"Beyond The Market"

By

Christopher Newell, PhD

1 October 1999

Dr Christopher Newell,

Senior Lecturer,

School of Medicine,

University of Tasmania,

GPO Box 252-33,

Hobart, Tasmania,7001.

Ph: 03 62248584

Fax: 03 62236174

Mobile: 0418545611

Email:Christopher.Newell@utas.edu.au

I make this submission as someone who identifies as having disability who has long been involved in researching and advocating regarding the issues concerning information technology and telecommunications for people with disability in Australia. In addition to making some specific recommendations, I also wish to offer some general comments with regard to the approach adopted by the Commission. It is especially important to draw upon critical scholarship in the area of disability studies, new media, telecommunications, and especially the views of people with disability themselves. As my area of expertise is disability, I seek to make no comment with regard to issues for older people, although I recognise the similarity of issues.

Consideration of the address by the President of HREOC in accepting the brief from the Attorney General is perhaps a helpful start, as it raises fundamental issues. In the first place the President suggests that "...information technology has the potential to transform the way a person with almost any kind of disabilities can interact with society at large." (www.hreoc.gov.au/news_info/speeches/n1-8-8.html) This reflects the tenor of the Issues Paper posted by HREOC. Yet critical scholarship, especially that drawing upon disability studies and the history and philosophy of science, would suggest that information technology and disability are inter-related socio-political spaces. Disability is far more than just some legal or given concept and is constructed by dominant understandings of the world, and especially dominant discourses. (See for example Fulcher, G. Disabling Policy? Falmer Press, London, 1989) Quite simply, we build disability into technology

The design of information technology is informed by values as to that which is nice, natural and normal. If there is one thing that critical scholarship has shown with regard to the built environment, as well as communication technology, so often we are disabled via designs built in accordance with dominant norms. These norms also create the notion of "special needs" so dominant in the environment (For a critique of the notion of special needs see Newell, C. ""We got the Toilets right. What more can you want?": Critical Reflections on "Special Needs" and Access to Ombudsman and Complaints Schemes"Interaction. In Press.)

Likewise, while the President suggests that "When we say that someone missed the bus, we don't blame the bus", I beg to differ. So often I will blame the bus and inappropriate design of the bus, the bus system, and indeed, the values and taken for granted norms of the designers. To extend the metaphor, most bus designers, or those who design interfaces and technologies associated with e-commerce do not have a direct experience of disability and do not incorporate the life experience of people with disability. Hence, again with reference to the metaphor utilised by the President, if we are to see information technology as "the technology bus" then we really need to examine the power relations associated with so called "new technology services" and E-commerce.

A consideration of the Issues Paper also shows some significant challenges for the Commission. In the first place, it would appear to be apparent that in these times of scant resources being available, much of the research for the issues paper was conducted utilising the World Wide Web. Yet, much of the critical literature concerning emerging technologies and e-commerce is not readily available via just a public search of the web.

The two quotes which begin the issues paper are also indicative of the way in which the problems are so often defined by those who do not live with disability as opposed to the issues paper starting with the views of people with disability and proceeding from there. This is not just some abstract philosophical point but a fundamental political issue. For example, issues of rights for indigenous people are now driven and informed by the statements of our indigenous people. Likewise with women. The political question for the Commission is whether it will allow its work to be directed by the life experience and views of those living with disability and older Australians?

One of the significant issues that the Commission faces is that so often reports are written about those of us with disability as opposed to fully utilising the empowered input of and by those of us with disability. Over the years I have been privileged to be involved with a variety of community and disability organisations doing research (including action research) regarding issues for people with disability. I have included published references to these at the end of this submission as part of a select list from my bibliography of references dealing with disability, and telecommunications, electronic commerce and information technology.

It is also important for the Commission to recognise that increasingly Federal government policy seeks to utilise a "light touch" regulatory approach. (The Commission is of course aware of this with regard to government policy in the area of privacy). It is worth noting that the re-regulation of the telecommunications industry has increasingly promoted power imbalances, with many aspects of regulation being left to the industry, and especially such bodies as the Australian Communications Industry Forum Inc (ACIF). In one of the papers I have appended, I provide a critique of some of the problems that people with disabilities have experienced, as a minority group seeks to overcome the well resourced non-disabled industry perspective fostered by ACIF processes.

Dominant approaches by the Federal government also seem to suggest that "The Market" provides solutions. Yet, because of the dominant conceptualisation of disability and the disadvantaged situation of people with disability I would suggest that clearly regulation is necessary as well. Just leaving it to "The Market" will further exacerbate disadvantage. Here I also acknowledge issues of trans-border commerce/communication and the well known issues posed in seeking effective regulation.

As the scope of the Commission's inquiry is vast, I limit myself to a short submission early in the life of the Inquiry, enclosing a variety of articles by myself which will further identify a variety of issues. Whilst many of these have a telecommunications focus, all of them show issues in terms of emerging technology and the design and structure of E-commerce. I leave it to specific disability interest groups to make submissions although I suggest that the Commission will need actively to seek submissions from some sectors. Further, I make the following recommendations:

1. That the Commission move beyond merely consulting with people with disabilities and older Australians to having its inquiry drawing upon the expertise of a reference group. Further, that such a group comprise individuals with expertise associated with: living with disability, an older person, a service provider, a business person and relevant academic expertise.
2. That the Commission undertake a thorough literature review of the significant research already undertaken on this topic.
3. That the Commission not just conduct focus group research, but target particular population groupings not well picked up by focus group methodology.
4. That the Commission seek to recognise that so often that which is defined as "reasonable" or "normal" is in accordance with dominant norms and that a human rights approach fundamentally challenges the dominant conceptions fostered by the state and non-disabled corporate interests.
5. That as part of the Commission's work, it foster a practical "Best Practice" approach to provide simple "how to" guidance and a resource regarding disability access to emerging technology to Australian individuals, corporations and Government Departments. This might take the approach of key questions and issues to address.
6. That the Commission actively seek submissions from many disability sectors, especially those under-represented in dominant conceptions of disability.

I would be happy to address any more specific questions that the Commission might have, and to address the inquiry in person.

Newell, C., "People with Disabilities and the Information Society", in Adamson, L.

et al , Planning for an Information Society: Population Group Papers and Policy Issue Papers, Telecom Australia, September 1994, pp 69-80. ISBN : 0 64221363 1.

Newell, C. "Disability, Disadvantage and Telecommunications" in Langtry, B. (Ed) All Connected? University of Melbourne Press, Melbourne, 1998, pp 151- 168.

Goggin, G. & Newell, C., "Reflections from the Roadside: Residential Consumers and the Information Super highway", Media Information Australia, No 74, November, 1994, pp 34-41.

Goggin, G. & Newell, C. "Residential Consumers & 'Rejected Knowledge': Exploring And Acknowledging The Margins In Broadband Services In Australia", Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 21, No 4. May 1997, pp 317-328.

Goggin, G. & Newell, C. An End to Disabling Policies?: Towards New Age Universal Service, Information Society, In Press.

Newell, C. "We got the Toilets right. What more can you want?": Critical Reflections on "Special Needs" and Access to Ombudsman and Complaints Schemes"Interaction. In Press.

____. "Disabling Consultation? A Report Card from the Disability Sector",Communications Update, No 145, July, 1998, pp 13-14.

____. "Consumers and Telstra: Consultation ten years down the track ..." Communications Update, No 155, June, 1999, pp 4-5.

Jolley, W. Digital Technologies and Blind People: Achievements, Trends and Opportunities. 1994. ; Unpublished paper by the President of the National Federation of Blind Citizens of Australia.

____. Convergence and Digitisation: An Integrated Approach to Information Access for People who are Blind or Vision-impaired. Australian Disability Review. 1997(1): 15-26.

Newsome, L. Technology and the Information Needs of People With Disabilities. Australian Disability Review. 1985(4): 22-27.

Wolstenholme, R. & Stanzel, J. Communications Technology: Information and Access Issues for People with Disabilities.The Rural Development Centre, Armidale 1997.

Thornton, P. Communications Technology - Empowerment or Disempowerment? Disability, Handicap & Society. 1993; 8(4): 339-360.

Balnaves, M.; Richardson, E. Social Equity and Telecommunications. Melbourne: Telecom Australia; 1990.

Gill, J. M. Technological Changes : Implications for Visually Disabled Persons. The British Journal of Visual Impairment. 1990(Summer): 48-50.

Hawkridge, D.; Vincent, T.; Hales, G. New Information Technology in the Education of Disabled Children and Adults. Kent: Croom Helm; 1985.

Tinker, A. The Telecommunication Needs of Disabled and Elderly People. London: Oftel; 1989.

Gill, J. M. Technological Changes: Implications for Visually Disabled Persons. The British Journal of Visual Impairment. 1990; 8(2): 48-50.

Klugman, K.; Grant, B.; McGuigan, A.; Lamberton, D. From Isolation to Opportunity: Applying Communication and Information Technology to Facilitate the Placement of People With Physical Disabilities into Open Employment. 1991. ; Unpublished Paper by The Centre for International Research in Communication and Information Technology.

Mohr, R.; Doolan, S. "Lost Without It". Sydney: Australian Pensioners' and Superannuants' Federation; 1992.

Telecom Social and Policy Research. New Communication Technologies and Participation by the Hearing Impaired. ; 1993.

Wilson, I. R.; Goggin, G. Reforming Universal Service: The Future of Consumer Access and Equity in Australian Telecommunications. Redfern NSW: Consumers' Telecommunications Network; 1993.

von Tetzchner, S., Ed. Issues in Telecommunication and Disability. Luxembourg: Commission of the European Communities - Directorate-General Telecommunications, Information Industries and Innovation; 1991.

Wilson, I. Telecommunications for Deaf People: Meeting the telecommunications needs of the Australian Deaf community. Sydney: Australian Association of the Deaf; 1994.

National Information Services Council. Access Issues: Access, Communication, and Community. . 1995. ; Document obtained from World Wide Web, 10th August, 1995. Site address: http://www.nla.gov.au/pmc/nisc/aug95/access.html.

Gillard, P.; Bow, A.; Wale, K. Positioning Telecommunications Consumers. Melbourne: Telecommunications Needs Research Group; 1995.

Astbrink, G. Everybody's Business: Consumer Information Access for People who are Blind or Vision Impaired. Ascot: GSA Information Consultants; 1996.

The Standard Telephone Service Review Group. Review of the Standard Telephone Service. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Communications and the Arts; 1996.

Langtry, B., Ed. All Connected: Universal Service in Telecommunications. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press; 1998.

Owens, J.; Lamb, G.; Smith, K. Telecommunication Needs of People with Communication/Speech Difficulties. Melbourne: Deakin University; 1998.

Bourk, M. J. Universal Service and People with Disabilities: An Analysis of Telecommunications Policy Making from 1975-1997. Unpublished Master of Communication Thesis, University of Canberra, Canberra; 1998.