Disability and information technology
Disability Rights
Disability and information technology
|
Engaging Canadian and Australian Information Technology Companies in Inclusion & Accessibility Sydney 4 December 2006 Graeme Innes |
 |
Can I begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which we meet, the Gadigal people of the Eora nation.
I also want to thank and congratulate the organisers of today's workshop, in particular Dr Gerard Goggin from the University of Sydney , Dr Chris Newell from the University of Tasmania and Philip French from the Disability Studies and Research Institute.
This is a very timely event, given that the United Nations has proclaimed accessibility of information and communications technologies as the theme for this year's International Day of people with disability. That was yesterday December 3 here in Australia - but it's still yesterday in Canada today I think.
Back in the 90s Australia was the subject of a complaint to the United Nations Human Rights Committee about a Tasmanian law which was intended to make same sex relationships criminal. There were some fairly silly comments at the time that this meant Australian sovereignty being overrun by the United Nations.
I still remember the response from one of the gay activists involved, Rodney Croome, that he, for one, couldn't wait to see those tall Canadian peacekeepers in blue helmets marching down the streets of Hobart . He didn't get his wish, of course, because human rights commitments are an exercise of a nation's sovereignty, not a denial of it.
But setting aside fantasies of one sort or another about human rights law as representing some sort of world government, it's surprising that we don't do more in Australian law and policy making to compare experiences and initiatives with colleagues in Canada .
Canada of course provides an example of another Federal state with a common law tradition and many economic and political similarities - and yet one in which protection of human rights and recognition of diversity has been taken significantly further in a number of respects.
At the broadest level of human rights legislation, there is now extensive Canadian experience to look to in considering possible models for further human rights protection in Australia - both in relation to statutory Bills of Rights which give guidance to the courts and the executive but preserve the supremacy of Parliament; and more recently in implementing a constitutional Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Reference to the Canadian Charter serves as a reminder that, particularly in relation to disability, broad statements of rights to equality and non-discrimination seldom implement themselves. Very often we need much more detailed decisions, sometimes in the form of laws, sometimes in other forms such as industry standards and government policy, on what equality means.
In Australia much of the work of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission on disability issues has been aimed at filling out the broad anti-discrimination provisions we have in the Disability Discrimination Act with more of the practical details.
We have standards on accessible public transport - which have produced extensive progress but which clearly need further review. We have for 10 years now been negotiating standards on building access, hopefully to be concluded soon.
It's not as simple and satisfying as declaring self evident truths of liberty and equality of course, and the time involved in the processes can be immensely frustrating.
Bob Dylan had this to say: "Equality - I spoke the word, as if a wedding vow: ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now."
Hopefully we won't all get too much younger before the building standards process is finished.
Information and communications access issues have some similarities with areas like buildings and transport and several major differences. Clearly the law doesn't tell you what needs to be done to design an accessible telecommunications system just by saying "don't discriminate" any more than this is enough for buildings or transport. The differences come from the pace of change and innovation in information and communications.
We all recognise that it may take a long time to achieve fully accessible transport systems and buildings - past decisions and assumptions embedded in steel and concrete can't just be transformed overnight.
It's much less easy to accept long postponements of access and equality in information and communications. The normal life cycle of a building or train is measured in decades; product cycles in information and communications technology now seem to be measured in months.
The potential for technology to improve access to information and communications for people with a wide range of disabilities is clearly expanding very rapidly. And yet - as the Commission has discussed in some work we have published over the last few years on communications - we keep seeing new technologies implemented with people with disability being left out or left behind.
Alongside the role of technology in removing barriers to equality and participation, we continue to see examples where opportunities to remove barriers are missed, or even new barriers being erected - or where achieving access is more time-consuming and expensive than it has to be.
This workshop is a great opportunity to look at technical developments and possibilities in achieving information and communications access. But I hope we can also use it to inform policy development and the agendas of government and regulatory bodies such as HREOC and the Australian Communications and Media Authority.
I'm not necessarily pushing a rush to more regulation there. There are real issues in how the law can respond effectively to scientific and technical change without either always being left behind, or else unduly restricting innovation. Clearly, too, information and communications technology industries operate on an increasingly global basis, which gives more reasons for us in Australia to be looking at what law and policy and practice there is on these issues internationally.
I mentioned the work HREOC has done on seeking to promote telecommunications access - even if with patchy results so far. More recently we looked at these issues in the context of our national inquiry on employment and disability. Submissions in that inquiry emphasised that noted that it can be more difficult, and involve delay and expense, to make adjustments to work premises, facilities and equipment retrospectively when an existing employee acquires a disability, or when a jobseeker presents a request for an adjustment; and that it is preferable if, as far as possible, premises, equipment and facilities are designed to meet universal design principles, to accommodate the widest possible range of human capacities and requirements.
I'm sure those are not new ideas to this audience.
In our own agency and even with the excellent I.T. staff we have, we have struggled with practical examples of this issue of making adjustments after the event to systems not designed at the outset for universal access
• how to make TTY phones for deaf or speech impaired phones work with our new Internet based phone system?
• how to ensure that screen reader and voice output software for vision impaired staff works with systems for remote access to computer network?
These are issues which might defeat many a small employer and even many government agencies, and on which leadership and information on a whole of government basis might well improve things substantially.
The inquiry report called for adoption of accessible procurement requirements in government purchasing policies, both to improve the accessibility of government facilities and provide leadership to the private sector.
The submissions focussed on procurement of information and communications technology, although noting that this is not the only area where an accessible procurement policy might have benefits.
The inquiry conducted some preliminary research on overseas procurement models. We presented a brief survey of the rules made under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act 1973 in the US , setting out mandatory accessible procurement requirements on Federal government agencies regarding information and communications technology.
One of the things we found interesting in the 508 regulations is their flexibility - on many issues setting out performance requirements rather than specifications; providing an exception where the market cannot meet a requirement; and providing for compliance either through direct accessibility or through compatibility and interoperability with assistive devices.
I note that some of the research being discussed today deals with this issue of interoperability - looking towards devices such as ATMs or public transport information systems being able to interact with a mobile phone etc. This approach seems to me to have great potential - for example so that as a blind person once I have a phone set up to be accessible to me, all that other devices and systems need to do is be able to talk to my phone instead of each device having to be set up for the great variety of individual user requirements and preferences out there.
In our employment inquiry report we noted that relevant industry sectors in the U.S. appear supportive of the mandatory accessible procurement policy embodied in the 508 regulations. For example, we noted advice from the US Telecommunications Industry and Association and the Electronic Industries Foundation that in their experience:
- accessible design can be implemented with only minor changes to a design or manufacturing process
- improving accessibility does not necessarily increase development time and cost
- the cost of accessible design is minor compared to the benefits gained.
US industry representatives have also urged European adoption of the 508 rules.
These rules as many of you would be aware are currently under review by the US Access Board. Australia and HREOC's own Bruce Maguire has been invited to participate in the expert panel assisting this process.
One of the reasons I am excited about this involvement is that it will help to inform our own efforts here to have Australian governments and other institutions adopt policies and procedures to ensure accessibility of these technologies.
Our employment inquiry also looked at the position in Canada .
One initiative we were very interested in was the Accessible Procurement Toolkit developed by Industry Canada . We noted that the uses the United States section 508 standards as its reference points for accessibility of information and communications technologies rather than seeking to develop distinctive national standards and suggested this might provide a precedent for Australia .
I would welcome information on further development of policies or regulations in Canada requiring accessible procurement.We noted that Canada did not have specific federal legislation requiring accessible procurement, although the Ontarians with Disabilities Act 2001 states:
In deciding to purchase goods or services through the procurement process for the use of itself, its employees or the public, the Government of Ontario shall have regard to the accessibility for persons with disabilities to the goods or services.
There is no reason in a Federal system why every worthwhile initiative has to be taken up at central government level first or not at all.
I understand that several Australian State governments are considering initiatives in this area and I hope to have more details shortly. I'd like to see similar initiatives from the Federal Government and indeed from other significant institutions in Australian society including larger private sector organisations, education providers and major local government authorities. I hope to discuss ways of pursuing this issue both with disability sector organisations and with government over the next few months.
I'm very keen in these discussions to take forward information and recommendations coming out of today's expert discussions. I look forward to an interesting and productive day.