The Rebuttal

Australian people are a generous people. When the chips are down they are there to help. I was reminded of this on the weekend when I visited Marysville. Marysville is a town in Victoria that was flattened by the Black Saturday Fires in 2009. It still bears the scars of that horrific day. For miles one can still see the burnt landscape and dead trees that were caused by the flames of the fire. The town itself is still rebuilding. I remember that in the aftermath of the fires the Australia public responded with kindness. It donated money, food, goods and skills. All of which helped to get devastated towns like Marysville back on their feet very, very quickly.

There are many examples of the kindness of the Australian people. I am sure Queensland will tell you that Australians as one offered overwhelming support after the numerous horrific floods and cyclones that have devastated large parts of Queensland in the last few years. It is also worth noting that on the Easter weekend that Victorians donated a whopping $16 million to the Good Friday Appeal for the Royal Children’s Hospital. There can be no doubt that Australian people have big hearts and deep pockets.

The generosity of Australian citizens cannot be questioned. There is no doubt that when the chips are down the Australian people show their true colours. But for some reason the open pockets and generosity that is shown by Australia’s citizens is not matched by corporate Australia or the Government. In fact it could be argued that the Government and corporate Australia are downright mean.

Did you know, for example, that the Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS) has reported that there are 620 000 people with a disability living below the poverty line.[1] There are also  2010 figures provided by ACOSS in their report, Poverty in Australia, that suggest that 2,265,000 Australian’s, or 12.8% of the population, live in poverty.  If 620 000 people with a disability are part of this figure it means that more than a quarter of all people living in poverty in Australia have a disability. Surely this is Australia’s shame.

The 2003 ABS figures suggest that there are 1,238,600 Australians with a profound disability. One would be safe in making a broad assumption that most of the 620 000 people with a disability that ACOSS claim are living in poverty would have profound disabilities. Using such an assumption this means that more than 50% of people with a profound disability are living in poverty.

Is it any wonder then that Bill Shorten, the former Parliamentary Secretary of Disability, is on record as saying that a rich country like Australia can afford to support people with a disability better? Is it any wonder then that there is haste to roll out the National Disability Insurance Scheme?  It is a case of too little and too late.

That more than 50% of people with a profound disability can be assumed to be living in poverty based on accepted statistics is a national disgrace. Particularly given that Australia has had 21 years of successive economic growth. Particularly given that Australia is one of only seven countries with the vaunted AAA credit rating. It is a disgrace that Australia,  with its abundance of riches, has the highest rate of poverty among people with a disability from 27 Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development countries.  Is it any surprise that Sir Bob Geldof has condemned Australia for cutting its foreign aid when it is one of the only few countries that has not been hit by the Global Financial Crisis.

This much is true – AUSTRALIA IS RICH. But unfortunately, unlike its citizens, its social policy does not have a deep pocket. This is particularly so in regard to people with a disability.

It is not just the Government that is mean it is also corporate Australia. Last week the Sydney Morning Herald reported that Rail Corp spent $420 000 defending itself against Graeme Innes, The Australian Human Rights Disability Commissioner[2]. Mr Innes was outraged that rather than spend money on providing audio announcements for the blind on trains Rail Corp chose to spend nearly $500 000 trying to avoid its social and cooperate responsibilities towards people with a disability. This is corporate meanness personified.

While I agree totally with Mr Innes sentiments it also points again to the weakness of Australian disability discrimination laws … The power is with those that have the money. Even if Rail Corp did lose on this occasion very few people with a disability have the means to go to court. Particularly so when more than half those with profound disabilities are living in poverty.

Then of course we have the Cinema Access fiasco that demonstrates corporate meanness at its worst. The Big 4 cinemas are not only mean, they are clueless. Not content with having provided crap access in the past they have now provided access that is even more crap. They have foisted CraptiView on the Deaf and hard of hearing public. Almost as one this public has said it was awful. Despite this feedback they have continued roll-out the device en-masse.

What is worse the increase in access that was promised was minimal. Sessions with captions using CraptiView were still largely off-peak. It has reached the point where they do not even advertise caption sessions anymore. This is forcing the Deaf and hard of hearing public to constantly have to phone or even visit cinemas to confirm whether captions are available. One poor soul travelled 45 minutes to a cinema because he could not obtain any information about captions sessions either on the internet or the phone. All he wanted to do was take his family to see The Croods. There are six deaf people in his family and there are not enough devices anyway. And these cinemas won a Human Rights Award.

The mind boggles that the cinemas are treating a potential market of 3 to 4 million with absolute contempt. So frustrated has the paying deaf customer become that they have resorted to organising private screenings and open space screenings just so that they can see a movie with captions on the screen. Of the two sessions that have been organised in Melbourne it has been virtually standing room only so popular are captions on the screen. The Big 4 Cinema response to this obvious demand has been naff all. It is the height of corporate meanness.

It is one of the great paradoxes in Australia that a country whose citizens are famous for their fair go mentality and famous for the generosity of its citizens has Government and a corporate sector that is as mean as they come. Let us be clear – Australia is rich! Let us be clear Australia has had 21 years of successive economic growth! Let us be clear Australia CAN afford to provide the access to people with disabilities so that are able to participate fully within their communities.  The NDIS is but a pimple on the bottom of what really needs to happen in this country to ensure the needs of people with a disability are met.

Perhaps the starting point is Government and corporate Australia is to be a little less mean. They need to dig deeper into their considerable pockets.

Sometime ago a friend paid me an enormous compliment. My friend had been going through a rough spot. I would look out for his posts on Facebook. There were often signs through these posts that my friend was agitated or not happy. I would send him messages through his inbox. Just to check up on him and make sure all was ok. It was not always easy to work out that my friend was not happy. He would put up cryptic messages that would suggest something was bothering him. Sometimes I would misinterpret these messages and my friend would, in fact, be completely happy. More often than not I would get it right. One day to thank me for my concern my friend said, “You know Gary, your eye is always on the sparrow.”

At the time I had no idea what it meant. Truth be known I had to Google it. As it turned out, although my friend is not religious –far from it, the saying has its origins in the bible. It basically infers that you care. As god cares for mankind he also cares for the sparrow. It doesn’t matter who you are, god is watching over you. Now I am not religious either, I am a confirmed agnostic. But I was touched to know that my friend appreciated that I cared enough to look out for him.

Last week I was particularly active on Facebook. So active was I that a friend posted, “My News Feed looks like this Gary Inohoo comment, Gary Inohoo, Gary Inohoo, someone else Gary Inohoo, Gary Inohoo, Gary Inohoo….so much to say Gary Inohoo.” Inohoo is my Facebook name which is a dig at my friend who is a Donohoo. As much as she Dont Know Who (Donohoo), I Know Who. (Inonhoo) Don’t worry, she didn’t find it amusing either.

But I digress. Last week I was particularly frustrated at the actions of certain people. My status read, “Never ceases to amaze me that the politics that people play assumes the punter is ignorant… Well I am here to tell you that the punter knows.” This was, in part, due to the fact that the Labor party, having self-destructed, decided that the party line would be “It’s now back to business.” And they repeated this line ad nauseam. Equally the Liberal Party, trying to convince us that Labor was unfit to Govern, kept repeating that it was, “Civil War in the Labor party and only the Liberals are fit to govern.” The lack of respect for the intelligence of the average punter was infuriating!

There was also a lot of crap happening in Deaf politics. I hate it when people use double speak. They use this double speak assuming that the Deaf community won’t know the true motives of their actions. These people in the Deaf community, like the Labor and Liberal parties, seemed to assume that the punter did not really know that their actions were purely ones of self-preservation. This underestimating of the punters intelligence pisses me off no end. The punter knows what is going on, a bit of honesty would not go astray.

So anyway I posted the status. My friend shared the same status with this lead, “His Eye is on the Sparrow.” I was touched because my friend was saying that I was going into bat for the punter. I think and hope that he also meant that I don’t put my own interest ahead of the punter. I may be foolhardy, but if the headstone on my grave is inscribed with “His Eye was on the Sparrow” it would be something that I would be very, very proud of. (And yes I am hoping people take the hint. Not that I plan to die anytime soon – sorry ;-D )

I write this for two reasons. I want to thank my friend for his kind words and I also want to highlight that for the most part people are good. They have their Eye on the Sparrow too. I was fortunate to witness this on the weekend.

It is just simple little things really. On the weekend I played Cricket for the first time for ten years and had a wonderful time. The event was organised by the Melbourne Deaf Cricket Club. The Melbourne Deaf Cricket Club is one of, if not the oldest, sporting clubs in Australia. It is 132 years old. It has had its fair share of challenges over the years but it has continued thrive. It has thrived on the back of volunteers for 132 years. Through the sheer hard work of people whose “Eyes are on the Sparrow” this wonderful sporting institution has continued.

At the cricket there was also a Deaf Market. Again this was organised by a hardy set of volunteers. It has to be remembered that the Deaf community is constantly under threat. It is under threat through well meaning medical people who see deafness as a tragedy and want to eradicate it. It is under threat from our Deaf organisations that make poor business decisions and unwittingly close down the spiritual and cultural centres of the Deaf community. It is under threat through Urban sprawl and distance.

But on Saturday the Deaf community was brought to life. Hundreds of Deaf people visited the stalls at the Deaf Market. They stayed to watch the cricket. Food and drinks were sold and prepared by a dedicated bunch of volunteers. The Deaf community is alive and well thank you very much – Not because of support from well funded and asset rich organisations but simply because a dedicated bunch of people have their “Eyes on the Sparrow”

It didn’t end there. On Sunday I went to the movies with my family for the first time in ten years. People who read The Rebuttal will be well aware of the CaptiView saga. While our Government, mega rich cinemas and representatives slogged it out and wasted thousands of dollars two well-meaning people took things into their own hands. They approached a small independent cinema and asked if they could book a theatre and have captions shown on screen so that people who are deaf would not have to use the dreaded CaptiView device.

Mothers attended with their deaf children. Deaf people and their partners attended together. Deaf parents with their hearing children shared a movie. Deaf parents with Deaf children shared a movie. In fact two families made a 600 km round trip from Horsham. It was just a wonderful social gathering. All this was made possible because of the actions of two well-meaning people. While we have all been flaffing about and scratching out each other’s eyes two people with their “Eyes on the Sparrow” made it happen.

It’s a lesson for me and for everyone. Keep your “Eyes on the Sparrow” and not a lot can go wrong. Thank you to all those people that made my weekend such a great one!

Yesterday was an exciting day. The Government announced the business name of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The NDIS issue has been at the forefront of disability politics for the last few years and rightly so. It is Australia’s first real attempt to tackle the issue of disability support so that people with disabilities all over Australia can participate as fully as possible in our society. Such a positive program that will change the lives of people with a disability like never before was deserving of an inspiring and positive name. With great fanfare it was announced that the new name would be ……. ‘DisabilityCare Australia’ … I was so inspired by the name I nearly wet myself.

Ok! The sarcasm is probably not called for but If I wasn’t inspired well neither was any one else. Consider these comments that were posted at the Facebook announcement. , “How did a scheme based on rights, entitlement, empowerment and inclusion acquire a name that screams charity model? This decision isn’t going down well with people with disability” said one. Another posed the question, “When did we get consulted on the name? Not in love with it either.” Others were even more blunt, “…  I believe it was Spin Doctors that were consulted, rather than the intended users of the NDIS.” – “I hate this name it harks back to a charity model. Why are we not continuing to call it the NDIS it seems to capture the essence of the plan.” – “I would love to know what the ‘range of names’ was if this ranked highest!” – “Blech! I dont care for that new name…” and so on and so on – Clearly people with a disability felt that the new name sucked in a big way.

The Governments response was typically saccharine. In an attempt to calm us all down Senator Jan McLucas felt the need to offer comment. Said the good Senator, “We have undertaken an extensive consultation process …..”  Apparently with a wide range of stakeholders that included people with a disability, carers, agencies and peak bodies. Apparently there was comprehensive market research undertaken too. One on one consultation with representative individuals and groups also played a key role in the name choice. Importantly, points out Senator McLucas, this included, “ … people with disabilities and their carers.”  Yet despite this wide reaching consultation everyone that commented, bar none, hated the name. It makes one wonder if the Government is taking us all for mugs.

Said one well respected disability advocate, “.. it worries the crap out of me that people said we hate it but we did it anyway …”  which led me to coin the term CaptiView Politics. This is in reference to the roll-out of the CaptiView device that the Government insisted had been well received by people who are Deaf and hard of hearing. This is despite the fact that nearly everyone on the Action on Cinema Access page, where everyone who is anyone comments, vehemently hated CaptiView. So to paraphrase the respected advocate, “… It worries the crap out of me that people said we hate Captiview but we will endorse it as wonderful anyway.”  I am really beginning to think that they all take us for mugs.

Which brings me to Deaf politics in Adelaide. The Deaf community in Adelaide is currently in turmoil. Their spiritual home and social centre at 262 South Terrace is about to be sold from under them. They are angry and rightly so.

This whole sorry saga goes back to 2007 when the Deaf Society, then known as Deaf SA, cried out for help. A knight in shining armour in the guise of Townsend House, who are said to be worth $70 million, came to the rescue. At the time The Rebuttal warned the Deaf Community to be wary because, by all accounts, it looked like Townsend House had just acquired Deaf SA and its assets for nothing. In essence we thought it was a bloodless coup.

Of course at the time Deaf SA had no choice. They either accepted the helping hand of Townsend House or they went under. The Rebuttal warned the Community to be careful because it had given an enormous amount of power to Townsend House. We felt that in time, if things could not be fixed, it would give Townsend House the power to force the sale of 262.

We were widely derided by the powers that be at the time. We were accused of scare mongering. We were told that the relationship between Townsend House and Deaf SA was a partnership, not a takeover.  Townsend House set up what they called an Advisory Group to advise them of the needs of the Deaf community. The Rebuttal pointed out the Advisory Groups had no power to do anything but advise and that the power was almost solely with Townsend House. We were widely accused of being troublemakers.

Townsend House pointed out that Deaf SA still had its Board. We pointed out that even so that the power was all with Townsend House. We argued that Townsend House only needed to withdraw support and then Deaf SA would be up the creek without the proverbial paddle.  It was clear the power resided with Townsend House. Again we were widely accused of scare mongering.

Overtime, in our view, it became very clear that Townsend House were quietly taking over Deaf SA. They changed the organisations name and brand to Deaf Can Do to align it with their own brand of Can Do 4 Kids. The butterfly that played a prominent part of the Can Do 4 Kids brand became a prominent part of the Deaf Can Do logo. Still Townsend House insisted that it was a partnership and not a takeover. They claimed that the brand change was just a strategy to align fundraising initiatives.

Alarm bells really rang when Townsend House suggested that the Deaf Can Do Board be disbanded and that there be only one Board administered by Townsend House with representatives from Deaf Can Do on it. It became very apparent that the control of Deaf Can Do (formerly Deaf SA) was slipping from the Deaf communities grasp.

The crunch came late last year when Townsend House began to systemically relocate services previously located at 262 to offices at Welland. It was clear that they felt the 262 building was not needed. One cannot blame them really because the upkeep of 262 runs into hundreds and thousands of dollars.

Once services had been pillared and taken under their own brand and to their own premises they had no need for 262. Knowing the uproar that might occur if they sold 262 they played their benefactor card. They gifted the building to the Deaf community, with conditions of course. One being that the Deaf Community demonstrated that they had the business nous to keep 262 open. Another condition, allegedly, being that they not use the building to set up services that would be in competition with Townsend House.

Now Townsend House will claim that they have supported the Deaf community to explore options to keep the building open. And this is true, they have. But come on! If an organisation like Townsend House, reportedly worth $70 million, cannot afford the upkeep of 262, how realistic was it to expect the asset poor Deaf community to do so. As it turned out the Deaf community need $335 000 up front just to keep 262 open. It was never a realistic option. Who were they kidding?

And so like with the NDIS and the choice of name Townsend House will claim that they consulted and worked closely with the relevant stakeholders to try and keep 262 open. Hell they even gifted the building to the Deaf community. They will claim that they “SAVED” Deaf SA when it was breathing its last breath. They will use this as evidence of their commitment. The reality is that Townsend House now controls all of Deaf Can Do services. It is possible that these services, particularly the Auslan interpreting services, could have been valid sources of income to buy time to explore options to save 262. But now what does the Deaf community have? All it seemingly has left is a pseudo gift of a building that they have no means to keep open.

As it stands the Deaf community looks set to lose its one and only asset. If 262 cannot be saved it looks like it will be sold off.  How the proceeds of such a sale will be used to benefit the Deaf community in South Australia is not known. However it is alleged Deaf Can Do owes $1 million to Townsend House. A large proportion of any sale funds will end up with Townsend House.

Meanwhile the Deaf community in South Australia have been taken for mugs. They stand to lose everything. Lets hope that the Deaf communities around Australia can rally round and help the Deaf Community in South Australia. If support for the Deaf community in SA cannot be found, and quickly, the future is bleak.

The obligations of businesses and other organisations are no longer seen in isolation from the communities in which they operate, the employees they depend upon, the environment from which they draw their resources and the marketplace in which they participate.

Rosemary Sainty

Head, Responsible Business Practice Project

St James Ethics Centre

Professor Rosemary Sainty is one of Australia’s leading advocates and academics in the field of ethics. She is commenting here on the ethics that should drive corporate Australia.

A major component of socially responsible corporate practice is community and social responsibility. A great example of a community and socially responsible business is Twilight Cinemas. Twilight Cinemas are a small business that provides screenings of late release movies in outdoor and indoor settings. They recently put on an accessible cinema event in Melbourne. They have a mobile van with a modern digital projector. They have a huge blow up screen on which they show movies outdoors. I am led to believe that they are able to set up indoors as well and put on screenings in places like town halls that do not have a local cinema.

They recently worked in partnership with Vicdeaf, Arts Access Victoria and the Action on Cinema Access Group to put an outdoor screening of the fantastic Life of Pi. This small business did what the major cinemas said was not possible. They did for nothing what others had advised would cost $3000 per movie. They did what any standard DVD player can do. They simply turned on the captions so that they appeared on screen. They used a CaptiView caption file. We had been led to believe that such files could only be seen on a CaptiView device.

In doing so they provided access to hundreds of happy people who are Deaf and hard of hearing. In fact around 600 people attended. Many of these people were hearing too. One would think that because the captions were on screen the hearing people would have left. After all this is what the Big 4 Cinemas told us would happen. But no, these hearing folk all sat happily through the entire movie.

Twilight Cinemas have made all of this happen although they are just a small business. Of course what they have also done is demonstrate that by providing access they have a broader market base. By investing in socially responsible accessible cinema they know that they have created a larger market for their product. Everyone wins.

In contrast the mega rich Big 4 Cinemas, rather than be socially responsible, had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the table. For years the Big 4 Cinemas have provided the most absolute minimal access that they could provide. Rather than be socially responsible they even tried to lock in minimal cinema access increases by applying for a five year exemption to DDA complaints.

Their application for exemption was thrown out. As a result they introduced CaptiView, and what a dud that was. They did so largely on the back of a Federal Government subsidy. This is despite the fact that Australian Cinemas are among the most profitable in the world. Back in 2010 The Rebuttal presented an article where it provided data on cinema profits. In 2009, for example, “A total of 80 million tickets were sold in Australia. That ranked Australia 13th in the world in terms of attendance. Per capita Australia fared even better. They ranked fifth in the world.”[1]

Cinema turn-over in Australia last year was $2 billion. This being the case why on earth is the Government helping the major cinemas to purchase CaptiView? They are clearly making enough profits to do it themselves. That is what a socially responsible business does. (Notwithstanding the fact that CaptiView is a waste of money whoever purchases it.) Perhaps it’s something to do with the substantial donations that are made to the political parties from the cinema industry and the need for Labor to curry favour.

Mark my word the cinemas are not poor. Just last year Amalgamated Holdings, who own Event Cinemas, reported a profit of $79 million. The cinema component of that profit comprised of $53 million which was an increase of over $7 million or 15.8%. Indeed attendance at the box office increased by 2.5%. [2]

You bet your bottom dollar that cinemas are not worried about reduced profits. Village Roadshow, for example, continue to make enormous profits so much that their CEO had this to say, ““The world is in the mood to go out, to indulge themselves in a little pleasure and escape from worries. The theme parks have once again demonstrated they are a winning formula, and the appetite for filmed entertainment appears unquenchable.”

Ok so we have established that the cinemas are rich and getting richer. If this is so why are we relying on a small company like Twilight Cinemas to do the socially responsible thing and provide comfortable cinema access for patrons who are Deaf or hard of hearing? Why can’t these mega rich cinema companies demonstrate some kind of corporate social responsibility by providing access to the cinema and pay for it themselves? Why is the Government subsidising it? And worse why are people who are Deaf or hard of hearing being foisted with a totally ineffective technology? What is more why are the tax payer paying for ineffective CaptiView technology when it costs absolutely nothing to put captions on the screen?

Ok, so what about the blind? What about the Audio description technology that is providing them with access to the cinema for the first time? Yeah so what about it? I have it on good authority that the blind are experiencing all the problems the deaf are experiencing. Advertising is inaccurate. They attend sessions that are advertised with audio description only to find that they are not. Cinema staff are often clueless. Dropouts are apparently frequent. Cinema websites are apparently not accessible to them  so it is difficult for them to find out the session times. So frustrated have they become about the failures of the technology and the roll-out of accessible cinema that they are seeking alternatives in the form of audio description via their smart phones. It is only now that this information is coming to the fore.

The bone of contention here is that for people who are Deaf or hard of hearing the cinemas can provide access at absolutely no cost at all. You see the CaptiView caption file can be beamed on to the screen; which is what the majority want. There is absolutely no need for the CaptiView device. Obtaining the CaptiView caption file costs nothing.  It is part of the rental fee from the movie distributor. Here you have a potential market of 3 to 4 million people, plus their families and their friends. It is a market that potentially will make the already mega rich cinemas even richer. Yet they cannot see this! One wonders how they got rich in the first place.

And all the cinemas need to do to tap into this potential profit is to show socially responsible business practices. And get this -what the patron who is Deaf or hard of hearing want will cost them absolutely nothing. Instead the tax payer is subsidising them to purchase a dud technology. Is that a scandal or what? Put the captions on the screen – It’s as easy as that!

Happy 20^th birthday Disability Discrimination Act (DDA). I mean this with some sincerity too. The dear old DDA old has come in for some enormous flack this year. Unfortunately the once untouchable Graeme Innes, the Disability Commissioner, has also come in for much criticism. I say unfortunately because for many years Mr Innes has worked tirelessly for people with a disability in Australia.

It is true, the DDA had it coming. Yesterday Rick Randall wrote a brilliant and scathing piece about the DDA in Ramp Up[1]. This follows up on an earlier article from Craig Wallace[2] who was similarly critical of the DDA, albeit more diplomatically. Of course yours truly has been critical too in various pieces in The Rebuttal and another in the Adelaide Review.

BUT in all of the criticism of the DDA we sometimes forget to discuss the positive impact that it has had. Although it is essentially a flawed law it has served a good purpose. One of the major purposes was primarily to bring attention to and educate Australia about disability discrimination. With this education has come some positive change.

I remember in 1992 when the law was first introduced. At the time I had been struggling to get the University of South Australia, where I was studying at the time, to accept its obligations to provide interpreters. Suddenly in 1993, the year after the introduction of the law, the University agreed to fund the provision of interpreters. There was a wonderful disability support person, Lucy, who was taking no shit from anyone and went ahead and booked interpreters. I don’t know if Lucy used the introduction of the DDA as a point of argument but it is probably no coincidence that the University, and many others, started to accept their obligation of providing interpreters not long after the introduction of the DDA.

Then of course there were the early successes of the DDA like the Stott (or was it Scott) case against Telstra. In this case it was argued that if Telstra was going to provide phone lines to the homes of deaf people then they had to provide with it the technology to access it. This technology was a TTY. It is history now that Telstra lost and were forced to have to provide TTY rental at the same rate as handset rental to people who were deaf. Given that a TTY at the time cost over $600 it was a huge win. Indirectly it would also have influenced the introduction of the National Relay Service too. Why? Because suddenly the millions of Deaf and hard of hearing were going to get TTYs and they needed access to mainstream services.

Even today the DDA has some influence. In my work, for example, when they are planning buildings and community infrastructure the DDA is one of the first things they consult to make sure they meet compliance requirements. Although this means that often only the minimum requirements are considered it shows that the DDA is clearly having some impact.

Mr Innes, who is copping much flack at present, was one of the chief authors of the DDA. Quite rightly he is very protective of his work. He would be well aware of the positive impact that the DDA has had and should be rightly proud of that.  It is entirely right that people with a disability and their associates should voice their concerns about the DDA. It is also justified that they are critical of Mr Innes stubborn refusal to see the real flaws in the DDA. Despite this we should not forget his enormous contribution to our lives.

The DDA was ground breaking work and has led to much positive change. In years to come Mr Innes will be remembered as one of our most influential pioneers. We will look back and see that he has been largely responsible for triggering one of the biggest attitude and legislative changes ever seen towards people with a disability in Australia. Let us all not forget this. Take a bow Mr Innes.

However, in remembering the positive impact of the DDA and of  Mr Innes we must keep hammering home that the DDA is essentially flawed. Rick Randall, in his Ramp Up article, pointed out many of these flaws. The DDA is clearly a law that has loopholes a plenty. Tellingly Randall points out that the law actually supports perpetuators of discrimination by granting them exemptions to having to comply with the law. These exemptions last for many years and keep Australia in the dark ages.

Randall also points out, as The Rebuttal has constantly stated, that more than half the complaints made to the Australian Human Rights Commission are not resolved. The only place these complaints can go when they fail is to the courts. Unless you have the resources behind you to risk this then everything stops their. Randall claims that the cost of failed litigation is borne by the person that made the complaint. For example the poor soul that decided to take Jetstar to court over their two wheelchair policy ended up $35 000 out of pocket. If litigation is the only way most cases are to be resolved then the person with a disability has to be provided with adequate financial protection.

It is a law that we have to police ourselves by complaining. Many times I have written in The Rebuttal about the weakness in the complaints process. I have advocated that we need an Authority to police and force compliance of disability discrimination law. Randall uses the workplace safety legislation as an example of a law that is properly policed. With workplace safety legislation random spot checks occur and very severe penalties are dished out to bosses that do not meet safety requirements. There is a very strong push within the disability sector for the DDA to go down this path. Many are advocating for punitive measures in the form of fines.

So the DDA is 20 today! In our race to be critical we have perhaps forgotten its positive impact. Let’s put aside our grievances about the DDA for a short time and remember the impact that the DDA and Mr Innes have had on our lives. Indeed without the DDA we wouldn’t even be in a position to advocate reform and strengthening of the Disability Discrimination Law, we would have nothing!  Yes, the DDA is weak and often ineffective but let’s reflect on the good today. Hostilities can resume tomorrow.

Who remembers the days of normalisation? That wonderful term of the 70’s that disability workers and activist bandied about. Normalisation was the answer. “What The Hell’s Normal Anyway” screamed the banners. This is at a time where society began to abhor the institutionalisation of people with a disability. The philosophy of normalisation was simple – People with a disability had the right to participate in society in the same way as NORMAL people. They had a right to work, they had a right to be educated, to love, to play and just enjoy life like the rest of us. They had a role to play in society. It was their choice!

The difficulty with the normalisation philosophy was and is that somewhere along the line the idea of choice got lost. Instead of being able to choose if one wanted to work if they had a disability the philosophy became one of YOU SHALL WORK! Instead of being able to choose whether you wanted to live independently or among other people with a disability the philosophy became YOU SHALL LIVE INDEPENDENTLY AND AMONG YOUR ABLE BODIED PEERS! Instead of being able to choose whether you were comfortable as a person with a disability the philosophy demanded that YOU SHALL BE NORMAL. The lack of choice in normalisation meant that the whole philosophy fell in a heap because rather than empower people with a disability being disabled was almost seen as being inferior

It is interesting because rather than promote acceptance of disability, normalisation almost made disability a taboo. Danforth and Rhodes highlight this beautifully in their paper, Deconstructing Disability[1]. They provide a beautiful example of a parent who sent their child to a mainstream pre-school for “severely handicapped” and “non disabled” I have pasted this word for word below:

After my 4-year-old daughter had been attending  the Jowonio school—a preschool program that includes students classified by the State as “severely handicapped” and “nondisabled”—for  more than half a year, she asked me, “what’s handicapped mean?” She had overheard me use the term. . . . She had attended this school for more than six months and not learned the meaning of handicapped. Apparently that was because the school staff studiously avoided using the term. Although the staff struggled for alternatives, sometimes using the not altogether satisfactory terminology of special needs, labelled, or severely involved to describe the children to others, in the classroom, they referred to them by name, not by ability or disability. The school does not organize students into ability groups. The teachers and administrators had judged the idea of “handicap” unhelpful, indeed harmful. (Biklen, 1993, p. 173)

This is what happens when normalisation goes into overdrive. It gets to a point when rather than see disability as normal it becomes completely abnormal. Rather than talk about someone that is deaf, blind, intellectually disabled and the like people begin to try and come up with the terms that are ‘nicer’. They start struggling with the language. Don’t say ‘deaf’ you say hearing challenged. Don’t say impaired, god forbid, cos no one wants to be seen as deficits do they? You don’t call someone intellectually disabled or having cerebral palsy you must use a nicer and alternate term like “special needs”.  All of this well meaning claptrap supposedly serves the purpose of normalising the person with a disability. The use of such ‘alternate realities’ actually only serves the purpose of making disability seem as a bad thing.

Danforth and Rhodes call this the Deconstruction of Disability. My own interpretation of this is where mostly non-disabled professionals break down disability in to a series of ‘nicer’ terms that totally take the focus away from disability. By doing so somehow the person with a disability becomes ‘one of us’ and therefore normal. I believe this attempted normalisation of disability actually does more harm than good.

Normalisation motivates much of Australia’s inclusion policy. For non-disabled professionals inclusion often means that people with a disability are included in the mainstream. They are included in ‘normal’ mainstream classes’ at school. Or they can just rock up at any local sporting or recreation club and they are automatically included and accepted. The actual reality is that inclusion, and indeed mainstreaming, is never that straight forward.

Just last week I had contact from a mother. The mother has a child who has an intellectual disability. The mother explained that her child loves basketball and was involved in her local basketball club. She described how being involved in the club caused her child a great deal of stress. The other kids do not really talk to her child. When her child plays the kids see her child as a burden and rarely pass the ball to her. what is worse is that at the end of the game they all go off and chat and interact and fail to include her child in any of this interaction. On weekends the mother’s child attends a ‘special needs’ basketball group where she is much more comfortable and much more happy. The child talks and interacts with her peers more readily in this group and is accepted as an equal.

Yet our society often decries the existence of the latter groups. They call this the segregation of people with a disability. For many people this segregation of disability is a bad thing. Often they will say that such alternative groups will lead to a ghetto of people with a disability. A ghetto is considered a place where minority groups gather and are often rejected by mainstream society. Of course this is an extreme view. It is almost like our disability inclusion policy is the other extreme of a ghetto. It seems Australia’s idea of inclusion is where people with a disability are included but often never fully accepted and often never really fully participating.

Now I do not advocate a society where people with a disability are totally segregated. Inclusion is a great thing but this inclusion must involve choice. You see inclusion is not just about participating it is also about contributing and interacting. It is often unrealistic to expect the person with a disability to be able to rock-up and automatically to feel a part of the group. As a deaf person I know this very well.

I know very few deaf people who love gatherings of people who are solely hearing. They will talk about those awful family gatherings where they were not part of the conversation. They will tell you how awkward it feels when someone decides to take petty on them and tries to strike up a conversation. This conversation often ends in an uncomfortable silence. They will tell you about the basketball game where they scored a few points and went straight home because socialising with ‘hearing peers’ after the game is just too stressful. Many, many will tell you about how much more comfortable they feel amongst their own, where their communication needs are fully met and they are not constantly struggling to communicate.

The problem with normalisation and mainstreaming is it does not consider how psychologically harmful it can be to be part of a group but actually not part of it. It is not enough for the person with physical limitations to just have the ball thrown at them a couple of times and get a pat on the back. It is not enough just to play. Individuals want to feel they belong and that they can contribute. For many this is by interacting with the people of similar ability and intellect. For many it is about interacting with people they can relate to. For many it is about interacting with people they can communicate with. To interact and socialise with others who have a disability is completely normal but often scorned. 

We need to re-think our policy of inclusion. What our inclusion policy currently lacks is philosophy of CONTRIBUTION. Interestingly if you Google “disability and contribution”  you get sent to links about contributing to disability insurance or how contribute to a charity for the disabled.  Here lies the problem. This is how many in our society thinks. They think that disability is something that needs to be controlled and helped. Our society has not yet fully understood what inclusion really means.

Inclusion is nothing without a proper contribution. Perhaps we need to develop a policy of inclusion that stresses CONTRIBUTION. The Oxford dictionary defines contribution as, “the part played by a person or thing in bringing about a result or helping something to advance.” In other words taking part involves playing a REAL part in the end product. It’s all about being a contributing factor!

Oh BRAVO Graeme Innes. Mr Innes is the Disability Commissioner and he is possibly the most influential disabled person in Australia.  (Person with a disability to be PC) Last week he won $10 000 in court against Rail Corp. Using the much maligned Disability Discrimination Act Mr Innes took  the mighty Rail Corp to court and won. Rail Corp, who run Sydney trains, couldn’t get there collective lot around the need to make audio announcements at stops so that the people that required them knew it was time to get off and did not end up in Timbuktu. This must have given Mr Innes a shot in the arm because what he did next was quite inspiring.

Innes sits on the Accessible Airlines Working Group (AAWG). or at least he did. He stepped down from the group in a blaze of publicity. Said Innes, “The group had failed to achieve any major results such as overturning the policy of some airlines to have a limit of two wheelchair passengers per flight.” Innes continued, “I really don’t think the group has been effective in addressing the access needs of people with a disability.” Innes had been on the group for three years. He hoped that his resignation would influence the Transport Minister, Anthony Albanese, to ensure that group was, “task and goal oriented” , with an aim to, “perhaps put in some goals and timelines to remedy these issues.” [1]

For Mr Innes to take this step took some considerable courage given his position. His resignation letter to AAWG was quite scathing. In the letter he claimed that the group had, “achieved little of significance.” He then went on to list issues that the group had failed to address which included the two wheelchair policy and the, “Chaotic approval process for people wishing to travel on airlines with assistance animals.” As a guide dog user Mr Innes would be very familiar with the latter. Mr Innes went onto express his disappointment with having to resign because, “.. it is my normal approach to work cooperatively with Government, industry and the disability sector to achieve reform.” [2]

In the same letter Mr Innes is critical of the court ruling that upheld the airlines claim for Unjustifiable Hardship under the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA).  He claimed that, “The evidence presented was not a broad assessment of the impact of people travelling in wheelchairs on airlines either in Australia or around the world.” Here I disagree. The reason the courts were able to rule as they did is because the DDA is a fundamentally flawed law. To blame the courts is wrong. Mr Innes may be well served to use his influence to push for reform and strengthening of the outdated DDA.

Avid followers of the disability sector would know that the Human Rights Commission is currently celebrating 20 years of the DDA. In its hey day the DDA was a wonderful reform. It has achieved much particularly in bringing attention to and improving human rights for people with a disability in Australia. It is only right to celebrate some of the achievements that have come about because of the DDA.  Celebrate by all means BUT balance this with an honest analysis of the weakness and reforms needed to strengthen the DDA. The decision of the courts to grant the airlines wish for no more than two wheelchairs per flight is a prime example of the weakness of the DDA. To blame the evidence presented in the courts is to deflect from the real issues.

Mr Innes currently sits on and endorses another working group that is as equally ineffective as AAWG. This group is the Accessible Cinema Advisory Group (ACAG). The Rebuttal has oft been critical of Mr Innes public and glowing endorsement of the Accessible Cinema Roll-Out. A major responsibility of ACAG is to monitor the Accessible Cinema Roll-Out. Mr Innes is often forthright in his endorsement of the cinemas involved in the Accessible Cinema Roll-Out  despite knowing that many, many Deaf and hard of hearing people are immensely dissatisfied with it. In endorsing the Accessible Cinema Roll-Out, to the point that he and representatives of Media Access Australia recommended that the cinemas be nominated for a Human Rights Award, he has angered many in the Deaf and hard of hearing communities who feel he has completely ignored their feedback.

Earlier in the year the Action on Cinema Access Group (AOCA) seriously considered withdrawing from ACAG because they saw the group as not adhering to its terms of reference. AOCA also believed that, like AAWG, the ACAG was totally ineffective. It decided not to withdraw because many of its members urged them to remain. The members felt that it was important to continue to have at least some influence at Government level. As a representative group it listened to and respected the views of its members and decided to remain a part of the ACAG.

But the recent decision of Mr Innes to resign from AAWG has changed the playing field somewhat. Given that Mr Innes has resigned from AAWG because he feels it is ineffective and not achieving its mandate perhaps AOCA now have good reason to withdraw from ACAG. It is true that AOCA does not have the same profile and influence of Mr Innes but the principle is the same. One of the arguments that Mr Innes put forward for resigning from AAWG was that he could no longer justify the resources and time he was devoting to the group when it was so ineffective. AOCA is completely unfunded with less resources available at its disposal than Mr Innes. It would be well within its rights to step down from the totally ineffective ACAG.

But kudos where they are due. By stepping down from AAWG and bringing media attention to the reasons he has resigned Mr Innes has made a clear statement. This statement is simply that he will not accept mediocre outcomes for people with a disability. He should be congratulated for that. BUT having made this stand Mr innes has set a precedent. In stepping down because AAWG is ineffective Mr Innes needs to take a similar stand for other issues. He needs to be forthcoming about the weaknesses and reforms needed for the DDA. Equally he needs to support groups like the Deaf and hard of hearing on working groups like ACAG when outcomes are similarily ineffective. Particularly when these groups make their voice heard.

Well done Mr Innes on flexing your muscles in regard to AAWG. Long may it continue. Hopefully it will inspire other people with a disability and disability groups to make a stand. No longer should any of us accept second best.

Do you know what the Deaf sector is guilty of? The Deaf sector is guilty of accepting mediocrity.  Now it’s not just the Deaf sector, one could argue that it is the whole of society. But if you want to hold up a sector that is benchmarking the acceptance of mediocrity then the deaf sector is it!

 “When small men attempt great enterprises, they always end by reducing them to the level of their mediocrity.” – Napoleon Bonaparte …. Bonaparte may well have been describing many of the leaders that make up our Deaf sector organisations. Whether it is our services organisations, our advocates or even our educators, mediocrity seems to exist in epidemic proportions.

Let’s look at education. I have worked as a social worker for nearly a quarter of a century. It seems that mediocrity is a bastion that defines deaf education. I have lost count of the many times I have heard that little Johnny, “.. is doing ever so well.” Little Johnny would be ten years old and reading at the level of a six year old. The word I hate most is that AWFUL, AWFUL word – coping. Talk to a teacher and oft is the time you will hear, “Oh but Shelley is coping so well.” Coping in this case is usually more than a few wrungs below her peers. But she is coping so that’s alright then isn’t it? Of course it is not. Demand the best, our deaf kids deserve it.

I will never forget working at a High school in Alice Springs. I worked with two deaf Aboriginal girls there who were barely literate. One of them was very capable and I pushed very hard to improve her numeracy skills. This is a near 18 year old that could not understand even basic fractions. But we were winning. No matter that she sometimes chucked tantrums, she was making progress.

You see the school had, until then, when the going got tough just sent her to the back of the classroom to paint pictures. One day while keeping the girl to the task my supervisor walked in. The girl burst into tears. “What’s going on?” asked my supervisor. I explained that I was just pushing the girl hard because she was making great progress. “What for?” said my supervisor, “You are wasting your time. All she will do is stay home, cook and have babies.” For one of the few times in my life I was lost for words!

What of some of our key service providers? We have almost got to a point where human contact with clients is shunned. God forbid that we provide family support in the home where we can achieve real outcomes. Instead we set up websites, print endless booklets, or we make yet another CD or DVD to inspire!

I accept that there is a place for these kinds of resources but we are now swamped with them. Little Carly is struggling at home and at school. “Here go to this website and learn some important strategies.” Or, “Read this pamphlet there are some great tips..” Or, “Ring this 1800 number, there is someone waiting to talk you through it ….” Of course no one is ever there or it is always engaged.

Do you know why we produce endless CDs and DVDs? Do you know why we spend so much time developing websites? Do you know why we set up hotlines? Because it’s cheaper than providing a real person. Sure I get it that money is in short supply but we have reached a point where we have just given up and accept what are, in reality, often mediocre and faceless solutions. We need to fight for real services provided by real people. As one client told me, “I get so many pamphlets, DVDs and booklets I just throw them away, they’re next to useless.”

But what really defines mediocrity is CaptiView., that awful device that the cinemas introduced to provide the deaf with access to the cinemas. What is worse this device was introduced with the full backing of our Deaf sector advocates. No matter that feedback was coming thick and fast that CaptiView is awful and spoils the viewing pleasure. No matter that complaints abounded about headaches and eye strain. No matter that the deaf were screaming out for captions on the screen. Our advocates formally accepted and backed CaptiView as the best technology going.

Did you know that a government representative told a parent who complained about CaptiView that, “ .. she should be grateful for it.”  How many times have you heard our advocates implore us to, “ .. give CaptiView a go” ? Even after people who had used CaptiView multiple times told our Deaf sector representatives that they still hated it. How many times were the deaf sector told to, “.. Accept CaptiView because to not do so would be divisive and we might lose everything we have gained.”? How many times have we heard the old furphy, “ .. At least we have more choice of movies, so be grateful.” Truth be known is that CaptiView is the absolute pits of mediocrity! That we are being urged to accept it is mind boggling.

The website Lift Big Eat Big[1] makes a salient point when it claims that, “We now live in a society where doing the bare minimum required to keep your heart beating is supposed to earn you a pat on the back and a sugar-free cupcake.” This is exactly what is happening in the deafness sector. We are being urged to accept worse than second best and it must stop.

And typically stopping the rot falls with us. We who have no resources and no money have to take up the fight. Let this fight to end the acceptance of mediocrity start this weekend at the Action on Cinema Access campaign. On Saturday 16^th February Action On Cinema Access (Who have no funds whatsoever) have organised a protest. This protest will be held outside Greater Union Cinemas at 131 Russell Street Melbourne. They have done this entirely on the back of volunteers and have official permission from the Council to hold the protest.

Come along and wear yellow on the day. Show your solidarity. The end  of the acceptance of mediocrity starts with YOU!

ACTION ON CINEMA ACCESS

Still Unhappy with captioned cinema Access now?

Government and Deaf/disability peaks not listening to you?

Cinemas still ignoring your RIGHT to enjoy a movie?

COME AND RALLY AND MAKE THEM LISTEN!

GREATER UNION CINEMAS – 131RUSSELL STREET MELBOURNE

Saturday February 16th 2013

11.30am for a 12.00 noon start.

Wear Yellow and/or Black

For more information email: feedback.AOCA@gmail.com or Facebook the Action On Cinema Access Page

I love Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. They are my heroes, and here is why! (With apologies to all Geeks that went before them and after that I also should love equally…)

I moved home this week, 156kms from Ballarat to the Yarra Junction. To save money we chose to do the move without professional help. This was made possible because we had assistance from terrific friends. As one might imagine such a move over a large distance is a logistical nightmare. It was made worse by the fact that at 4pm the day before the move the truck rental company cancelled our booking. I frantically got onto the iPad and started to look for alternatives. Nothing was available online at short notice. My wife got hold of our friends by SMS to reschedule the move. We tried calling other truck rental places through the NRS on the iPad. They were unfortunately all closed. Luckily for us I woke early the next day and rushed to a truck rental place near our home and was able to secure a truck for the move.

Now the reader may be wondering where all this is going. The last thing you want to read about is someone moving house. I mean, how boring is that? But this little episode got me thinking. I asked myself the question – How would I have coped with this sort of drama 15 to 20 years ago? It struck me that I would have been up the proverbial creek without a paddle. And all because I was deaf!

Let’s look at the simple process of renting a truck. Twenty years ago I would not have been able to rent a truck online. There would not have been a web page to go to, enter my details, date of hire and payment details. I would not have even been able to phone the company. I would have either had to go to a truck rental company in person or I would have had to get someone to call them for me. How inconvenient was that?

Twenty years ago the company would have had no way to contact me to inform me the booking had been cancelled. Of course I may have left a phone number of a friend or my parents for them to contact me but this would have been a landline. In the days before SMS even if the company had contacted the friend that I had listed, the said friend would have had no way to contact me. There was no email either. The friend might have visited my home and left me a note but that would have meant I would not have got the note until much later. In all likelihood I would have rocked up at the truck rental place in the morning only to find my booking cancelled. I can imagine I would not have been very pleasant company if that had happened.

The next day friends were coming over to help out. I needed to reschedule urgently. Twenty years ago there was no NRS so I would not have been able to call them. I would have had to pull over to a petrol station or a pub and ask some kind service person to call for me. Or I would have had to detour to my friends place and let them know. If they had not been home all I could have done was to leave them a note under their door. I could not have sent them an SMS because there was no SMS. Email would not have been an option either. I wonder how I lived back then. I must have been such a pain asking everyone to do things for me.

Indeed my poor mother was my ears. I would often ask her to get on the blower to Phil to meet me over the oval to play cricket. She would sometimes call my girlfriends to confirm dates or even cancel them. She took all my calls and made all my enquiries. My god what a burden!

Yet here we are, a little over 20 years later, and I have a myriad of communication options at my finger tips. The company emailed me to say truck cancelled. It is true that this was annoying, but at least they were able to inform me. I didn’t need to wait to get to my desk to read the email either, it came to my iPad. When I got home there was a message on my mobile too. (I had left it with my son for the day lest he needed to contact us.) In no time at all, knowing that I had no truck, I was able to instantly look for alternatives. True none of these alternatives were fruitful but at least I was able. Through SMS I was able to instantly contact my friends to quickly change plans. It is mind boggling really that all these developments have occurred in the last twenty years.

All I would have been able to do 20 years ago is cry HELP!  At worst I would have known nothing, rocked up at the truck rental and had just under an hour to try contact my friends to tell them not to hire a trailer and reschedule everything. Fast forward 20 years and all these nightmarish scenarios are but a thing of the past.

These rapid developments have impacted on every aspect of my life. Twenty years ago at work I was limited to what I could do because I could not talk on the phone. Now I am communicating with people easily and quickly. I email, I text and I use Skype and Instant Messenger. I am able to negotiate, organise, inform and advocate all though a variety of mediums. I can receive and return phone calls through the NRS. I am involved in online discussions through Facebook and Yammer. I even have a Voice Recognition App on my iPad for colleagues that are difficult to lip-read. They give me short messages by speaking into the App. It really is amazing.

What did I do 20 years ago? I cried for help, that’s what I did. I badgered and bothered people to make calls for me. Indeed in my first job I would block book John or Barb to assist me with cold canvassing calls that were essential in obtaining employment for my clients.  Now I do this all myself, how the world has changed.

23 years ago precisely I had a date with a girl for the first time. I caught a bus to her home but hopped on the wrong bus. I was hopelessly lost. It is a first date and you just want to look cool. You don’t want to be late. You want everything perfect. How cool was I rocking up at the petrol station to ask the attendant to call my date to come get me because I was lost? Today I would still be uncool but at least the uncool could be resolved with a simple SMS with no need to involve a third person who happens to be a petrol station attendant. (But thank you Mr Attendant you made the call without a hint of a smirk 😀 )

Yep the world is a better place for me and other deaf people today. It’s still got a long way to go but compared to twenty years ago it’s simply awesome.

And that’s why I love Bill Gates and Steve Jobs and they are my heroes! (With apologies to all Geeks that went before them and after that I also should love equally…)

If you are on Facebook and a Masterchef fan you will be in no doubt that the current Masterchef series has a deaf competitor on it. You would have received, at last count, 5432 notifications letting you know that Bonny is deaf and will be on the show. You would have received any number of articles that have highlighted the fact that Bonny is on the show. These articles, up until the launch of the show yesterday, have been at pains to point out that although Bonny is deaf that they had not made any allowances for her. She was one of the guys and gals and had to compete just like anyone else. She is such a good lip-reader, apparently, that the shows producers even had to cover their mouths when talking secret Masterchef business that competitors were not supposed to be savvy to.

Cynicism aside it’s great that Bonny is on the show. It’s great because being deaf, and a chef in a busy restaurant kitchen is no mean feat. Anyone that is an avid watcher of celebrity chef type shows will know that a kitchen is all about communication. Everything seems to be done at a frantic pace with chefs and kitchen staff yelling out to each other at the top of their voices. It usually goes something like this;

“TWO BURGERS, FOUR BANGERS AND MASH, 17 SNAPPER, TWO SALADS, FIFTEEN GARLIC BREAD AND BE SHARP WITH IT …”

“YES CHEF!!!!”

“HOW LONG FOR THE SNAPPER”

“35 SECONDS CHEF…”

“YOU *&%$## MORON THE SNAPPERS UNDERCOOKED…”

“SORRY CHEF”

All of this happens in the midst of a cacophony of banging pots, screaming voices and the occasional smashing of plates and glasses. The chefs must be on their toes. If an order is missed or messed up there is hell to pay. It is a tough place for a deaf person to be so kudos to Bonny and several other deaf chefs that I know for working in such a cut-throat industry.

I took the liberty to Google workplace adjustments for the deaf chef. There is a not a lot of information on the topic but there was an interesting article about a deaf chef from Indonesia and how he had adapted to working in a busy five star hotel kitchen. It seems the chefs develop their own form of communication as can be seen from the following passage from the article, “When Malfatti needs to get Lioe’s attention, he’ll take one of the restaurant’s heat lamps and shine it toward Lioe. Then comes a series of hand gestures: an open hand across the abdomen stands for a slab of ribs, flapping his arms means chicken wings, and tickling the palm of his left hand with the fingers on his right hand replicates a crab, for crab cakes”[1] I am sure each deaf chef has their own unique system but clearly innovative forms of communication need to be and are developed.

But Bonny does not have the time to do this. She has been thrown into a competitive environment where it is every chef for themselves. She has had to adapt, and fast. I am sure as the show goes on there will be some rogue chefs, wanting to win the big prize for themselves, who will make things hard for Bonny. In the world of reality TV it is a dog eat dog.

And of course there are the TV critics. At best Masterchef is corny. It can be riveting entertainment but it is full of cliché and fabricated situations.  Anybody on the show is fair game for journalists and for any Joe/Jane Blow that wants to make cynical and nasty remarks. If it is not in the newspaper it will be done through social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter. Indeed it has started already and our deaf Bonny has not been spared.

Journalist, Ben Pobjie, writing in the Sydney Morning Herald[2], was scathing. Pobjie is well known for his cutting satire. He did not have many kind things to say about the new Masterchef.  Of Cassie, who last night won immunity, he said, “ … is only 19 and clearly too big for her britches” Next in the firing was Matty who Pobjie disparagingly introduces as having, “ …an early bid to be this season’s Designated Idiotic Hat Wearer.”  He introduces Rhett, “…whose eye was particularly caught by his own dish, a delectable-looking arrangement of colourful paper strips in a glass.”

You get the gist? Pobjie has nothing kind to say about anyone. It is very clear that Pobjioe has no time whatsoever for fabricated reality shows such as Masterchef. Each to their own I guess. But Pobjie, it seems, went one step too far. He even had a go at deaf Bonny. Oh dear!

He described Bonny as being, “Disgustingly rude” Why? Because she confronted the esteemed Matt Preston and she, “insolently dares to speak to the great man without being spoken to, with the pathetically thin excuse that she is “deaf” and needs to hook him up with a special microphone…..”

Of course Pobjie is being entirely tongue in cheek with this article but with his remarks about deaf Bonny he has offended many in the Deaf sector. Aussie Deaf Kids put up a question about the article asking if Bonny was being rude or just asserting her needs. Several responses indicate that the reader took great offence to Pobjie’s remarks.

This is best demonstrated by the remarks of David Brady, President of Deafness Forum who said, “The comment was grossly insulting and I was shocked to read of it this morning. The writer clearly do not understand that this is what hundreds of thousands of deaf/HI Australians face everyday” He was not the only one miffed either.  Kelly protested the fact that the writer of the article singled out Bonny’s deafness, “It wasn’t a great article for anyone, but to pick out someone with a disability is wrong.”

I actually interpreted the writer’s intentions as more having a go at Matt Preston. Mr Preston can sometimes come across as haughty and flamboyant. His loud clothing and plummy voice make he seem aloof, which he is not. But by singling out the one incident where Bonny was disclosing her needs Pobjie hit a raw nerve.

Let’s be honest. The whole article was nasty. He did not have a kind word to say about anyone. He clearly is very cynical about reality shows. By writing about Bonny in the way he did perhaps he was showing us all that he felt Bonny was the equal of all of them. Perhaps by not shying away from including Bonny in his nasty diatribe he was demonstrating that he thought Bonny was made of stern stuff. In short he did not discriminate.

I have no doubt that Bonny can stand up for herself. The fact that she has survived as a chef in a top restaurant in Australia tells me she is not easily intimidated. The fact that she is taking part in Masterchef shows she wants to get out there and show the world what she is made of.

We, on the other hand, in being offended by Pobjie’s comments are being a tad hypocritical. We have spent the last month issuing 5432 notifications on Facebook to let people know there will be a deaf chef on Masterchef. When someone else points this out in a not to pleasant article aimed at putting down the entire show we take umbrage.  People in glass houses and all that.

Bonny has crossed that white line and decided to take part in this high profile show. Unfortunately she is going to be the focus of both the good comments and the bad. But don’t worry the girl is clearly tough and talented. Not because she is deaf, just because she is! GO BONNY!