Discourses are persuasive elements in policy arenas, but both policy and discourse are also influenced by historical material conditions. The HREOC inquiry and legislation in which the Commission operates, emerged as concrete expressions of the priorities of Government ministers. Don Grimes, Brian Howe and other parliamentarians on both sides of federal politics. Their actions have arguably facilitated the introduction a new discourse of disability into Australian legislation. Geoff Scott, DPI and AAD's causes were boosted by the recognition and raised awareness of disability issues resulting from the IYDP. The IYDP was a United Nations project that resulted from the recommendations from earlier UN resolutions that the rights of people with disabilities be protected and recognised. The Telstra consultative process and social policy fund financed valuable work for people with disability. Data accrued from various work projects was used as evidence in the HREOC inquiry by the complainants. Ironically, the information was used against the body that sponsored the work.
Through the Telstra consultative process, the consumer groups learnt which tropes had credibility and persuasive power with Telecom management and Government representatives. Consequently community and consumer groups used their knowledge and skills acquired and honed in the TCCs to further their lobbying efforts. Therefore a number of factors operating at the macro, middle and micro levels of policy making facilitated the rights discourse passage into telecommunications policy for people with disabilities. Consequently the policy process has not been an objective linear, organised progression toward pre-determined outcomes. Instead the process has arguably been a politicised, unpredictable, stream meandering down a mountain of time. At times the policy stream was diverted by personalities, technologies and unplanned events. However, the consolation is that it can, (and perhaps should) never be otherwise in a democratic society.
It is impossible to adequately explore and analyse all relevant issues and factors that influence telecommunications policy toward people with disabilities in a holistic, qualitative approach. Key areas related to any one discipline are inevitably omitted in the work as a result of:
Some areas of study are dealt with fleetingly and do not do justice to the wealth of available literature and data (eg. labelling theory of disability; the two main costing methods of USOs). In addition, an emerging trend of commodifying information is making it difficult for workers to access data. The cost to obtain the Scott and DPI v Telstra HREOC transcript was prohibitive at approximately $1000. Funding difficulties limited work of the inquiry to personal interviews and a twenty page summary by Sir Ron Wilson, the Commissioner.
Despite the limitations of the qualitative, cultural pluralist approach, it proved to be an effective way to investigate the holistic nature of policy and its contingent factors. The multi-level approach to analysing policy was also chosen. Policy has been influenced at all levels. Macro-levels which included national and international influences, through to middle-levels at the point where policy is made down to micro levels where groups and individuals (eg. Scott ) have all had an impact on policy. Consequently, hierarchical models of policy that emphasise the top-down influences are challenged. Geoff Scott, one individual, has been recognised as a major influence on policy in speeches by Senator Alston, the Communications minister. However, again, it is impossible to adequately analyse all levels in detail.
One of the less detailed levels is the middle-level where internal policy is formally made. Interviews with staff from Telstra were problematic. Current senior Telstra managers were defensive in their discussions about people with disability. The HREOC inquiry was a sensitive issue and community group representatives observed that Telstra staff now were more guarded in their responses within TCCs. There is evidence to suggest that Telstra's reluctance to inform outsiders of policy processes is not a recent development.
The international influences, apart from the UN resolutions on disability, were not explored in detail. However, many interviewees believed that the influence was minimal (pers. comms. AADPA; CTNPA; CTNPA; ASRPB; PDPIA, MDSUT; TMPP, 1997).
The regional impact on policy was not explored in detail and could be a major focus for future work. According to an AAD Policy Adviser, Scott may have had significant support from the West Australian Disability Discrimination Legal Advocacy Service. Similarly, the differential impact on the TCC process of the Telstra Regional Councils was not explored in any detail.
Another limitation is the apparent solidarity emphasis given to consumer groups that appears throughout the work. The main representative bodies on the TCC such as CTN, AAD and FBCA were undoubtedly united, however according to a CTN Policy Adviser there were other smaller groups that felt that their needs were ignored by the mainstream disability representatives (pers. comms. 1997). The marginalised groups within the mainstream disability cultures would form a significant cultural and policy work project for future investigation.
Telecommunications opportunities for people who have intellectual disabilities have not been explored in this work. The conceptual complexities of definition alone demand extended attention to do the subject justice. Physiological and permanent or temporary issues problematise the notion of intellectual disability even before the current level of service provision is analysed.
People who are deaf and blind were observed in the work as one group that is still denied access to a telecommunications service despite the recent legislative changes and the victory of Scott and DPI v Telstra.
The inter-departmental relationships (eg. DOCO and DASH) could be examined further. Arguably, the Social Security departments are the most progressive Government bodies in terms of rights discourses. The interaction and tensions associated between social- oriented and other more technocratic departments could be a significant area of work by applying the worldview and rhetoric theories explored by Throgmorton.
The issues raised by the work topic have implications for future work on telecommunications policy and social equity as well as cultural studies. The ideological environments of laissez-faire are examined in the context of access and equity for a disadvantaged sector of society which is growing. By 2013 the Baby-boomers of 1947 will reach retirement age and begin to test the support structures of society. The elderly will be living in a society shaped by telecommunications services to a far greater degree than today. The significance of telecommunications in the future is due to the rapid convergence of communications, electronic media and computer technologies.
This study also has significance to cultural studies because it examines how a certain sector of society is socially constructed and the political implications which arise. Further useful studies could be undertaken by scholars to apply the social theories of disability to media discourses of disability. Comparative studies between historical and current texts may be revealing
In conclusion, the HREOC inquiry ‘win' was a victory of sorts. Arguably, however, the rights discourse, dominant between the austere legal walls of the HREOC building in Sydney was itself subsumed by the dominant discourse that pervades the larger political environment. A scientific discourse founded on economic rationalist principles constrained the social dimension of universal service in telecommunications to only a limited expansion as demonstrated by the rejection of the RSTS major report's recommendations to fully upgrade the STS to full digital standard by 2000. Ironically, the social benefits of the HREOC to many with disabilites inquiry were contained by specifically defining the TTY access into the new Telecommunications Act 1997. People who are deaf and blind require equipment beyond the standard TTY. Consequently, they are still without access to the standard telephone service enjoyed by most Australians. Someone's calling...