Foresight not oversight
| Susan
Halliday Acting Disability Discrimination Commissioner on receiving Cable & Wireless Optus Disability Action Plan 3 December 1999 |
 |
On behalf of the Commission I'm very pleased to receive the C & W Optus Disability Discrimination Action Plan. It's a great way to celebrate this International Day of People with Disabilities.
It also marks an important moment when competition in the telecommunications industry delivers increased accessibility for all. Optus has taken an important step that deserves acclaim.
I especially want to congratulate the members of the working group - Robyn Wilkinson, John Simpson and Andrew Stewart.
The Commission has always promoted community consultation as the foundation of a good action plan. The people who participate take on a big responsibility and usually a substantial burden in time and resources.
I admire Robyn, John and Andrew because they are active advocates for people with disabilities and for the commendable work they have done with Optus, just one of their many contributions.
And thanks are also due to Optus staff, especially Rosie Rowe and her predecessor Deidre O'Donnell.
Having myself worked within large organisations as a change agent, I know what it's like to try and win hearts and minds, particularly when those hearts and minds have their own biases and budgets at the fore.
The Cable & Wireless Optus Disability Action plan is a clear example of foresight not oversight. It is a matter of course that we acknowledge the merit of disability action plans because they have the virtue of foresight.
In reality though, foresight is just the self-evident rationale for any planning process. But there is something that is particularly important about the Optus plan, something that the telecommunications industry is well-placed to demonstrate.
In that context I would like to take the opportunity to reflect on the Disability Discrimination Act, action plans and access for all.
Oversight can have two meanings - and with this emerges a paradox. The first meaning equates to a mistake, forgetfulness or an omission, the second is to oversee or supervise, to make an observation.
In the first sense "an oversight" occurs when someone designs and builds a marble staircase as the main entrance to their wonderful new award winning building, puts a service counter in that's too high, makes a website to slow to download or does not give call centre users the option of speaking to a "living" person.
Something has happened here that marginalises and excludes people. These cases are entirely avoidable if a little foresight is used.
Oversight also happens when your activities are subject to the eagle eye of an overseer. Someone who prescribes what you do and checks to see that you are actually doing it.
Of course if you are the one who knows your business, knows your customers and knows your shareholders that type of oversight is not always welcome. And in fact experience shows that attempts to put varied or lateral human activities into neat boxes can, due to restriction, have a negative impact on the an outcome that should serve the broader, diverse community.
To marginalise and exclude people by narrowly defining the so-called mainstream, and in turn to treat all others as special, difficult and expensive is no longer appropriate and sadly lacking business savvy. Once again, foresight is the answer.
Let me stress here and now that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission is not an overseer and there are those of us who are less than comfortable with the term WATCH DOG which is so freely used by the media to describe us .
The objects of the Disability Discrimination Act are:
- to eliminate discrimination
- to ensure equality before the law
- to recognise fundamental rights.
In short, the D.D.A. is not about special measures or services that are different. It certainly does not prevent those things but the aim of the D.D.A. is to make ordinary goods, services, and facilities and the rights and responsibilities of citizens accessible to all.
This is where the telecommunications industry and the work that Optus is doing are so important. We all know that access to communications is now one of the basic ingredients of a just and productive society.
Access to communications has become an essential part of participation in economic life and a major ingredient of participation in education, political, social and cultural life.
Over the last few years the telecommunications industry in Australia has undergone very substantial transformation, and change will continue.
I note that your corporate Internet site refers to the Commonwealth's 'interest in advancing the interests of consumers through promoting competition'. And I agree with you when you say that
continued development and spread competition into all areas of the telecommunications industry, which gives consumers real choice and diversity at good prices, will be a crucial determinant of Australia's continued ability to enjoy a high standard of living.
The C & W Optus regulatory group says its mission 'is to promote and safeguard consumer interests through liberalisation and increasing competition in the telecommunications industry.'
It is very pleasing to see these values reflected in your Disability Action Plan where you commit the organisation to respect for the individual, customer focus and a performance driven environment.
Our aim at the Commission is to assist the telecommunications industry to pursue the values that you have expressed. The Telecommunications Act provides a regime that emphasises access for all.
Access for people with disabilities is expressly included.
Under the Act there is a system for industry to regulate itself subject to general government supervision.
The Commission is strongly of the view that the telecommunications industry must be an example of how self-regulation and competition can deliver accessibility through foresight not oversight.
Yes it is true that we're always there ready, willing and able to deal with complaints lodged under the D.D.A. And of course we are always happy and well prepared to offer advice on difficult issues.
But it does not make sense for a person to need to lodge a formal complaint, under our federal Act administered by a small and specialised human rights institution just to achieve the ordinary consumer experience of having a telephone they can use. Or for that matter access to buildings, education, transport or any of the goods, services and facilities that the community as a whole has a right to utilise and enjoy.
It does not make sense in terms of respect for the individual, customer focus and a performance driven organisation. And it does not make sense in human rights terms either.
I applaud the existence of the Optus Disability Action Plan because it addresses directly the issue of competing to provide accessible communications services.
Telstra was the only provider in this field for many years and yes they have been pioneers. But the time has now come for wider recognition that a range of equipment and services must be provided to suit the needs of a diverse customer base and the best way to do this is for other companies to take up the challenge - and they are doing just that.
The rapid pace of change in telecommunications means that reliance on a single legally mandated service will become a thing of the past. This will help ensure that people with disabilities have access to the latest developments in the same timeframe as they become generally available.
It is foresight that has led Optus to make its way in this field and I'm sure the decision has been influenced by business considerations, the company's commitment to being a good corporate citizen and a sophisticated position on social justice and human rights issues.
There is no contradiction in that as far as the D.D.A. is concerned. Good business practice is a prerequisite for having access issues comprehensively addressed.
Experience has shown that people with disabilities have generally been understanding as long as there is evidence of progress and that there is a plan being implemented.
For its part the Commission has a legal duty to acknowledge the existence of an action plan if a complaint is made against a service provider.
Adequate remedial measures that go towards removing discrimination will be recognised. If someone has a plan and is actively pursing the undertakings in that plan, then they will have a fair chance of defending themselves against complaints.
I am pleased to note that the Optus Action Plan addresses Internet products. You may be aware that the Attorney-General has asked the Commission to inquire into e-commerce issues and their effects on older people and people with disabilities. We recently sent the Attorney a progress report and our inquiry will continue until March 2000.
Naturally we are casting an eye over Internet sites of major service providers in the public and private sectors.
It gives me much pleasure to tell you that your corporate Internet site for Cable & Wireless Optus does very well indeed in terms of accessibility.
I'll temper that with a suggestion that the Optus site that focuses on your customers may be in need of a revisit. There is no one guaranteed way of building an accessible Internet site - trust me - the Commission has learned that the hard way itself.
It is reassuring to know that you now have an Action Plan and will no doubt be working to ensure sound physical access and Internet presence.
It is not my job to put a stamp of approval on the Optus Disability Action Plan nor will I say that because of this plan you will never receive complaints. Your actions, not the plan per se will be the deciding factors.
Optus has demonstrated corporate leadership by taking this important step. You have challenged the rest of your industry to do better and introduced another level of competition. The community will watch carefully to see how well you go about implementing what has been announced to day. On behalf of the Commission I wish you every success in making Cable & Wireless Optus and what it does accessible to all.
