ࡱ> fhe;@ Ebjbjkk X =nnn8 <7:2(""""""9999999$i;R=J9""9""9.""99[n28z9" dnCX:9 9:07:Z9 ?"?@z9?z9 "r4\"""99*D*The Deafness Forum View From The Trenches Margaret Robertson, Director and Brian Rope, CEO Paper for HREOC Disability Summit, 4-5 December 2001 Background The Deafness Forum is the peak body for deafness in Australia. Established in early 1993 at the instigation of the Federal government, the Deafness Forum now represents all interests and viewpoints of the Deaf and hearing impaired communities of Australia (including those people who have a chronic disorder of the ear and those who are DeafBlind). As at 29 November 2001, the Deafness Forum had 99 organisation members and 139 individual members. The Deafness Forum exists to improve the quality of life for Australians who are Deaf, have a hearing impairment or have a chronic disorder of the ear by: advocating for government policy change and development making input into policy and legislation generating public awareness providing a forum for information sharing and creating better understanding between all areas of deafness. The Deafness Forum avoids becoming involved in individual advocacy and in issues that are not national. However, it has found itself unavoidably involved in a small number of individual advocacy cases. It also sometimes takes up issues with State Governments when the issue exists throughout Australia. An example of the latter would be an issue relevant to State Government Education Departments throughout Australia. The Deafness Forum is very aware that another national peak body exists to represent the interests of people who are signing Deaf, namely the Australian Association of the Deaf, and seeks to work with the AAD on issues of concern to both organisations constituencies. Examples of such issues would be captioning and telecommunications. Access Issues What should be accessible? For the Deafness Forums constituents, all devices and places they need to use should be accessible. Here is a list (not necessarily comprehensive) of things they need to gain access and, therefore, not suffer discrimination: properly functioning hearing augmentation systems or alternatives (in public halls, theatres, cinemas, courtrooms, schools, transport terminals, etc.) hearing loops FM systems Auslan interpreters Note-takers Oral interpreters (lip speakers) RealTime reporting facilities Captioning on TVs used by staff and clients in hotels, boarding houses, hospitals, waiting rooms, etc. on movies/videos, etc. screened in public cinemas, railway stations, airport lounges, etc. in association with live performances in public theatres on TVs in places of entertainment such as hotel bars and club lounges, etc. (particularly those showing pay TV channels) on safety and entertainment videos screened on aircraft, trains and coaches acoustic couplers on phones (including lift phones) for use by staff and clients in hotels, boarding houses, hospitals, courts, etc. volume controls on phones (as in 1.5) TTYs and TTY directories (as in 1.5) intercom and security systems (e.g. at office blocks, apartment blocks, etc.) that can be heard doorbells (e.g. in hotels) that can be heard emergency warning systems in any type of premises (commercial, residential, etc.) that can be heard (including staff that will enter guest rooms and touch guests to wake them if necessary) fire alarms smoke alarms heat alarms burglary alarms alternatives to systems that use sounds to alert users turnstiles lifts automatic doors elevators alternatives to telephone menu driven option systems that they can not hear barriers that do not deaden sound, such as glass security screens at banks, ticket offices, etc. public address systems used to make announcements relating to access that can be heard in emergency situations to call clients to service points acoustic design wall claddings that do not deaden sound hard surfaces that do not echo sound double glazing where needed to keep out external noise installations that do not create magnetic field interference on hearing augmentation systems, such as hearing loops other design issues patterns that will not trigger Menieres Disease attacks open staircases that will not disorient Menieres Disease sufferers counter heights that will not prevent standing clients from lip reading seated service providers Standards The development of DDA Standards has the potential to achieve reductions in discrimination without the need to resort to the Complaints mechanism. However, to date, progress with Standards has been slow and has not really delivered anything much for people who are Deaf or have a hearing impairment. In the area of Access to Public Transport, the proposed Standard does not yet really address matters of direct relevance to the Deafness Forums constituency, such as the provision of hearing loops at public transport terminals. There have been some recent developments (e.g. a presentation regarding the installation of hearing loops on trains) that, hopefully, will lead to action in these respects in future. In the area of Access to Education, there are some important issues for the Deafness Forums constituency. The Forum is not convinced that a Standard, when completed, will lead to much direct change in the delivery of education for its constituents. However, a Standard should assist people who are Deaf or hearing impaired to succeed when bringing a DDA Complaint against an education provider. The area of Access to Premises is a most important one for the Deafness Forums constituency. As a Standard is created and it tied in with the Building Code of Australia (BCA) and Standards Australias relevant standards (primarily AS1428.5), it is expected that, in particular, hearing access to buildings will improve significantly. Already, because the BCA now requires hearing augmentation to be installed in new buildings whenever a public address system is being installed, there apparently has been a significant increase in the numbers of hearing loops going in to buildings. It has recently been suggested to the Deafness Forum that there is an urgent need to get the Australian Building Code Board to tell users of the BCA that they should display the International Symbol for Deafness wherever hearing augmentation systems are provided. The International Symbol for Deafness is a registered trademark in Australia, held by the Deafness Forum. This provides various rights to the Deafness Forum including the right to license or sell the symbol use within Australia for the goods and services for which it is registered. The Deafness Forum encourages the correct use of the symbol to identify and promote places that provide hearing augmentation systems. Wherever possible the symbol is to be accompanied by an explanatory caption, indicating the location of hearing augmentation. The symbol may not be used by commercial enterprises as an advertising logo or in any way to promote or identify commercially available goods or services. It is important that the symbol is not used incorrectly. The colour of the symbol is specified: It shall be white on a blue background. The blue shall be B21, Ultramarine of AS 2700, or similar. (See also Australian Standard 1428.1 1998, Clause 14.) A number of issues relating to people who are Deaf or have a hearing impairment will never be addressed by any DDA Standard. However, some of those issues are progressively being addressed via other standards processes and industry codes. Reference has already been made to Australian Standards (particularly AS1428.1 and 1428.5). There also are Australian Communications Industry Forum (ACIF) codes and guidelines being developed in several areas. In September 2001, ACIF issued Industry Guidelines on Access to Telecommunications for People with Disabilities. Those Guidelines are very important for the Deafness Forums constituents. Past and Current Use of the Complaints and HREOC Inquiries Mechanisms A DDA complaint (Scott vs Telstra) was used very effectively to achieve a result in the area of provision of TTYs under a Disability Equipment Program in 1995. The Deafness Forum was only a spectator in that. A 1998 HREOC inquiry into closed captioning of free-to-air TV delivered results. In the case of closed captioning of TV, new legislation specified a timetable for the provision of closed captioning that, to date, is being met. In recent days there has been a suggestion that the captioning standards specified in that legislation may not be obligatory. This is of concern and it will be necessary for stakeholders to be vigilant. In that context the Deafness Forum is concerned that another stakeholder has indicated (to the ABC) that it would accept a delay in the captioning of programming by the new ABC Multichannel FLY programs (currently being transmitted via some PAY-TV channels). In 1999 a member of the Deafness Forum and two other people lodged a DDA complaint regarding mobile phones and hearing aids. The resultant Inquiry eventually delivered an agreement for major telecommunications carriers to provide limited assistance to people who had purchased unsuitable mobile phones. The Deafness Forum had some concerns about the conciliated agreement, believing that it obtained insufficient for hearing aid users generally. More importantly, the Inquiry was a catalyst that resulted in the introduction of a new and satisfactory mobile phone network useable by people with hearing aids. There is no guarantee, however, that future new telecommunications products and networks will not lead to similar problems for people with hearing aids. In 2000 an individual (now a member of the Deafness Forum) lodged a complaint against his local cinema for not screening captioned movies. The resultant Public Inquiry into captioning of movies delivered valuable results and open captioned movies are now screened on a regular basis in cinemas in all capital cities (but not in the complainants local cinema). The Deafness Forum became a party to conciliation meetings (as did the AAD) and remains involved in an ongoing committee that is oversighting the implementation of the agreement reached with the movie industry. In March 2001, Michael Small of HREOC conducted a DDA Complaints workshop for the Deafness Forum. At the end of the workshop, participants brainstormed to identify issues for potential public inquiries and came up with the following ideas: Access to health services. Hotel information and usage. Pay TV captioning. 100% free-to-air TV captioning. Education videos and on-line education captioning. Public announcements, etc at transport stations and on transport itself (all types of transport). Failure to re-transmit captions when cable TV puts captioned free-to-air broadcasts into hotels. Access to telecommunications equipment from telecommunications companies other than Telstra The Australian Broadcasting Authoritys complaints procedure. Transmission of TV programs if captioning required by law is not available for some reason (digital TV legislation says captioning is inherent to the broadcast). Early to tertiary education e.g. access to interpreters. Lack of provision and access to interpreters. Hearing aid provision discrimination on the grounds of age? Safety side of fire alarms. Costs of interpreters. In response, Michael Small commented that: Access to interpreters in education would best be addressed via the DDA Education Standard. Fire alarms are on the Access to Premises groups agenda Some of the identified matters have now been addressed via DDA Complaints. An individual lodged a complaint that captioning was not provided on PAY-TV. He requested that the complaint be dealt with via a public inquiry and that the Deafness Forum represent him. The Inquiry is currently in progress. Again the Deafness Forum and AAD are involved in conciliation meetings. There is reason to be optimistic that a good agreement will be reached. Also, two members of the Deafness Forum lodged DDA complaints against various hotel chains regarding their failure to provide captioning facilities on TV sets in guestrooms. Both members requested that their complaints be dealt with via the Public Inquiry process and that the Deafness Forum represent them. HREOC declined to use the Public Inquiry process, resulting in the Deafness Forum becoming involved in two cases of individual advocacy. In one case, responses by the concerned hotel have been sufficiently positive to give the Deafness Forum encouragement that a good result may be achieved. In the other case the complainant has sacked the Deafness Forum as advocate (because the Forum was taking an approach that sought to achieve an outcome benefiting all people who need captioning whereas the complainant seemed only to be thinking about herself. She subsequently advised HREOC that she was generally satisfied with an offer made by two of the concerned hotels (which the Forum considered unsatisfactory) but wanted financial compensation for herself for Pain, Suffering, Trouble and Inconvenience. In respect of a third hotel she expressed dissatisfaction with its response and indicated she would also seek financial compensation from it. The Deafness Forum was most concerned about this and its CEO e-mailed the Disability Discrimination Commissioner about it on 12 October 2001 as follows: This all worries the Deafness Forum greatly. It seems to us to demonstrate a real problem. If an individual lodges a complaint about something that has broad implications for a large group of people, in this case a substantial part of the Deaf and hearing impaired communities, it concerns us if that one individual can reach a settlement that fails to take account at all of the needs of the other affected persons. In this specific case, we have a substantially different view to Ms . In addition, I personally am appalled that she is now seeking personal financial compensation, since if nothing else that just muddies the waters. In the Deafness Forum's view, the response to hotels should have been along the lines of the attached draft letter that I had put together for Ms , but was never approved by her. You will see in that letter that we believe there are a number of major issues needing resolution. The Deafness Forum wishes to formally notify its interest in this matter and requests the opportunity to participate in further considerations flowing from Ms ..'s complaint. There has been no response to this from HREOC to date. In addition to the matters outlined above, there also have been various DDA complaints lodged by individuals relating to such things as failure to provide Auslan interpreters in education settings. The Deafness Forum has never been directly involved with any of these cases, but occasionally has provided some information or advice to particular complainants. Future Possibilities in the Area of Complaints The Deafness Forum sees the careful use of the DDA Complaints as something it will pursue in future. The primary task is to identify priorities and winnable issues. The Deafness Forum sees Public Inquiries as an excellent mechanism for dealing with DDA complaints that have broad implications, and would like to see HREOC always adopt such an approach when requested to do so. There are some Deafness Forum constituents who also have their own plans to lodge DDA complaints. Hopefully, those people will act in consultation with the Forum. If they do not initially do so, the Forum believes it is important that HREOC seek to involve the Deafness Forum (and other relevant disability sector bodies) with a view to maximising the potential benefits resulting from the Complaint. That is one reason why the Deafness Forum supports the use of the Public Inquiry process. PAGE 7 PAGE 1 *+\ &&/(005^@@A.BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEںꢜڢhY60JmHnHuhaR0JmHnHu haR0JjhaR0JUhaRCJOJQJmH sH haRmH sH haROJQJhaRCJmH sH haRCJhaRhaROJQJmH sH haRCJOJQJhaR5CJOJQJ,*+\^ _ 3 \ x $a$ & F  & F$a$$a$$a$EE~]l=c  7Sn & F 7nn^n` & F 7O^O` & F 7n` & F h7Sn7^7`HSYist"#|  7Sn & F 7n`  7Sn & F h7Sn7^7`K Q$a$$ 7a$ & F 7nn^n` & F 7nn^n` & F h7Sn7^7`  7Sn & F 7n`f g $$&&&&''d*e*_-`-//000$ & F a$$ 7a$ 7$ ) p@ P !a$$a$0000,111M22-3h333344344444466 < <$ 7a$$ & F a$$a$$ & F a$ <>]@^@@@AA.B/BCCEEEEEEEEEE&`#$$a$ $7]^7a$. A!"#$%8@8 Normal_HmH sH tH D@D Heading 1$@&>*CJOJQJJ@J Heading 2$$@&a$>*CJOJQJDA@D Default Paragraph FontVi@V  Table Normal :V 44 la (k@(No List V^@V Normal (Web)dd[$\$CJaJmH sH u6U6 Hyperlink >*B*ph4 @4 Footer  !.)@!. Page Number@@2@ Header  ! CJtH uZC@BZ Body Text Indent$a$OJQJmH sH tH u@B@R@ Body Text$a$ CJOJQJ=X*+\^_3\x~ ] l = c     H S Y i s t "#|K Qfgd"e"_%`%''((((((,)))M**-+h++++,,3,4,,,,.. 4 46]8^88899.:/:;;=========0000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000 0 0 0 0 0]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90]90 _y0 ]y0]y0 ]y0]y0 0===]90]90H E#0 <E$&'()*+E% !t! x3vy3z3t {3|3<+}3<~3L]3^ 333,ww||=  }}= B*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsdate8 *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity9 *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace 11200129DayMonthYear    =======U\ =====3333========Brian Charles RopeBrian Charles RopeBrian Charles RopeBrian Charles RopeBrian Charles RopeBrian Charles RopeBrian Charles RopeBrian Charles RopeBrian Charles Rope David Mason ui:*i O^Z# s lNl*w6 7!rc/s9zKHF 9xG:.\h܇.o:ar h^`OJPJQJ^Jo(-h^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(opp^p`CJOJQJo(@ @ ^@ `CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(PP^P`CJOJQJo( hh^h`OJQJo(hh^h`.P^`P..^`...xp^`x....  ^` .....  X ^ `X ......  ^ `....... 8^`8........ `^``.........^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(opp^p`CJOJQJo(@ @ ^@ `CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(PP^P`CJOJQJo(^`OJPJQJ^Jo(-^`OJQJ^Jo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(opp^p`CJOJQJo(@ @ ^@ `CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(PP^P`CJOJQJo(h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hH hh^h`OJQJo(^`.^`.pp^p`.@ @ ^@ `.^`.^`.^`.^`.PP^P`.h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(opp^p`CJOJQJo(@ @ ^@ `CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(PP^P`CJOJQJo( hh^h`OJQJo( l*l6 7*i .o9xGuc/s9.\#s:arHF Y6aR===@U=p@UnknownG: Times New Roman5Symbol3& : Arial?5 : Courier New;Wingdings"1h[\F[\F1 f4o1 f4o!4x=x=2H?Y6zAchievements and prospects in disability rights in Australia: where have we come from, where are we and where are we going David Mason David Mason@         Oh+'0(<HTd x   {Achievements and prospects in disability rights in Australia: where have we come from, where are we and where are we goingchi David MasonaviaviNormala David Mason2viMicrosoft Word 10.0@@ʋ@ʋ1 f4՜.+,D՜.+,l hp  K HRC / OFPCox=A {Achievements and prospects in disability rights in Australia: where have we come from, where are we and where are we going Title8_AdHocReviewCycleID_EmailSubject _AuthorEmail_AuthorEmailDisplayNameg3rd paper for HREOC summitiDavidMason@humanrights.gov.aubi David Mason  !"#$%&'()*+,./012346789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTVWXYZ[\^_`abcdgRoot Entry FfiData -1Table5E?WordDocumentXSummaryInformation(UDocumentSummaryInformation8]CompObjj  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q