24th Annual Report for the Year Ended June 30, 1999
PRESIDENT'S OVERVIEW........ 2
OUR PEOPLE5
EXECUTIVE OFFICER'S SUMMARY......... 6
INDIVIDUAL ADVOCACY.... 18
SYSTEMIC ADVOCACY.... 26
MEMBERSHIP & COMMUNICATION......... 32
EXTERNAL RELATIONS..... 37
ADMINISTRATION & FINANCE......... 43
NATIONAL ADVOCACY SERVICE......... 49
VICTORIAN SERVICE......... 52
DDA STANDARDS.... 55
TELECOMMS & DISABILITY..... 59
MAKING E-COMMERCE ACCESSIBLE... 63
ENHANCED AUDIO WITH DIGITAL TELEVISION.... 69
BRAILLE LITERACY IN VIET NAM.. 79
CONTACT DETAILS......... 84
Blind Citizens Australia: the united voice of blind and vision impaired Australians. Our mission is to achieve equity and equality by our empowerment, by promoting positive community attitudes, and by striving for high quality and accessible services which meet our needs.
I am pleased to introduce the 24th Annual Report of Blind Citizens Australia for the year ended June 30, 1999. We have had another good year, and this report shows that Blind Citizens Australia continues to grow in strength and achievement.
We have pursued our mission and focussed on our core activities. We have provided peer support, individual advocacy, systemic advocacy, information dissemination and advice to governments and the community. Much of our success can be directly attributed to our hard working, expert and dedicated staff lead by Executive Officer, Bill Jolley. Our Branches and many individual members have also played their part through various activities at local level.
We were delighted with the success of the Blind Citizens Australia Identity Card. The Identity Card has an equivalent status to a driver's licence, and has met a growing need expressed by our members for photo-ID.
We have continued with some cross-disability projects this year. The DDA Standards Project is well established, but progress towards DDA standards is very slow. The Telecomms & Disability project was a new undertaking for us, and we will continue this year to achieve strong outcomes for telecommunications’ consumers with disabilities. Our leadership of these projects is motivated by our belief that their positive outcomes are critically important for people who are blind or vision impaired.
We continue to support blind people in developing countries, although Australia remains our clear priority. We have the capacity and expertise to create change both at home and overseas, so we have continued our work in Viet Nam and Fiji. Funding and management support for these two projects have been provided by AusAID and ACROD respectively, and we value their support and involvement.
Plans are advancing well for the Fifth General Assembly of the World Blind Union, and associated events, to be held in November 2000 in Melbourne. We are taking the lead in organising this historic event, in partnership with blindness agencies, with John Simpson appointed as the Event Organiser.
The year was financially stable. We had strong and generous support from our members, continuing support from the Commonwealth and Victorian Governments, and assistance from most blindness agencies. I want to thank Commonwealth Bank, Telstra, Ozemail and Cato Partners for their ongoing support.
We have finished the year with a surplus of $23,169. This is a good result largely due to careful planning and attention to detail by our Executive Officer. We face some uncertainty in the year ahead due in part to policy changes by the commonwealth Government in funding of peak bodies like Blind Citizens Australia.
I would like to thank our staff for their continued efforts, and our members for their continuing loyalty and effort at a local level. I also thank our Directors: Robert Altamore, Leighton Boyd, Lynne Davis, Helen Freris, Kym Hand, Peter Johnson, Karen Knight, Tony Starkey and Sondra Wibberley. They have all contributed to our achievements during the year.
Last year's Convention marked the retirement from the Board of Joan Ledermann after twenty years of service as a leader and inspiration to so many, including four years as President. We thank Joan for her commitment and contribution, and I particularly thank Joan for her assistance to me as a new member of the Board and as an inexperienced President.
Joan Ledermann was the winner last year of the Blind Citizens Australia David Blyth Award, a fitting tribute to her advocacy for Braille and her strong contribution to advance the cause of blind people over many years. Certificates of Appreciation were presented to Pat Downie from Sydney and Carmel Jolley from Melbourne. We record our congratulations to these two people who are integral members of the backbone of Blind Citizens Australia.
I anticipate another year of high achievement as a new decade begins. Blind Citizens Australia is a strong and dynamic national association of blind people. We have an international reputation for excellence and tenacity, and with your support I intend to keep it that way. It is a privilege for me to lead Blind Citizens Australia as your President, and I shall try hard to lead by example in "Changing What it Means to be Blind".
· Michael Simpson, President, Sydney
· Robert Altamore, Vice-President Advocacy & Policy, Canberra
· Peter Johnson, Vice-President Advocacy & Policy, Perth
· Leighton Boyd, Director, Melbourne
· Lynne Davis, Director, Sydney
· Helen Freris, Director, Melbourne
· Kym Hand, Director, Adelaide
· Tony Starkey, Director, Adelaide
· Sondra Wibberley, Director, Sydney
· Bill Jolley, Executive Officer
· Aileen McFadzean, National Advocacy Officer
· Sandra Knight, Projects Administrator
· Cheryl Gration, Administration Officer
· Robert Mascitti, Finance Officer
· Mary Delahunty, Administration Assistant
· Maryanne Diamond, Victorian Project Officer
· Wendy Knowles, Clerical Assistant
· Vacant, National Policy Officer
· Vacant, DDA Standards National Co-ordinator
· Gunela Astbrink, Telecomms & Disability Policy Officer
· Tran Dan Phuong, Representative in Viet Nam
· John Simpson, WBU Event Organiser
· Tim Noonan, E-Commerce Consultant
Editor's Note: The Executive Officer's Report is a summary of the year's activities, complementary to the President's Overview. It is not a summary of everything in the Annual Report, highlighting the overall work of Blind Citizens Australia and emphasising some things more than others. It is written for delivery to the National Convention as the speech in which the Organisation's work is summarised and the Report is released.
Each year I start compiling the Annual Report a couple of months before the Convention is due, but each year I never get it finished until the eleventh hour. I also fail in my attempts to shorten the document, because there is simply so much information to catalogue at the close of each year. With pride I look back at just what we have achieved, and I am well satisfied that Blind Citizens Australia is a top organisation with strength, purpose, commitment and a vital role in "Changing What it Means to be Blind".
This summary cannot cover the whole range of activities carried out and reported on for last year, so the following areas are highlighted:
· Individual Advocacy,
· Membership & Communication,
· External Relations,
· Finance, and
· Services & Projects.
We can look back on another good year for Blind Citizens Australia. It was a year of continued strong and committed leadership from Michael Simpson as President, a year of growth in our organisation and continued branch activity, a year of sustained effort from our staff, but a year that ends with some warning signs of challenges ahead. In particular, the Governments welfare reform agenda creates some uncertainty and the future of our individual advocacy service is under a cloud.
The direct service staff are implicitly recognised as we highlight the work that they do, but we must not forget our administration staff. We have been very well served by Sandra Knight, Cheryl Gration and Robert Mascitti. We communicate with 2600 members in their preferred formats through Blind Citizens News, SoundAbout magazines, the Convention notice and specific information. This year we handled $750,000 and wrote 900 cheques. We photocopy 150,000 pages per year and copy 15,000 cassettes. We could not have done this without great teamwork by our administration staff led by Sandra Knight, and without regular and reliable help from volunteers led by Kylie Partington and Leighton Boyd.
Individual Advocacy
Aileen McFadzean led our individual advocacy work at national level. Back from maternity leave she picked up where she left off, and she has continued to do an excellent job for members and other persons seeking her advice and support.
I consider that individual advocacy is the most important thing we do. It is where we can touch people's lives and our intervention can make a positive difference. It is regrettable that discrimination against people with disabilities is still endemic, despite awareness-raising campaigns and our own best endeavours. What's more, developments over recent years have seen the tools we have for fighting discrimination blunted, so our resolve needs to be strengthened. Let us never forget that discrimination against one single person on account of blindness is discrimination against all of us who are blind.
The biggest change in the operation of the service this year was that we supported some matters to the stage of a final hearing. This is a significant change because it requires the preparation of documents including affidavits, witness lists, preliminary applications and details about what is being sought as an outcome from a hearing. It also includes gathering evidence and legal research.
We find that discrimination in employment and education continues to be endemic. In fact, we think it is on the increase. Employment complaints are increasing, although formal education complaints are quite low. We think that this is due largely to the stress caused for families by discrimination in education, and to the growing unfriendliness of the formal complaints process.
In 1997 I, along with several other members, lodged a DDA complaint against the Office of Asset Sales and I//T Outsourcing because the Telstra-1 Share Offer documents were not available in Braille or other accessible formats. The complaint was not conciliated and still may go to hearing, but good progress has been made. We received our Share Offer documents for Telstra-2 in Braille and other accessible formats, but still we have no guarantee that we will receive accessible documents in the future.
Last June Bruce Maguire lodged a DDA complaint against the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (SOCOG) because he could not get the Olympic ticket book in Braille. Mr Maguire gave SOCOG every chance to rectify the problem, but to no avail. With our help he successfully obtained an Interim Determination in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) to prevent further disadvantage in the ticket allocation process, whilst the substantive matters were investigated. SOCOG snubbed HREOC's Interim Determination.
The matter was heard in September and a decision was handed down quickly by Commissioner Carter. It received extensive media coverage. Commissioner Carter found that SOCOG had unlawfully discriminated against Mr Maguire in failing to provide him with Braille access to the Olympic ticket book. Commissioner Carter found that SOCOG directly discriminated against Mr Maguire, and stated that there was also a breach of indirect discrimination law. He ordered that Mr Maguire be assisted by SOCOG in the purchase of tickets in the second ticketing round, and implied that the ticket book should be made available to Mr Maguire in Braille. Commissioner Carter fully accepted the evidence brought by Mr Maguire and his witnesses, emphasising that Braille is paramount for blind people as our literacy medium, and totally discounted evidence brought by SOCOG: the comparative value of other alternative formats and media, the onerous cost of Braille production, the adequacy of the telephone help line for vision impaired persons, and the low value of the Olympics as a sporting event for blind spectators.
Of course we are delighted with the outcome of the Maguire case: a convincing victory for Braille confirmed by mostly positive media coverage and a high level of public interest. We thank Bruce Maguire for his courage and tenacity to lodge the complaint against SOCOG and to see the matter through to finality. Together with the Telstra-2 Share Offer Documentation case, it seems that a precedent has been set for the provision of widely available public documents in accessible formats.
One of our most complex matters this year has been a series of cases involving Marlene Massingham. Last November her seeing-eye dog was unlawfully retrieved by employees of the Lady Nell "Seeing-Eye" Dog School and Rehabilitation Centre. The School claimed that Marlene Massingham had breached her contract with the School: she had changed her address without notification, the dog was poorly kept and badly used. We advised Marlene throughout this matter, starting with her successful injunctive action to prevent the dog from being given to anyone else and to have it returned to her care and use.
The Lady Nell School proceeded with a court action to retrieve the dog under the contract. Already, one of the School's employees had been convicted and fined $1,000 for the assault of Marlene when taking her dog. The School's court action was an abject failure.
The decision by Judge Phelan, which was handed down on 20 August 1999, found that the School, through the actions of its Executive Director, Mrs Phyllis Gration, was motivated out of spite due to personal reasons. Judge Phelan also found that Marlene Massingham worked her dog well, and that the dog was kept in good condition. He awarded costs and damages against the School. The following quotation from the Judgment is concerning but was not surprising. He said:
"Mrs Gration emphatically denied in evidence that her action in retaking the dog was motivated by vindictive spite ... It cannot be disputed from her remarkable autobiography that as a blind person her achievements ... have been highly praiseworthy. She has often had to strive against formidable circumstances and this has no doubt engendered redoubtable qualities in her. She has generated considerable loyalty amongst those she has helped ..."
"I am also persuaded that Mrs Gration does not readily brook opposition or questioning. I accept the submission that there were a number of inconsistencies in her evidence, and an unwillingness to give answers to disadvantage the plaintiff's case. Indeed she was prepared on a number of occasions to alter her evidence to suit the circumstances. Nor did she show any real respect for the court by her constant interruptions and lengthy and non responsive monologues in apparent response to questions. This was calculated, I have no doubt, by her eagerness to justify her own position. In the end result such were the numerous unsubstantiated or abandoned allegations, which for the most part were trivial, I am quite convinced that the whole saga is the result of spite."
This case indicates to Blind Citizens Australia a kind of personal vendetta against Marlene Massingham, and we are extremely concerned about the use of the School's funds in pursuing such baseless legal actions. We want the School's Directors to realise their legal and moral responsibilities. Blind Citizens Australia has provided continuous advocacy support to Marlene Massingham throughout this case, and is striving for governmental support for a review of the School's activities.
Every year we report on the range of social security issues which arise for people who are blind or vision impaired. These issues relate to various entitlements, more and more the treatment of compensation payments. Much concern has been expressed over the year about proposals to change the structure of disability pensions in Australia. Unfortunately, we are unable at this stage to give reassurance about this issue, although we will fight hard against any changes to the means test free status of the blind pension.
The matters I have covered provide an indication of the range of individual advocacy which we undertake as part of the National Advocacy Service. Individual advocacy is a vital part of our work, demonstrating the difference we can make for individuals who request our help. More broadly, individual advocacy informs systemic advocacy. For example, our work in access to the environment and telecommunications is driven by a steady stream of member complaints and queries.
Membership growth was 5% this year, taking our numbers past 2650. Our Regional Branches continued their work, with access to the built environment being a common theme.
With our official name change to Blind Citizens Australia, a new logo and corporate identity were introduced. As part of this, a review of material sent to prospective members and new members was undertaken. I thank Karen Knight, with support from Maryanne Diamond and Sandra Knight, who did the work to design and produce kits for prospective members and for new members. These kits are proving popular, and they present a modern and professional image of our organisation.
We have continued to produce Blind Citizens News in multiple accessible formats, and its high standard has been maintained by Lynne Davis as editor. It continues to be a "must read" for many members, staff of blindness agencies and officers of government departments.
Our Horizons weekly radio program has continued to keep listeners apprised of news and developments. We thank Neville Kerr for his continued contribution as the program's producer and presenter. This year we celebrated our 800th program with the introduction of a new theme from "Future Road" by The Seekers, and we thank them for permission to use it. We also thank Barry Chapman who keeps our web page current, looking good and sounding great. Our arrangements for archiving Horizons on the Internet, accessible through our web page, are now well established. Personally, I find the Internet a very convenient environment for listening to Horizons.
We continue to maintain good relations with many national and international organisations. Our leaders are associated with twenty organisations, on most of which we are directly represented. In the blindness field they are the Australian Blindness Forum, the Australian Braille Authority, the Australian and New Zealand Blindness Agencies, the Australian Council for Radio for the Print Handicapped, the International Council on English Braille, the Round Table on Information Access for People with Print Disabilities and the World Blind Union. Of course we maintain bilateral relationships with the blindness agencies as well. We support the employment by ACROD of a Policy Officer specialising in blindness, in association with the Australian Blindness Forum. We also strongly support participation by Australian and New Zealand Blindness Agencies in the DAISY Consortium; doing our part to develop the standards for the production, exchange and use of next-generation digital talking-books.
We have continued our involvement in the World Blind Union, and this year I attended an Officers meeting in South Africa. I am grateful for the privilege of representing Australia in WBU, and I shall continue to work hard to make that involvement widely beneficial. Hosting of the Fifth General Assembly and Second Blind Women's Forum in November 2000 in Melbourne is a major undertaking, but an exciting prospect. It is a wonderful chance for us to bring world-wide expertise and media attention together for the benefit of blind people and service agencies throughout Australia. Our collaborative arrangements with blindness agencies to organise these events are working well, and we soon hope to be able to announce participation by the Commonwealth and Victorian Governments.
Our income for the year was $751,485 and expenditure was $728,316. These figures show a 20% increase over the previous year. We had a surplus of $23,169. Our accumulated funds are $144,603, of which $86,692 is represented by fixed assets.
Last year we received $46,000 from blindness agencies, led by $20,000 from Royal Victorian Institute for the Blind. This figure was down from the previous year, because the Royal Blind Society contribution was late. We thank those agencies for their financial contributions and for other in-kind support which we appreciate. We received $23,536 from members through our appeals and from the PACC program. We also made a profit of $8,000 on our first national lottery, but these figures will show in next year's report. This support from members is strong and very much appreciated.
Further details of income and expenditure are given in the Annual Report, and are provided for Braille readers in a separate volume.
We continue to receive $165,000 per year from the Office of Disability for the National Advocacy Service. We record our appreciation to staff of the Office of Disability for their advice, support and co-operation. We have continued to carry out our responsibilities as the peak body in the blindness field, and we have worked constructively with kindred organisations of people with disabilities.
We have accepted the Commonwealth Government's four generic outcomes which have been added to all Grant Contracts between the Commonwealth and national peak bodies. These are:
· Seek revenue from a variety of public and private sources, and consequently improve viability and reduce reliance on FACS (Family and Community Services) for funds;
· Fully represent people and agencies in area of interest, to achieve a reduction in the volume of separate and contradictory representations by other bodies in that field;
· Work together with other relevant peak bodies and with FACS, to streamline and simplify the present range of interests and to achieve a reduction in the number of funded organisations; and
· Work collaboratively with FACS and provide early warning for all controversial issues planned for media coverage and which might attract public comment.
We are finalising our agreement with the National Secretariat Program on the Performance Indicators and Priority Targets for these Generic Outcomes. We are comfortable with outcomes One, Two and Four. Outcome Three is more problematic. Of course we will readily co-operate with other organisations of people with disabilities and service providers through our participation in the Caucus and our membership of ACROD. However, we will not merge with other disability organisations to reduce the number of national peak bodies. We shall maintain our separateness and autonomy as Australia's national association of the blind.
We receive $69,000 per year from the Victorian Government for our State-wide advocacy and information service. Our priorities this year have been pedestrian access and forums in regional Victoria. The work has been led by Maryanne Diamond who joined our staff last November.
We convene and host the DDA Standards Project with funding of $105,000 per year from the Attorney General's Department. Overall progress on DDA Standards has been disappointing. The Transport Standard moved a little closer to adoption, and we do hope for good news by year's end. We are also encouraged that the Government has amended the DDA to allow for a Disability Standard on Accessible Premises.
Last year we received a grant of $100,000 from the Department of Communications, Information technology and the Arts for the Telecommunications & Disability Consumer Representation project. This is an important piece of work for us, because telecommunications are of fundamental importance to blind people. We are pleased that funding has continued for another year, and that Gunela Astbrink has joined our staff as the new Policy Officer.
We have made good progress on our project researching Enhanced Audio with Digital Television. John Simpson has led this work, with technical support from Dale Simpson. The final report will soon be available, demonstrating the extent of deprivation experienced by blind television viewers and providing suggestions for the future.
We have made very good progress with our project "Making E-Commerce Accessible" for which the research has been carried out by Tim Noonan. His discussion paper has just been released, full of background information and identified problem areas.
We were very pleased to learn that the Attorney General has requested HREOC to conduct an inquiry into the impact of electronic commerce and new technologies on people who are older and people who have a disability. Due to the extent of the work we have been conducting in the areas of E-Commerce, digital radio and television and telecommunications technologies, we are in an excellent position to provide major input into this inquiry.
We continue to support the United Blind Persons of Fiji to raise funds in Fiji and develop the organisation. Last year our $1,000 contribution was matched by $2,900 from AusAID. UBP has used this money to employ a part-time fundraiser, publicise the organisation and hold forums for its members. Last year we provided UBP with an office computer, and recently it received a grant in Fiji for a JAWS screen reader.
We are now at the end of the three-year teacher-training project in Viet Nam. We have supported teacher-training courses in six provinces and Braille literacy classes in sixty districts. All trainees have learned to read and write Braille as the top priority, with attention also being given to mobility, daily living skills and vocational training.
Our Vietnamese partner is the Viet Nam Blind Association (VBA), and we have developed a very good relationship with this organisation. I make monitoring visits to Viet Nam twice a year, and I appreciate the partnership with VBA and the support of its leaders. Our representative in Viet Nam is Miss Tran Dan Phuong, and she is my interpreter and guide when I visit. Miss Phuong has worked for Blind Citizens Australia for five years now, and she continues to do a very good job.
With 125 teachers trained and more than 1000 blind people receiving the gift of literacy through Braille, I am well satisfied that our work in Viet Nam is making a real difference to blind people. I express appreciation to AusAID for providing funds and to our Vietnamese partners who contribute to the success of the project. I thank Helen McAuley from ACROD for her administrative support. Especially I thank Miss Phuong for her excellent work and attention to detail.
As we come to the end of the year we can book back on many achievements: the identity card, the new publicity and welcome kits, our new name and some advocacy successes. Our communication media are strong and we are making good use of the Internet. But we must recognise some challenges ahead: our growth outstripping our funding, the demand for our advocacy growing by volume and complexity of issues, the Government's emerging welfare reform agenda and the constant battles to maintain employment and manage the new technology. Access, to the built environment and to cyberspace, is emerging as a national priority.
I thank our President, Michael Simpson, for his support and advice to me. I continue to be impressed by and grateful for his mature and committed leadership of Blind Citizens Australia. I thank my wife, Carmel, for her support this year. I thank my close friends for their encouragement.
I have pride and satisfaction in commending to you the Annual Report for 1999 of Blind Citizens Australia.
Editor's Note: Aileen McFadzean, working three days per week, has provided the individual advocacy support this year. She has contributed the following report which gives an insight into the work we do to support individuals. Since these issues concern people whose rights to privacy we respect, the reporting of particular cases is necessarily circumspect.
The year has been very busy in terms of the number of advocacy matters handled and their complexity. As with other years the matters dealt with have covered social security, migration, the medical expenses rebate, compensation, disability discrimination in a broad range of areas, and concerns about the quality of disability services. The extent of work required in each particular matter varies considerably. Some matters can be resolved with a telephone call while others involve many hours of research, submission writing and negotiation. The following summary of this year's activities is intended to give both broad-brush information, as well as detailed information about some of our more ground- breaking cases and crucial advocacy.
Our individual advocacy work continues to be dominated by disability discrimination advocacy. This advocacy is conducted under federal, state or territory legislation depending on which jurisdiction is more appropriate for a particular case. The biggest change in the way we conduct our its disability discrimination advocacy is that we try, where possible, to support matters to the stage of a final hearing rather than simply referring a matter on to a generic legal service, if it does not settle at conciliation.
This is a significant change since it means that our National Advocacy Officer must prepare all of the hearing documents including affidavits, witness lists, preliminary applications and details about what is being sought as an outcome from a hearing. It also includes gathering evidence and legal research.
Blind Citizens Australia cannot take all matters on to final hearing but will try to support the less complex and stronger cases. This sometimes requires hard decisions to be made, but we lack resources to support all cases to final hearing. The decision to take some matters to final hearing does add demands on our workload. It is, however, also extremely satisfying to be able to apply pressure on respondents by making it clear that we do intend to support cases to their conclusion. We do not underwrite any of the costs involved in taking a matter to final hearing and our support is sometimes conditional on being able to find a barrister to conduct the actual hearing. We have been prepared, for relatively simple matters, to conduct this work ourselves.
In the last year, Blind Citizens Australia has advocated in numerous cases of discrimination in the area of employment. All of these to date have been settled without the need to go to final hearing. In some cases we have settled for good outcomes including compensation and further adjustments made in workplaces. The outcomes of other cases have not necessarily been so satisfactory but it has not been practicable for various reasons to take the matter further, usually because we consider it would be too difficult to prove a case of discrimination.
Frequently, discrimination in employment relates to the failure of employers to make adjustments for a person's changing condition and very frequently discriminatory attitudes as to a person's capacity to perform his or her job. One feature we notice a great deal is an increasing propensity by employers to use the process of obtaining assessments as a tool to put unwarranted pressure on employees. Often something which could occur to any employee is attributed to a person's disability and doubts are raised about his or her competency. Employment discrimination cases often involve ongoing relationships which can make them extremely stressful, and the frequent obstacles to obtaining a new job places particular pressure on employees who are blind or vision impaired to stay in unsatisfactory situations.
At any one time we usually have a number of discrimination cases in the area of education in the process of being negotiated and sometimes just advice being given. We are only surprised that we don't have more. Education cases have common features including the failure to make any or sufficient adjustments to curriculum or the mode of assessment as well as adjustments such as Braille, audio tape or large print materials and the use of note takers. Sometimes, it is the attitudes of lecturers and tutors which is the problem. Blind Citizens Australia has negotiated with schools directly and has acted as advocate at formal conciliations.
Blind Citizens Australia has advocated again in a large number of complaints against restaurants or other businesses in relation to refusing access to people with dog guides. The first hearing in which we provided direct representation involved this issue. Another area involving discrimination against people with dog guides is that of accommodation; discrimination by landlords and their agents is rife.
Two cases involving discrimination in the area of access to information require special mention. The first is one that members will remember from our last Annual Report and relates to a complaint by four blind people against the Office of Asset Sales and IT Outsourcing (OASITO). The basis of the complaints was that there was a failure to provide the prospectus information for the first sale of Telstra in accessible formats.
The complaints were conciliated by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) on 12 March 1999 and unfortunately an outcome could not be reached. We could not get OASITO to guarantee that the prospectus for any future sale of Telstra would be available in a range of formats including Braille. The complaints were then referred for final hearing and we are waiting for a date to be set. In the meantime, negotiations have continued and to the credit of OASITO the feasibility of making any future prospectus available in a range of formats has been investigated and basically agreed to. We were pleased that for Telstra 2, prospectus information was made available in Braille, audio cassette, computer disk and large print.
The second complaint involving access to information was a complaint lodged by Mr Bruce Maguire in June 1999 against the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (SOCOG), for its failure to make the official Olympic ticket book and official Olympic souvenir program available in Braille. He also lodged a complaint against Ray White Real Estate for the failure to make the SOCOG web site accessible.
Mr Maguire gave SOCOG every opportunity to rectify the problem but to no avail. Blind Citizens Australia consequently applied for an interim determination, which is like an injunction, to prevent Mr Maguire from being disadvantaged in the ticket allocation process pending an investigation into the substantive issues by HREOC. SOCOG vigorously opposed the granting of the interim determination which was, however, granted by HREOC. Mr Maguire decided that instead of trying to enforce the interim determination in the Federal Court he would try to win on the substantive issue of whether unlawful discrimination had occurred.
Conciliation failed and SOCOG was generally obstructionist as Mr Maguire attempted to prepare his case. The final hearing was scheduled for 27-28 September and to date SOCOG must have spent thousands of dollars fighting Mr Maguire's complaint. Blind Citizens Australia handled the case until it was taken on by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre in NSW. We are still providing ongoing support and assistance to Mr Maguire and his new representatives. This hearing was confined to the issue of the ticket book and separate dates have been scheduled for determination of Mr Maguire's related complaints about the unavailability in Braille of the Olympic Souvenir Program and the inaccessibility of SOCOG's Web Site.
Two days after the Hearing, on 30 September, Commissioner William Carter handed down his decision. He found that SOCOG had unlawfully discriminated against Mr Maguire in failing to provide him with Braille access to the Olympic ticket book. Commissioner Carter found that SOCOG directly discriminated against Mr Maguire, and stated that there was also a breach of indirect discrimination law. He ordered that Mr Maguire be assisted by SOCOG in the purchase of tickets in the second ticketing round, and implied that the ticket book should be made available to Mr Maguire in Braille. Commissioner Carter fully accepted the evidence brought by Mr Maguire and his witnesses, emphasising that Braille is paramount for blind people as our literacy medium, and totally discounted evidence brought by SOCOG: the comparative value of other alternative formats and media, the onerous cost of Braille production, the adequacy of the telephone help line for vision impaired persons, and the low value of the Olympics as a sporting event for blind spectators.
Blind Citizens Australia is delighted with the outcome of the Maguire case: a convincing victory for Braille confirmed by mostly positive media coverage and a high level of public interest. We thank Bruce Maguire for his courage and tenacity to lodge the complaint against SOCOG and to see the matter through to finality. Together with the Telstra-2 Share Offer Documentation case, it seems that a precedent has been set for the provision of widely available public documents in accessible formats.
In May this year, Blind Citizens Australia ran another test case, this time in the area of sport. The case involved a legally blind road racing cyclist who was unable to have his road racing licence reissued due to his vision impairment. The cyclist had an excellent record of safe cycling and a better safety record than many other cyclists. Under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 he had to show that he was reasonably capable of doing what was reasonably required of the sport. Despite safely riding each week over 300 km it was decided by the Commissioner that the cyclist was not sufficiently safe to satisfy the provisions of the Act.
Another area in which the advocacy of Blind Citizens Australia has increased is immigration. Specifically, the issue is the general practice of refusing permanent residency visas to people who are blind or vision impaired on the basis that their presence in Australia would be too costly and would prejudice the access of other permanent residents and Australian citizens to health care and other community services. One example of how this practice works is if an Australian citizen or permanent resident marries someone from overseas who has a vision impairment, it is very likely that that person will be denied permanent residency in Australia. We find that the calculation of cost often bears little resemblance to the actual entitlements and community service requirements. We have experienced children being separated from a parent, as well as spouses and elderly relatives being separated. The cases are often heart-rending.
It is important to note that Australia's immigration law affects most disability types. Fortunately, because Blind Citizens Australia has intimate knowledge about the way our social security system operates as well as information about blindness services, we have been crucial in the overturning of decisions to refuse entry. We generally have a number of these cases proceeding at any one time.
Blind Citizens Australia frequently advocates on behalf of users of blindness services about the quality of service and occasionally the refusal of service. One of the biggest cases Blind Citizens Australia has been involved with to date relates to the unlawful retrieval by employees of the Lady Nell Seeing Eye Dog School and Rehabilitation Centre (the Centre) of a dog guide being used by Ms Marlene Massingham. The claims of the Centre related to the alleged poor condition of the dog and poor working of the dog. The dog was returned to Ms Massingham after injunctive action was taken, and the case went to hearing in the District Court of NSW in July. One of the employees of the Centre had previously been convicted and fined $1000 for the assault of Ms Massingham when taking her dog.
The decision by Judge Phelan which was handed down on 20 August 1999 found that the Centre, through the actions of its Executive Director, Mrs Phyllis Gration, was motivated out of spite due to personal reasons., Judge Phelan also found that Ms Massingham worked her dog well, and that the dog was kept in good condition. The following quotation (pages 8-9) from the Judgment is a neat synopsis.
"Mrs Gration emphatically denied in evidence that her action in retaking the dog was motivated by vindictive spite following her husband's departure and his liaison with the defendant. It cannot be disputed from her remarkable autobiography which became Exhibit 1, that as a blind person her achievements, in aiding others who are similarly afflicted and in the training of guide dogs for them, have been highly praiseworthy. She has often had to strive against formidable circumstances and this has no doubt engendered redoubtable qualities in her. She has generated considerable loyalty amongst those she has helped and I have no doubt, as the defendant herself confirmed, that she could be a warm, friendly and encouraging person. It is also readily understandable in the twilight of a highly praised and honoured life, and after a lengthy relationship with Mr Cooper, that she might feel bitter against him and the defendant."
"I am also persuaded that Mrs Gration does not readily brook opposition or questioning. I accept the submission that there were a number of inconsistencies in her evidence, and an unwillingness to give answers to disadvantage the plaintiff's case. Indeed she was prepared on a number of occasions to alter her evidence to suit the circumstances. Nor did she show any real respect for the court by her constant interruptions and lengthy and non responsive monologues in apparent response to questions. This was calculated, I have no doubt, by her eagerness to justify her own position. In the end result such were the numerous unsubstantiated or abandoned allegations, which for the most part were trivial, I am quite convinced that the whole saga is the result of spite."
This case indicates to Blind Citizens Australia a kind of personal vendetta against Ms Massingham, and we are extremely concerned about the use of the Centre's funds in pursuing this and other baseless legal action. We want the Centre's Directors to realise their legal and moral responsibilities. Blind Citizens Australia has provided continuous advocacy support to Ms Massingham throughout this case, and is striving for governmental support for a review of the Centre's activities.
Every year we report on the range of social security issues which arise for people who are blind or vision impaired. These issues relate to various entitlements such as mobility allowance, rent assistance, other allowances and the treatment of compensation payments. An often-raised issue is whether a person receiving another entitlement such as compensation is still eligible for the Disability Support Pension.
Much concern has been expressed over the year about proposals to change the structure of disability pensions in Australia. Unfortunately, we are unable at this stage to give reassurance about this issue, although we will fight hard against any changes to the means test free status of the blind pension.
As you can see it has been a busy year and we encourage all our members to continue to raise issues of concern and make use of our advocacy service. The matters outlined above provide an indication of the range of individual advocacy which we undertake as part of the National Advocacy Service. Individual advocacy is a vital part of our work, demonstrating the difference we can make for individuals who request our help.
Editor's Note: My thanks to Ivan Peterson, who worked for much of the year as National Policy Officer, and John Simpson for their contributions to the following report. Ivan has since left our employ to work in a related field, and we wish him success and thank him for his work for Blind Citizens Australia.
Members throughout Australia continue to identify access to the built environment as a high priority. With extremely limited resources it is essential that we maximise outcomes from the application of those resources. We can do this in two ways: issues-based advocacy and policy development.
Progress can be made by tackling strategic issues which, when they are resolved, will have a "flow on" effect by creating precedents for addressing similar issues in other settings.
Impediments to pedestrian safety caused by overhanging foliage is a national issue. The City of Stonnington was considering changing a local law to allow for cypress hedges to encroach over footpaths. Following lengthy investigation by the Equal Opportunity Commission of Victoria, a mediated agreement was reached whereby Stonnington Council has agreed to ensure a Continuous Accessible Path of Travel as defined in Australian Standard 1428.1 past hedges in Stonnington. It is clearly the responsibility of Local Government Authorities to ensure Continuous Accessible Paths of Travel as defined in the Australian Standard to and from buildings and facilities in the built environment. The Stonnington experience can be used in advocating with other Councils.
Blind Citizens Australia has been involved in work to improve access to the built environment under Anti-Discrimination legislation, Australian Standards and Building Codes. Where building practitioners, service
providers or facility managers are not obligated to provide equity of access they may choose not to provide genuine equity of access for usually economic reasons or they may do so out of ignorance.
The Stonnington example also demonstrates that the instruments on which we can base our demands for equity of access to the built environment must address the needs of people who are blind or vision impaired. These instruments are: Australian Standards, the Standards of access to premises which will be developed under the Federal Disability Discrimination Act and the Building Code of Australia. Blind Citizens Australia has a vital role to play, along with other disability advocacy organisations, in ensuring that the Standards and Codes provide genuine equity of access and that they are compatible.
Standards Australia develops design criteria for access to the built environment for people with disabilities that are advisory until called into the Building Code of Australia. Until this year the Building Code has not addressed the needs of people who are blind or vision impaired and even now it only does so minimally.
Through representation on Standards and Building Codes Committees, Blind Citizens Australia has helped bring about changes to Standards and the Building Code to improve equity of access. Some changes achieved recently are:
· Tactile Ground Surface Indicators are now required by the Building Code at the top and bottom of all ramps and stairs.
· Australian Standards now specify the use of tactile signs and information in Braille in many new lifts.
· The needs of people with vision impairment for consistent minimum levels and consistency of lighting in lifts, building foyers and public spaces is covered by Australian Standards.
· The Standard on Tactile Ground Surface Indicators will soon include other design features to improve access such as tactile and Braille signs.
By advocating for the inclusion of equity of access in Australian Standards and Building Codes, Blind Citizens Australia is working to ensure that building practitioners at all levels are required to provide equity of access. Until the provision of equity of access is guaranteed by these Standards and Codes it will not be consistently provided.
Whilst it is unlawful under the DDA for building practitioners to fail to provide equity of access where it would not cause unjustifiable hardship or is otherwise unreasonable, remedy can be a slow and difficult process. Our aim is for the provision of equity of access to become as normal a requirement of the building regulatory regime as are the criteria for fire and for electrical safety. Our advocacy must continue at all levels. Our systemic advocacy and associated policy framework must support our members so that as representatives of people who are blind or vision impaired they can give advice which is founded in Australian Standards and the principles of Blind Citizens Australia policies.
Throughout the year our National Transport and Access Committee, chaired by Vice-President Peter Johnson, considered issues of access and provided input into the reviews by Standards Australia of AS1428.1 and ASS1428.4 dealing with access to premises by people with disabilities.
Blind Citizens WA reported that experience had shown that a person striding out confidently might over-step and therefore fail to detect a 600mm strip of Tactile Ground Surface Indicators (TGSI's). Advice by our Access Committee that an 800mm strip of TGSI's is needed in certain applications has been incorporated into the draft of the revised Standard. The inclusion of additional tactile methods of providing information into the Standard was also as the result of input from our Access Committee.
The Committee has developed an interim statement on the use of TGSI's, and has taken a strong and positive stand on the use of technology to resolve issues of the intrusion of Audible Traffic Signals into peaceful environments.
Blind Citizens Australia has continued to give attention to issues of access to telecommunications and information technology. This has been a feature of project work described elsewhere in this report. The extension of competition within the Telecommunications Industry, together with the move to electronic delivery of information, and government and community services brings both opportunities and threats for people who are blind or vision impaired. We continue to strive for the providers of these services and for developers of new information technology to take account of the needs of people with disabilities as part of their design or implementation strategies rather than as costly afterthoughts.
We have enjoyed a constructive working relationship with Telstra for more than ten years. During this last year we have worked through direct negotiation to address a range of matters.
Much of this work is founded on recommendations contained in the report "Everybody's Business: Consumer Information Access for People who are Blind or Vision impaired". This report of research work undertaken on our behalf by Gunela Astbrink in 1996 is still very current and identifies information provision strategies that Telstra and other large commercial and government organisations should implement to address the information needs of people who are blind or vision impaired. We are pleased that Telstra has taken action to address many of these recommendations over the last year. In particular, we are pleased that Telstra is provided telephone bills in Braille and that soon a similar arrangement will be introduced for large print users.