The Rebuttal

Just a belated notice about what is happening in the Australian Deaf  Community. Coming so soon after some great Australian philosophers who farted romantically about the cockleer implant.

I have emailed a response, which a can be read in the comments. Yes it is very complimentary of his great intellectual prowess, and liberal thinking. NOT!

You can express your tears of gratitude to the Australian MP, who wasn’t even popular as the opposition Leader [Ha, Ha, Ha], here. But then again, he is a doctor isn’t he!

———————————————————————

Media Release

19 August 2009

Nelson silences deaf people

Dr Brendan Nelson MP will tomorrow exclude the voice of deaf people from discussions about the needs of deaf babies and children.

Dr Nelson is hosting a parliamentary symposium on infant and early childhood deafness at Parliament House, Canberra, tomorrow, 20^th August.  According to a list sent out on 4^th August, 24 people have been invited to the symposium. Of these 24 people, 12 are providers of audiology, cochlear implant and speech training programs which exclude the use of Auslan (Australian Sign Language); four are medical doctors, three of these specifically cochlear implant surgeons; and two are Cochlear Limited (the manufacturer of the cochlear implant) representatives. The remaining six are a provider of general support services for deaf children; a parent representative; an education expert; a representative of the general deafness field, including service providers; a deaf person who has recently published a book about his life experiences; and Health Minister Nicola Roxon’s advisor.

A total of 22 hearing people (including only one representative of parents of deaf children), and two deaf people will come together to decide what is best for deaf children. However, of the two deaf people, one is representing service providers as well as deaf people so is hardly likely to be in a position to put the interests of deaf children before the interests of service providers. This leaves only one deaf person who is, however, able to represent only his own personal views.

Concerned about the serious lack of representation for parents and deaf people, and the obvious bias towards cochlear implants as “the solution” to infant and childhood deafness, Deaf Australia wrote to Dr Nelson requesting a place at the symposium. Dr Nelson refused this request.

Recently the Australian Government released a report, Shut Out! which details the lived experience of people with disabilities and the shocking extent to which they are excluded from Australian society.

“Dr Nelson is clearly intent on continuing this appalling record of exclusion by deliberately refusing to allow at the symposium an advocate for the very people – deaf people themselves – who have most to offer the discussion and the most important stake in the decisions made,” said Deaf Australia President Kyle Miers.

“Until policy makers look outside the medical and allied professions and make an effort to understand and accept what bona fide representatives of deaf Australians and their families have to say, deaf children will continue to have access only to very limited services that do not address the needs of the whole person or ensure they receive the best possible language acquisition and education programs to fulfil their potential. This is the tragedy of the current situation in Australia and we see this symposium as unlikely to do anything to improve it,” Mr Miers said.

Recently Deaf Australia sent to the Australian Government a policy advice paper outlining the current situation for early intervention programs for deaf and hard of hearing children, and calling for the development of a national plan for the widespread provision of world’s best practice bilingual early intervention programs for deaf children, including those who have a cochlear implant.

Bilingual early intervention programs, provided that they also support the family to acquire Auslan, are the only programs that allow the child to acquire a native language (Auslan) naturally and to also acquire a spoken language. Every child should be enabled to develop to the extent possible their ability to speak. No child should be denied access to Auslan.

“Regardless of what happens at this symposium, Deaf Australia will continue to work with the Australian Government towards reforming our early intervention programs for deaf and hard of hearing children,” said Deaf Australia Executive Officer Karen Lloyd AM.

About Deaf Australia:

Deaf Australia, established in 1986, is the leading national peak body managed by Deaf people that represents, promotes, preserves, and informs the development of, the Australian Deaf community, its language and cultural heritage. It provides an information and advocacy service for Deaf people who are bilingual in English and Auslan (Australian Sign Language).

Deaf Australia is funded by the Australian Government through the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.

Further information:

Deaf Australia Inc.: www.deafau.org.au

Contact:

Karen Lloyd

Executive Officer

Email: karen.Lloyd@deafau.org.au

Ph: 07 3357 8266

Tommy was eager. He wanted it and he wanted it now. The new PlayStation Number 17 was out. He saw it in the shop window. Glistening metallic black, shiny. alluring and only $1 299.  He had to have it. Out came the credit card. It was his! Of course he had to get a few games too. There were only five on the market at this early stage. He purchased Texas Chainsaw Massacre 22. The graphics were awesome. Every little bit of blood, every droplet and every spurt was in glorious 3D. He was the first of his mates to have one! He couldn’t wait to show off his newly purchased toy.

Peter, his mate looked on. Peter wanted a PlayStation 17 too but had resolved to wait. And wait he did. Patiently he waited for the inevitable price drop and within 6 months the price was $700.  He decided to wait a little longer and three months later the consoles were selling at $599 and there were a multitude of games to chose from as well. It pays to wait. Unlike Tommy who jumped the gun! And Peter owned his! Meanwhile Tommy is still paying his off.

Australia’s Deafness organisations are a bit like Tommy. They get excited when anything is on offer and grab it as early as possible. In recent years the Deaf community have benefited from the National Auslan Booking Service (NABS) and the Auslan for Employment Scheme. Great programs that have benefited thousands. But in hindsight one needs to ask – Are these good programs? Did the Deafness sector get starey eyed like Tommy and accept what was on offer too early? Could they have been more astute like Peter and waited? In their excitement to show off to the world and take credit did they jump the gun? Or were they just looking for profit? After all $17 million is going to pay for an awful lot of overheads, isnt it?

Personally I have always found NABS to be a strange program. Sure there are many that need Auslan interpreting when they visit a private doctor but equally there are Deaf people that need interpreting when they visit a lawyer, buy a home or attend a personal training session at the local gym.  I often wonder if it would have been better for the Deafness Sector to push for more to be included in NABS. Sure it would put great demand on current interpreting supply in Australia but is it an astute use of funding to have the program only targeted at private medical appointments. Perhaps the Deafness Sector could have waited like Peter .. could have said  to the government, “Thanks this is great, but maybe we can make the program even better.” They could have spent another 12 months developing the scope of the program and consulting with the Deaf community.  Perhaps it could have been developed into a program more akin to an interpreter allowance. They could have looked at the scope for adding Live Remote Captioning to the options. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but one can not help thinking that time and thought could have lead to an even better program.

The Auslan for Employment Scheme (AFE) is another strange program. This program is $5 million over five years  and was introduced at the beginning of 2007. The aim is to provide interpreting for Deaf people starting work or who have their jobs at risk. If they so wish they can use  some of their funding for deafness awareness training. Again on the surface this seems a great program. BUT it’s limited to $5 000 a year. It’s actually for only nine months then you have to apply again and if you are lucky and convince the funders your job is at risk you might get another nine months. If you do not work full time the funding can be even less.

I got funding to pay for some of my interpreting needs through the AFE. The $5 000 lasted three months. That’s my lot and my employer must now foot the bill for any remaining interpreting. They are happy to do so but not everyone is as lucky as me. A lot of small employers cannot afford interpreting costs.  Sure the funding helps but it’s a bit like  giving a kid two licks of an ice-cream and taking it away. Again you have to ask whether the Deafness sector were too eager to accept funding without thought for the big picture goal. Could they have been tougher and said ..”NO! that’s not a good use of  funds, lets make it a strong program straight away rather than some half arsed chocolate cake that will collapse in the middle.” And what about those deaf that need communication that don’t sign? Did anyone think of them?

There is a train of thought in the Deafness  sector that we must accept what is on offer from the government. The idea is that once you get your foot in the door  you can negotiate upwards from there. It is a strong argument and has some merit. However, there is another train of thought and one that many are reluctant to visit. This train of thought actually involves telling the government NO! Telling the government that the funding and program that they are offering is inadequate and can actually be construed as a waste of funding. This train of thought involves continuing to negotiate with the government to develop the strongest possible program at any given time. It is a much harder and can be a soul destroying process. It is also not without risk because the government may withdraw anything on offer and it is possible to end up with nothing.

BUT perhaps it is time to visit this method. Perhaps it is time to say to the government that the Deaf sector is not out for handouts  an help but wants the government to INVEST in deafness and INVEST properly at that. Deaf and hard of hearing people are not asking to be HELPED but included and seen as value added rather than a drain. Proper and well thought out investment adds value and leads to better outcomes. In short we should tell the government to take their AFE and shove it! Not quite in those words but we should leave them in no doubt that the AFE is woefully inadequate to the point that we would rather not want it as it was offered.

Perhaps the Deaf sector needs to get tough. Rather than grabbing at short-term gains and profits they should hang out for real change and benefits. In doing so perhaps the government will see that Deaf and hard of hearing people are a whole economy in themselves. This ecomomy adds value to the country if invested in properly. American President Harry Truman once said, “Children and dogs are as necessary to the welfare of the country as Wall Street and the railroads.”  It’s simple – the country needs us, not the other way around … It’s time to remind the government of this and in a BIG way.

George is on the Morning Show. He is a tradie and is selling ladders… “Call in the next hour” pleads George, “…and you will get, absolutely free, this amazing new work bench.” According to George his ladders are the safest in the world. Guaranteed, says George, to prevent workplace injuries, Do It Yourself Injuries and give you confidence to climb to the heights without fear. “Buy one get one free as well as this amazing work bench.” screams George, hands held up to the heavens as if he is your saviour. Now for some reason George got me thinking about the wonderful Professor Clark and Dr Bruce Shepherd, Australia’s Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee of Cochlear Implant salesmanship.
One can imagine the stately Clark and the slightly more robust and rotund Shepherd on the Morning Show. Beaming smiles, suit and tie, looking directly at the camera and holding in their right and left hands respectively, a cochlear implant. “Never not hear again,” cries Clark, “And stop being a burden to everybody,” screams Shepherd – “.. Have one implant and get the second ABSOLUTELY FREE.”, they sing in unison. Creepy indeed but that seems to be what has happened of late. Hype and the cochlear implant seem to be going hand in hand.
Hype seems to be following deafness around like a bad smell actually. Last year we had that revolting television advertisement from the Cora Barclay Centre. There was a young lad struggling gamely to sign. Telling all who were watching that this ungainly form of communication that is sign language was how deaf kids of yesteryear used to communicate and then suddenly breaking into a sweet, slightly lispy but engaging voice and telling all and sundry that, “…THERE IS A BETTER WAY.” And in doing so telling legions of watchers that sign language is primitive and speech is the only way forward. One only needed Yazoo in the background singing, “… THE ONLY WAY IS UP BAAAAAAABY FOR YOU AND ME NOW.” This advertisement was simply the most disgusting and misleading piece of television advertising on deafness I have ever seen.
I am beginning to wonder if Clark and Shepherd are, in fact, Cochlear’s number one and two shareholders. (For the record Professor Clark is apparently on record as having no shares in Cochlear.) In The Age newspaper recently Clark said the implant was needed by, “…deaf children to compete with their hearing peers on a normal footing. In Sweden, 95 per cent of profoundly deaf children have a cochlear implant.” Not to be outdone in the field of misleading the naive Dr Shepherd has been saying similar things, this time at the launch of the New Born Hearing Screening initiative and in the presence of Australia’s Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd. Said Shepherd of the implant; “It means that these children, rather than becoming drawdowns on the community and welfare, will become productive members of the community and go on to lead productive lives and happy lives, able to communicate with the entire community and not just with the few who might be able to sign.”
It’s clear isn’t it! Being deaf is a drag and a burden and the way to fix it and be equal with everyone is to have a cochlear implant. Meanwhile the cash registers of cochlear are going KA-CHING and no doubt the dividends for its shareholders increased with it. It is likely donations to Shepherd Centre for hearing impaired children improved dramatically as well.
Sadly hype is not the sole domain of Messrs Clark and Shepherd. Deaf Australia unfortunately added their own kind of hype to the debate. In the same article that Professor Clark uttered his immortal line Deaf Australia claimed that the cochlear implant; ” ….implies that deaf people are ill or incomplete individuals, are lonely and unhappy, cannot communicate effectively with others and are all desperately searching for a cure for their condition.” I am sure the many hundreds of deaf people who have a cochlear implant and are part of the Deaf community were puzzled and perhaps a bit offended by the statement. The Deaf Australia comment, sadly, like Clark and Shepherds’, was just misleading and divisive hype.
In the midst of all this hype there is, thankfully, some sanity. Tricia Kemp is the mother of a child with a cochlear implant. She is also the coordinator of a cochlear implant support group. She, one among many who should know better, states a simple fact; “Cochlear implantation is not a miracle that immediately gives access to mainstream education for all children. Undoubtedly it provides this for some but even within this group the amount of support necessary will depend on the individual child. Other children will need more support and will be better suited to placement in a Hearing-Impaired Unit (’Unit’) where more specialist help is available and others will need placement in a special school.”
She further goes on to say, and I hope Professor Clark and Dr Shepherd with their tendency to spew hype read this; “Amongst the population of deaf children, with or without cochlear implants, some will need sign support, others are oral (to varying degrees), some will need very little support, others will need a great deal; and some will have additional difficulties”.
It is people like Tricia who should be promoting the cochlear implant. Not people like Clark and Shepherd who, arguably, have a vested interest in every public statement that they make. It is a simple but true fact that the cochlear implant benefits many, some more than others. Some will chose to learn to sign some will not. But people with a cochlear implants are still DEAF … the cochlear implant does not change this! But mostly it is poppycock that the cochlear implant somehow makes people who are deaf equal to their hearing peers… Clark and Shepherd HEAR this… We already are equal and we do not need ignorant professionals like yourselves to tell us otherwise.

*Further reading:
http://www.saltbar.co.uk/2009/08/eternal-sunshine-of-the-cochlear-mind/
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9235&page=1

Perhaps the juiciest part of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s press conference late in June to announce universal screening of newborns for hearing impairment was the lone question asked by an unknown journalist at the very end.

This press conference was a joint affair between Mr Rudd and the former Opposition leader, Brendan Nelson. The hapless journalist asked Dr Nelson a question about the latest turmoil in the ranks of the Liberals. “We’re here to talk about deafness and hearing,” scolded Dr Nelson, and that was that.

The journalist’s feeble attempt to get onto something interesting was a rich indicator of how dull was the news that Mr Rudd appeared to be doing something to help deaf babies become hearing. The Herald Sun’s perfunctory report showed the obligatory photo of Mr Rudd with a small boy whose name, according to the caption, was Tanya Plibersek. The report in the Sydney Morning Herald was much more engaging and readable, but still framed the event in the context of political foes dropping their differences.

No wonder journalists were bored. Politicians have always taken advantage of being seen promising to help disabled kiddies and scoring photo opportunities with small children. But Dr Nelson was only half right. The press conference and announcement had everything to do with hearing and nothing to do with deafness. In the room was a bellowing elephant to which everyone, apparently, was deaf.

The press conference took place at the Shepherd Centre in Sydney, which describes itself as one of Australia’s leading providers of audio-verbal therapy for hearing-impaired children. It is a place where specialists devoted to the sense of hearing regard deaf people and sign language in much the same way that butchers regard vegetarians.

There is of course nothing wrong with a screening program to detect hearing impairment in newborns. My concern is what the centre’s founder, Dr Bruce Shepherd, said after Dr Nelson declared that all small deaf children should have a cochlear implant (aka the bionic ear) before the age of one:

“It means that these children, rather than becoming drawdowns on the community and welfare, will become productive members of the community and go on to lead productive lives and happy lives, able to communicate with the entire community and not just with the few who might be able to sign.”

Dr Shepherd’s statement, with its murky subterranean cavern of insinuations about deaf people and they way they live, takes some beating. My own reaction was, “here we go again”. Dr Shepherd is not the only one to say something like that. Jack O’Mahoney, the former CEO of Cochlear, the implant’s manufacturer, said the same thing. So has Professor Graeme Clark, the inventor of the cochlear implant. So did the late Peter Howson, the former minister in the McMahon government. But unlike Dr Shepherd, they did not make such statements in the presence of beaming prime ministers.

It has long fascinated me why sign language provokes otherwise intelligent men into making comments of such inane stupidity about deaf people. There was one immediate clue: two of the three dignitaries presiding at this press conference were medical doctors, with Dr Nelson the former head of the Australian Medical Association. Little wonder they regard deafness as a pathological condition which requires a cure. Such an attitude is the polar opposite to that of deaf people, for whom deafness is simply a part of their lives.

There is another clue. The raison d’être of specialist places like the Shepherd Centre is small deaf children. The good Dr Shepherd sets a shining example for the staff who know very little about the lives of deaf adults, apart from a conviction they live silent and unhappy lives. They know nothing about the language they despise.

There is a third clue. There was a scene in the film Rabbit Proof Fence, where the abducted Aboriginal girls were having their first meal at the Moore River settlement. An Aboriginal overseer rebuked one of them for speaking their native language: “We’ll have no wangka here. You talk English!” The admonishment was repeated by one of the sisters at the settlement.

This comparison with the historical suppression of sign languages is not exact. Hearing children can learn another spoken language more readily than deaf children. However, common to this suppression of sign languages and aboriginal languages, and our third clue, is fear. It is fear that those who hold power might not only not know what is going on, but also that the speakers and users of minority languages might actually know more than they let on.

Sign language in Australia, which is known as Auslan, is not going to conveniently disappear. It is a subject for study at VCE level, at adult education centres and universities, and numerous people – academics, researchers and interpreters – make a living from it. Auslan is a community language. Across the Tasman, New Zealand has three official languages – English, Maori, and New Zealand Sign Language.

The cochlear implant does not somehow “immunise” children against deafness, in the way the good doctors suggest. Deaf people with a cochlear implant are a normal and unremarkable sight at gatherings of the deaf community. It is normal to see deaf people with cochlear implants using fluent Auslan.

Dr Shepherd does not explain why deaf people lead unproductive lives, and how a cochlear implant will magically make them productive. The ability to lead a productive life, in the sense of seizing opportunities for example, comes just as much from within the individual as from external trappings. The state of being deaf itself proffers numerous opportunities in life to those willing to look beyond ignorance and stereotyping. And if opportunities for deaf people are limited, then Dr Shepherd’s self-serving attitudes are one of the reasons why.

Doctors Nelson and Shepherd are saying to parents of young deaf children that the cochlear implant is the only way (and the truth, and the light, one is tempted to add). Parents are much more intelligent than to swallow that. They need to gather as much information as they can about deafness, and this includes meeting people for whom deafness is a normal part of their lives. Parents who do this will gain a far richer knowledge of deafness than the good doctors will ever want them to know.

Dr Nelson has no idea that parents of deaf children have numerous choices open to them. The cochlear implant is one of those choices, but it is emphatically not the only choice. The benefits of a cochlear implant for deaf adults and children have been much extolled, and rightly so. But the good doctors doth praiseth too much. By their own logic, a cochlear implant is the ideal prescription for legions of unhappy hearing people who lead unproductive lives and who are drawdowns on the community and welfare.

As the Chief Protector of Aborigines lamented in the very last line of Rabbit Proof Fence: “If they would only understand what we are trying to do for them”.

Exactly. If these good doctors would only understand what deaf people are trying to do for them.

(Article used with kind permission by Michael Uniake original posted at  http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9235&page=1)

Back in the early 1990’s disability awareness training was the in-thing. The trick was to make participants feel like they were disabled. Trainers carried with them an assortment of tools. Blindfolds, earplugs and goggles that stimulated a variety of vision and loss conditions.

Participants of the training were required to negotiate their way around buildings in a wheelchair, with the goggles, with ear muffs or in a blindfold. They put in earplugs, then covered their ears with earmuffs and carried out conversations with each other. They then debriefed.

Responses were fascinating. Some participants would be moved to tears. “Sob Sob… Sniff sniff .. I had no idea that not being able to see was so hard…. Sob Sob”  Others would exclaim, ”  …It’s so inspiring that people can get around in a wheelchair through these little gaps, they are so cleeeeeevvver..” If you were a disabled person helping with the training you would get any number of compliments ..”.. its amazing what you can do.”   …”  … it must be sooooo hard to lipread like that all daaaaaay!!!”

I was reminded of this training after watching Dancing With the Stars last night. There is a blind man dancing. Granted, its very hard for him to dance given dance requires the person have good spatial awareness and be able to see how they move. I have no idea when the man, Gerrard, lost his sight. At a guess I would say it was fairly early in his life given his lack of awareness of his posture and space. He danced very badly, yet the audience rose as one to applaud him.

His attempts at a Michael Jackson move were, quite frankly, comical and gruesome to watch. Yet, still the audience rose as one. He did danced a solo, which took some guts, but at the end of the day, as judge Todd said, he couldn’t dance. Good on Todd for having the sense to not patronise him and just say it as it is.

Of course the judgement could not pass without the customary “INSPIRING” comments. bottom line … Gerrard cant dance. Although he is an excellent mountain climber, having climbed Everest. Gerrard, to his credit, acknowledges that he cant really dance and makes fun of himself. In reality, I bet he inwardly cringes at some of the comments and the over-reaction of the audience.

More people should be like the legendary Andrew Denton. Denton knows how to present disability issues. He does it in a forthright way and is unafraid to see the funny side of disability. Denton was responsible for the fabulous Money for the Gun. One of its shows was called Year of the Patronising Bastard.

I vividly recall being in hysterics with one skit that took the mickey out of the type of disability training that I described in the opening paragraph. In the skit there are three participants. The participants are wearing blindfolds, they have earmuffs, white canes and their mouths are taped. Denton accosts the participants as they are attempting to negotiate the stairs. The three are stumbling along banging into each other. He asks them questions .. Whats it like to be blind? .. Of course they can’t hear him … They mutter through their taped over their mouths, bang into each other a few more times and continue on their way.

Denton is left bemused with his microphone as they continue to negotiate the stairs totally unaware of his presence. In this one skit Denton hit the nail on the head, namely that such disability awareness training is less useful than it is patronising.

In the same show Denton interviews a man who had little more than a head and a body. Denton interviewed the man about his interests and hobbies and things that made his life worthwhile. The man spoke of his love of bike riding. Apparently, he loved to ride. His friends would place him in a backpack, head showing and ride with him on their back. The man told an hilarious tale of shocked motorists, seeing this head sticking out of the back of a cyclist backpack and swerving in shock. It was a fabulous way to portray people with a disability and reminded us that disability is a life to be lived and not a tragic and lesser way of living.

Gerrard survived the cut last night. This is despite clearly being the worst dancer there. He is a great bloke with a dry wit. However, if we are honest, he is surviving solely on the sympathy vote. Sure it takes some skill to catch his partner as she spins and jumps. It speaks volumes for his skill of judging space and his tactile awareness. It also speaks volumes for his partner who puts so much trust in him to catch her.

But truth be known Gerrard cant dance, he is like a board and just does the steps by rote. Yes, that’s partly cos he is blind, but by giving him the sympathy vote we are arguably putting the disability movement back ten years. Thankfully, Gerrard is a realist and helps us along with his sense of humour. Says Gerrard, “.. If I start smelling popcorn I will know I am in the audience.” And that is how I like it.  I only wish others around him would be a little more realistic about his dancing ability. Because Gerrard seems to be the only one who can see the funny side of things.

Fiji is an interesting country. The local Fijian people are a joy. A smile is never far from their lips. They seem to have a natural affinity with deaf people. Let them know you are deaf and they communicate in mime, gesture or by writing as if it is second nature to them. Fiji is also a third world country. Apart from tourism the locals rely largely on agriculture to exist. Cows roam the roads, pigs are bred in backyard lots and the locals walk the roads carrying their produce purchased from the roadside markets. In Suva while looking for the Fiji Association of the Deaf, we stopped at Fiji’s largest hospital to seek directions. The first room we walked into we found two local Fijians of Indian descent making a coffin. It was a stark reminder as to where we were. Despite this, the level of acceptance and willingness to communicate made one feel an equal.

Meanwhile the age old to have or not have a Cochlear Implant debate has been reignited by an article in The Age. Professor Clark, inventor and chief promoter of Cochlear Implants, was at his misleading best. Cochlear Implants, he says, will allow, “…deaf children to compete with their hearing peers on a normal footing. In Sweden, 95 per cent of profoundly deaf children have a cochlear implant.” Millions will read his comments and garner false hope and unrealistic expectations as to the benefits of cochlear implants.

Deaf Australia in an attempt to balance the debate put forward the opposite extreme. They had this to say, “….The implant implies that deaf people are ill or incomplete individuals, are lonely and unhappy, cannot communicate effectively with others and are all desperately searching for a cure for their condition.” Of course the implant doesn’t imply any of this; people do. In an attempt to counter the extremes of Professor Clark, Deaf Australia have probably and unwittingly driven a few million people towards him. Why? Simply because many will not understand the Deaf culture arguments and will resonate more with the “CURE it” mentality of Professor Clark. It is an uphill battle that Deaf Australia must fight. Meanwhile the deaf and the hearing understand each other just a little bit less.

Back in Fiji we visited the hostel for Deaf kids in Suva. In Suva they have a primary school and a high school for the deaf kids. Over 50 deaf kids reside at the hostel from all parts of Fiji. They attend the two local Deaf schools. We arrived at the hostel just as the kids were coming home from school. To say they were excited to see us is an understatement. The kitchen was standing room only. There were no shy kids or ones that were unable to communicate. There was not a cochlear implant or hearing aid in sight. Just happy, well adapted and curious deaf kids communicating at will. I tell you once a Fijian person smiles, they smile for a long time. As we left they all followed us to the van to wave us off. It was inspiring.

Back in Australia Can Do for Kids and Deaf Can Do CEO, Paul Flynn, has resigned. He claims he has resigned to pursue other interests. He resigns at a time when the interpreters and the Deaf community in South Australia are in turmoil. He resigns at a time when Deaf Can Do is in dispute with the National Auslan Booking Service. The dispute touches on interpreter monopolies, deaf choice and interpreter rights and is dividing the Deaf and interpreter fraternities of South Australia. Access anywhere is never a smooth path and sometimes Australian Deaf organisations do not make it any easier. Deaf people and many interpreters in the meantime look on in confusion. The majority just want interpreters and most interpreters just want to work.  If only it were so simple.

After visiting the hostel we visited the Fiji Association of the Deaf. The Association lobbies and coordinates events for the Fijian Deaf community. It is run and controlled solely by Deaf Fijians. The only hearing person in sight was the interpreter. Here we are in the so called backwaters of Fiji and Deaf people are in complete control of their own lives and their community. It is something Australians, especially the hearing people that cling so desperately to their control, can learn from.

Questioned about hearing aids and cochlear implants the Fijian Deaf people were dismissive, almost as if hearing is just an afterthought. Communication and belonging were values foremost at the front of their thinking. Being able to hear was not needed for any of that. Language, acceptance and friends were. Back in South Australia everyone is at war about interpreting provision. Deaf Fijians would be bemused because the level of interpreter access to be had in Australia is something that they can only dream of.

We had agreed to speak to the Fiji Association of the Deaf and their interpreter trainees. Once again we had a full house. It was overwhelming. We spoke to the group about captioning. Fiji doesn’t have captioning on TV. Most were, frankly, quite dismissive about the need for captioning. They were almost of the view that captioning on TV wasn’t needed. They could get captioning on DVDs they said. Having no captions on the TV was no big deal for them. What they do want are more interpreters. Indeed the Fijian Association of the Deaf is the organisation that organises and implements training for interpreters. (Remember, it is controlled solely by Deaf people.) There are not many interpreters in Fiji but they recognise the need for interpreters in a variety of situations. For them this was the priority, not something seemingly as self indulgent as captions on the television. The gulf between values and needs of Fijian Deaf people and Western Deaf people is huge. We, who have nearly everything, perhaps need to appreciate more of what we do have.

Meanwhile over in Fiji Deaf people are smiling broadly. The Fijian hearing populace are also smiling broadly. Not for them is it to worry about whether deaf people can hear or be fixed. The important thing is that they be happy, loved and included. To be deaf is to be an equal. Sure Fijian Deaf people have disadvantages in interacting with their community and this is part of the reason that they are lobbying hard for more interpreters and doing their best to train more. But it all comes down to acceptance and this their society has in abundance.

I could be wrong but Deaf and hearing Fijians seemed to me to be equals and they respect each other as such. We here in Australia, who moan when television hows are not captioned or when the trains are late, can learn from the Fijians – arguably more, in fact, than Fijians can learn from us.

Life is like this: sometimes sun,
sometimes rain.
Fijian Proverb

“Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” Ellie Wiesel

Never has the above quote been more true than in South Australia at the moment. The last Rebuttal article focused on the interpreter situation in South Australia. We wrote this article after being sent the open letter to the Deaf community in South Australia from Deaf Australia. The letter, of course, outlined the situation between Deaf Can Do and the National Auslan Booking Service.

Since writing the article The Rebuttal has received numerous communications on the subject. None of them paint the sorry saga in a very positive light. Unfortunately the communication has all been off the record. People feel that they will be victimised if they say anything openly. This is not surpising in a small state like South Australia where everyone knows everyone.

The Rebuttal is known for saying things as they are. However we can only cop so many bullets on behalf of others. In the past people have spoken out and been threatened with legal action. We at The Rebuttal are conscious that a lot of what is going on borders on bullying and victimisation. However, the threat of legal action is very real and we must remain cautious.

It is not helped by the fact that many of the people that are writing into us might, if it was known that they have written, be threatened with their jobs. All it takes is for their name to get out and suddenly they will be seen as a threat. They might suddenly see that they are no longer booked for jobs or the job they have might suddenly not be there anymore. THIS IS THE SITUATION AND THE FEARS ARE VERY REAL.

It is also not helped by the fact that the state advocacy body, through no fault of its own, has board members who are in fact employed by the agency that they may have to complain about. This is part of the reason that Deaf Australia are involved, simply because Deaf Australia South Australia has members that are not in a position to complain. It is not a healthy situation at all but a fact of life in a small state like South Australia who have a very small Deaf community.

However, we would like to remind people that there are laws that protect people against bullying and victimisation. If you feel that you might be bullied or victimised and know that something not right is happening we would encourage you to talk to organisations like Deaf Australia, Deafness Forum or even the Australian Sign Languahge Interpreters Association for advice.

Clearly something is not quite right in this situation.  Remaining silent it will help no one. Seek advice now.

Deaf Australia, last week, circulated a letter to members of the South Australian Deaf community. The letter attempted to help the community make sense of an ongoing dispute between Deaf Can Do (DCD) and the National Auslan Booking Service (NABS). For those not familiar with NABS it is a service funded by the Commonwealth Government to provide interpreters for deaf Auslan users at private medical appointments. DCD are the major supplier of Auslan interpreters in South Australia. The dispute is clearly a complicated one that involves money, disputed agreements and business rights. One interesting area that was highlighted in the Deaf Australia letter was the fact that only four interpreters in South Australia are registered with NABS. The rest apparently are registered with DCD. It is this issue that this article will focus on because for Deaf people and interpreters it is a question of choice.

The Deaf Australia letter claims that it is only in South Australia that interpreters do not register with NABS on a large scale. The letter offered no reason but leaves the question open as to why this is happening. It could be for any number of reasons. Perhaps DCD offer the best employment conditions so interpreters prefer to work for them. Perhaps the interpreters prefer to work for  DCD because they find the NABS paperwork onerous. It is possible that they have a condition of employment with DCD that prohibits them working for other agencies. These reasons are purely speculative but one thing is clear – around Australia interpreters freely register with NABS but not in South Australia. It would seem DCD have a virtual monopoly on interpreter bookings in South Australia.

In response to the Deaf Australia letter DCD clarified the NABS issue in their publication, Deaf Notes. DCD state that they had written to NABS on the 9th June agreeing to waive all monies that are allegedly owed to DCD by NABS IF NABS 1)formally agree not to compete against Deaf Can Do Interpreting Services in South Australia; 2) refer all enquiries for non-medical bookings to Deaf Can Do; and 3) agrees to work with Deaf Can Do to eliminate the practice of freelance or casual interpreters ‘job shopping’ (i.e. cancelling on existing bookings to take a higher paid booking when one is offered).(Source: Deaf Can Do, Deaf Notes, Winter 2009)

DCD are saying to NABS that if anyone wants an interpreter for a job that is not a private medical appointment then they must refer them to DCD. Is this fair? Could it be seen as anti-competitive? One could argue that having to book interpreters through only one agency is limiting choice for the Deaf community. It could also be argued that by insisting that all non private medical interpreting jobs are referred to DCD it is akin to creating an interpreting monopoly. There are pros and cons of interpreter monopolies. First let us discuss the pros.

If all interpreting is booked at one agency it is easy for Deaf people to know where to book interpreters. It means that they know that the interpreter who they would prefer is at the agency. This would make it easier for them to obtain their preferred interpreter. Having interpreters based in one organisation also means it is easier to support them and ensure that they get the right training. Maintaining ethics and standards for interpreters could be easier having them based at one organisation.

Along with the pros there are a number of cons. Having all interpreting based at one agency means that agency can dictate the cost. With no competition the agency with the monopoly can charge as high as is legally allowable. If there are other agencies competing it means that prices have to remain competitive which can mean more access for Deaf people as it can make interpreting more affordable.

Another con of having only one agency is that it can also mean that quality and service become sloppy. One thing that competition does is keep a business on its toes. To ensure they retain business they present more professional and quality services. Without competition it is easy to become complacent and allow standards to drop. For interpreters it could mean they receive lower salaries. Why? Because if there is only one agency, that agency can dictate what interpreters are paid. Whereas if there is another agency it is likely to lead to the offering of competitive salary rates and this is an added incentive for interpreters to remain in the trade.

It is possible that DCD, as any business would do, are trying to protect their income source. They have asked NABS to formally agree not to set up a business in competition with them. Whether this is a good thing or not is debatable. Let’s look at Victoria as an example. In Victoria the Deaf community have a choice of agencies that they can choose from to book their interpreters. The agencies offer competitive rates and this is a good thing for the Deaf community. Indeed the agencies often work together referring jobs to each other when they cannot meet a booking. Interpreters are free to register with whatever agency they please including with NABS. The Victorian model ensures service to Deaf people is of the highest quality simply because if it is not consumers will do their business through a competing agency. Perhaps DCD should investigate the system in Victoria. It is an effective and efficient system.

DCD have asked NABS to assist them in eliminating what they call Job Shopping. This is where interpreters have accepted a job and later cancelled it because a higher paid job was offered. This is frustrating for the Deaf person who misses out on the booking. However, there are other issues that need to be considered. Job Shopping is seen as unethical and it often is. However, it is not a simple issue.

Interpreting is often seasonal. Most interpreters will tell you that school holidays and university holidays are periods when their income is very low. During this time many interpreters struggle to make ends meet. Sometimes they are in a situation where they must accept the higher paid jobs just so that they can pay their bills. Interpreters are largely self employed and are employed very much depending on the market at any given time.

In all of this it is important to remember that Deaf people and interpreters have rights. Deaf people should have the right to chose where and who they book their interpreters with. Interpreters should have the right to chose how they  want to be employed, whether it is self employed, with one agency or with several. This should not be dictated by others. In the coming weeks there is to be a public meeting in South Australia to discuss the interpreter booking issues. We hope that by presenting this information it will help open and honest discussions. More importantly we hope it assists in some way to resolve the dispute between DCD and NABS with constructive input from Deaf people and the interpreter fraternity.

I rarely write for The Rebuttal, preferring the comfy surrounds of my own blog. But, I just had to do another post, a short one, because of the “public” reaction to The Chaser’s recent program that contained a skit satirising Make-A-Wish Foundation. I understand that terminally ill children is a sensitive topic, but this skit is actually quite funny.

Why did I find it funny?

From the first frame, I instinctively understood exactly what they were doing. It recalled the “Shock! Mock Horror! Over Their Heads It Goes…..” shenanigans of Garys’ post From the Slums of Mumbaih (Bombay), where rather than actually talk about the points raised, some people took offence [a fence?] and staked out a defensive position, crying out, “Poor taste!”

Many of the respondents criticising the show, could not see past the images of sick children. Just like Deaf organisations that cannot conduct a fundraising campaign without dredging up hoary images of victims. And if you think about it, they use, CHILDREN! They don’t use words like POOR, CANNOT HEAR, HELP!

Which is exactly the point The Chaser team were making, but their detractors, pretending to be open minded, started gnashign teeth, openly weeping and wepping, and threatening to never again, watch a show, they never watch!

We need to invite the Chaser team to satirise other charities. 

“Sniff! Sniff! Woolies has run out of tissues!”

“Sniffle!” How are they ever gunna hear again? Sniffle!”

“Sniff! Sniff! How am I gunna dry these tears? Oh those poor Deaf children! WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!”

“They have the right to beg for us! Huff! Huff! Woof! Woof!”

As far as I’m concerned, The Chaser team got it right. Their critics can go suck on a cold one!

Further Reading:

• The Chaser angers TV viewers with Make A Wish sick joke
• Make-A-Wish Foundation fury at Chaser sick children TV skit
• Chaser censored for joke about terminally ill kids
• ’They’re going to die anyway’: calls for Chaser to be axed over ’callous’ skit
• Chaser taken off air for two weeks, group apologises
• The Chaser sketch they wish they had not made
• The Chaser’s War On Everything
• The Chaser
• The Chaser [Website]

Gary’s article Taking Control, has inspired some very articulate feedback. I decided to put my comments up as a post, rather than in the comments thread, because one comment in particular, by Andrew Stewart, of Deafness Forum, struck a chord with me. 

I am fed up with all these people who want to be consulted, yet they are not even members of the organisations that are fighting for them!

If people want an increase in the captioning in cinemas or theatre, what have THEY done about it!

Are they members of the organisations trying to achieve change? Have they sent an email – yes, just one tiny email – to their organisation saying that they would like to be consulted.

If the answer to either of these questions is no, then can these people please go away, and find somewhere else to throw a tantrum about. If they are not prepared to even communicate directly with, and support the organisations doing the fighting, then they don’t have the right to be listened to!!!

My outrage at these people is partly due to my years of fighting for hearing impaired and Deaf people in other areas, and being so fed up with all the armchair generals that won’t get in and help me in the fight!!!

I would like to say more, but I have more work to do to fight for people such as these whingers…

I understand the points that Andrew makes. I have worked as part of a Deaf organisation, I have felt that same frustration and bore the brunt of armchair critics. I have been [and am] a client/ customer/ member of a Deaf organisation, and found that my voice fell on Deaf ears! I am now, an arm chair critic. A very proud one, and I take issue with generalisations such as this.

When a group forms with the express purpose of carrying out a specific objective, and publicly make a statement that they are fighting for a cause, or that they represent a group of people, then that organisation has a responsibility to reflect the wishes of the people they have chosen to represent. By claiming representation, it is open to both praise and criticism. It cannot, claim representation, then make demands of the people it has chosen to represent, by distancing itself from any criticism or claiming sole credibility for success. Or more pertinently, remaining silent in the face of adverse

What organisations tend to forget, but their PR/ Marketing gurus would have you believe otherwise, is that they are judged by their actions. They are judged by their behaviour. They are judged on the disparity between their stated objectives and the actual outcomes. Organisations are judged by the quality and the attitudes of the people who run them. This applies equally to the funded, such as charities and welfare, and the different volunteer groups that congregate inspite of little or no funding.

I quite agree, that it would be nice if the “armchair critics” would get off their arses and actually contribute to the work of the organisation. More participants means more work done. More participants means more things achieved. But that’s not gunna happen. There’s always gunna be more armchair critics than people who get off their arses. But the point still remains, the organisation has made a public declaration of representation. As such, it has to abide by that declaration. Inspite of the “armchair critics”. Too often, an organisation behaves in a manner that is different to their stated objective. Gary’s article, From the Slums of Mumbaih (Bombay), illustrates this divide between rhetoric and action.

The problem with comments such as Andrew’s, is that it does not endear the organisation to its detractors. Indeed, it does not endear the organisation to possible membership. One could easily retort, “Well, we didn’t ask you to represent us!” But credit, where credit is due. Without people actually getting up off their arses and working for change, we would never see change. And here is me thinking, “Why can’t they simply say, ’But we can’t do it all, we need your help’?” That would be a much more credible response than the assertion to be heard, you need to join this group or organisation.

The question they should be asking is, “What is it that we are doing wrong that is causing people to turn away from us, to criticise us?” The action they should be taking is an inward one. They should be conducting a navel gazing exercise to work out how to attract more, self appraisal that leads to positive change.

There is a further problem with the concept of armchair critics. It is assumed that armchair critics are just that. It is automatically assumed that those who are all too ready to criticise, are not too ready to volunteer or to lend a hand. Sure, there are those whose modus operandi is to exercise their right to express their opinion, and nothing else. But what about those armchair critics who actually do know what they are talking about? What about those who have become armchair critics, because the organisations they have worked for or volunteered with, has chewed them up and spat them out?

Then again, why the assumption that “armchair critics” do nothing but complain? Do not people realise that the armchair critics may actually know something? May actually have some experience, in life? Do people not know that armchair critics could actually be engaged in things unknown to the groups and organisations.

As enjoyable as people are, and as lofty as their ideals may be, working in groups can be akin to shovelling shit. But I digress.

It has been years since I was actively involved in a Deaf organisation, 14, thereabouts, and I am in no particular hurry to rejoin. Nor am I salivating at the prospect. Except as a member, but I find myself questioning the value of my current membership to the Deaf organisation I currently belong to. I have been a member going onto me third year. I took the plunge and signed up as a member. The question now for me is, “For what?” My original intention, was to receive regular communication about what is happening in the Deaf community, events, sub committees, and so on.

I understand that the group is run by volunteers, with only so much time and resources that they can access. Nevertheless, my expectations of communication and regular are not being met. Recalling the last group I unsubscribed to, where I resigned from committee work, but kept my membership. But the communication was woeful, which put paid to my membership to that group [and sadly, many others]. How can an organisation expect involvement from people if they are not actively engaging with their members? I’m not saying it’s all bad, there’s a lot of good things happening. But equally, there’s a lot more, and anecdotal evidence points to nothing is being shared!

Dean Barton Smith is quite correct when he says:

Organisations need to really sell their membership benefits in order to attract and recruit new members. It is more than just getting a newsletter. It entails active engagement, feeling important and valued and having the means to contribute without fear or favour and more importantly for the organisation to REALLY know their members and capitalise their knowledge, skills and expertise.

That is the crux of the matter for me.

I have one lingering memory, of my time on the different committees that I have been a member of. The membership is all. That is, if you are a member, you are kept in the loop, if you are not a member, you are damned! I remember the work we did for the members, but not much time, if any, was spent on recruiting, team building or paying attention to those important things that make groups work. Groups and organisations tend to cater for everybody except for those that live in Whoop, Whoop and Timbuktoo!

You know, there is a wealth of knowledge and experience out there that is being wasted. Equally, there is a wealth of experience and knowledge that is not being shared by organisations. When one is working on a committee, project or working towards some objective, it is easy to get caught up in the work at hand and lose perspective. To lose sight of the very people that an organisation purports to represent and work for. That you can be guilty of the same things, that your armchair critics are accused of.

I could write about so much more, but perhaps I will leave the last word to Gary, who responded to Andrew:

I take the view that whether they are members or not we have to do our very best to represent as many people as possible.

Its so easy to say JOIN and you will be heard. This is poppy cock – Why should they have to join anyway. Most of these organisations are funded by the government to represent ALL not just the ones that pay their membership.

Who do you join anyway? there is such competition for the membership dollar that you could literally spend over a thousand dollars joining all the different causes that say they will fight for you.

And then they often waste time saying one is useless the other is better. They spend so much time squabbling one could not be blamed for deciding to spend their hard earned money elsewhere.

Certainly I understand it is hard to reach everyone. I just done think we are creative enough or serious enough about the task at hand of consulting. Too often a group of four to five people create the spin and the argument and because they are the people that are paid or volunteering for the task think well that they can do that regardless as to what others might think.. I am sorry .. No! … Its about the people and we have to make more effort to reach them.

Note:

This article was cross posted at Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don’t!