The Rebuttal

One of the projects I am doing at work at the moment is to test the Disability Employment Service (DES). I am trying to set up precedents as to how the various support programs provided by the DES can be used to assist people with a disability. One of these programs is called Jobs in Jeopardy. What I have done is referred myself to the program. My argument is that the $6 000 provided for me by the Employment Assistance Fund to pay for interpreting is not enough. I am arguing that it provides only three months a year of my costs. I work on a tight budget and it is getting to the point that Auslan interpreting costs are such that there is little left over for me to be able to run my program effectively. So much does it cost that, in fact, my job is in jeopardy.

So I referred myself to the program. I got registered with Centrelink and had an Employment Program Plan drawn up. The goal of the program was basically to identify ways that will allow me to keep my job and apply for other jobs at the same level. I even went through a process to evaluate whether I was suited to my current job which I passed with flying colours. After three appointments we got the formalities completed and my case worker finally asked the question. “How do we solve your problem?” I said, “With money?” She said, “Where from.” And I said, “ I thought you knew.” and she said … “ well there is $6 000 through the Employment Assistance Fund, will that be enough?” This all left me wondering if she had understood anything I had told her previously. But that is what she asked me even though for three appointments I had been telling her that the Employment Assistance Fund could not meet my requirements.

She then asked me, “What other options are there?” I asked her if she knew of any and she replied in the negative. This, you have to remember, is a person that assists people with disabilities to locate employment. Now I am very knowledgeable and I know of a variety of strategies that I can use to meet my needs in the workplace. BUT what if I didn’t? What use would this Employment Consultant be? My jobs is supposedly in jeopardy, I need solutions to my issues urgently and three weeks into the process the consultant divulges that she hasn’t a clue to how to solve my issues. It’s kind of scary!! In fact she hadn’t even researched anything!

So anyway this process started in May. We are nearly in August and the Employment Consultant hits her straps. She sends me an email and says she might have found a solution. She emails me a link for a company in Adelaide that provides Live Remote Captioning. “Do you know of this technology?” she asks. I explain that I do indeed and that I have used it before. And she says –     “….Oh good, you can explain how it works when we meet.”  It left me wondering if she had bothered to actually find out how Live Remote Captioning works.

So we meet and I explain to her that you need a phone line and a computer and that it’s about $165 an hour to use. She was flabbergasted. “$165!!!!” She exclaims, “Why is everything so bloody expensive??” In the next sentence she says that she has a new client that has a learning disability and is nearly illiterate. The client wants to do some training – “Gary?”, she asks, “Do you know of any supports that can help him?” I do and am more than happy to help but it just leaves me wondering just how these “Employment Consultants” support job seekers with a disability – The one I have seems to know next to nothing about adjustments or alternatives in the workplace.

Over the last eight weeks or so I have given my Employment Consultant a lesson in deafness. I have taught her about the National Relay Service, got her to book the Video Relay Service, explained to her how the Video Relay Service works, she was amazed that Skype is actually free. I have demonstrated captioned telephony and given her a lesson in broadband and webcams and how these can be utilised by deaf people in employment. I know these things and I expect people that work in the deafness or disability area to know these things  – but very few do. How many opportunities are lost because of the ineptitude and lack of knowledge of the people that are employed to supposedly support people who are deaf or have disabilities? It beggars belief. As it turned out she had worked as an Employment Consultant for years but only in the disability area very recently. Well DUH!

The deaf sector is well known for employing people who have no knowledge of deafness. Often they look for people with “Government” or “Business” connections. How many case workers working with signing deaf cant sign for sh#t? How many people have been in the sector working with Deaf people for over a decade are there who still only have rudimentary signing? How many CEOs have worked in banks or the health sector and after a number of years are still struggling to finger spell their names? How many fundraisers employed on six figure salaries launch fundraising campaigns that tug on the heart strings and offend the very constituents they are supposed to be representing? How many case workers or teachers of the deaf tell you a deaf person cannot communicate properly when in fact the issue is that the teacher or case worker have never properly learned to sign? They are every where!

If someone was to work in a bank one would expect that they would be employed based on their knowledge of the banking sector. One would not expect that a bank would employ a carpenter simply because the carpenter worked with figures. They would want someone who understood the sector and rightly so. Yet in the disability sector or the deafness sector it often seems that knowledge of disability or deafness carries very little weight. What this often means is that the people that the sectors employ often have no passion for the role and after a time they move on. It’s a constantly revolving door.

The manager from the Department of Human Services might know the Government well but when it comes to advising a deaf person on their employment needs or a parent of a deaf child of family issues that may arise they are far from the best people available! The fundraiser on his six figure salary might have been great at Canteen but understanding the public perception of deafness and, indeed, how deaf people want to be portrayed is entirely another thing. The CEO that came from the banking sector and dealt with hundreds and millions of dollars is unlikely to be inspired by the lack of money available for the local Deaf youth group when there is money to be made from retirement villages. How many hearing administrators have lasted more than two years for Deaf Sports Australia? Passion and desire are commodities that are too often under-rated.

This, I believe, is where the Deaf and disability sector has lost its way – it has forgotten why it is there – it has forgotten the needs of the people it is there to serve. The pursuit of the mighty dollar has blinded it. While I understand there is a need for money and particular skill-sets I firmly believe we undervalue people who have a REAL knowledge of the people they are paid to work for. Consequently the lack of passion and desire has lead to a revolving door where thousands of dollars is being wasted on recruitment of staff. There is a real need to put more focus on employing people who know about the people they are serving. Passion, desire and REAL knowledge are assets that are, sadly, underrated in pursuit of the mighty dollar.

Congratulations to the Deaf  community for attending the Deaf Children Australia consultation about the sale of its assets related to the iconic Blue Stone Building. Quite rightly the Deaf community are concerned about any sale of assets related to the historic blue Stone Building on St Kilda Road. Tough questions were asked, some answered and others not. The Deaf community must remain diligent and ensure they have as much input as possible into any decisions on sales of assets or otherwise. Congratulations must also be provided to Deaf Children Australia for having the courage to hold the consultation meeting. Lets hope it will be the first of many before any decisions are made. The following report is based on information provided by various readers of The Rebuttal. Names have not been used. This is because the focus should be on the issues and not the individuals.

The consultation commenced with some information on the history of the property.  Some of the land at the current property was donated by the Government of the day whilst other parts were purchased by the school, the Victorian School for the Deaf, over the years. There is much history connected wit the property and this has resulted in much of it being heritage listed. What this means is that much of the property is protected from development and only certain parts of the property can be sold. This means that Deaf Children Australia are limited in their options in terms of being able to make money from the property,

Part of the problem with being based at the iconic Blue Stone buildings is that they are heritage listed. Maintaining and repairing the building is a constant drain on resources. For example the basement area currently requires some work that will require considerable capital. There were some discussions about turning it into a Centre for Deaf Children if the Deaf community are responsive to the idea. If the area where the current primary school was located is sold there were suggestions that a second storey could be built on top of the current Cook Centre and the primary school could be relocated there. The Fenton Hall area is not heritage listed and is being considered as part of a sale.

This is the gist of the information that was provided to the Deaf community. Questions were asked about previous sales of assets such as the Princess Elizabeth Junior School and assets that were sold when the current CEO of Deaf Children Australia was based at the Deaf Society in South Australia. It was pointed out that such sales did not appear to have benefited the Deaf community in South Australia as it nearly closed in 2007 only to be saved by a merger with Townsend House. The focus on these questions was to raise the point that sale of assets does not always reap benefits. There was a certain amount of skepticism of a sale based on the fact that the community does not feel there have been benefits for the Deaf community from past sales of assets.

Interestingly some poor decision making of the past was raised. Not the least being the failed lottery of Deaf Children Australia a few years ago. (the first prize was to be to the value of $1 million) This author was actually on the Board of Deaf Children Australia at that time. It is fair to say that the author actively supported the lottery decision. In the end the lottery was actually cancelled and ticket purchases refunded. A very substantial amount of money was lost on the lottery that was mostly allocated to marketing the lottery. Reviews of the lottery debacle  of the time found that insufficient market research had been conducted as to how people would respond to the lottery and that ticket prices were too high. It’s easy to say that hindsight is a wonderful thing but the reality is that the management and Board of DCA at the time, including this author, did not do their home work and acted in haste. It was a very poor decision indeed that led to very substantial losses. Members at the meeting were quite right to raise this issue as it raises questions of past decision making.  They have a right to know if lessons have been learnt from the past and if processes have been put in place to ensure a repetition of such mistakes does not reoccur.

Other pointed questions were asked .  Attendees wanted to know if there was a valuation of the land that was proposed for sale. This information was deemed confidential as it might  jeopardise any negotiations if it became common knowledge. Knowing the internal valuation could lead to a buyer bidding substantially less than they might otherwise. Questions were asked as to the existence of a budget and business plan related to any proposed developments. The answer to this was rather vague – apparently the consultation was the “first step”. Presumably other consultations will occur and the Deaf community will have an active input into any development plans.

Deaf Children Australia spoke about a vision for DCA for the next 150 years. Quite rightly questions were asked as to how the sale was going to contribute to sustainability for the next 150 years. Questions were raised about appropriate business management and governance of the process. Clearly the Deaf community wanted to ensure transparency and accountability were in place. The only response to this line of questioning was that it was “noted”

The consultation that occurred on the 8th of July is apparently part of an 18 month process to have a plan in place by 2016, in time for the 150 year celebrations. Clearly there is much that still needs to be done. Although discussions of the sale 0f assets appear to have been happening for sometime it is clear that the Board and management of DCA want to ensure proper consultation and planning occur before any decisions are made. For this they should be congratulated. Even so, it is important that the Deaf community remain diligent, ask questions and seek answers. Hopefully lessons from past sales of Deaf community assets have been learnt and that the Deaf community can have an active input in any decisions that are made.

# This report has been put together using feedback from Deaf community members that attended the consultation. It is possible that inaccuracies may occur. People that attended the meeting are encouraged to use the comments section to clarify information or add any information that they feel is important.#

Its happening again! The Deaf community are the last to know. Part of its history is under threat of being sold off. Of course the Deaf community are only told when negotiations are well progressed. In this case parts of the property at the historic Blue Stone building on St Kilda Road are being considered for sale. Apparently the car park at the back, the buildings where the popular Trade Block Cafe resides and the area where portable classrooms currently exist are being considered for sale. All of this is alleged, nothing is confirmed.

This year marks 150 years of Deaf Education at the location. 150 years ago FJ Rose, a Deaf man from England, established the then Victorian School for the Deaf. The school is now called the Victorian College for the Deaf and is located in modern buildings next to the historic Blue Stone  building. The Blue Stone building is now host to Deaf Children Australia (DCA) who manage the whole property.  DCA have instigated the possible sale of parts of the property, allegedly for $22 million.

Many of the Deaf community have been educated at the school. Many have life long friendships that started at the school. Some have made careers from the school while others have taken part in helping the school in either a voluntary capacity or members of the Board. The property is one of the last remaining icons of the Deaf community in Victoria. Not surprisingly more than a few people in the Victorian Deaf community were angry when they heard of the possible sale of assets connected to the property.

I am not sure why it is. But often when decisions are to be made about assets that are connected to the Deaf community, the Deaf community are the last to know. In the early 1990’s the NSW Deaf Society sold its property and community centre at Stanmore. It was purely a business decision. The Community centre was closed and no thought was given to what would happen to the Community centre. The Community centre was the spirit of the Deaf community. It is where Deaf people socialised, where sporting clubs had their meetings and where many of the events for the Deaf community originated. It provided the Deaf community with an identity and a central meeting place.

Once the NSW Deaf Society moved to its current property at Parramatta there was no Community centre. Sure, deaf people could meet at Parramatta but there was no bar, no comfortable meeting place and no sense of belonging. It is fair to say that as a result the Deaf community in NSW became increasingly dispersed and isolated. Pockets of the community met in different places. There was no central meeting place. It took many years for the Deaf community in NSW to recover its sense of identity. This all could have been avoided if the sale of the Stanmore property had actively involved the Deaf community from the very start and identified issues such as the future of the Community centre as early as possible.

A similar situation occurred in South Australia. A few years ago the Deaf Society of South Australia, (Deaf SA), were in such dire financial circumstances that they were in danger of closing. To rescue the Deaf Society Townsend House, who service Deaf, deafblind and vision impaired children in South Australia, were approached withe view of a merger. It all happened very quickly. Of course the Deaf community were the last to know. They were the last to know their spiritual home was under threat and they were the last to know a merger was being considered.

Naturally the SA Deaf community were very angry when they discovered the dire financial circumstances of its spiritual home. They wanted answers. They wanted to know how Deaf SA had got to a point where they were on the brink of closure. Why had they not been told earlier? Why, when all was nearly lost, were they informed, almost as an after thought.? It was a very emotional time and many in the South Australian Deaf community were perplexed and upset that they had not been informed earlier of the situation. Belated public meetings and consultation could only paper over their hurt and concern.

Now in all fairness in considering these issues one must realise that often there are sound business reasons for making such decisions. For example at the old Victorian Deaf Society that was sold, the buildings were so old and rundown, lacking in heating and air conditioning that they were actually an occupational health and safety hazard. Repairing the buildings would have cost many millions of dollars. Selling and moving was, in the end, the only option. Likewise the NSW Deaf Society buildings at Stanmore probably had overheads that were a drain 0n the Deaf Societies resources. There is no issue with making sound business decisions, the issue is involving the Deaf community in the process – and not just at the end!

The powers that be at these organisations may actually find that if they involve the Deaf community as early as possible in the process concerning these business decisions that the Deaf community may actually understand and support these decisions. The Deaf community, if consulted early in the process,  may help to actually identify issues that need to be addressed. Issues such as where Community centres will be located or how Deaf community history can be conserved could be incorporated into the decision process. These are essential components of any decision, not just after-thoughts.

One forgets that in many instances that these Deaf institutions were actually established by Deaf people. Sure, how these institutions are operated has changed but still the Deaf community have a huge connection and stake in  these institutions. They, too, want to see these institutions survive. They understand business reasons but want to see that Deaf community concerns are addressed also. The Deaf community should be involved and informed at the very BEGINNING of discussions and NOT when decisions are so far progressed that they can have virtually no influence on the process.

The sale of parts  of the historic Blue Stone property that has hosted the Victorian School for the Deaf for the last 150 years is a prime example. There are solid business reasons behind the sale. Maintenance of the property is expensive. Sale of parts of the property will decrease overheads meaning more capital can be directed to services for deaf kids. The $22 million is a huge sum of money that can be used to sustain and ensure the survival of Deaf Children Australia and, one would hope, the Victorian College of the Deaf. Other reasons, such as heritage listings, prevents sale of the property. This means that there is only part of the property that can actually be used to grow assets. The sale is not necessarily a bad thing.

In fact Deaf Children Australia are holding a public forum to discuss the sale of parts of the property on July the 8th. The Rebuttal took time to email the president of Deaf Children Australia, Noel Henderson, to establish what is happening. Mr Henderson was kind enough to reply. He stated, in part, that no decisions had been made on the sale of any part of the property but a sale is being considered. He further informed us of the public forum on July 8th. The Rebuttal urges concerned members of the Victorian Deaf community to attend. Listen to the reasons and voice  your concerns. It could well be your last opportunity to do so.

While we commend Deaf Children Australia for consulting with the Deaf community before any decisions have been finalised the question remains –  Why so late in the process? Clearly discussions on a sale have been occurring for a long time – Why have the Deaf community only been involved now? Yes, we know confidentiality is an issue, that sensitive business discussions were happening but this is still no excuse. We are dealing with a valuable part of the spirit and history of the Deaf community – the Deaf community need to be having a bigger say in the decisions that impact on their assets. We say involve the Deaf community as early as possible! Not only is this respectful, but  our decisions makers may actually find that by doing so it actually facilitates the decision making process rather than hinders it.

As a professional teaching in the field of deaf education I don’t particularly agree with some of the comments made by Julie Judd – President of CODA Australia in response to the awarding of Dimity Dorman’s Queenslander of the Year Award. At the risk of being branded a traitor I would like to offer the following views:

1. Julie Judd claims that only one third of deaf children are suitable for an implant. Through my experiences as an educator working with many children with cochlear implants, being an implantee and having a daughter who has a cochlear implant that is not as successful as the majority of children with implants, the one third figure is grossly untrue. Deaf children with normally shaped cochlea and perfectly formed auditory nerve branches are perfectly suitable for a cochlear implant and provided they are implanted prior to the age of two do achieve appropriate linguistic outcomes as any average hearing child due to the plasticity of the brain during the language acquisition process during the infant and toddler years.

2. While I agree with Julie Judd in saying that historically, the deaf community has endured oppression and faced adversities, her comment about ‘normalising a deaf child to the detriment of their cognitive development is tantamount to criminal activity’ is taking things to an extreme to the point of farce. Yes in the past when the technology was not around, natural sign language was a very valuable tool in the cognitive development of any deaf child. Now that the technology is available to provide great listening and linguistic outcomes during the toddler years, achievable cognitive development via listening and speech is realistically possible.

3. Recently the Queensland Government has contributed 30 million dollars over a period of 5 years to retrain teachers of the deaf to add Auslan as a communication skill. For the Queensland Government to also award the Hear and Say Centre 4 million dollars to provide achievable listening outcomes for deaf children (whom the majority have cochlear implants and are under the age of entry to school age) is a fantastic opportunity for children who have the potential and chance to enjoy the same privileges as their hearing peers. We are not normalising children as Julie Judd claims, but more of giving deaf children the chance to enjoy the same privileges as their hearing counterparts. The point here is about providing options for children to choose which communication medium they would like to pursue in their language and linguistic opportunities be it signing or speech and audition.

However in saying the abovementioned points, I would like to add that I find that teaching institutions such as teacher training universities and colleges fail to address the outcomes provided by the Australian Association of Teachers of the Deaf (AATD) mainly in the areas of communication in natural sign languages. I am proud to say I have acquired the skills of all communication mediums (Auslan, Total Communication and Auditory Verbal [A/V]) where the latter was quite challenging to acquire in terms of my handicap. Even though, it was challenging, it is rewarding to be able to help children to achieve auditory development in leaps and bounds. I find it extremely disturbing that while I put in the hard yards to maintain professional development in the A/V field, most of my colleagues do not share the same sort of commitment when raising the issue of professional development in the field of signing communication. I am my daughter’s Itinerant Support Teacher Hearing (the politically correct term for the Visiting Teacher of the Deaf) simply because of the fact that there is no teacher of the Deaf in my region who is fluent in Auslan. I rather be my daughter’s dad than to be her teacher.

I am a proud and culturally enriched deaf individual who love interacting with deaf people through natural sign language, but at the same time, I allow my deaf students the opportunity to communicate in whatever communication medium they feel comfortable in. Don’t get me wrong, I have a deaf daughter who is a very fluent natural signer and I have many fears for her future. Will the deaf community still be around when she reaches adulthood? Will she have as many deaf friends in her adulthood as we did when we left school? Will she be required to live in the expensive metropolitan areas in order to maintain contact and interaction with other culturally deaf people? Believe me, these questions serve to encourage and fire me to get on the propaganda wagon of the deaf community, but to deprive the 95% of deaf children the chance to enjoy the same privileges of their hearing peers would be as Julie Judd says… “a criminal activity”.

Michael J Clarkson B.Ed, M.Spec.Ed

Teacher of the Deaf

NSW.

I attended the Australian Sign Language Interpreters Association awards of the Victorian branch on Saturday. As always it was a lavish affair and a great time was had by all.  I am not much for the awards part, though I have enormous respect for all the winners, but I love the floor show and catching up with everyone. On Saturday there was an 8 inch comedienne telling disability jokes.

OK! Stella Young is slightly taller than 8 inches but she is very short and gets about in a wheelchair. She also pokes fun at societies attitude towards disability. Some of us thought it was hilarious others cringed and let their jaws drop. In particular Ms Young poked fun at labels – you know special needs, differently-abled, handicapped – all these labels.

All largely made up by non disabled. These labels are designed to take the stigma out of disability. Paradoxically they do the exact opposite.

Ms Young has apparently never been asked for a ticket on a bus  or a train. She gets on trains and ticket inspectors just walk past her. Being 8 inches tall and in a wheelchair it is very hard not to notice her.

She claimed it was her lifelong ambition to get a fine. She wanted to be fined just like everyone else who gets caught for not buying a ticket. One day the inspector passed her by so she called out, hoping to draw attention to the fact, that she didn’t have a ticket. The inspector came back and gave her one.

It is Ms Young’s ability to poke fun at society attitudes and her self that makes her so very funny. Incredibly UN-PC, but extremely funny.

For me the fascination with coming up with PC labels for disability groups is a pet gripe. If people spent half as much time focusing on changing perceptions, promoting the skill-set that people with a disability have or explaining just how much the disability economy contributes financially to Australia as they did trying to come up with a non-offensive labels then  people with disabilities might make progress.

Instead they debate, ad-infinitum, whether to put the person before the disability, or to take the dis out of disability, whether to say differently-abled or my all time un-favourite – people with differing abilities. These attempts at political correctness make me cringe.

I am reminded of a wonderful old man that had lost his hearing. A group of us were discussing whether to use the terms deaf, hearing impaired or hard of hearing. Of course we all know Deaf with a capital D refers to members of the Deaf community, which is fine as it refers to their identity.

But what of the others who largely see their hearing loss as a pain in the proverbial. My view is pick one and be done with it. But of course people have different views. By and large, later deafened adults (another label) in Australia  prefer the term hearing impaired.

The Deaf community in Australia are trying to impose the term hard of hearing on them because this is what is recognised by the World federation of the Deaf. The old man who I referred to a paragraph two above was having none of it – “Look!”, he said, “I don’t know about you but my hearing loss in no way arouses me.”

There was a stunned silence as people in the room tried to make sense of what he had just said. The penny dropped and, as one, the room cracked up laughing . What this highlights is that one persons PC is often another’s UN-PC. It is an un-winnable debate that  takes up far too much of our time and energy.

To PC or not to PC ? It is not a question that can be answered. One persons PC is another’s not PC. I just wish people would worry more about the things that really matter.

Please see below the Budget in Reply speech given last Friday morning by Gympie MP, David Gibson in the Queensland Parliament which addresses the issues raised by members of  the Deaf community and CODA Australia in some part:

David Gibson

MEMBER FOR GYMPIE

2010 BUDGET IN REPLY

Mr GIBSON (Gympie—LNP) …It is now appropriate for me to turn my remarks

to the funding provided in the budget for Queensland children suffering from hearing

loss. As many in this chamber would be aware, as a child of deaf parents I am

intimately aware of the challenges deaf people face. Any funding that is provided for

early detection and intervention of hearing loss for infants and children is welcome as

it is an important step towards giving our kids the best start in life. As elected

representatives, however, we must remember that deafness is more than just a

medical condition that requires a techno-fix. It is recognised that cochlear implants are

an important advancement in assisting deaf people to be able to communicate in a

hearing dominated world, but we must also accept that individuals who are deaf do not

simply have damaged ears. Any government that does not accept this will be

implementing a flawed policy direction.

Deaf people belong to a community, a culture. In this sense deafness is unique

amongst disability types. A sense of culture is strongest amongst those for whom sign

language is their primary language, but it extends to all who use sign language

regardless of their level of proficiency. It is this linguistic bond perhaps more than any

other factor that binds the deaf community together. In many ways the social character

of the deaf culture can be compared to that of any immigrant culture. Just as there is a

strong sense of pride amongst the Sudanese or the Greek in their heritage and their

societies there is a strong sense of pride amongst the deaf and they enjoy the status

of a cultural and linguistic minority. Deafness is much more than just a physiological

disability; it is a way of life.

It was therefore extremely unfortunate that in accepting the Queenslander of

the Year award last week, Dimity Dornan from the Hear and Say Centre said—

I stand here to represent all the children who are deaf and all who haven’t been born yet who are deaf.

She further stated—

Deaf is not deaf anymore.

I would hope that these remarks were not scripted but rather spoken in the

exuberance of the moment and are now regretted, for they have caused concern

amongst the deaf community throughout Australia. The funding provided by this Labor

government for the Hear and Say Centre is significant, but we must recognise that the

auditory verbal approach is only suitable for some deaf children. This government

must show respect for the broader deaf community and recognise the worth and

benefits of sign language as a valid communication choice for parents of deaf children.

It is unfortunate that the media statements from the Bligh Labor government on this

budget announcement do not reflect that respect to the deaf community.

The inference in media statements that future funding would be cut by a Labor

government from Education Queensland programs for hearing impaired students as a

result of this budget funding announcement is of deep concern. Further, the media

statements imply that the only way deaf children are able to communicate is with a

cochlear implant. This is simply not true and does not recognise the value of sign

language known as Auslan. Auslan is an integral part of the richness of culture that is

valued in the deaf community. No government should support the view that the deaf

should be forced to assimilate into the dominant culture of spoken English. But from

the wording of the media statements it appears that this is Labor’s position.

We must recognise that a combination of communication strategies and options

need to be funded and offered to all deaf children and their parents if we are to be

serious about providing the strongest foundation for deaf children to have the best start in life.

The recent budget announcement by the Queensland State Government to award over four million dollars to the “Hear and Say” Centre in Brisbane perpetuates and reinforces the view that deaf children should be educated in a manner that has proven to be unsuccessful and denies deaf children the opportunity to acquire Auslan (Australian Sign Language). The type of methodology and practice promoted by the Hear and Say Centre is in breach of the UN Convention on the Human Rights of people who are Deaf.

The Queensland government has deeply offended and angered members of the Australian Deaf Community and members of CODA Australia by awarding the Hear and Say Centre’s Managing Director Ms. Dimity Dornan with the Queenslander of the Year Award. Her exclusive support of the auditory-verbal approach at the Hear and Say Centre and strict prohibition of the use of Auslan insults our organisation and the signing Deaf Community throughout Australia. The Deaf community have suffered enough with the appalling educational opportunities afforded to them in this country. The attempt to ‘normalise’ a deaf child to the detriment of their cognitive development is tantamount to criminal activity.

Historically, the deaf community has endured oppression from those who belong to the majority hearing population. This has been born primarily due to ignorance regarding issues that impact the communication needs of deaf people. In efforts to ‘normalise’ deaf children, the practice of teaching them how to speak and read lips prevailed over instruction in reading, writing, mathematics and learning of life skills. This has created a lack of awareness surrounding the value of sign language and the benefits it provides when teaching deaf children the same skills as their hearing counterparts. A negative attitude towards the use of Auslan has persisted until recently, when sign language was officially recognised as a true, living and complete language with its own syntax, grammar and lexicon[1].

Positively, changes are taking place due to the Australian Government’s ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2008. Deaf people now have the freedom and right to use a language of their choice[2]. Specifically, Article 30 in the optional protocol states: “Persons with disabilities shall be entitled, on an equal basis with others, to recognition and support of their specific cultural and linguistic identity, including sign languages and deaf culture.”

Extensive research in the area of linguistics and neurological language learning has proven that sign language is the most easily accessible language for people who are deaf[3]. This is due to the fact that spoken English requires a functioning auditory-verbal loop in order to facilitate comprehension (in the developmental years), an attribute that most deaf people do not have.

In light of service provision inequities servicing the Queensland deaf population it is immoral that such a large amount of additional funds have been allocated to the Hear and Say Centre promoting the speech of deaf children. In contrast, a minimal amount of funding is allocated to adults whose lives have been disadvantaged by inadequate and ineffective educational opportunities. Consequently, this segment of the Australian community require ongoing support services in order to live independently and have equal access to generic services. These support services in many parts of Queensland are non – existent.

Further to this, Ms. Dornan’s comment that “Deaf is not deaf anymore”[4] is pure conjecture, she does not represent or serve parents (of deaf children) or deaf children themselves throughout their lifelong journey as deaf people. A deaf child’s hearing will not magically reappear because that child learns how to speak or read lips. The practice at the Hear and Say Centre is both disturbing and discriminatory. A deaf child, who has a Cochlear Implant even though it may be successful, does not hear perfectly. When the technology is not functioning the child continues to be deaf.  In addition, only about one third of all deaf children are suitable candidates for an implant. This leaves two thirds of deaf children unsupported and disregarded by the Hear and Say Centre. How is this practice worthy of such an award?

The majority of deaf adults in our community have been denied access to Auslan in their formative years. Many of these individuals did not have opportunities to meet other deaf people until adulthood. This has resulted in a high proportion of mental health conditions amongst the deaf population. The flawed theoretical view dismissing the use of sign language has regained support in recent times and widely promoted by the Hear and Say Centre. This narrow minded approach is applauded by the state government by awarding the Hear and Say’s Managing Director with accolades, when she does not have the support of the community with which she is supposedly serving. The government has, in addition, provided substantial financial support (in excess of 4 million dollars) towards the Hear and Say Centre who do not subscribe to thorough research methodologies or apply modern research findings related to language learning and the cognitive development of deaf children.

CODA (Children of Deaf Adults) Australia is a national voluntary organisation that aims to foster confident relationships with deaf parents and their children throughout the journey of life. We aim to promote awareness of the cultural and linguistic dynamics within families where one or more family members are deaf. CODA Australia supports Codas (Children of Deaf Adults) regardless of their age, or their parent’s mode of communication. Membership to CODA Australia offers support to adults (who are not deaf) who have been raised by deaf parents. Our organisation promotes the inclusion of Auslan (Australian Sign Language) the language of the deaf community within Australia as an integral part of the range of communication skills taught to all Deaf children.

This press release outlines the deprivation of language and cultural identity that deaf Australians have had to endure for decades. The language eradication that was endured through the period of “assimilation” for the indigenous Australian population demonstrates a chilling example of how a minority group can so easily be abused by those in power.

Auslan is the native language of the majority of our members who are not deaf themselves.

Contact:

Julie Judd

President

CODA Australia

// <![CDATA[// <![CDATA[
var prefix = 'mailto:';
var suffix = '';
var attribs = '';
var path = 'hr' + 'ef' + '=';
var addy95340 = 'president' + '@';
addy95340 = addy95340 + 'codaaustralia' + '.' + 'com';
document.write( '‘ );
document.write( addy95340 );
document.write( ‘‘ );
// ]]>president@codaaustralia.com

An AUSLAN version of this media release can be found at:     http://www.codaaustralia.com/

Well, well, well – It is now public. the Cinema’s have made their offer and the consultation has begun. Deafness Forum have got the ball rolling and have put a poll on their website to see if people are happy with the offer.  I for one must say I am EXTREMELY impressed. Having said that this is just the first step on the way to fair and reasonable access for deaf and blind people at the cinema.

Below is the substance of what the cinemas are offering. This has been taken from the Deafness Forum website.

• By the end of 2014 captions and audio description would be available in at least one screen in every one of the 132 cinema complex run by these operators.

What this means is that every cinema owned by the major cinema companies will have at least one cinema that can show captioning for the deaf and also provide audio description for the blind. Keep in mind that some cinemas have more than one cinema in a cinema complex. However under the offer from the cinemas they have committed to ensuring AT LEAST ONE MOVIE THEATRE in the complex will be able to provide access.

But THERE IS MORE!!

• In addition captions and audio description would be available in:

– one screen for every complex with 6 or less screens

– two screens for every complex with 7 to 12 screens

– three screens for every complex with 13 or more screens

This would equate to captions and audio description being provided at 242 screens in 132 complexes compared to the current situation where only 12 screens in 12 complexes provide captioning. AND I believe none of these twelve screens provide audio description for the blind. It is a vast improvement.

The cinemas have proposed a roll-out of their proposal. This is what they are suggesting.

A timetable for achieving this goal might be:

1. By the end of 2010 access would be provided in 24 screens (10% of proposed total)
2. By the end of 2011 access would be provided in 73 screens (30% of proposed total)
3. By the end of 2012 access would be provided in 145 screens (60% of proposed total)
4. By the end of 2013 access would be provided in 194 screens (80% of proposed total)
5. By the end of 2014 access would be provided in 242 screens (100% of proposed total)

One must remember that initially the cinemas were offering JUST 35 cinemas for a two and a half year exemption to discrimination complaints WITH NO PLAN as to how to improve things at the end of this two and a half year exemption.

With the roll-out that has been suggested by the cinemas they calculate that the following levels of access will be provided.

• Captions and audio description would be available at every session of a movie that had captions or audio description showing on those screens. For example, the initial roll-out of 10% of the screens would result in 840 shows per week of closed captioning and audio description content (ie. 24 screens at 35 sessions per week).
• Industry proposed that the technology used to deliver captioning and audio description would initially be CaptiView, but noted that like in other areas of technological change, improvements would occur and alternative improved technologies would develop over time. Industry acknowledged that the implementation of CaptiView would not preclude the adoption of improved technology in the future.

This means that every cinema that has the technology to provide captioning and audio description will provide captioning and audio description FOR EVERY MOVIE that is shown in that particular movie theatre. That wont be every movie because, for example, some cinemas have up to ten movie theatres in a complex.  Under this proposal by the cinemas, if a cinema complex had ten theatres at least two of these will provide captioning and audio description for the movies shown at those two movie theatres. BUT access will be provided at every session shown at those theatres – everyday and at every session.

Considering that  the initial proposal was only offering access at 35 cinemas with no suggestion as to how many sessions would be available this is an enormous increase in what the cinemas were offering.

But why has there been this dramatic change of heart. Part of this has been the introduction of the CaptiView system.  This is technology that the user has to set up at their seat … it means they watch the captions at their seat and not on the screen. There will not be open captions. The cinemas have been very opposed to open captioning stating that it takes away from the cinema enjoyment of those patrons that don’t require captioning.

Their are mixed reviews of the CaptiView system.  Some believe that it takes away from the enjoyment for the deaf person. They say that watching a movie with the system means the watcher must coordinate looking at the captions and the screen and that this can be difficult. To try and reassure people the cinemas have agreed to a consultative process so that patrons can provide feedback about the system. I believe they cinemas have also agreed to regular reviews of the technology and upgrades of the technology when appropriate.

Perhaps at this stage it is a bit premature to celebrate because we do not yet know how deaf people will react to the CaptiView system. The same will not apply to blind patrons because they will have a headset where they listen to the audio description direct to their ear. Blind patrons will not have to coordinate watching the movie and captions at the same time.

So there we have it. The first step to better cinema access. There is one lesson that we have learned from all this and that is that we must always CHALLENGE decisions that are made for us. If we had sat back and accepted what was on offer, if we had accepted what our advocates had agreed to and if we had not made a protest we would not be in this situation.  Having said this we must also appreciate the work of people that managed to negotiate the original proposal.  Weak as it was they battled hard on our behalf. The cinemas played hard ball but they kept the cinemas at the negotiation table.  Their part in this process should not be underestimated.  BUT still we must challenge if we do not agree we must say so – If we do not change never happens.

There are cynics that claim that the Cinema protest is a small fish. People who claim that there are bigger issues and more important issues. All of this is very true but one needs to remember that the cinema protest has set a PRECEDENT. It brought the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) to the table. It provided the AHRC with ammunition to hold the cinemas to account. The benchmark has been set – The cinemas were told, that based on their profits, what they were offering was not acceptable and that they were not meeting their responsibilities. If the cinemas can be held to account, what then of the Government that doesn’t provide proper access to education? What then of big multinationals like Telstra  who charge through the nose for data plans that for many deaf people are the only means to access telecommunications to an equitable level of their hearing peers?

Do not underestimate the impact of this cinema campaign. The precedent has been set.  We must now keep the fire burning!

I simply couldn’t measure up as a “hearing” person. 30 years of butting my head against a brick wall in the mistaken belief that I could be a “hearing” person (when I was profoundly Deaf)!

This is all so obviously wrong that I am somewhat ashamed of myself for letting this happen.

MICHAEL LOCKREY

This is one of the most profound statements that I have ever read about a deaf person and how they feel in the hearing world.  More so because I know the man. You could almost call Michael Lockrey a poster boy. He is profoundly deaf, intelligent, successful, articulate, speaks with clarity – He is everything the auditory verbal professional wants from a deaf person. He is a shining beacon of what the approach can achieve. AND YET .. he himself acknowledges that for all of the the success that the auditory verbal approach had in developing his speech and language – It wasn’t enough.  For all the efforts of the system to make Michael “hearing” the reality hit him, well into adulthood – that he is deaf, and speech alone could not provide him with the communication  he needed to achieve his full potential – socially and professionally.

So it is with some trepidation that I read today that the Queensland Government has put in its state budget money to ensure that every Queensland kid who loses their hearing or is born deaf can be provided with a cochlear implant. Now I am not one of those anti-cochlear implant people. I fully support the right for parents to chose the implant for their kids. Parents do not make the decision lightly – they make it with much love and with only their child’s best interest at heart.

I wish, however, that they could make this decision with all of the information they need at their finger tips. I wish that they could understand that using sign language will not impede speech and language development but actually enhance it. I wish that they could access the research that shows just how speech and signing complement each other and not the opposite as many cochlear implant advocates will have us believe. BUT I know that this is not likely to be so.

The reality is that they are likely to receive highly biased information. Information that raises their hopes. Information that suggests that the cochlear implant will NORMALISE their child and make them as close to hearing as is possible in today’s technologically enhanced world.

But as Michael Lockrey can attest – when they hit adulthood the reality will set in. After years of being praised for being able to HEAR so well, after years of having people gush and be amazed at what the cochlear implant has done for them, after years of believing that they are hearing they will learn that they are,  in fact, deaf. They will realise in big groups, in social situations, in work training situations or in noisy environments that they are DEAF.

For some the reality will hit home that they have been living a lie. And like with Michael Lockrey, this realisation will hurt. There will be anger and possibly shame. For some, like Michael, they will get past this and live happy and fulfilling lives. But it is painful. Some get past it but too many do not.

In adulthood they may even find that the technology that has been their godsend will breakdown. Like hearing aids cochlear implant processors have a life-span. After the age of 21 they will have to pay for repairs and replacements themselves. Somehow, to be “hearing” againthey will have to find many thousands of dollars to replace the technology that they have become so reliant on.  Some will be able to afford it but many will not. All those years of training to  be able to use the cochlear implant may suddenly be for nothing. Suddenly one day they will be DEAF .. And then what?

Recently Greg Leigh from the Royal Institute  for the Deaf and the Blind gave the Libby Harricks Memorial Orientation at the Deafness Forum Summit in Sydney. He rolled out statistics that showed how kids with cochlear implants perform better in language tests, speech tests and so on. All of this is true. I would be lying if I did not admit that I had not met kids with cochlear implants that are doing fantastically well. But Mr Leigh’s research had one flaw – It did not have any data, as far as I could see, that compared results of kids who have had cochlear implants and who had been also given access to sign language. It didn’t provide any longitudinal information of the difficulties that  kids with cochlear implants confront in adulthood. It didn’t talk about how they perform in big groups, in noisy environments nor did it discuss issues of self perception of kids with cochlear implants. Mr Leigh did talk of the benefits of signing BUT not as part of the cochlear implant process. It seemed that it was either one or the other,  there was no suggestion that the two methodologies could be combined.

You see, life as a deaf person is not just about speech and language – it is about many other social and environmental factors. Its about a the WHOLE PERSON. The WHOLE PERSON is something that the cochlear implant advocates have not yet understood. In fact I doubt it is something they even really consider. Their obsession with speech and hearing blinds them to these issues.

Queensland is an enigma. Not too long ago it committed $30 million over 5 years to introduce Auslan to schools. It has now introduced a program that aims to see every kid with a hearing loss provided, where possible, with a cochlear implant. It clearly recognises deafness, particularly with kids, as a vital and important state issue. For this they are to be congratulated.

But now the challenge is to roll out the cochlear implant program in a way that parents can see the WHOLE deaf person and not just hearing and speech. The challenge is to provide parents with the REAL story. They may well still do this – I will watch the developments with interest.

Michaels story was submitted as a comment to A Communities Wrath – Ir is worth a post on its own so we have reprinted it here. Thank you Michael!

Just to add a personal story – I was schooled in the lipreading / auditory approach from a very young age. It was certainly effective – as I can still recall meeting my first Deaf (signing Deaf) person in my teens and I really thought that I was nothing like him and that I was really a “hearing” person!

Obviously this was a fallacy (and a half)!

My biggest personal regret of my life to date is that I didn’t learn Auslan until I was 30! Looking back over my life I can see countless missed opportunities – both professionally and personally – as I simply couldn’t measure up as a “hearing” person. 30 years of butting my head against a brick wall in the mistaken belief that I could be a “hearing” person (when I was profoundly Deaf)!

This is all so obviously wrong that I am somewhat ashamed of myself for letting this happen. But the reality is that this flawed approach of focusing on lipreading and active listening (without a similar level of focus on Auslan) simply will not work effectively. To this day I still pretend to have heard what people have said! I truly hope that we can prevent more “Michael Lockrey’s” in the future…..I simply can’t see how focusing on non-sign language communication methods equips you with the self confidence and understanding necessary to survive in our society.