal children from their families,
were million dollar exercises with a dedicated project team conducting
hearings across Australia.

They stretched over years, and severely stretched HREOC's resources,
even in the days when we had substantially greater resources available
than now.

More recently in HREOC's disability work. we have conducted a number
of public inquiries on a more modest scale. This sort of inquiry places
heavy emphasis on use of the internet to disseminate and gather information
more quickly and cheaply.

The more expensive and logistically demanding method of face to face
hearings is only used sparingly, once internet based submissions and discussion
have identified issues, options and the key parties with information and
ideas to contribute.

This new style of inquiry is our standard method for assessing temporary
exemption applications under the DDA.

We have also applied it with good success to a small number of complaints
where we have sought, and the HREOC President has agreed, to have a complaint
investigated by a public inquiry method because of the broad significance
of the complaint and the need for broader input than the parties can provide.

We can also conduct a public inquiry where the Attorney-General gives
the Commission a reference to inquire into. Our report last year on access
to electronic commerce and related matters was this kind of inquiry. A
follow up report on actions arising from the inquiry was released last
week - it is on our website or it is available in other forms on request.

Last but not least, we can conduct inquiries at our own initiative.

The best way to see HREOC conduct an inquiry on an issue is to write
or email to us asking for it to happen. I am not saying we will automatically
agree: we do have issues of statutory jurisdiction and available resources
to consider. I am saying that we treat such requests seriously.

Our inquiry on wheelchair accessible taxi services is an example of this.
I decided to conduct this inquiry on the basis of community representation,
as well as our own knowledge of the issues from complaints and other experience.
A draft report is available on our web site for comment up to 21 December.

Effective use of complaints

When the DDA was being drafted in 1991, complaint processes were seen
by government, community and HREOC alike as insufficient to achieve large
scale change. Everyone expected the provision for disability standards
to be the most important mechanism for achieving the objects of the legislation.

A decade later, that is not how things have gone.

No standards under the DDA are yet in place - although transport standards
are very close to entering into force and standards on access to premises
and education are also moving forward.

The process of negotiating standards has brought some important results
in itself. But most results achieved with the DDA have involved the use
of complaints one way or another.

I have already mentioned the public inquiry approach to complaints as
one initiative aimed at increasing the effectiveness of the DDA as a means
of achieving systemic change.

But to conduct inquiries into complaints, HREOC - or any other discrimination
agency - needs to be receiving suitable complaints in the first place.
Also, the public inquiry approach is not going to be appropriate for every
complaint.

I would like to see some discussion of ways that we can make it easier
for the community to use the power of the legislation. Here are some questions
which we raised at the "Disability with Attitude" conference
earlier this year but to which we have had only limited responses so far:

• Would "fill in the blanks" complaint forms for different
  issues - like a "defect notice" for premises access issues
  - result in more complaints, or more effective complaints, than the
  present single standard HREOC complaints form?
• Is your organisation interested in assistance or advice on developing
  a standard "just sign here" complaint on a few priority issues?
• Is your organisation interested in a more "hands on" workshop
  session on how to turn priority issues into complaints?
• Do you or your organisation have access to a web site, email list,
  press contact or other means where you could - if you wished - publicise
  the fact that you have made a complaint and what's in it?
• What else is holding people back from more active use of the DDA?

I encourage you to send to me any thoughts you have on these issues.