The Rebuttal

This article is in response to several pieces that have appeared in The Rebuttal regarding the leadership of deaf charities. I can empathise with those who think that CEOs of charities are paid too much but would like the opportunity to tell the story from the other side of the fence. I am a Deaf CEO of a medium sized charity in the UK providing support to deaf people. If my salary were converted to Aussie dollars it would not reach six figures, but to justify what I earn, however much it is, I need to show the Board that I can:

· Sustain and increase the value of contracts secured

· Sustain and increase the amount of unrestricted income (fundraising and non-project funds)

· Ensuring that all staff perform their jobs efficiently

· Ensuring that all policies, operating regulations and quality marks are complied with

· Ensuring that all insurance requirements are complied with

· Ensuring all funder requirements are complied with

· Ensuring the overall efficiency of the organisation

· Developing and managing the annual budget and ensuring spending is in line with annual requirements

· Develop business and strategic plans for the organisation

· Grab opportunities that come your way

· Lead the organisation forward – staff and the Board

· Develop and sustain excellent relationships with all stakeholders

· Solving problems on the fly however large or small

· Ensuring your knowledge of issues directly and indirectly affecting your organisation is thorough and up to date (i.e. charity and company law, deafness, HR, the economy, government strategies etc)

· Communicate with all stakeholders including government representatives

· Ability to recruit the right people

The list goes on. A successful CEO must have all these attributes and more – to be blunt it is a demanding job and the incumbent needs to be a highly skilled individual. A poor CEO or one who does not have most of these attributes will surely fail. It is no easy task keeping a charity going – what is stopping funders from pulling out and awarding contracts to someone else? The CEO needs to be on his/her toes at all times and must not allow the charity to stagnate.

The past 3 years have been very draining for me personally but I am proud of my achievements – at the end of the next financial year, if all goes well, my charity will have doubled its income in only 4 years plus paying off a £250,000 overall deficit. It is extremely satisfying to see the organisation where it is today and I have plans for the future. If the charity tripled its income I would expect my salary to triple – this is a no-brainer – after all it was me who made this happen. But as a good employer I would ensure that high performance staff received some sort of reward – perhaps a promotion or a pay rise. But there are limits to what I can do. Some staff may do well but may not have the attributes to climb the corporate ladder and this is a quality I can easily identify in my workers. But everyone needs to be treated fairly and some sort of appraisal framework must be in place to ensure fairness and to prevent a staff member raising a grievance or a complaint.

Every cause has an effect and whatever you do, someone else is bound to get hurt. So if my charity triples its income other organisations are going to miss out somewhere along the line. There is only a finite amount of funds in the collective kitty for deaf services and an infinite number of organisation clamouring for a piece of the action. Someone’s gain is someone else’s loss.

Now onto the issue of charities taking over other charities. All I can say that those that “lost” had themselves to blame and it hurts to say this. If the charities that were taken over had been stronger, these “takeovers” probably would never have happened. The number one concern with every charity is money and objectives/principles come second. You need money to run a business (charities are businesses, actually) and principles alone won’t run the business, unless you are prepared to rely wholly on volunteers. So some compromises need to be made. Some charities are very clever with these compromises and some are not.

If a charity allows these compromises to favour business operations then another question needs to be asked – could the charity survive if compromises were made with regard to business operations? If not then the charity as a whole must be flawed and it could possibly find itself in a greatly weakened position.

Les Twentyman is an Australian. He is a youth worker that advocates hard for homeless youth. He knows about charity so when he comments people listen. Twentyman most recently made some disparaging comments about CEOs that work for charities. Many he said are overpaid. Says Twentyman, “.. “Money is being shovelled out the wrong end.” Among other things Twentyman has called on Governments to look at the books of charities and withdraw funding for charities who are paying their CEOs over $150 000 a year.  http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/charity-bosses-overpaid-youth-worker-20090126-7pup.html

Twentyman is a controversial figure. He points out that working in a community services organisation is not, “…. a career path for making lots of money.”  Having worked in the community sector for two decades I can testify to that. I can also testify that the workers that do the SERVICE work of the organisation, those that deal with the issues at ground level, are the lowest paid by the proverbial mile. Last year I spoke with a deaf worker that worked in the employment sector finding jobs for Deaf and hard of hearing people. I was shocked that last year was the first time they had earned over   $40 000 a year. The person had been working in the sector for over five years.

More recently a well known charity advertised for a Deputy CEO.  Rumours around the traps, that I can not confirm, are that the deputy CEO salary was in the range of $150 000 per year. If true one wonders what the organisation must be paying the CEO. It’s kind of obscene when workers at the grass roots are still being paid, in some cases, just over $40 000 to do the key work that an organisation was established for in the first place. More offensively it is this work that the organisations promote to get money from the gullible public only for the bulk of it to be paid to overpaid executives.

Some years ago I received the newsletter of an organisation. The newsletter, to save money, was printed on scrap paper. I came home from work one day to a rather bemused wife. She asked me if I had read the newsletter to which I replied I had not. She showed it to me and I was horrified to see on the back of one page there was a letter to  a successful applicant for a fundraising position. The newsletter had been printed on scrap paper and some careless worker, probably the CEO, had failed to dispose of this confidential letter. Somehow, I do not know how, this letter became part of the newsletter. Unchecked the newsletter went out to the members. Of course before it went out it should have been vetted, probably by the CEO, to ensure all was above board. But such a high paid worker couldn’t bother themselves with such a mundane task.

So what happened was the organisation members that received the newsletter read about an employment offer to the new fundraising manager. We saw the mans name, his address and also his salary range. The fundraising managers salary was a six figure salary. Again an obscene amount when grassroots workers of an organisation get paid a pittance. It was quite comical to witness the organisation frantically contacting members to ask them to send the newsletter back. Amazingly the CEO refused to accept blame, instead shifting blame to the workers that had assembled the newsletter.

Les Twentyman is not far off the mark. Our charity organisations, including those in the Deaf sector are top heavy in management. These managers receive very healthy salaries while the nuts and bolts workers get paid next to nothing. These organisations promote the great work of these nuts and bolts workers in an effort to get the public to donate money to the organisation. But where does the bulk of this money go? If  Les Twentyman is to be believed,  if the salary of the deputy CEO at $150 000 a year is correct and the fact that the aforementioned fundraising manager was on a six figure salary – it is clear that the bulk of fundraising money that should be directed to services is being gobbled by management. It’s obscene and we the public and receivers of the service should hold these people accountable.

From Sean Kidney, National Relay Service Outreach

The Rebuttal thanks Sean for his response. We felt it was important that it be seen by as many people as possible. Hence we have made Sean’s response into an official post.

I came across your post recently. Reasonable concerns, but I think I need to correct a few misconceptions …

1. First, NRS usage – relay service usage is actually pretty stable. There was small drop in usage in 2005-06, but since then overall numbers have climbed a little. While it’s probably right that lots of people now use SMS, email and MSN rather than the NRS, this seems to have been balanced by more people using the NRS to contact services that aren’t easily accessible through these newer technologies.

2. There has been a change in types of NRS usage, basically as a result of the launch of internet relay some 18 months ago. Over 20% of NRS calls have now shifted to the internet, and the numbers keep growing. This suggests that lots of people would rather use PCs than TTYs for calls. The other growth has been with people using “Speak and Read” – those who speak their side of a call and who read the response on their TTY. The growth in this group reflects increased usage among older people with an acquired hearing impairment, a high-need group that has in the past not known much about the NRS. They are often people (mainly due to their age) who have never learnt to type or don’t want to, so being able to speak into the handset (only available via an NRS call) is a real plus for them.

3. Your key point was about what the NRS has been saying about TTYs. The NRS has indeed been telling some organisations to consider using the NRS rather than TTYs – that’s because we have found in surveying businesses and government agencies over the past two years that many are not offering a functional TTY service. The TTY is either disconnected, or it is not answered, or there are no staff specially trained to take calls on the TTY. On top of that, the TTY is usually located in a contact centre or reception area and the person answering it can’t provide the info being requested, or the service required. For example, someone rings a bank call centre wanting to enquire about a loan, but the loans department doesn’t have a TTY, just the main contact centre. So the TTY caller can’t get the info required via a TTY. Businesses and agencies may advertise a TTY line – but in most cases it is not functioning in an adequate manner with a commitment to staff, train and respond to it adequately.

We’re not advising businesses abandon their TTYs, where this is a genuine and functioning TTY service. However, where it isn’t (which is most of the time), we’re suggesting that the businesses take their responsibility to the Deaf/hearing-impaired/speech-impaired community seriously and ensure they’re resourced and skilled to be able to provide their services via the NRS. We’re not trying to reduce accessibility to services, but rather trying to ensure that what accessibility IS being offered is genuine, functioning, efficient and meeting legal obligations. Ensuring that organisations are “NRS-friendly” improves customer access for members of the Deaf community – both those who depend on TTYs and the growing number of internet relay users.

4. The aim at the National Relay Service is to maximise access to telephone communications for the three groups specified in the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Services) Act – people who are Deaf, people with an acquired hearing impairment (there are some 400,000 of these in Australia), and people with a speech impairment.

There may well come a time when the NRS is not needed; that would be wonderful, because it would mean better options have been developed.

But, in the meantime, although people use SMS and MSN for communication with others who are Deaf, the NRS is pretty useful for talking to people who aren’t Deaf and who don’t use SMS – that’s most services, doctors, potential employers and even Thai takeways (at least until you negotiate for them to accept your SMS orders).

And by the way, you can use MSN to make a relay call to any of these services from a PC or a mobile.

Cheers,

Sean Kidney
National Relay Service Outreach

Certain things in this world are like a red rag to a bull. The mere mention of them is bound to get people going.  It might be animal cruelty, it might be the reasons behind the global credit crunch or something as mundane as to why a persons football team is performing like the local paddock hacks. For Deaf and hard of hearing people a sure fire way to get them going is to talk about cochlear implants or to belittle sign language.

The Rebuttal comments on many things. Our own favourite red rag is the lack of opportunities provided for deaf people by our Deaf Sector organisations to run these organisations. We have hammered home this arguments like a dog with a bone and probably will continue to do so. There is a lot of arrogance among hearing and some deaf people that work within the Deaf Sector towards people who are Deaf and hard of hearing. When challenged they will come up with some of the most amazing counter arguments.

Like recently when challenged for their lack of consultation they claimed that collectively they had 555 years of experience of both hearing and deaf staff. Thus implying that they knew enough to comment on behalf of Deaf and hard of hearing people. That they had left out important points in their submission to the government that they might not have if they had consulted properly did not matter. As The Rebuttal said in its PDF edition 555 years of experience as opposed to probably millions of years experience of thousands of  Deaf and hard of hearing people around Australia does not amount to much. Or, as we said, 555 years equates to being a fossil and indeed many within the sector are.

The Rebuttal has been blown away by the response to the article on the Cochlear Implant, Cochlear Revolution. What started as an innocent article to highlight an increasing trend brought out a myriad of emotions and responses amongst our readers. There were those that jumped on the band wagon proclaiming the wonders of the Cochlear Implant. There were those that reminded us that Deafness is a state of being and that the error of advocates for the Cochlear Implant is that they focus on deficits something many Deaf people do not feel they have. There were those that reminded us that by advocating Cochlear Implants in children and using adults as an example was to fuel false hope among parents looking for answers. And there were those that reminded us that whatever the issue communication was the key – not mode nor method. All valid arguments and all articulated with passion and intelligence that is inspiring.

More recently we wrote several articles about television advertisements from the Cora Barclay Centre in Adelaide. These ads, deliberately or otherwise, belittled sign language. They implied that spoken language was far superior to sign language and that it was the pinnacle of communication. Worse they used a young boy as an example. The boy signed poorly, obviously coached by someone that had little grasp of sign language, and then broke out into lovely speech with an affectionate lisp that announced that speech was a better way!

The outcry was enormous. responses were received from various parts of the globe. Nearly all of them Deaf. The message was simple, how dare they! Again the message was argued with passion and intellect. Among the outcry was a little voice that said, “Hey you criticised my old school and it is a good school and I speak great” or words to that effect. The writer was brave to make his voice heard among these predominantly angry Deaf community members and we admire him for that. For sometimes it is the little voice that is loudest and makes change. Not in this case, but the writer was brave nonetheless.

So thank you to all the people that respond and do so with so much passion. It makes producing The Rebuttal that much more worthwhile. Open and informed debate is essential in our society. Most importantly the responses to The Rebuttal articles  show the depth of talent and intellect among Deaf and hard of hearing people in our society.  Yes there were some hearing people that responded and their arguments are equally valid but the majority that respond are Deaf or hard of hearing. Now wouldn’t it be great if our Deaf sector organisations could recognise this and allow us Deaf and hard of hearing people to take control of  our lives and these organisations … Now that would make me happy!

One comical day in July last year I was referred for a Cochlear Implant. My middle son had a routine check up with the Ear Nose and Throat Department at the Hospital. There were some concerns that he was suffering from a conductive loss of hearing. He received a clean bill of health. However, before signing him off, the doctor felt the need to consult with his boss. His boss, the head ENT surgeon, took a quick look and declared herself to be satisfied. The conversation that followed went something like this. “Are you the father?” I replied that I was. “Are you deaf” I replied in the affirmative. “But you speak beautifully.” I thanked her and in an effort to refocus her on my son jokingly stated that he was responsible for my fine speech. She was not to be distracted. “Have you heard of cochlear implants?” Again I replied in the affirmative. “You could benefit from one. I will refer you to the Ear, Nose and Eye Hospital.” She left the room, came back a few minutes later and told me the deed had been done. A week later we received my son’s ENT report and there at the bottom of the report it confirmed that I had been referred for a Cochlear Implant.
Since July I have not heard from the clinic. I have to confess that the referral left me in a bit of a quandary. After first laughing off the way the referral was made I have found myself seriously contemplating whether I should have a Cochlear Implant. I live in the country where sign language interpreters are expensive and hard to come by. I was born hearing, losing my hearing around the age of 10. This makes me a prime candidate for the implant owing to the fact that I have a memory of sound. I have three hearing children who prefer speech over signing. They try very hard to sign but are not yet fluent. I miss music. Deaf friends are hundreds of kilometres away. An Implant could help me socially. The list of reasons to have one continues to grow.
It is not just me. There is, in fact, a bit of a revolution going on. More and more individuals who are considered active members of the Deaf community are beginning to consider Cochlear Implants. Several in recent years have gone through with the Implant and have been pleasantly surprised with the benefits that the implant has provided them.
Adrian Doyle has been Deaf since birth. Adrian is well into his thirties and has been an active member of the Deaf community for all of his life and has other members of his family who are also Deaf. Adrian wore hearing aids pretty much from birth and enjoyed the benefit that the aids provided him. In Adrian’s words “ …sounds like a car zooming by, doorbell, dog barking, door closing, one to one conversation within limited range, telephone ringing ….” , all these sounds were part of his everyday life.
At age 25 Adrian’s hearing declined rapidly to the point that he no longer could hear any of these sounds with his hearing aid. Adrian went through a process of researching the benefits of the Cochlear Implant and decided after some intensive research to go through with the surgery. He professes that he was very sceptical about the benefits that he would get from the Cochlear Implant. However, he felt that as he could no longer get benefits from hearing aids there was no harm in trying.
Adrian has been very surprised at the benefits he has received from his Implant. He has no regrets and enjoys the benefits of access to sound. He has also found communicating with hearing peers much easier. Despite his initial scepticism he is rapt with the outcome.
Peter Miller, 47, is another who has recently had a Cochlear Implant. Peter has worked in fibre optics with Telstra for a number of years. Peter has a deaf brother and learned to sign relatively late in life. He has strong oral skills and participates in many Deaf community events. Most recently he chaired the awards committee for the Australian Sign Language Interpreters Association annual awards night in Victoria.
Peter decided to go through with the Cochlear Implant because in his words. “I wanted to improve my opportunities to advance my career. No matter how much interpreting I received I needed to communicate with my work colleagues all of the time.”
At Telstra Peter has an empathetic employer. When needed Telstra are always more than willing to provide for his interpreting needs. But for Peter this was not enough. He needed to be able to communicate fluently and at will with his colleagues. Peter was only recently switched on in January of 2009. He said being switched on was “.. a weird feeling.” But he is enjoying discovering a myriad of, “.. weird and wonderful sounds.”
Gayle, (not her real name), has been an active member of the Deaf community since her teens. She lost her hearing at six years of age. Now into her forties she, like me, also has a memory of sound. Gayle is a staunch Deaf community advocate. She has been quite vocal at times about the implanting of children.
After three decades of working and living in the Deaf community Gayle was at the cross roads. Socially the Deaf community was meeting her needs. However, she found that by limiting herself to only the Deaf community she was having difficulty establishing meaningful relationships with the opposite sex. She also had hearing children. Dealing with the school, communicating with the children, their friends and their parents was becoming increasingly stressful.
For Gayle considering a Cochlear Implant was a confronting thing. After some soul searching she decided to have an Implant. She has been surprised at the benefits she has received. She had thought background noise would be an issue but it has proven to be less a problem than she had feared. She is finding numerous benefits from her Cochlear Implant particularly when communicating with hearing people outside the Deaf community. Says Gayle, “ It is still early days but the implant, in the short time I have had it, has opened doors to me I thought were otherwise closed.”
These stories are a far cry from the early emotional days of the Cochlear Implants where headlines screamed that Cochlear Implants in children were child abuse. They are a far cry from the days when Deaf community militants decried the implant as the death of the Deaf community. Like Mark Twain’s death, this would appear to be an exaggeration. Many young people with Cochlear Implants become active members of the Deaf community. Perhaps The Deaf community have matured and mellowed. One thing is for sure, like it or loath it, we are likely to see more deaf people who are active members of the Deaf community have an implant in a similar vain to Adrian, Peter and Gayle. Is it the way of the future?

Deaf adults in Australia from the Seventies, Eighties and the beginning of the nineties will remember what a nightmare it was trying to access telecommunications. I vividly recall stressing out as late as 1994 as Coordinator of an employment project because I could not do my job properly. I had to place people into employment which required that I be able to have quick and ready access to the phone. In Australia, at that time, we still did not have a TTY Relay Service. It was stressful, manic and insane. I bluffed my way through for near on two years. This was before email, before SMS. To say that it was difficult is to put things mildly. Looking back I think I was close to a break down from all the stress.

Back then Deaf and hearing impaired people were very much constrained to mundane and repetitive work. If you worked outside of trades and wanted to work in white collar work you were pretty much constrained to office work – doing data entry or mundane clerical tasks. I know of a Deaf man in Adelaide who worked for the Commonwealth Public Service for well over 50 years and never got beyond third level clerical officer. He was a brilliant man with fabulous language skills in Auslan and English but his opportunities were forever hampered because of his inability to access the phone.

Australia has always been behind comparable Western countries when it comes to technology, even more so with telecommunications. In 1995 we got access to the National Relay Service and the late Nineties saw the explosion of text based communication through email, SMS and instant messenger. With the introduction of the Relay Service and the rapid expansion of text based communication came more employment and social opportunities for Deaf and hearing impaired Australians. No matter that comparable countries had had this access for many years, better late than never.

With the Relay Service and text communication Deaf and hearing impaired people have begun to grasp greater opportunities. No longer are they confined to desk jobs. They can now deal with the public – they can phone out and receive calls or send and receive messages. Schools that cater for the deaf in Australia have been slow to grasp just how technology now impacts on the lives of Deaf and hearing impaired people. Using the Relay service, SMS and email are skills that need to be developed. Unfortunately it is only now schools are beginning to realise this. Sadly, just six weeks ago, I met a hearing impaired female that did not know anything of the text based technology that would allow her to be so independent. She was amazed, schools have a lot to answer for.

Technology has got to the point now that Deaf and hearing impaired people rarely use a TTY unless they really have to. They use MSN, SMS and email. Less and less they use the Relay Service. Apparently this has spooked some people at the Relay Service to the point that they have allegedly told some community organisations not to publicise their TTY numbers if they have them. The story going around the traps is that the Relay Service is encouraging organisations to only publicise the Relay Service Number and do away with their TTYs. Thus ensuring the only way Deaf and hearing impaired people can call these organisations is through the Relay Service.

If true, this is alarming. The Relay Service is a valuable service, many Deaf and hearing impaired people are still heavily reliant on the Relay Service. It is equally true that  many, because of SMS, email and MSN have managed to avoid using the Relay Service unless they really must. I am sure this has led to a rapid reduction in the demand for the Relay Service. I am only speculating here but it would not surprise me if the reduced demand has spooked the Relay Service to the point where they have begun to panic slightly. This may explain why they are trying why to have community based organisations and businesses to publish the Relay Service number rather than their independent TTY numbers where they are available.

The day that Deaf and hearing impaired people can do away with the Relay Service can not come soon enough. Sure it is needed now but it is a slow and cumbersome service. I don’t know anyone that likes it. Nowadays it is used mostly as a last resort when email, SMS and MSN can not do the job. The third person, the GA and the SK are frankly a pain in the butt. Community organisations increasingly use instant messenger as a means of communicating online. Telstra has an online text based service for example. The more organisations that introduce this sort of technology the better. Through my work, for example, colleagues have installed MSN so that I can communicate with them in real time. Its free and effective.

It should not be forgotten that there are still a significant number of Deaf people with literacy issues for whom text based communication will always be a problem. These individuals require Video Relay Interpreting or a Video Interpreting Service. This is likely to become a become a reality if Rudd gets Superfast Broadband introduced as he promised.

They day will come in the not too distant future where the text based Relay Service will be obsolete. One wonders if the Government should actually be planning now to get rid of the Relay Service. Would it not be easier to spend money introducing Online text based systems where Deaf and hearing impaired people can communicate directly with people and organisations. It is cheap and easy to maintain the only issue that needs to be considered and resolved is the one of  Online security. Just imagine instant and independent communication, free of a third person, any time anywhere. Will we be saying goodbye to the Relay Service soon? … One can only hope so. The day of complete independent telecommunications for Deaf and hearing impaired people could be closer than we think.

Deaf Children Australia is a reasonably rich deafness organisation that was set up in the 19th century by a Deaf man, Frederick John Rose. Originally this organisation was set up as a school for the deaf and later expanded to become a service  provider. Over a hundred years later the organisation still exists. Its purpose, at the moment, seems to be to swallow up every deaf services organisation in Australia. The Australian Deaf community have a great deal of cynicism regarding the motives of the organisation. The question on every one’s lips or hands is, “What will they or HE do next?”

The people that run Deaf Children Australia and their partners believe that Australia needs a national deaf services organisation. Currently Deaf Children Australia has a partnerships with two other Australian deaf services organisations. They work in partnership, seemingly sharing resources, administration, governance, business, financial services and blah blah. They remain separate companies but have one CEO – the CEO signature on emails reads CEO – Deaf Children Australia, Deaf Services Queensland and Western Australian Deaf Society, rather like a roll call of honour that cries POWER!  This POWER in the hands of one person is what worries so many in the Australian Deaf community and deaf services sector.

The cynics, of which I am one, believe that the motive behind the expansion of Deaf Children Australia is one of ambition rather than a desire to develop a stronger deafness sector. The cynics believe the issue is one of control rather than one of efficiencies. The cynics believe that Deaf Children Australia are spreading its considerable resources too thinly in the name of control and power. The traditionalist want a return to community links and services instead of grandiose business ideas.

The cynics believe that the term partnership is nothing more than a front. It’s a nice term that leads people to believe that everyone is working together with shared visions, equal input and equal power. This is nonsense because part of the reason that the partnerships were set up was because the partnership organisations were in such a dire financial situation that they needed DCA money to get them out of trouble. The cynics believe, nay they know, that the POWER lies with the one who has the money, which is Deaf Children Australia.

In the interest of fairness it is necessary to list the “For Arguments”. In a perfect world  we would have one Australia wide deafness service. It would have one management structure servicing all the state based branches. It would have one brand which will increase fundraising. State government’s would recognise it and fund it accordingly. Funds would be distributed evenly so that all states had equal service. Streamlined management would lead to funds being alloocated for better services in regional and rural areas.  These are the FOR arguments. BUT – are they realistic?

Having been in the disability sector in Australia for 20 years I honestly do not believe they are. Australia funds its service organisations very much on a state basis. South Australia funds very differently to Victoria as does Western Australia. Queensland is a different kettle of fish again. The reality is there are huge discrepancies in state funding. The partnership model does not address these discrepancies. As such, unless Deaf Children Australia are prepared to top up funding to ensure equity accross the states nothing much will change. What is more, it means that money that is for Deaf Children Australia’s core business – children – is being directed away from that core business.

The aim of Deaf Children Australia is, in the future, that the partner organisations become one Deaf Services Australia. If, right now, Deaf Services Australia existed as a one organisation it would have to deal with the huge discrepancies of funding from the states. Presumably a Deaf Services Australia would distribute any fundraising moneys equally so funding was equitable – not equal equitable! How they would work this out is anyone’s guess.

It is argued that a one brand will help with fundraising. Quite how is not clear. Theoretically it could but the reality is that deafness has always been the poor cousin when it comes to donations. The public give to visible and well known charities like the Salvos, RSPCA and the Blind. One brand will not change the public perception. Deafness will still be the poor cousin. It is questionable whether the money and resources spent on Developing a Deaf Services Australia will make much dent into the public fundraising psyche. In theory it sounds good but there is no evidence to show that the one brand will increase fundraising to deafness in anyway. The probabilities are that it will not. Some huge losses have been made in recent fundraising initiatives in the deafness area and with the current Credit Crunch fundraising is unlikely to improve in any great way.

Deaf Children Australia talk of a shared services model that will be marketed under the one banner of Deaf Services Australia. Presumable they feel it will improve services nationally, increase fundraising dollars and lead to better services all round. Quite how this will occur has not been fully explained. The model is flawed because it fails to take into account state politics and funding. The model has an unrealistic view that the one brand will somehow make a huge difference to fundraising. This authors view is that it wont and in the haste to TAKE OVER Australia blind ambition has gotten in the way of rational argument.

In the meantime, while thousands of dollars are spent trying to set up the model and while boards and management spend countless hours flying around Australia and staying in Hotels at great expense the dedicated services staff of Deaf Children Australia try to maintain services while the focus is elsewhere. It is a  sacrilege that thousands of dollars are being spent on what will most likely make very little difference. What Deaf Children Australia could do is to service Victorian deaf children well with its considerable wealth. Instead it has chosen to spread itself thinly around Australia in what the cynics see as a mindless power grab. Will it improve services in anyway? This cynic thinks not. For the sake of our deafness sector one can only hope that the plan succeeds because the heritage that great Deaf pioneers like FJ Rose established is in real danger of being lost.

It is official. Deaf people mean nothing to Channel 9 or even Australia. We are inconsequental, know nothing morons who sit in the dark and gibber.

People who are deaf, according to Channel 9,  dont need access to information. The only information they will give people who are deaf is information that they must so that they do not get fined. How else can you explain why they have cut their captioning content from 83% to something like 55%. Coke once advertised that, “Things Go Better with Coke.” – Well lets sing to the same tune, “Things are lousy at 9”

But it is not just Channel 9. It seems to be the whole mentality of this sodding country. People who are deaf do not matter. Here we are in Australia, a rich country, putting up with what can only be seen as paltry amounts of access. Recently the Australian Human Rights Commission gave the free to air television companies an extension on their need to increase captioning. What was it? 5 years or something and I bet they will get another 5 years in 5 years. The Commonwelath government gave us the $5 million dollars over five years to meet ALL our Auslan interpreting needs in employment. After 21 years of age we may as well chuck out our hearing aids cos the commonwealth Giovernment wont buy us anymore til we are 65. Spend millions making us hear then take it away. Talk about taking candy from a kid.

In America captioning is coming out of its rear end and in Britain Employment Support is ongoing for the life of your employment. In Denmark they provide you with a free laptop for phone access anywhere anytime. All this for the deaf. Yet in Australia, a comparably rich country, we have access to captioning when TV decides it can afford it. We have employment support over five years that in total, for all Deaf Australians, wont even by you a house in Sydney’s Western Suburbs and we have to hope our hearing aids dont die on us when we are 21 .. Which they usually do a year or so after we turn 21.

ENOUGH. Australia can afford it … NIKE Kevin – NIKE!!

Im Desma Hunt, I’m deaf and Australia is a suckhole of excuses!

A slave becomes president. Now that’s Karma. Barack Obama is the president elect of the United States of America. He is America’s first ever Black president. It’s been a long time in coming but the conquered are now the conquerors. If Obama got anything right it was in his slogan “Yes We Can.”

“Can we change?” asks Obama and then swiftly answers his own question, “Yes we Can!” The questions rolled off his tongue “Can we beat Racism?” – “Yes we can!”; “Can we create peace and prosperity?” – “Yes we Can!”  The cliches run of his tongue like water cascading down a waterfall, but it is inspiring and America has bought it. And thank god for that! It’s a long way from Obama’s ancestors chained to the bottom of a boat, transported thousands of miles, sold to the highest bidder and then more often than not abused.

Obama won – That’s Karma!

Deaf people and any people who face discrimination should be inspired by Obama. We should adopt his slogan – ” Yes we can!” Ask the question – “Can we have 100% captioning.” – Answer it at the top of your voice or with the most assertive and flamboyant signing you can muster – “YES WE CAN!” Ask the question – “Can we run our own lives and organisations?” Answer it with gusto – “YES WE CAN!”  Ask the question – “Can we make Australia provide for all our communication needs?” What’s the answer?  “YES WE CAN!”

What Obama has shown, as Nelson Mandela had shown before him is that the little people can win. From descendant of slaves to leader of the free world! If that’s possible, well the small matter of 100% captioning should be a piece of cake. It’s already happening in America!  Me thinks we accept too little – “Can we get more?” – “YES WE CAN!” You just gotta believe.

What fabulous news it was to hear that Deaf Australia won the tender to provide Auslan Training for the Queensland Education Department. The Queensland Education Department allocated $30 million over five years to introduce Auslan to the schools. I don’t know how much went to Deaf Australia but it would be a significant amount of money. OOOOOOOH I wish it was me!

Even better they beat the nasty Empire Builder to the tender. The Empire Builder doesn’t get involved in peanuts. He only goes for things that will make him look big and important. That Deaf Australia won is the BEST news the Deaf community has had for a long time. That the Empire Builder lost is EVEN BETTER!!

BUT .. and there is always a but – No sooner than Deaf Australia won than the whingers came out of the cupboard. “Deaf Australia are an advocacy organisation, they cant provide services.” .. ” The courses they provide are little baby courses.”  – ” They don’t have the experience.”  And out they came with negatives left right and centre. Well let me remind you that Auslan is the language of the Deaf community and the Deaf community own it. Who better to teach the Queensland people than a Deaf run Deaf organisation?

It is a vote of confidence for Deaf people and we should all be proud! To the whingers I say, ” Get back in the cupboard.” Who would you prefer Deaf Australia or the Empire Builder? …. As Yoda would say ” Be with the Force may you.”  And may the force be with Deaf Australia on this one. It’s either that or Darth Vader.