Submission by the Canberra Blind Society to the Disability Discrimination Act Review
The Canberra Blind Society (CBS) provides information, services and assistance to people who are blind or have a vision impairment in Canberra and region. In this response to the government’s review of the Disability Discrimination Act, the society does not focus on the definitions of direct or indirect discrimination, but on widespread practices which can be shown objectively to discriminate against people who are blind, have a vision impairment or physical disabilities. CBS believes addressing matters such as these should be managed promptly by a specific section of the Human Rights Commission, or elsewhere, with the authority to require rectification within a reasonable time. This submission shows the current piecemeal system is time-consuming and invariably results in no change.
CBS supports the proposed change to the Act, requiring a positive duty to actively prevent discrimination. The following examples illustrate the need for such a change.
Technology
There have been numerous technological changes since the introduction of the Act about 33 years ago. Many of these changes have greatly benefited people with disability. But these benefits are frequently and increasingly thwarted by products and services being inaccessible to people with low vision or who are blind.
Numerous websites and web-based platforms do not comply with minimum Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) developed by the World Wide Web Consortium. CBS submits that in most cases, this non-compliance is discriminatory.
Under the current Act, for most people, having these websites and web-based platforms made reasonably accessible is effectively impossible. Spurious claims that making necessary changes would be an unjustifiable hardship cannot be settled by the Human Rights Commission, leaving those facing this type of discrimination the largely unrealistic option of taking legal action in the Federal Court, quite beyond the resources and willingness of most people.
CBS submits that websites and web-based platforms which do not meet WCAG minimum standards should be deemed by the Act to be discriminatory and that if not corrected within a reasonable time, should be subject to financial penalties. As things stand, sites managed by people of good will are rectified. But where there is no will to make sites accessible, there is no realistic action to require compliance with even WCAG minimum standards.
In 2023, a complaint was lodged with the Human Rights Commission against Operoo, which, as shown then on its website, provides an online platform to keep medical and
emergency contact details up to date for schools, Scouts, sports clubs, choirs, community and church groups, camps, businesses and disability service providers. Operoo’s use of non-standard controls and the need to use a mouse for some tasks make its platform inaccessible for people who are blind using screen readers. In May 2023, the company told the commission making the Operoo platform accessible would be an unjustifiable hardship because its site was being completely redesign, expected to be completed and launched in the next 18 to 24 months when it would be fully accessible. Some 28 months later, this has not occurred.
Touch Screens
The proliferation of touch screens has made numerous everyday products inaccessible to people who are blind or vision impaired. As demonstrated by Apple’s iPhone, touch screens need not be inaccessible to people who cannot see the screen. But few products include built-in access for people with various disabilities.
Domestic Appliances
Refrigerators, washing machines and dryers, ovens and cooktops, airfryers, televisions, even digital radios are at best difficult, and often impossible, to operate independently by people who cannot use these touch screens. Yet this form of discrimination, drawn to the attention of the Human Rights Commission by CBS in 2018, continues apace.
CBS urges that the Disability Discrimination Act specifically address the discrimination to people with a wide range of disabilities by manufacturers who create products which require sufficient vision and dexterity to operate independently. Adaptations to make these products easily accessible, including synthetic voice guidance, high-contrast screens and physical knobs can be included at modest cost.
Manufacturers, perhaps even retailers, whose products are shown to be discriminatory should face financial penalties after being given reasonable time to make their products broadly accessible.
Lifts and Buildings
The increasing use of touch screens to operate lifts in buildings is another form of discrimination against people who are blind or who cannot read the screens. While lifts with physical buttons without raised numbers have traditionally been a challenge for people who cannot read the text, touch screens make independent operation of lifts effectively impossible for people who are blind or vision impaired.
The introduction of a central control point for banks of lifts with touch screens has added a further complication affecting people with various disabilities. Even where there are options for accessibility, identifying the correct lift is at best problematic for people who cannot read visual displays.
Access to some buildings is also made unreasonably difficult where there is no immediate alternative to revolving doors. Often used to improve the environmental rating of buildings, revolving doors are potentially hazardous to people who are blind and inaccessible for people who use wheelchairs or who are not sufficiently nimble. Providing an alternative and accessible entrance at the rear of a building is not satisfactory. People who are blind may have difficulty finding an obscure entrance, and people with mobility impairment may have difficulty getting to it.
The Canberra Blind Society submits these very real examples of inbuilt discrimination should be addressed specifically in the Disability Discrimination Act, requiring mandatory accessible standards in building codes.
To be denied use of an everyday appliance; access to a website for the purchase of goods; access to an online platform for employment; or access to buildings; are as discriminatory as telling people that by dint of their disability or race they are excluded.
Utility Bills
A further example of the need for a positive duty to actively prevent discrimination is the refusal of utilities, such as ActewAGL, to issue correctly formatted water and energy bills. Instead of tables, easily read by people who are blind with a screen reader, ActewAGL and numerous energy providers in other jurisdiction persist with bills without properly formatted tables. The result is that people who are blind are unable to easily interpret information such as time of use and charging rates.
Producing a table for reading with a screen reader is neither complex nor time consuming, yet despite national publicity over several years, ActewAGL and other utilities continue to discriminate against people who are blind by denying them information available to other customers.
To ensure the Disability Discrimination Act is strong for the future, it must provide that where discrimination is obvious and easily remedied, the Human Rights Commission or other body have the power to direct compliance and to impose financial penalties if there is no compliance within a reasonable time.
ENDS