Universal Service?

Telecommunications Policy In Australia and People with Disabilities

By Michael J Bourk

Edited by Tom Worthington.

This chapter analyses the significance of the Disability Discrimination Act (1992); and the lobbying effort by community groups surrounding teletypewriters. In particular, the chapter explores the Senate amendments to the DDA (1992) which, it is argued, had significant influence in the controversial debate surrounding the provision of TTYs.

The chapter also describes and explains the Federal Government's early National Relay Service feasibility studies. As explained earlier, the NRS enables members from the Deaf community to communicate with non-deaf people and therefore allows TTY users access to the broader community. It is argued that the research was framed by a charity discourse of disability that may have resulted in a substandard NRS had the network been based on the research model.

Finally, the chapter explores the lobbying efforts by community groups to pressure Telecom and the Government to provide TTYs to people with severe hearing impairments. It argues that the TTY issue created tensions within the TCCs to the point of break-down in negotiations between Telecom and community and consumer groups.

In October 1992 the Senate debated amendments to the Disability Discrimination Bill (1992). Significantly, an unusual display of bi-partisan support for a key amendment concerned TTY services and telecommunications. Senator Meg Lees, then-Deputy Leader of the Australian Democrats introduced an amendment to section 50 which dealt with telecommunications services exempted from the discrimination legislation. The extract below details section 50 with Lee's added amendments highlighted:

Telecommunications

50. (1) This part does not render it unlawful for:

(a) a carrier; or

(b) a supplier of an eligible service;

to discriminate against another person on the ground of the other persons's disability in the provision of telecommunications services through payphones and public payphones.

(2) In this section:

``carrier'' has the same meaning as in the Telecommunications Act 1991;

``eligible service'' has the same meaning as in the Telecommunications Act 1991;

``payphone'' has the same meaning as in the Telecommunications Act 1991;

``public payphone'' has the same meaning as in the Telecommunications Act 1991.

(3) Subsection (1) ceases to be in force at the end of 3 years after the day this section commences. (DDA, 1992, 31, section 50)

Significantly, by adding, ``through payphones and public telephones'' Lees extended the power of the legislation to include telecommunications services in the Act's provisions. Lees amendments had significant impact on TTY issues. The original reading exempted telecommunications services for three years. The addition of the exemptions to the proposed legislation changed the meaning of the entire section. Instead of exempting most telecommunications services from the legislation, the amendments meant that the opposite occurred. Most telecommunications services were subsequently included in the proposal. Lees' amendments targeted specifically the provision of TTY services for people who were profoundly deaf as her supporting comments confirm:

These amendments are perhaps some of the most important amendments from a list of nine or ten that the Democrats originally presented to the Committee on Friday...as the Standing Committee on Community Affairs heard on Friday, the telecommunications exemptions would have cut out some two million Australians who have a significant hearing loss. If we add to that those who have significant speech difficulties, we see that there is a very large group in the community who need some sort of assistance to use a telephone.

...a very large number of them need to move on to more specific and specialised services, such as the provision of a TTY...With this Bill before us, there is an excellent opportunity to open up to that large section of the community ordinary telephone access. (Lees, HOS, 15 October, 1992, 1898).

Lees reference to the Standing Committee on Community Affairs is significant as community groups, including CTN and AAD, had the opportunity to lobby for access and equity in telecommunications (Wilson & Goggin, 1993, 23). One witness to the committee, Mr Damian Lacey, the chief executive officer of the Royal South Australian Deaf Society informed the committee of the associated costs with providing comprehensive telecommunications services for people with disabilites (HOS, 15 October, 1899). Arguably, in what proved to be an embarrassment in parliamentary relations for Telecom, Senator Tambling claimed that the corporation had attempted to hide important costings from the Opposition:

My colleague, Mr Warwick Smith, the shadow Minister for communications, had an exchange of correspondence with Telecom in August in which he sought to obtain the costing on this matter. I tabled a response to Mr Smith dated 17 August in the hearing of the Senate Standing committee on Community Affairs on Friday. It concerned me, and I am sure that it concerned many of my colleagues, that we were bluffed. We were told that the information was not available. However in the evidence last Friday, as Senator Lees has said, we did elicit from two witnesses some very important information...[Lacey detailed costings of current and extended telecommunications services for people with disabilities which totalled $182 million].

...When I questioned Mr Lacey about his figuring and asked him on what basis he had obtained that information, he replied:

I am a member of Telecom's disability consultative committee. There is only a small group of us who meet at the disability programs and consumer level with Telecom. It is a subcommittee of the Telecom Australia Consultative Council.

I asked: Was that $182 m[illion] identified to you by Telecom?

He replied: Yes

I asked him when, and he replied:

At a meeting two or three weeks ago in Melbourne at our disability services committee disabilites (HOS, 15 October, 1899).

According to Lacey the Government had the costings earlier in the year when the House of Representatives were debating the Bill (HOS, 15 October, 1992, 1889). The exchange between Senator Tambling and Lacey is informative because Telecom appeared to obfuscate the costings in an attempt to dissuade the Opposition from pursuing an extension of telecommunication services for people with disabilites. As described above, the Red Book detailed costings of a TTY relay service and equipment back in 1991 (Telecom Australia, 1991). Ironically Telstra pursued the same tactic in the Scott v Telstra hearing before the HREOC in 1995. The Red Book was used to reveal that they were ‘bluffing' in their denial of the level of their research into TTY costings (pers. comms. AADPA, CTNPA, 1997). The details of the Scott case are examined in detail in the next chapter.

Apparently Senator Lees did not realise that the amendments proposed by the Democrats and supported by the Coalition constituted class action potential. Lees expected that complaints would be handled individually by HREOC:

We are not suggesting that through these amendments that all of these people will get services because, as has already been pointed out, the unjustifiable hardship provision in this Bill means that it is quite a lengthy process for each individual to prove that he or she really needs the service and that he or she really needs the service and that he or she has been discriminated against...it is victim based legislation...Then the respondent has the onus of establishing unjustifiable hardship if the respondent does not want to provide the service (Lees, HOS, 15 October, 1992, 1898).

While Lees was technically correct that the legislation is restricted by being complaint driven, apparently she failed to recognise the impact of the legislation once a precedent is set in the courts. Arguably, the outcome of each case related to the same issue is almost guaranteed given that the complainant is an individual and the respondent is a multi-million dollar corporation. The source of the problem faced by telecommunications companies is found in the terms of their defence. Liability from the DDA (1992) is not based on discrimination, but unlawful discrimination. Unlawful discrimination occurs when the defendent is unable to claim unjustificable hardship. Unjustifiable hardship is a safety clause that prevents the Act from being applied in impractical and unreasonable circumstances. Two significant criteria of unjustifiable are:

a) the nature of the benefit or detriment likely to accrue or be suffered by any persons concerned; and

b) the financial circumstances and the estimated amount of expenditure required to be made by the person claiming unjustifiable hardship (DDA, 1992, section 11, 9-10).

The costings to which Lacey referred in the Senate Standing committee on Community Affairs are detailed:

In his submission to the committee Lacey expressed his concern that the figures given by Telecom were overinflated and that a significant improvement in access to the telecommunications network could be acheived with an expenditure of $20-30 million over a two-year or three-year period (HOS, 15 October, 1992, 1899). Given that most of the expenditure related to the provision of Payhones it is not surprising that a three year exemption period constituted the amendment's intent. However, the proposed changes also implied the provision for an extensive TTY program once a legal precedent was set.

In a surprise move, the Government accepted the amendments. Senator Tate referred to discussions hours before with Mr Howe, the then-Minister for Health, Housing and Community Services and Mr Collins, the then-Minister for Transport and Communications:

We believe that it is an absolutely vital breakthrough on the part of those suffering from these disabilities. We believe that it is the only proper response we can require as an Australian commuity of those who are vested with the tremendous privilege, commercially but also socially, providing telecommunications services for all Australians. We have come to the view that building on the good-will and and good faith already demonstrated in the pilot program I have outlined and keeping in mind the general social purpose of this Bill, it would be proper to bring within the Bill the providers of telecommunications services in the way suggested in the amendments (HOS, 15 October, 1992, 1900).

Senator Tate's comments carry a veiled reference to the standard telephone service which is part of the USO and have particular relevance politically for people with disabilities. The USO is not a concession but a right for all Australians. A Human rights emphasis replaced disempowering charity discourses by linking the USO to telecommunications services for people with disabilities.

Consumer groups have been critical of a 1993 pilot project for a TTY national relay service referred to by Tate (pers. comms. CTNPA2; AADPA, 1997). The Telephone Interpreter Services section of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs undertook the feasibility study which indicated that the Government recognised the Deaf Community as a socio-linguistic minority. The project investigated two voluntary -staffed relay services provided by New South Wales and South Australian Deaf Societies. The Government hoped that research outcomes would test the feasibility of a National Relay Service. In addition, were a NRS to be feasible from the results of the study, the Government projected that it would receive the recommendations prior to the 1993 budget. The deadline allowed for funds allocation for an NRS to come from consolidated revenue (pers. comms. AADPA, 1997).

Community group representatives argue that the pilot program reinforced traditional charity models of disability and may have resulted in a substandard NRS (Wilson, 1994, 69; pers. comms. AADPA, 1997). Instead of using the two regional programs to investigate how a relay service functioned, the project organisers proposed to model the costs for a national relay service on the programs' operation. Arguably, voluntary staff were inappropriate for a professional nation wide relay service. In addition, neither of the two programs were staffed 24 hours but diverted calls after hours to other services which often led to long delays and confusion (Wilson, 1994, 48; pers. comms. AADPA, 1997).

Apart from the underestimated costings of providing an inefficient relay service, traditional charity models of serivice delivery were reinforced by using volunteers in the proposal. Apparently the project passed into obscurity as the report was never made public and the NRS established in 1995 had little resemblance to the service proposed by the 1993 study (Wilson, 1994, 69). The project reflected a lack of coordination between the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, The Department of Transport and Communications and Telecom.

The Deaf Community's insistance that it is a socio-linguistic minority possibly led to a self-imposed alienation from disability-related research which could have provided a useful result. In addition according to a CTN Policy Adviser, the Department of Community Services and Health had a better understanding of rights-based models of disability than other departments (pers. comms. CTNPA). Ironically the Government also could have been accused of also reinforcing a charity model of disability had the DCSH, a welfare department, undertaken the study. Despite problems with methodology, the research committee did recommend that a NRS be established on the basis of demand. Unfortunately, the report missed the deadline and Government received the report several months later.

In contrast, the earlier Telecom report also known as the Red Book, offered a comprehensive feasibility study for a professional 24 hour national relay service that could have provided the basis for a relevant model (Telecom Australia, 1991). The Government's approach to the TTY issue appeared contradictory. While the DDA (1992) reinforced a rights perspective of disability and the rhetoric of the Senate debates supported that position, the TTY pilot project did not. Instead the project used a model that socially constructed people within a charity discourse whose needs could be catered for by volunteers. However, despite the pilot program's limitations, it was successful in placing the national relay service proposal on the Government's agenda.

According to the AAD Policy Adviser, having quantitative data to support his argument for the provision of TTYs gained a positive response in terms of increased attention from Government and Telecom (pers. comms. AADPA, 1997). Previously, he recalls that whenever he raised the TTY issue with Telecom management they would immediately respond with requests for hard data to support his claims for the demand for TTYs and the attendant costs (per.comms. AADPA, 1997). The Red Book provided the first empirical support and AAD requested Telecom to fund research to investigate the local issues further. Telecom agreed to support the project and funded the research from another initiative, the Telecom Fund for Social and Policy Research in Telecommunications.

In 1993, Telecom granted approximately $20, 000 to AAD to research the extent and effectiveness of TTYs in Australia (pers. comms., AADPA, 1997). CTN commissioned one of their project officers to head the research team and write a report summary. The report, Telecommunications for Deaf People (Wilson, 1994) is a comprehensive overview of TTY use in Australia and the essential function TTYs serve in overcoming communication barriers to members of the Deaf community and people who identify as having a profound hearing loss. In addition the report was critical of the lack of attention government and official bodies gave to extending their TTY services to meet the requirements of people using them (Wilson, 1994).

The Red Book (Telecom Australia, 1991) and Telecommunications for Deaf People (1994) provided AAD and CTN with the statistics and data they needed to lobby Telstra and governments more effectively. The AAD Policy Adviser noticed that lobbying power for the TTY in the TACC gathered momentum with the release of Wilson's report as AAD gained an increased credibility and legitimacy in the forum (pers. comms. AADPA, 1997). Consequently the report was tabled in each council meeting and used to strategically keep TTY issues on the TACC agenda (pers. comms. AADPA, 1997). However, to the AAD Policy Adviser's frustration, while the report facilitated discussion, it did not inspire action to supply individual TTYs to the Deaf Community.

When the Telecom Disability Service Unit manager was replaced in 1993, the new manager stepped into an arena of heightened tension between consumers and management. AAD and CTN began to use the media to voice their protest to Telecom's refusal to act on TTY issues following the Senate debates and DDA (1992) enactment. According to a CTN Policy Adviser, the new manager was careful to take the senior management position in issues and avoided discussion of contentious issues such as TTYs (pers. comms. CTNPA 1997).

The disability service manager experienced similar problems to her predecessors in negotiations with representatives for people with disabilities. She entered the telecommunications policy arena at a difficult time when frustrated disability representative groups were finding the TACC process breaking-down as a result of senior management refusal to budge in position on access and equity issues. Senior officers from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities and (HREOC), the Department of Communication and the Arts (DOCA) in separate interviews used the word,``hard-line" to describe AOTC's [14] approach to the disability issues (pers. comms. DDPUSO; ASRPB, 1997).

Apparently, the main reasons for tension in the consultative process lay in the inflexibility of senior management and their unwillingness to recognise that people with disabilities were either a potential market or people who had the same rights to basic telecommunications as others (pers. comms. PNFBCA, 1997; CTNPA, 1997). Disability managers found themselves sandwiched between: a) the frustrated consumer and advocacy groups awaiting Telstra's response to the implied provisions for TTY services under DDA (1992, section 50); and b) inflexible senior management adamant that TTYs were the Government's responsibility. While consumer organisations continued to lobby AOTC and the Government for action on the TTY issues, a Perth man decided to lodged a formal complaint with HREOC and force the issue into the legal arena.

On 3 May 1993, Geoff Scott a member of the Deaf Community in Western Australia lodged a complaint with HREOC alleging discrimination against AOTC because they refused to supply him a TTY on the same cost basis that others receive the standard telephone service. A standard baudot model TTY costs between $500 to $900 and allowed people with profound hearing impairment and members of the Deaf community to access the telecommunications network (Wilson, 1994, 21). Scott's action was independent of the larger national lobbying actions and neither AAD or CTN knew him prior to the inquiry (pers. comms. CTNPA; AADPA, 1997). Scott's action placed discrimination in telecommunications issues on HREOC's agenda and the Commision began collecting evidence for a public inquiry (pers. comms. DDPUSO, 1997).

By December, HREOC had received a further two complaints alleging discrimination against people with disabilities in the provision of telecommunications services. AAD registered a complaint against the Federal Government and all three telecommunications carriers - Telecom, Optus and Vodafone[15].

The complaint alleged that the respondents made insufficient provision for TTY users to contact:

• Federal, State and government politicians;
• Emergency services eg.000
• Telecommunications service eg. directory assistance and fault handling serivces;
• Contact with any person, organisation and/ or business which does not have a TTY (Wilson, 1994, 70).

In the same month DPI lodged a similar complaint to HREOC. However, DPI extended their complaint to include their members who use any text-based communication device such as people:

• who are Deaf and/or have a total hearing loss; and
• who have speech, hearing and /or multiple disabilities, who need to use text communications, including TTYs (White in Wilson, 1994, 70).

DPI's complaint extended the complaint from TTY users to include people with speech impairment and /or other disability who may use other text-based communications devices. Therefore application was not limited to particular technologies but linked closer to function. According to the President of the NFBCA, failure to address the function of communication s devices in policy has led to poor policies:

From time to time they have talked about equipment... in terms of lists of equipment that would be exempted or whatever and so they have been prescriptive rather than used a functional approach. So... technology changes and something new comes along that is not on the list (pers. comms. PNFBCA, 1997).

This makes an important point that addresses the problems of approaching policy issues with narrow technological and economic parameters . An alternative approach is to design policy on the basis of social outcomes while allowing for changing technologies and economic environments. Though a difficult task, it is facilitated by taking a multi-disciplinary approach to policy that includes extensive community consultation and participation.

Towards the end of 1993 the Deaf Community lobbied the Federal Parliament. Doubly discouraged by Telecom's inflexibility and the Federal Governments tardiness in funding an NRS, AAD and other members of the Deaf Community launched a nation-wide lobbying campaign on parliamentarians. An AAD Policy Adviser coodinated the campaign:

...Again more hard lobbying...We had a national campaign ...letters left right and centre. We had a day when we phoned Canberra...MPs on our TTYs and if we couldn't get them we'd ‘fax them and asked them, ``Why couldn't we contact you?''... So everyone was in on it which I coordinated it. And that stirred them enough to make it more real again. And so the next budget $26.1 million (was allocated to the NRS) (pers. comms. AADPA, 1997).

The AAD Policy Adviser and the Deaf community reveal a solidarity and ability to exercise a strategic nation-wide lobbying effort rarely achieved outside of professional pressure groups with highly paid lobbyists. Wilson found in his research of TTY users a constant concern was their inability to access government departments (1994, 73-89). With accessibility already a recognised problem it was not difficult to mobilise action on the Government (pers. comms. AADPA, 1997).

AAD also took the offensive to the media as part of their overall strategy. Below is an extract from a story carried by the Melbourne newspaper, The Age on Dec 2, 1993:

Groups representing deaf and disabled people in Australia will lodge complaints with the HREOC today claiming their lives will be put at risk because they are denied full access to telephone services...7% of the nation has a severe or profound hearing loss...at least 94, 700 are severe or profoundly deaf people and 1200 speech impaired people...

According to the Australian Association of the Deaf, deaf and hearing impaired people are denied a chance to maintain social and business contact, compete for jobs, feel safe and equal to others... (The Age, Dec 2, 1993 ).

The story uses a number of lobbying strategies for maximum effect. In keeping with the best pracice of releasing press releases, the story is current and timed for printing the same day as their complaint went to HREOC.

Secondly according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics there are approximately 35, 900 people in Australia with a profound hearing loss (ABS in HREOC, 1995, 10). Although one witness in the HREOC case for DPI believed that there were double that figure, Sir Ron Wilson observed that the claim was yet to be substantiated. Also a number of people who were profoundly deaf were unlikely to use the TTY because of their unwillingness to identify as a member of the Deaf community which according to a major study by Hyde and Power is approximately 15, 000 (HREOC.1995, 10)(Hyde and Power in Wilson, 1994, 30).

In addition, the story maximises the threat to the security of the Deaf Community with the phrase lives at risk. In 1993, TTY users (outside of professional organisations) numbered approximately 2000. Taking this figure from the conservative Hyde and Power estimation would leave 13, 000 members of the Deaf Community at risk. Given the Deaf Community's lobbying skills, any deaths occurred over recent years due to lack of access to telecommunications would have signalled a call to action and aggressive use of the media.

An inability to find any deaths recorded in the media as a failure to use an emergency telephone does not imply that they haven't occurred. But it does indicate that they haven't occurred often. The phrasing will be indicates a change of state and increases the sense of urgency. Telecom and Government policy toward TTYs hadn't changed since the machines were first introduced into Australia. Had are put at risk been used instead, the sense of urgency would be lost. However, the fear of the inability to contact someone in an emergency is very real. As this extract from a TTY user indicates:

The thing that worries me is that when I am driving my car and if it happens to break down - how then can I ring? I can't ring through the TTY relay because I don't have one (a TTY). (anon. pers. in Wilson, 1994, 46).

The above example illustrates the inconvenience and frustration faced by the Deaf community and others who cannot communicate over distance with a hearing community without a TTY. However, inconvenience does not have the sense of urgency and peril that could galvanise public outrage and support as will be put at risk.

Finally the story mentions the Federal Government and each of the three telecommunications companies as the targets of the complaint (The Age, 1993 Dec 2). Linking the subject to the threat the reader is given the powerful message that the Federal Government and the telecommunications companies will put the lives of people with profound hearing loss at risk. The trope is strengthened further by the reader who in a commonsense manner will likely apply a dominant discourse of disability to their reading of the story. Either a medical or a charity discourse constructs a person with a disability in some or all of the following ways: weak, deserving poor, helpless, eternal child. The trope is complete as an image of a weak, poor helpless child finds he/she is placed in mortal danger by the Federal Government and the telecommunications giants.

According to a CTN policy adviser, a single small news story printed in a national paper gains immediate response from Government and Telstra:

They (the Deaf community and AAD) were sending letters to the parliamentarians.. to the Minister...and also to a lesser degree they were also getting something out to the media. And my sense is that whenever there was something in the media...particularly the national media Government and the departments, Telstra and statutory bodies would take it seriously...they'd take it really seriously and I was quite surprised to the degree that they would respond...to this quite minor little article about... TTY access for Deaf people...Of course sometimes there might be a big story...like a front page story in the Herald Sun about Telstra overcharging and they'd (Telstra) would quite rightly get up in arms about that. But even small stories would really have an impact...immediately. A story would come out that day and immediately you'd get phone calls...trying to resist it...like trying to put out brush-fires. (pers. comms. CTNPA2, 1997).

The CTN policy adviser was surprised at the quick response an apparent insignificant story received. Immediate responses from large corporations and Government to negative media publicity are not confined to issues related to people with disabilities. However, Abott (1996, 51) found that the media is particularly receptive to groups such as people with disabilities and their public awareness campaigns when issues of inequality, prejudice or injustice are raised.

In addition to lobbying all Parliamentarians and sending press releases to the media, AAD and CTN contacted specific Opposition members who gained personal political points while maintaining pressure on Government.

On 7 April 1994, Senator Richard Alston, the Shadow-Minister for Communications raised the NRS issue in the Senate. Two months later, people with disabilities received the budget allocation for the NRS:

Senator Alston asked the Minsister for Communications and the Arts, upon notice on 7 April 1994:

1. Given that according to the Australian Association of the Deaf Inc (AAD), it has been attempting to meet the Government since the 1993-94 Budget to discuss the establishment of a National TTY Relay Service, on what basis has the Government refused to meet with the AAD to discuss this matter.
2. On what basis has the Government failed to consult with the AAD on any of the recommendations from the 1992-93 feasibility study on a National Relay Service.

Seantor McMullan - The Minister for Communications and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:

1. The Government has agreed to the establishment of a National TTY Relay Service in the Budget. This follows the evaluation of a trial that was completed in July 1993. The $26 million appropriated for the service reflects the Governments commitment to ensure that the deaf and speech impaired community have access to the basic telecommunications services.
2. The Government will continue to consult with interested parties on the implementation of a National TTY Relay Service (HOS, 7 June 1994, 1438-1439).

The extract reveals several aspects of political strategy by using tropes. Alston began by attacking the credibility and public accountability of the Government. By using words such as refused to meet ...to discuss ; failed to discuss on any of the recommendations Alston painted a picture of a stubborn autocracy that refused to meet its constituency. Arguably, Alston had a larger political agenda in mind than enquiring into the NRS. His query challenged the integrity of the Government regardless of the answer. In response, McMullan ignored Alston's question entirely which could indicate that Alston's claim that the Government hadn't consulted with AAD since the 1993 budget is correct. However even if they had, it is unlikely that the Government would have risked publicly ridiculing a community organisation by naming dates and times of meetings. Such an effort would also have involved time and resources expended that would have likely been only recorded in Hansard. Regardless, arguably, Alston scored a political point and the Deaf Community received official notification that an allocation of funds had been secured in the budget for a NRS.

Developments within the broader national and international policy arenas of human rights created a favourable environment for a continued focus to be placed on access and equity policies in telecommunications for people with a disability (pers. comms. PNFBCA, 1997). In November 1994, the Government initiated the Commonwealth Disability Strategy, a 10-year plan with the goals of creating equalisation and participation opportunities in society for people with disabilites (Lindsay, 1996, 39; ALRC, No.79, 53).

The CDS had its genesis in Australia's active role in the development of the United Nations Standard Rules on the Equalisation of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilites in 1993 (Lindsay, 1996, 39; Australian Law Reform Commission, No.79, 53). Lindsay observed that although the Standard Rules carried no binding obligations on nations they implied strong moral and political commitment. In addition, a senior advisor to Brian Howe, the then Minister of Health Housing and Community Services was an active contributor in the rules' development - an exercise the minister reportedly followed closely (pers. comms., PNFBCA, 1997). Australia's activity in the international discussions of the rights for people with disabilities led to commitment to the concepts at the national level.

Combined with the DDA (1992), the CDS extended the responsibility of the provision of services and programs for people with disability beyond the domain of social security and welfare to include all Commonwealth Government agencies (Lindsay, 1996, 39; RTS, 1996, 126). According to the President of the NFBCA, the CDS was the practical implementation of the disability rights philosophy:

It was important because it was the Government galvanising itself and other bodies into action to take these standard rules and basically have a platform of action which complemented the services delivery side. (The CDS) strengthened up the rights (discourse) to the community (pers. comms. PNFBCA, 1997).

The CDS attempted to replace charity models of disability that constructed disability as an arm of social welfare, with a rights discourse that made the provision of services the responsibility of all Government departments and agencies.

The CDS had a specific reference to the delivery of telecommunications services for people with disabilites that contained implications for policy:

Access to Telecommunications is essential for people with a disability to participate in the systems of society. The emergence of new and converging information technologies present many opportunities and changes for people with a disability

Action 3, 5 (a) - By March 1995 the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission will ensure that all telecommunications carriers and major equipment manufacturers are aware of their obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act (CDS in SRTS, 1996, 127).

The CDS links the social nature of essential telecommunications services for people with disabilities to the discrimination legislation passed in 1992. By recognising that telecommunications services are essential, a strong case existed for including TTYs as part of the standard telephone service. The responsibility, in keeping with the rights philosophy underlying the CDS, shifted from a social welfare issue to one of service provision. The expansion of responsibility to include service providers is indicated by HREOC's mandate to inform telecommunications carriers of their obligations under theDDA (1992).

The decision by the Federal Government in April the following year to fund the National Relay Service from consolidated revenue represented the Government's commitment to the CDS. The action also addressed major concerns expressed in the complaint to HREOC against the Government. However, Telecom's position that TTYs were not their responsibility appeared to be reinforced by the Government decision to fund the NRS.

Telecom management had reason to celebrate as well as view with caution the Government decision to fund the NRS. On one hand the corporation was vindicated in its stance that the NRS was the Government's jurisdiction and a social welfare issue which also implied an extension to include TTY equipment. Telstra received further encouragement when the Government released details that it would assist 13, 000 means-tested profoundly deaf or speech impaired people in the ``purchase of specialised equipment'' to access the NRS (HREOC, 1995, 9). However, the investment of $26.1 million to establish a nationwide telecommunications service provided by the budget and not a government department signified a temporary funding measure to a permanent infrastructure with attendant maintenance costs. In addition, recent Senate and TACC debates on the issue of TTYs centred around claims that the equipment supply was part of the standard telephone service. Finally, the complaints lodged with HREOC signified a legal showdown on the TTY issue.

A CTN Policy Adviser records that tensions within the disability consultative services committee had increased to the point of communication breakdown:

...[Telecom representatives] felt burnt when we lodged actions under DDA because with the consultative deal ...protocol was fairly well specified because you discussed things through the process. But each party reserves the right to use other forums. So we only got so far with the TTYs and Telstra wasn't going to have a bar of that. And there was one spectacular meeting where senior management were just apallingly brief.

[The disability services manager] got more defensive...We were stirring the policy pot because we knew that another person (Geoff Scott) had taken action under the DDA. So I remember in one meeting we asked, ``Are there any other complaints under the DDA issue? [ laughs] ... She didn't like us much (pers. comms. CTNPA, 1997).

Apparently the telecom disability service manager took criticism of Telstra personally. According to the President of the NFBCA, the manager of disability services privately supported many of the consumer groups' claims but she was stymied by senior management. In addition she was reluctant to repeat the mistakes of the former manager by making promises to consumers that she couldn't deliver (pers. comms. PNFBCA, 1997).

As Telecom went on the defensive, the consumer groups played the offensive role. To maximimise their advantage within TACC, they alluded to outside support with their query regarding other complaints to HREOC which implied a planned and united effort. In reality, Scott launched his claim independent of the other parties and without their knowledge (pers. comms. CTNPA; AADPA, 1997). Much to Telecom's dismay, the issue spilled out into the larger community through the consumer groups' media releases as part of the strategy to keep the issues alive in the community and raise awarenessof the HREOC hearing (pers. comms. CTNPA; CTNPA2, 1997).

This chapter described, explained and analysed the policy arena prior to the Scott inquiry. The significance of the DDA (1992) to the TTY debate was discussed and the relevance of the Senate amendments. The amendments transformed the legislation to include access and equity in telecommunications services for people with disabilities instead of the previous exclusionary definition in the Act. Ironically it was by excluding one particular service to people with disabilities (payphones) that most telecommunications services were included in the scope of the Act.

The chapter also analysed the parallel Government policy developments of the NRS. It argued that particular discourses were able to frame the structure of the network which eventually evolved in policy. Had a traditonal charity discourse, which emphasised voluntarism, dominated the policy process, it is argued that a substandard NRS may have emerged. It is likely that a NRS staffed by voluntary workers would not have been able to cope with the demands placed on it by a national telecommunications network required to operate professionally 24 hours per day.

Finally, the chapter discussed the lobbying pressure by community and consumer groups on Government and Telstra for TTY services. The tensions created by differing social advocate, scientific and political discourses, as discussed in earlier chapters, appeared to begin to lead to a break-down of negotiations within the TACCs. Similarly, new discrimination legislation with explicit references to social access and equity issues in telecommunications services for people with disabilities demonstrated the dynamic political and legal conditions that constituted part of the policy arena. Consequently, it is argued that the mutual influences of competing discourses and dynamic material environments exacerbated tensions between consumers and Telecom.

Further Information

• Next: Complaint Against Telecom
• Previous: The Telstra Consultative Councils
• Order Your Copy Now
• About the author

Draft of 21 November 1999. Comments and Corrections Welcome

Copyright © Michael J Bourk & Tom Worthington 2000.