The most important development came in July, when New Zealand On Air announced that funding for audio description would be continued for the current year. This was great news because, now we are in the second year, and much of the initial setting up work has been done, there is more money for programmes.

So since July there has been a marked increase in the range of programmes now being broadcast with audio description, and in addition to TV1, this now extends to include TV2. So now we seem to be averaging around 8 to 10 hours a week.

During the setup period, TVNZ did a lot of preparatory work so they could audio describe programmes themselves. It’s true they can purchase a wide range of programmes from overseas that come with audio description, but being able to do their own descriptions is particularly important for local programmes. Shortland Street fans will be pleased to know that this programme is now broadcast regularly with audio description done by TVNZ, and TVNZ is also audio describing Winners and Losers, which I think comes from Australia.

There are also new ways now to plan your TV viewing if you are keen to watch programmes with audio description. One way is on the Telephone Information Service run by the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind. This service has programme listings for a range of TV channels and radio stations on option 2. You can phone TIS and take option 2, then choose the day of the week and then choose from the available stations. When you read the listings for TV1 and 2, you will hear which programmes will have audio description.

Another way is to go to the new TVNZ website that focuses on audio description and captioning, then choose the link for audio description, and then the link to programmes with audio description. This is updated from week to week and gives you a list of all the programmes in the coming week or two that will have audio description.

As an example of the kind of programmes now available with audio description, here is a summary of these programmes to be broadcast this coming week.

• We have Winners and Losers on TV1 on Saturday evening and Wednesday evening,
• Shortland Street omnibus edition on TV2 on Sunday,
• Shortland Street on TV2 on Monday through to Friday in the morning and also the evening of course,
• Once upon a time on TV2 on Sunday and also Thursday evening,
• Go Girls on TV2 on Tuesday evening,
• Five Daughters on TV1 late on Wednesday evening,
• Coronation Street on TV1 on Thursday and Friday evenings,
• Doc Martin on TV1 on Friday evening,
• and Single Father on TV1 on Friday evening.

The thing to remember though is that audio description is currently only available on selected programmes broadcast on TV1 and TV2, and only on Freeview. It is not yet available on Sky, not even on TV1 and TV2 as relayed on Sky, though we continue to be in talks with Sky to persuade them to at least relay the audio description on TV1 and TV2. So if you already subscribe to Sky, maybe you should continue to wait patiently and it may happen.

Otherwise if you want to enjoy television with audio description, you will need to buy a TV or set top box that receives Freeview, and our advice is to choose a unit that carries the official Freeview certificate. That certificate indicates that the equipment supports the Freeview standard in full, which means it should give you access to audio description, whereas some equipment without the sticker may not.

We are certainly aware of people who have gone out and bought Freeview equipment just from their local shops and had it installed as you normally would. And these people are now enjoying audio description. Our vision was always that it should be available on mainstream products, and if you stick to the officially certified Freeview equipment, even though it might be a little more expensive, then it should work.

Still having said that, some models may well be better than others, and some models may work well even if they don’t carry the Freeview certificate. So if you are looking to buy a new TV or set top box, you might do well to ask others in the blind community which models work best.

From my personal point of view, audio description has certainly changed the way my partner and I approach TV here at home. Now I regularly check to see what’s coming up and we’ve certainly taken time to sit down quietly and enjoy some programmes and films when we know they will have audio description, when we wouldn’t otherwise have bothered.

We continue to keep in touch with TVNZ and New Zealand On Air, and as I explained earlier, with Sky, to keep advocating for development of audio description on New Zealand television. It’s true audio description is still in its early beginnings on New Zealand television, but we feel it has been a real success. People with disabilities are entitled to be fully involved in the culture of Society, and there is no doubt that television and the media in general are central to our culture. It may seem odd at first glance, but even TV stations have some obligation to meet the needs of blind and vision impaired people, and audio description technology is one way they can do this. New Zealand On Air and TVNZ have shown the way.

Suppose you are part of a family that really holds strong left or right wing views. But deep down you really feel that you’re not going to vote for the same party the rest of your family supports. You can keep this entirely to yourself. Nobody will know how you actually voted.

That is not the case for blind and vision impaired people. I went to vote on Saturday as I usually do and I asked the nice man at the booth to fill my ballot papers in for me. Under the Electoral Act, as a blind person I am entitled to ask for someone of my own choosing to complete the ballot for me, and in fact I can ask someone else to verify that the paper is filled in according to my instructions. I have never gone that far.

The nice man at the booth knows how I voted and he also knows how my partner voted as she is also blind and he helped her as well. I’m sure he is responsible and won’t abuse that knowledge, but the reality is that in order for us to vote, we did have to share our vote with someone. Our votes were not secret.

There are countries where in reality a person’s vote is not confidential enough so people in the know can easily find out how someone voted. People are sometimes killed for voting the wrong way. Through our international links, we are very much aware of blind people who actively choose not to vote at all because it is the best option for them, particularly given that they are not in a position to defend themselves against any action someone might take against them should the truth of their vote become known.

At least in New Zealand we don’t feel under any threat because someone else knows how we voted. But the principle is still the same; we should be able to cast a secret vote just like everyone else.

Our Association continues to call for New Zealand to introduce a system that would allow a blind or vision impaired person to cast a vote with the same confidentiality as is enjoyed by the rest of you. There are a variety of technologies today that could make this a reality. But so far our plea has not been heard. The subject only comes around every three years so we won’t get another chance until, presumably, 2014.

Article 29 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which New Zealand has ratified, calls on governments to ensure that people with disabilities can participate fully in political life and the democratic process without discrimination and on an equal basis with others. We believe this creates an obligation on our Government to take reasonable steps to ensure that we can cast a vote with the same secrecy as the rest of you already enjoy. This obligation becomes more significant as new technologies become available to make it possible.

Now the election is over, we will wait for the new Government to be formed, and we will then act with some urgency to try to persuade the Government to start work on a voting system that could deliver us a secret vote in time for the next election.

Our work continues on preparing ourselves to raies an increasing amount of our income from sources other than the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind. We have developed a case statement that explains our activities in a way that should make sense to potential funders and which clearly differentiates our organisation from the Foundation. We have also established an endowment fund with an initial value of $800,000. This will provide grater long term financial security and increased transparency concerning our reserves. The option also exists for branches to also put some or all of their own reserves into the fund.

In the meantime, we continue to fund a proportion of activities from reserves. We adopted a budget for this year which has a deficit of about $81,000, and which also allows certain activities to only go ahead if specific funds for those activities are found. It goes without saying that we cannot keep doing this, but we are prepared to use our reserves in this way at least for the time it will take us to establish and fully assess our fundraising capability.

We are in the process of establishing an email list for discussion of issues relevant to the Association. This list will be open to anyone who has an interest in blindness in New Zealand, even people living outside New Zealand may join. The list will be monitored by a moderator whois yet to be appointed.

Much of the remaining work was on putting the finishing touches to our Conference agenda and supporting papers. For those of you attending Conference, I hope you really enjoy what we have on the programme this year. Unfortunately I won’t be able to attend Friday and most of Saturday because I will be in Leipzig (in fact I am already there). All going well, I’ll be back in time for the Saturday night dinner and awards, and all the sessions on Sunday.

We all know I think that nowadays you can’t do much in our society without a bank account. The days of being able to carry out all our transactions using hard cash are pretty much gone.

As blind and vision impaired people, we are unable to access the banking system with the same degree of independence, confidentiality and dignity afforded to our sighted counterparts. Divulging personal banking information to another party to execute transactions on our behalf compromises our rights, responsibilities and obligations to the bank, and exposes us to potential criminal behaviour.

While the adoption of “Voluntary Guidelines to Assist Banks to Meet the Needs of Older and Disabled Customers”, by banks, goes some way towards addressing our concerns, we stil need banks to ensure they deliver all services in a manner that avoids discrimination against people with disabilities.

EFTPOS machines are now in almost all shops and are inherently part of the banking system. The various designs of EFTPOS machines can pose a range of accessibility barriers to blind and vision impaired people. A blind customer should be able to enter their PIN and choose an account without assistance. We are seeking the adoption of standards for EFTPOS handsets to ensure these can be readily and independently used by blind people.

Although credit cards provide a convenient means of accessing money and making purchases, there are often difficulties for blind people in identifying which way the card is to be inserted into slots. We urge New Zealand banks to adopt a newly developed international scheme that can allow a blind or vision impaired person to correctly identify which card is which and which way to orient it when inserting it into a machine.

Finally, advances in technology and the emergence of self-service kiosks have increased the convenience of banking, but have also increased the need for banks to make sure accessibility issues are considered, thus ensuring blind customers are not disadvantaged and that we can conduct our transactions safely and securely. In fact self-service kiosks are popping up nowadays in a wide variety of settings. We need Banks to ensure their self-service kiosks are accessible to blind customers.

The brief goes into further detail on the above issues. As our financial systems become more technology-based, society must take steps to ensure blind and vision impaired people are not shut out of the very systems we all depend on. So we need banks and other financial institutions to adopt standards that ensure any advances in technology benefit blind customers in the same way as our sighted peers.

Being unable to follow body language, activity, scenery, facial expression, clothing and manner of dress etc, blind, deafblind and vision impaired people benefit from audio description because it provides a commentary on these aspects of the visual experience. Audio description has existed for more than 15 years and can be regarded as the equivalent of captioning for the deaf and hearing impaired.

As early as the 1990’s, New Zealand On Air began investigating the feasibility of introducing audio described television into New Zealand. At that time, New Zealand’s television broadcasting system did not have the capacity for an audio channel to be easily broadcast in addition to the existing stereo audio content. Fortunately, technological advances mean that the barriers which until now, have impeded the development of audio described television here in New Zealand, have been surpassed.

Audio described television was introduced to New Zealand on 1 March 2011, through a pilot grant funded by New Zealand On Air. This funding has been extended to the current financial year so that now we are able to enjoy several hours a week of audio described television programming. Obviously we hope this will increase over time. It involves an additional channel of audio information that provides blind people with a commentary of the visual experience, broadcast in such a way that it does not interfere with normal television listening and viewing. Audio description is officially part of the Freeview standard and can be received by all TVs and set top boxes that carry the official Freeview logo.

Theatre, and other art forms also play a crucial role as a social and cultural medium. We need to also introduce audio description into these forms of entertainment, so blind people in New Zealand can participate fully in our society’s culture. Live theatre and performing arts can be brought to life for blind people in the audience through audio description. This is achieved using a wireless transmitter and head-sets.

Audio Description is the equivalent of captioning for the deaf and hearing impaired. It is the “accessible format” which enables blind and vision impaired people to enjoy access to all facets of television, films, theatre etc, on the same basis as our sighted counterparts. Access to Audio Description is a basic right upheld by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Well designed websites make life better for everyone; however they can be particularly beneficial for people who are blind as we can access the same information with full independence and without being marked out as in any way different from everyone else. Some disabilities (such as deafblindness) can severely restrict a person’s ability to access information and interact socially; for these people, properly designed websites can actually be life changing, providing perhaps the only means to access everyday information and communicate and interact with others.

Unfortunately, the reality of our experience with many websites is more frustration than liberation. Too often we find websites that are not accessible.

New Zealand should follow the lead of numerous other countries and adopt specific legislation to uphold the rights of people with disabilities to equitable access to websites and online information. In the meantime, under the Human Rights Act 1993, Any organisation, commercial or non-commercial, when it provides goods and/or services, is obliged to take reasonable steps to avoid discriminating on the grounds of disability. Nowadays the fundamental language of the web, HTML, has developed to the point where developers can easily and efficiently create websites that deliver a rich and productive experience for everyone including people with disabilities.

Our brief is directed primarily at web developers, because their clients rely on them to understand the technology and know how to apply it to meet their needs. Developers must recognise that in most cases their clients are legally obliged to serve all members of the public without discrimination. It follows that developers have an obligation on behalf of their clients to know how to correctly apply today’s web technology to create websites that serve everyone, including people with disabilities.

The World Wide Web Consortium is not only responsible for developing the fundamental language of the web, HTML, but is committed to the principle that the web is for everyone. The language of the web, as it exists today, has numerous features for producing a rich, enjoyable and productive experience for everyone, while at the same time ensuring accessibility and usability for people with disabilities. The commitment by the W3C to open standards upholds the principle that the web is for everyone, and ensures the widest possible range of adaptive technology is available to help disabled people use the web. The W3C has developed the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) as well as a number of statements of best practice to help developers create websites everyone can use.

Websites that comply with these guidelines not only look and feel good to the public in general, but they work with a wide range of end user technologies. This includes adaptive technologies (such as a screen reader or braille display) to access the information on a site, providing feedback to the user via synthetic speech or braille. This allows blind and vision impaired people to independently access a website and interact with it.

In fact, complying with the guidelines benefits everyone because such websites will be more usable to a wider range of people. A well designed website that complies with the guidelines can vastly increase your potential customer base by enabling access by a wider range of consumers.

When developing a website, it need not be more expensive to ensure it complies with the accessibility guidelines. If you follow the right practices from the outset and use the appropriate tools, this will not only improve your efficiency as a developer, but they can help ensure your websites will be fully accessible with little extra effort on your part.

I urge all owners and developers of websites that provide commercial and other services to the public to check out our brief in full and make sure your websites meet the WCAG 2.0 guidelines. This will help make our technology-based society more inclusive.

As blind people, we are unable to communicate and access information visually and often we are restricted in our ability to get out and about. No wonder then that often the humble telephone is the first choice for many of us when it comes to maintaining social contact, accessing information and even carrying out everyday transactions such as banking and shopping. The modern development of the mobile phone is also having a profound impact on our approach to communication, provided of course we can get one that we can use.

Modern telecommunications services are changing the very fabric of how Society works. Texting for example has become a widely accepted means of communication. Schools, now text parents to advise if their child has not turned up, and hospitals and dentists send reminders of appointments by text. Increasingly people are encouraged to receive regular bills by email or read them on a website. Blind and deafblind people must be able to use today’s telecommunications services or we will be more and more shut out of everyday Society.

Good properly designed telecommunications services would make life better for everyone but they can be particularly liberating for people who are blind. Some disabilities such as deafblindness can severely restrict a person’s ability to access information and communicate with others, and for these people, good telecommunications services in today’s world can actually be life changing. But often the reality of our experience is more frustrating than liberating.

The telecommunications industry must ensure that the fundamental communications services we use are accessible to everyone, including blind people. There is a growing range of other services being developed that rely on the telecommunications infrastructure, everything from using an EFTPOS terminal in the supermarket, ordering groceries online, using the phone or TV in a hotel room, texting for a taxi, are all examples of such services. However telecommunications companies should recognise that it can make good business sense to directly meet our needs and see us as a genuine source of revenue. With a phone in our hand we can really use, Blind people are perhaps more likely than most to make calls, send texts and use other telecommunications services provided they are accessible.

New Zealand has strong legislation to protect the general rights of consumers and our specific rights regarding telecommunications services, but we lag behind many other countries that have adopted legislation to uphold the rights of people with disabilities to equitable access to telecommunications services. The brief goes into a lot more detail, but the essence of what we need is:

• Telecommunications services that are accessible to and easily used by blind people;
• Increased recognition in law to our right to accessible telecommunications;
• Standard land-line phones that are reliable, have a good clear sound and are easy to use;
• Mobile phones that are accessible and sold on similar terms and at a similar price to everyday phones that are taken for granted by sighted people;
• A commitment to ensuring all information is accessible, including bills, directory services, call plans and promotions;
• Websites that are accessible.

As I explained in my previous post, we were very disappointed that all but one of the major telecommunications companies we invited to our recent forum on telecommunications did not show. It shows the needs of people with disabilities are a low priority as far as the telcos are concerned. Clearly we have a lot of work to do. The point to remember though is that whilst today’s technology, being largely visual in how it operates, can pose major barriers to blind and vision impaired people, it is also true that today’s technology has far more potential to fully include us than ever before. Even though we are a very small population, we will continue to work to persuade the telecommunications industry to utilise today’s technology to meet our needs as blind and vision impaired people. That will make it better for everyone so we can all be part of tomorrow’s technology-based society.

On the first day, we presented three one and a half hour sessions covering different aspects of audio description. These were ably conducted by Alex Varley of Media Access Australia. Each session had a different focus, namely television and broadcasting, theatre and the arts, and cinema and DVD. Audio description is becoming increasingly important to blind and vision impaired people as we strive to be more included in today’s mainstream media.

On the second day we held a discussion forum on accessible telecommunications, focusing in particular on accessible landline and mobile phones, related services and accessible websites. It was particularly noteworthy that all but one of the telecommunications companies we invited did not attend. The only telco that attended was Telstra Clear.

Whilst this was disappointing, it only served to highlight for those who did attend that the needs of people with disabilities are a low priority as far as the telcos are concerned. Their lack of attendance was painfully obvious and particularly noted by the Telecommunications Users Association of New Zealand (TUANZ). It just goes to show that we know we have some way to go to get our message across to the telcos. I’ll focus my next post on what we really are seeking from the telecommunications industry.

Our parliamentary informational function was held on the evening of Monday 11 July. It was kindly hosted by the Minister for Culture and Heritage, Hon Chris Finlayson, who took a particular interest in audio description. During this function we launched briefing documents on accessible websites, Audio Description and Accessible Bankin. I will give more information on these new briefs in future posts.

We truly appreciate the support of the Ministry for Culture and Heritage and Wellington City Council for hosting these presentations.

It was roughly three years ago when the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind went through a major restructuring. Almost the entire senior management team was replaced as the Chief Executive established six new Executive Directorships. The Chief Executive said she needed a “cohesive strategic leadership team ‘working as one team’ with the capability to lift the organization to meet our current and future challenges and opportunities.” A lot of concern was expressed at the time over what was perceived by many as the Foundation adopting a strongly “corporate” style of management, and also over the loss of institutional knowledge. Nevertheless, the Chief Executive has delegated authority to make the operational decisions she feels are necessary to deliver on the Board’s strategic objectives.

So now, three years later, how do we all feel the Foundation is performing under the new management team?

Our Conference this year will include a session on Sunday morning (2 October) in which members will be able to discuss their experiences with the Foundation after restructuring. The plan is that this session will be held in committee, so people will be able to speak freely without repercussions, and we wil invite Foundation Board Directors to be present so they can hear the good and the bad at first hand. This will be an opportunity for our members to speak directly for themselves to Foundation Board Directors without influence from the Association’s leadership.

Our Association is active in the World Blind Union as much as our resources will allow. The WBU has a number of regions and New Zealand falls within the Asia Pacific Region. Each region has its own Executive, led by a President and Vice President. It was with regret that we learned at our July meeting that the President of our region has resigned due to ill health. This required the Vice President to fill this position which in turn created a vacancy for a new Vice President. We have just heard that our delegate to the WBU, Martine Abel-Williamson, has been elected as the new Vice President of the Asia Pacific region. She will hold this role until November 2012, at which time the position falls due for election. We extend our sincerest and heartiest congratulations to Martine.

The term “going digital” refers to the switchover to digital television. The Government has created a Going Digital group and I represent the Association on this. There is a requirement for much of the discussion and outcomes of the group’s meetings to remain confidential. However our Board is keen to ensure blind and vision impaired people will not be left behind as New Zealand goes digital. For instance, the new digital TVs and set top boxes offer some wonderful new featurs, but often these can only be accessed through a visual menu on the screen. We would like to see at least one talking set top box readily available for us to buy at a price that compares favourably with other models on the market.

For many years, the Foundation has been the primary source of funding for the Association and other consumer organisations in the blind community. Since the early 1980s, formal agreements have been in place whereby the Foundation would fund the Association’s activities and the Association would refrain from direct fundraising activities of our own. That arrangement was intended to avoid the public confusion that could result from multiple blindness organisations seeking support from the public, and from our point-of-view in the Association, it meant that we could focus our energy on speaking on behalf of our members rather than on fundraising.

In recent years, the Foundation has been reducing the funding it provides to consumer organisations and it has been keen to make us more accountable for the funds we receive. Consumer organisations collectively accept the need for greater accountability but we maintain that it is in the best interests of the blind community in general, if funds continue to be raised through just one organisation - the Foundation.

Discussions between consumer organisations and the Foundation have been underway since early last year. They have now concluded and no agreement was reached. The Foundation’s Board has therefore decided to again reduce funding to consumer organisations this year. The Foundation’s intention is that funding will continue to reduce over the next few years. The reduction this year will be approximately 5.3% and reductions from 1 July 2012 onwards will be roughly 5% per year. The Foundation has expressed the hope that this process of relatively small reductions in funding of consumer organisations over the next few years will give us all time to find ways to reduce expenditure or develop other sources of funding.

It might be thought at first that in today’s hard economic times a 5% cut in funding for the next few years is perhaps not unreasonable, and we should be thankful we can still get a substantial portion of our funding from the Foundation at least for the time being. But in our view it is not that simple. Our belief is that this decision will not only have significant and perhaps unpredictable ramifications for consumer organisations, but also for the Foundation itself and for blind people in general. In order to explain this further, we need to look back to the circumstances that have brought us here, and then we will focus on how the Association plans to deal with the situation as we now see it.

We are confident that we made every effort to persuade the Foundation to see the merits of our point of view that it is better for the Foundation and consumer organisations to maintain a coordinated public and fundraising profile. The current funding arrangement between the Foundation and consumer organisations really dates back to 1983 when the Association and the Foundation signed the initial funding agreement. This chapter of nearly thirty years in the history of the Foundation gave consumer organisations the opportunity to flourish and play an important role in the fabric of the blind community, and to participate as equal partners in the very development of the Foundation. Following on from the strong and widely publicised tensions between the Foundation and the Association in the late 1970s, the Foundation since then made great strides as a modern disability organisation walking arm in arm with its consumers. The hallmarks of that relationship were that:

• the Foundation carried itself not just as a service provider but as the front organisation trusted to manage the blindness fundraising brand on behalf of the whole blind community,
• consumer organisations were recognised for the value we added to the Foundation,
• in return for funding from the Foundation consumer organisations would refrain from active fundraising in competition with the Foundation, and
• the Foundation and consumer organisations together were committed to maintaining a strong, unified and successful public profile on behalf of the whole blind community.

It is surprising that the Foundation’s Board appears to have overlooked the lessons of history. Even at its meeting in August last year, it is our understanding that the Board received a paper that reminded them about the circumstances of the 1983 funding agreement, and in fact a previous much earlier funding arrangement, where in both cases the Foundation’s intention was to avoid the impact of the Association’s independent fundraising activities. Yet the Board somehow accepted the view expressed in that paper that history will not repeat itself a third time.

In her Chair’s Board Report published on 11 March this year, Ms Glanville expressed the Board’s disappointment over the apparent lack of appreciation by consumer organisations of the Foundation’s current financial position, and the inability of the joint discussions in 2010 to come up with a mutually-agreed and sustainable future funding model. The Association has written to the Foundation to place on record our view that it is utterly unjustified and unfair to publicly accuse consumer organisations of displaying a “lack of recognition or understanding of the Foundation’s current financial position”. Consumer organisations do clearly understand the Foundation’s position, but our point has always been that those discussions were intended to find a model that would ensure the sustainability of both the Foundation and consumer organisations alike, and not just the Foundation.

In 2004, the Foundation’s Board capped the total funds for consumer organisations at $750,000.

Based on the Foundation’s Annual Report for the year ended June 2004, this expense represented some 3.6% of the Foundation’s total expenditure of roughly $21m. In the year ended June 2010, expenditure on consumer organisations had fallen to $607,500. Based on the Annual Report for the year ended June 2010, this represents just 2.3% of total expenditure of roughly $26m. Therefore, while funding to consumer organisations has decreased in dollar terms by 19% over the last seven years, the Foundation’s total expenditure has increased by 24% over that same time. The number of blind and vision impaired people registered with the Foundation has remained constant over that time at about 11,500.

The Foundation has argued that if expenditure on consumer organisations is to be measured against anything at all, it should be measured against income from untagged donations, rather than from targeted donations and Government and other contracts. We believe that view misses the true point of consumerism and the principle that in today’s society disabled people do have a right to take an active role in decisions that affect us. We argue that a truly viable consumer organisation is one that can critically evaluate all the services we receive, and not just those funded by donations. Even contracts and tagged donations should recognise the need for a small portion of expenditure to be put aside to resource the consumers’ voice, and a modern disability service-provider organisation such as the Foundation should not accept funding that is so restricted that it specifically excludes consumers from having a say in how such funds should be applied. The figures do not lie; nobody can deny that nowadays the Foundation churns through significantly more public money in the name of blind people than was the case seven years ago and the Association due to increasing under-funding is less able to carry out its role of critically evaluating the services these funds pay for.

Under our agreement with the Foundation we have been restricted in our ability to raise alternative funds and this is now having a very significant impact on our organisation. As our costs continued to rise, the effect of the funding cap has been to suck some of the essential life out of our organisation so that we have been unable to grow and develop as needed to best meet the challenges of the 21st century.

Now we find we are in a very significant deficit situation and urgent action is needed. This brings me to the second important point of this article, namely that the Association has now accepted the Foundation’s decision.

As we look to the future, the Association has a number of key objectives we want to pursue. Most in fact are focused on society in general and not specifically the Foundation, such as better public transport, equitable access to education, meaningful employment, and a truly accessible society in the technological age. At the same time, the Foundation and other blindness service providers will of course continue to be an important focus of our attention. Just as the Foundation’s Board has made what it considers to be the best decision it can under the circumstances, so too our Board is now confronting the situation we find ourselves in. In fact, we started work on this in earnest even last year. Fortunately we do have some factors in our favour as we look forward.

First, there is increasing recognition under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities that disabled people must have the right to speak out on matters of concern to us, particularly those matters concerning the services we receive. There is increasing recognition that whilst service providers like the Foundation play an extremely important role in helping disabled people achieve our full potential in today’s society, only consumer organisations have the ultimate mandate to speak out on behalf of their members. Our motto in the Association is “blind people speaking for ourselves” and we are determined to uphold our right to speak when we feel the need.

Secondly, we have done a lot of work on clarifying what we are seeking. Our “Great Barrier Brief” document and its associated briefs are a clear and concise statement of what we believe a truly accessible society should deliver in this day and age.

Another factor that will help carry us forward is the strength and determination of our Board and members. What makes organisations like the Association strong is that we never give up.

We are prepared to commit considerable personal time to pursuing our objectives so that all blind people may benefit whatever it takes. We are taking advice now from a successful fundraising consultant on how we can slowly but surely build a new public image that clearly separates us from the Foundation. We are confident that we will gain some public support once the public identify with our commitment and enthusiasm for what we believe can be achieved for our members.

We will continue to work closely with the Foundation, but there is no doubt the relationship between us must now be different. Rather than being one of true partnership between a service provider and a consumer organisation, it will evolve to a relationship of respectful distance between two independently minded blindness organisations. The Association will continue to increase our profile with Government and in the mainstream of society. In our view, the Foundation had the chance to reach out to us and other consumer organisations and show some leadership so we could make these adjustments together and avoid fragmenting the blind community and confusing the public. From now on we must make the best decisions we can as an independent organisation of blind people so we can pursue the best future for our members.

One of the most important things we do as an organisation is we give blind people our own voice. We have a variety of documents we call “briefs”, that highlight specific issues that concern us as blind people.

The latest we are working on is on accessibility of websites. In today’s world where so much business is now carried out on the web, we think it is very important that all websites that provide services and information to the public should comply with generally accepted standards of accessibility. In many ways this is similar to public buildings, which for some time have had to be accessible to people with disabilities. Other briefs that are in the pipeline include one on audio description and one on accessible banking. These briefs will be officially launched at our Wellington Seminar in mid July so I will have more information then.

Speaking of the Wellington Seminar, plans are now under action for this year’s event which will be quite different from previous events. We may still get to talk with some politicians, but the emphasis this year will be on running forums that will allow us to discuss our needs with a variety of people with respect to two areas of interest, namely audio description and telecommunications. The outcome we hope for is greater awareness of our needs amongst telecommunications companies and the media and entertainment industry. Both these areas are crucial if blind and low vision people are to have full access to our fast-changing technology-based world of communications and electronic media. So these forums promise to be a great opportunity to really raise the profile in these areas.

The Board of the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind has implemented a new important initiative called the Client Services Committee, which combines three Board directors, three Executive Directors and three members. It is expected this group will oversee the strategic development of the Foundation’s services to members, with an emphasis on improving quality. I think this is a significant step forward in developing services that respond to the needs and aspirations of blind and low vision people. The Association looks forward to the opportunity to work closely with this group on the issues that we feel are important.

And in that vein, our Board recently discussed growing concerns regarding the Foundation with respect to apparent waiting lists for service and staff turn-over in general, and uncertainty around a possible facility to replace the service centre in South Auckland that was closed at short notice. We have decided to raise these issues with the above-mentioned committee.

Also with respect to the Foundation, a number of us recall participating in a survey of that organisation’s culture carried out late last year. It is right that the results of such a survey are shared first within the organisation itself and we understand that has been happening. However it is also important that such results are also shared promptly with consumers. We, after all, are the reason for that organisation’s existence. At the time of writing this, some four months later, the results have not yet been shared with us. Obviously we want the Foundation to have a culture that is conducive to delivering quality services that respond to our needs and aspirations as blind and low vision people. We urge the Foundation to give some priority to this so consumers can be fully informed on the results of the survey and any action that now needs to occur.

The Association is working closely with the Government and other disability organisations to progress the Government’s plans with respect to employment of disabled people. Clearly this is a critical area of interest since, generally speaking, it is only through gainful employment that we can achieve the economic status that enables us to contribute fully to society. We know only too well that blind and low vision people are very much over-represented in the ranks of the unemployed. The Association will be taking part in a summit on employment in June, which it is hoped will develop consensus around an action plan.

we were deeply saddened to lose one of our members, John Corder, who recently lost his battle with cancer. He was a member of the Association for nearly thirty years, including twelve years on his local South Canterbury branch committee and the last three years on our Board. He was a man of strong personal principles, not always quick to speak but never afraid to speak up when he felt the need. We will remember him for his pragmatic, down to earth approach and his commitment to upholding the rights of blind people at the grass roots of the community. We will also remember his endless capacity to recall a wide range of facts and details, particularly about sport and music. His knowledge in these areas was phenomenal. No wonder he was also keen on quizzes. Farewell John, we can truly say it’s been a privilege to know you and to work with you.

John’s vacancy has been filled by Brian Say, Chair of the Nelson branch who comes in as the next highest polling candidate in the last Board election. Brian has had to come up to speed very quickly, attending to some committee work even before his first Board meeting. He has already started to make a sound contribution to our work.

Planning for this year’s Conference to be held in Wellington is already well advanced. The theme is “building our future”. At first glance this may seem rather ho hum, but it has real significance once you appreciate the fast changing nature of the situation the Association finds itself in. We are already booking speakers and we hope to be able to have the programme ready for you in good time. But you’ll want to make an extra effort to get there this year because it’s looking like this year’s Conference will be a real turning point for the Association as we grasp our future.

We had to make major budget cuts last year when we faced yet another year of increasing deficit and it became clear that funding from the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind would again be reduced. Despite lengthy talks throughout last year, we have been unable to secure additional short-term or long-term funding from the Foundation and recently consumer organisations were told that those talks have now concluded and we can expect funding to continue to reduce. For the last thirty years or so, the Association has been largely funded by the Foundation which has been willing to fund us in return for us agreeing to not actively fundraise in competition with the Foundation. Whilst not all our members have agreed, we feel overall that the relationship has been mutually beneficial as it has allowed the Foundation to raise funds for the whole blind community without public confusion, and it allowed us to focus our time, which is largely voluntary, on pursuing our vision of a more accessible society for blind and low vision people. But whilst we acknowledge the Foundation will continue to provide some funding to consumer organisations for the next few years, it is clear this funding will steadily reduce.

There is a feeling we now have to make up for lost time as our growth in recent years has been stifled by the funding situation which has evolved to this point over the last eight years or so. But with the matter now closed and behind us, our mood is upbeat and we are fully focused on developing the strategies that we will need if we are to survive and still be effective in the next ten years. Right now it’s too early to predict what that will really mean for us by that time, But hopefully now you can see the significance of our Conference theme. We know from our history that we have what it takes to adapt, so I hope you’ll join us in Wellington at the end of September as we focus on building our future.

We were forced to cancel last year’s leadership seminar and advocacy workshop which are held in conjunction with conference. This year we are committed to those events going ahead. Building leadership and advocacy skills is necessary for our long-term future and the positive benefits of these programmes is clearly evident when you see former participants turning up to our Conference and participating with much more confidence. So I urge anyone interested in leadership or advocacy training to take a look at this year’s programmes.

Congratulations go to Nelson Branch for their efforts in helping to raise over $52,000 to provide more digital talking book players for blind and low vision people living in the Nelson Marlborough region. The Foundation of the Blind is working through the digital changeover throughout the country. The efforts of our Nelson branch working cooperatively with the Foundation mean that their region is well ahead of the pack; already 53% of the people in that area have been offered one of the new players.

And I know this is covered elsewhere but I would just add my personal appreciation to the Wanganui branch and to an anonymous member whose donations mean that we can after all publish all four issues of Focus this year.

But New Zealand took a small but still very significant step forward on 1 March this year with the first broadcast of audio description on television. Coronation Street was picked because it is still amongst the most popular and also readily available with an audio description already recorded.

So what is audio description?

As a blind person, have you ever watched a TV programme and wondered what the heck is going on? Great if you’ve got someone with you who can see and who doesn’t mind explaining what’s happening. But if you can see, just stop for a second and think, if you were blind, how would you understand what is happening when there is no dialog or anything to even give you a clue. That is what audio description is; a voice that quietly tells you what’s happening on the screen. This voice is broadcast as part of the programme itself. You just push a button on your Freeview remote, and, if the programme you are watching has an audio description, you will start to hear that extra voice telling you what’s happening, while making sure not to talk over the top of the dialogue.

Last Thursday 3 March, for many blind people watching Coro Street (yes we do refer to “watching” TV) all they would have heard at the end was the fireworks and some loud music from a passing car. But those using the new audio description feature would have known that Tony had collapsed in the street, presumably because of a serious medical problem such as a heart attack.

At the moment, only Coronation Street is available with audio description. So it is just a small first step. Still, we express our appreciation to New Zealand On Air and TVNZ for seeing the potential of the new Freeview system to deliver, and it certainly does deliver.

So now when Coronation Street comes on, anyone with a Freeview certified set top box or TV can press the buttons and hear the audio description. You don’t need any specialised equipment. The advantages to blind people are obvious. It will ultimately make television far more accessible to everyone.

But think about it. If you’re sighted, could audio description be important to you too? Imagine you are just washing the dishes or something so you can’t see the screen. If you have Freeview, why not switch on the audio description and have a nice voice tell you all that’s going on visually. I’m sure audio description has the potential to impact on the lives of even sighted people who for whatever reason might not be fully concentrating on the screen. Just turn on the audio description and enjoy.

My only fear now, having successfully weaned myself off the Street a number of years ago, is that I might once again become hooked on it. Of course we hope it won’t be very long before we have more choice of audio described programmes.

This year we got off to a sad start as a result of the Christchurch earthquake. We’ve all heard the stories of people in the Canterbury area having no power, no water and no sewage, and having to cope with houses that have been basically ransacked, damaged and in many cases completely destroyed. We’ve heard about the cracked roads and footpaths, the scattered debris of collapsed buildings, the silt and muck that pervades much of the area both inside and outside, and the dangers of buildings that are still standing but teetering on the verge of collapse. And saddest of all, we’ve heard about the tragic loss of life.

For those of us who are not there, the impact is hard to imagine. But the impact on blind and vision impaired people is so much worse. Just think for a moment how our very ability to get around and function depends on everything being predictable; that familiar bump in the footpath that reminds us that we’re coming to the next crossing, the grass verge that tells us we’re about to walk off the footpath, that familiar tree that tells us our gate is coming up soon, the smell of the shoe shop that reminds us of the shops in its vicinity, the very slope of the land and how it subtly changes. People often say it’s amazing how we get around, but really it’s just that we develop a memory for these fundamental clues that really are everywhere and help us know where we are. All these have just vanished or drastically changed.

I’ve never been in an earthquake and I don’t want to diminish the impact of this latest one. But the stories I have heard remind me as a blind person of an experience when I lived in Indiana for a while and I woke up one morning after the first heavy snow fall of the winter. I was at Purdue University and I just went out to class as I usually do without thinking. Within a few seconds, I stopped suddenly as my brain told me things were not right. The path I should follow to get to the lecture theatre had vanished. The very acoustics had changed so nothing sounded the same. I was basically lost. Perhaps in a small way this is not dissimilar to what it must be like for blind people now having to cope in Christchurch.

And pause for a moment and think about the problems inside the house. Imagine your pantry has been emptied so everything is now smashed and food, liquids and dangerous sharp pieces of glass now lie congealing on the floor. Do you pick your way through it to see what can be salvaged when you can’t see what’s there? And once you’ve got your hands good and dirty, well of course there’s no water to clean up. We’ve also heard of the wonderfully strong community spirit so we can only hope that blind people who have had to face this situation have had the help they need.

Some of our Canterbury Branch members are coping with seriously damaged homes and yet they have also had the energy to phone around and do their best to contact other blind and vision impaired people to see that everyone is alright. I want to record my admiration and appreciation of local committee members who have made it their business to reach out to others in need. I am truly impressed by the way everyone has looked out for each other.

And from a distance, the Association has worked alongside other consumer organisations and the Foundation of the blind to contact all blind and low vision people registered in the area.

Whilst we know that quite a number of blind people have left the area at least for a while, we continue to stay in touch with our fellow blind citizens battling on in the Canterbury area. Our organisation doesn’t have staff on the ground so there is not a lot we can do. But one thing we can do as blind people is use our phones and computers to keep in touch. We will stay in touch and do what we can to help anyone we can.

One major focus over the last few months has been Total Mobility and public transport in general. The scheme is found in most regions, but in reality the effectiveness of the scheme varies considerably from place to place and we believe the scheme needs to be consistent throughout the whole country.

Another major focus has been telecommunications. This includes domestic and mobile phones, the internet etc, and deals with the many ways modern society is changing as a result of new technology. We make the point that blind people risk being shut out of our own society if modern telecommunications services such as texting, touch screens and the internet overlook our needs. But we also make the point that often our needs can be met at little cost if the right decisions are made in the early stages as services are developed.

Back in July, we were privileged to meet personally with the Government’s Ministerial Committee on Disability Issues. Such meetings are scarce and you only get a short time. We had about twenty minutes, in which we gave formal presentations and answered questions on accessible public transport (including Total Mobility), Accessible Information and Accessible Telecommunications. Amongst those present at the meeting were Hon Tariana Turia (Minister for Disability Issues), Hon Pansy Wong (Associate Minister for Disability Issues), Hon Tony Ryall (Minister of Health), Hon Nathan Guy (Associate Minister for Transport). Officials and Chief Executives from some of these government departments were present also. We were told that Ministers would follow up on the various issues raised, thus outcomes are keenly awaited.

This year’s conference was very successful, despite being a little down on numbers due to current economic constraints. The theme was “life is for living”, the idea being that whilst we do spend a lot of our energy educating the community about our needs, in the end the reason why we do that is so we can all live a full and productive life. We were all captivated by some inspirational speakers who are doing just that, doing their bit and getting the most out of life.

Last year our Conference endorsed the idea of creating a Memorial Hall of Honour so people that have made a lasting positive impact on the lives of blind people can be remembered forever. All that remained was for nominations for inductees to commence. This year Conference appointed the first three people to the Memorial Hall of Honour: Cyril White, Terry Small and Lionel Voice. All three are founding members of the Association and have made considerable contributions over their lives that have shaped the lives of blind and vision impaired people and this Association. An attractive display cabinet will now be set up at our National Office to collect appropriate items and information to honour the memory of these and other people as they are added to the Hall of Honour.

Another area receiving a lot of our attention is strengthening branches and creating ways for our members to participate in areas which don’t have a branch. Recently the Waikato Branch was disestablished because it just hasn’t been able to function. Several other branches are finding it more and more difficult to find the people willing to come onto committees and do the work of a branch. Yet we know that in all of these areas members are still willing to meet from time to time to have their say. We are giving a lot of attention now to how we can find ways to ensure as many of our members as possible can be heard so our policies truly reflect the aspirations of our members.

The Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind is making good progress in rolling out its new digital talking book service . Our recent Conference passed a resolution congratulating the Foundation on the progress it is making but calling for a download service to be introduced as quickly as possible for people who would rather not rely on receiving CDs in the post. We have heard that the Foundation may consider a download option as part of an “enhanced” service that blind people might be asked to pay for. We will be strongly opposing this approach as we believe a download option should be a standard component of any 21st century talking book service.

The Association has congratulated the Foundation on the introduction of its Simply Touch and Read (STAR) Programme initiative for teaching braille. The innovative way Braille can be learnt using this programme is generating a lot of interest around the world and brings a great deal of kudos to the Foundation.

The Foundation recently published best practice guidelines on accessible signage . This explains how to create signs, particularly in buildings, that are most beneficial to blind people. There was good consultation and the Association was pleased to add its endorsement to these guidelines.

More news coming soon.

But now with the Freeview digital TV service up and running in New Zealand, we believe it is possible.

That’s why we’ve been pushing this issue in the last few years, because now with the new Freeview service, we should be able to get audio described programmes in much the same way as the deaf community has captioned programmes. Captioning has been around in New Zealand for nearly thirtty years, so we have some catching up to do.

This week our efforts have resulted in a break-through. New Zealand On Air, the Government agency responsible for funding public broadcasting, publicly announced that it has allocated $500,000 this financial year to pay for at least a small amount of audio described programming. This clears the way now for TVNZ to complete the necessary technical preparations and start importing audio described versions of some popular programmes. Once that is done, we should have our first audio described television broadcasts on Freeview, and we hope this will happen within the next six months. Audio described versions of local programmes will come later.

Have you ever watched a TV programme and wondered what the heck is going on? Great if you’ve got someone with you who can see and who doesn’t mind explaining what’s happening. That is what audio description is; a voice that quietly tells you what’s happening on the screen. This voice is broadcast as part of the programme itself. You just push a button on your Freeview remote, and, if the programme you are watching has an audio description, you will start to hear that extra voice telling you what’s happening, while making sure not to talk over the top of the dialogue. So as I said, it looks now like we will have at least some audio described programmes on TV in the near future.

I myself and quite a few other blind people I know have really got quite seriously into enjoying the expanding range of audio described movies now available, so there are quite a few of us who know what it is. Others have not experienced it at all and may in fact be thinking that television really doesn’t have much to offer us. Don’t forget though, the vast majority of blind people were once sighted and many people really miss the movies and TV programmes they used to love. That’s why we believe audio description will become as important to the blind community in New Zealand as captioning is to the deaf community. Not many people have switched to Freeview as yet but there will come a time when we will all have to because the old analog service will be turned off in the next few years. So it won’t be long before everyone has Freeview and that means everyone potentially will be able to switch on the audio description if they want it. The census figures tell us that some 75,000 New Zealanders identify as having a vision impairment. All these people can benefit from audio description.

There’s no need to rush out and buy a Freeview box just yet, well not unless you really want to. Best to wait I think until we know more about exactly how it will work.

At last there is real money on the table for the first time to pay for this. And this is a wonderful achievement given the current echonomic squeeze, and how much Government is cutting back in so many areas. So we have publicly expressed our appreciation to New Zealand On Air for coming up with the goods and to TVNZ for the preparations they have already made. We will keep working with them now to keep making progress and we’ll let you know more when there is more news.

And what about Sky? Well we haven’t forgotten about Sky. We think once audio description is truly a reality in New Zealand, the pressure will go on to all broadcasters to offer some audio described programming. We recognise the value of audio description to Sky subscribers because of the many current movies available on Sky, and many of these are already audio described. We also know for what it’s worth (and it may not be much) that Sky does broadcast audio described programmes in the UK. So you can be sure we will soon be turning our attention to Sky. And if anyone from Sky is reading this, as the saying goes, it’s time to “get with the programme”.

At that time, the only information I could go on was an email message sent by the Foundation’s Chief Executive on 27 May to various email lists operated by the Foundation, together with information I had obtained through informal communication. In my blog entry, I mentioned that consumer organisations had asked for a comprehensive briefing paper on the proposed changes, but given that an announcement had already been published, ultimately I decided to publish my comments on 13 June although at that time we had not received the briefing we were waiting for.

Now, just for the record, I can tell you that we received the briefing paper this week. At this stage I haven’t had time to read it. We also have a Board meeting in a couple of weeks time. I’ll post an update on this subject therefore later this month when we have digested the information we’ve now received.

As documentaries go, I suppose there was nothing really outstanding about it but still the topic was interesting. It was a pity though that some of the people invited to comment spoke their comments in a Chinese language. Now I, like most New Zealanders, am basically monolingual. My school French would probably be sufficient to get me into serious trouble if I relied on it in a city the likes of Paris, and my German is worse. As for other languages, I’m running on empty. Probably we could all make more of an effort these days with languages but I’m sure that in this respect I am like most people living in New Zealand. We just haven’t been exposed to lots of languages down in this part of the world.

Of course, it’s not as if people were expected to understand the comments made in Chinese. Sighted people were given the benefit of subtitles. So if you could see and read, and were not doing something else like the dishes, then you could know something about the views of the Chinese people who were interviewed. The rest of us were excluded from that information.

In the past, the more common approach in documentaries like this was to “voice over” such passages in English. But I’ve noticed that practice seems to have fallen out of favour in the past few years. I don’t know why.

I suspect the thinking these days is that societies around the world are becoming more cosmopolitan. So nowadays there are a good number of people living in New Zealand who do speak Chinese languages. It is probably argued that these people also have needs to be catered for, and to voice over someone’s comments in another language denies these people the opportunity to hear someone speaking in perhaps their native tongue. So subtitles are seen as the best option.

But it frustrates me as a blind person when this happens. In this documentary on the Chinese economy, I think we were able to get the gist of the issue even though we couldn’t understand half of what was said. But I recall another Sunday documentary some time last year I think which looked into the possible causes of the accident in which an Air France plane went down in the Atlantic ocean. That documentary had considerable comment from people in French, and my schoolboy French couldn’t cope. I recall I just gave up on that documentary as a waste of my time.

I’m not campaigning here to bring back voice overs. One strategy I suggest, perhaps in jest, would be to treat us all the same and do nothing; let us all take our chances with whatever language someone is speaking in. But for obvious reasons, I doubt that that would be acceptable. However to take the specific action of broadcasting this information using subtitles, a visual medium only, is inherently discriminatory and ultimately could violate New Zealand’s human rights law, particularly because there is a solution.

Today in this digital age, the solution is to broadcast an extra audio channel that can carry additional audio in these situations. Since the introduction of FreeView, the Association of Blind Citizens of New Zealand has been advocating for the introduction of audio description into New Zealand television. Slowly but surely, progress is being made towards this goal.

Audio description is to blind people like captioning is to people who are deaf. You get an additional audio commentary to tell you what’s happening on the screen. Of course, someone has to go into the studio and create that commentary, but that’s the same as captioning; someone has to produce the captions, it doesn’t happen by itself. The extra audio goes out on a separate channel so it doesn’t interfere with what everyone else is listening to. But you’ll find on all standard Freeview remote controls a button that switches on the additional audio so you can hear it.

Documentaries like these that have subtitles could easily be handled by audio description, where the audio describer could just read the subtitles. Then, anyone with the new digital technology could push that button and voilà!

And it’s not as if it’s just blind people who benefit from audio description. There are lots of people who can’t see the screen clearly enough or who can’t read who can benefit from audio description, and anyone who wants to just listen because they are doing something else, well they can benefit too. I know television is a visual medium but can we always assume people are able to focus their eyes on the screen? I doubt it.

Oh, and while we’re on this subject, let’s not forget Sky Television, even though they seem to have forgotten about blind New Zealanders. I’ll expand on that in another entry, but for now it suffices to say that the Sky system also has a button for other languages. I recall experiments some years ago in which Warriors games were broadcast in English and Maori simultaneously, and you could push that button to switch between them. So potentially, Sky also has the capability to broadcast programmes with audio description.

The developers of these technologies have put these systems in place to respond to today’s cosmopolitan societies that need multiple languages, and perhaps also to meet the needs of people who can benefit from an audio description. It’s time for broadcasters to get their act together and start using these new technology features.

We have been expecting significant changes for some time. The project known as RNZFB 2020: Sustaining our Future was undertaken by the Foundation because it was clear that without change the Foundation would be heading for serious and unsustainable deficits by 2020. One major finding of that work which concluded early last year was that the Foundation must focus its resources as much as it can on teaching blind people to maximise our independence. This is also a strong theme that runs through the Foundation’s Strategic Plan 2009-2015, adopted by the Foundation later last year.

Our vision in the Association is of a world in which blind people can be fully productive citizens, able to take on all the obligations of citizenship but also able to enjoy all that today’s society can offer. Given the intensely visual nature of today’s world, it is not surprising therefore that we direct a lot of our energy towards educating society on how to minimise or even eliminate visual barriers.

But at the same time it is vital that blind people have the special skills we need to act as independent self-directing adults, like everyone else takes for granted. Let me give a couple of examples to illustrate the point. If I as a blind person am to safely cross the road at a busy intersection, I need to know when it is time to cross. An audible traffic signal can provide that information. But if I haven’t been taught to walk confidently in a straight line, then even though I might hear the sound and know when to cross, I may not be able to cross with safety. In the same vein, we would expect commercial websites to be accessible so blind people with the appropriate technology can conduct our business on the net in much the same way as others take for granted. But if I haven’t been taught the skills needed to use the specialised technology a blind person uses to access the web, then no matter how accessible a website might be, I will still have difficulty using it.

So even if Society could be perfectly accessible, there is a point at which the ball is handed to us as blind people and we have to be able to run with it. The fundamental skills I am referring to might vary somewhat from person to person, but basically I’m talking about being able to get around with confidence, certainly at home but hopefully also when getting out and about, looking after your personal health, hygiene and appearance, doing basic household chores, communicating with others, reading and writing, and so on. These skills don’t come naturally, particularly for people who lose their sight later in life. These skills have to be learned, and the primary provider of these training services for blind people, what are often known as rehabilitation services, is the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind.

In our submissions to the Foundation’s 2020 project and strategic plan, we emphasised the importance of the Foundation’s role in teaching these fundamental skills of blindness. So it is good to see the Foundation has taken this message to heart.

Another point that we have been making in recent years is that all too often, in our view, blind people may receive some initial rehabilitation from the Foundation, but after that programme is completed, the blind person is left to decide for himself or herself what to do next. We favoured the approach that prevailed in the 1990s in which a service advisor or some other specific person could, if needed, follow up with the blind individual to see how he or she is doing and offer new training programmes when appropriate. We recognised that when a person loses their sight, their needs change over time. This seems obvious if the sight loss is gradual, but even if it is sudden and unexpected, such as after an accident or an operation that goes wrong, it can take years for a newly blinded person to fully adjust and learn to live life to the max. I’m sure there were good and bad service advisors, but they were not there as gate keepers, which means they were not there to protect the Foundation from too much demand. They were there to focus on people still coming to terms with sight loss or blindness, to offer inspiration, to offer advice on services that might be appropriate, including rehabilitation services, and to make the necessary arrangements for the Foundation to provide those services. There was a needs assessment process as well, but it was there to identify specific rehabilitation requirements. The Service Advisor could maintain an overview of the process, but most importantly, he or she would still be there at the end to help the blind person move on to the next stage in their rehabilitation.

It was around about 1999-2000, as I recall, when service advisors were disestablished in favour of a new system that would see blind people receive services on the basis of a needs assessment only. This change occurred as part of a major redesign of the Foundation that was taking place at that time. There was no real consultation about this change, and the Association has repeatedly been calling for the re-establishment of the service advisor role or something similar ever since.

So what do we now know about the changes that will occur?

So far, not a lot. Last year, rightly or wrongly, we accepted the Foundation’s Chief Executive’s view that she and her staff should do some initial work on the new service model before involving the Association and other consumer organisations. We were told that it would probably be around October or November last year when we would have the chance to evaluate the model and comment on it. That never happened.

At the most recent meeting of the Consumer Consortium, the collective of consumer organisations were clearly concerned at the lack of engagement on this issue which we all believe is critically important, and called on the Foundation to provide us with a comprehensive and detailed briefing paper on the new service model (or words to that effect as I recall). We have not received this as yet, well not anything I would describe as comprehensive.

Yet, as I indicated at the start of this entry, changes have been announced. So what can we say? We do have the recent announcement and we do have the benefit of informal knowledge gained from our verbal discussions with people such as the Foundation’s Chair and Chief Executive. So this is what we can say right now.

We know that skills will, as much as possible, be taught in groups based at a local centre. This is a shift away from individualised teaching currently provided in people’s homes. There are real benefits in teaching people in groups because people can be jollied along by the group through sometimes difficult challenges. Learning the basic skills of blindness is not easy, and we can hope that people will be able to share their experience and receive support from others in the group. We realise that not everyone will benefit from this approach and it is our understanding that individualised training will still be available for people whose needs are more complex or who simply cannot get to a centre.

The emphasis will be on “all of the essential blindness skills that might be needed to help new members adjust to sight loss”. This sounds wonderful but we have repeatedly asked the Foundation to tell us what exactly they think are the essential skills of blindness and as yet we can’t be sure that the Foundation’s view on this is similar to ours.

We know that the new approach will start first in the South Island in August this year, and in the North Island in October.

We know that blind people will from now on be given a “key contact” at the Foundation. The key contact will be a primary point of contact for someone receiving services from the Foundation. According to the announcement, the key contact will also be responsible for overseeing the delivery of services to the blind person and providing a direct link to the Foundation for people with queries or newly recognised needs.

So does this satisfy our call for a return to something akin to the service advisor role? Probably it does at least to some extent, but I still have questions. The main question is how much will it be the key contact’s responsibility to follow up and maintain on-going contact when the blind person comes to the end of a given programme or, as no doubt happens sometimes, simply drops out of the programme. Will the key contact be expected to inspire and encourage the blind person to go on? The essential problem might still remain, namely that a blind person can “fall through the cracks” and be forgotten if nobody at the Foundation follows up with that person. I am also not sure if the key contact will be able to provide advice on services offered by other organisations not related to the Foundation. We still need to find out a lot more about the key contact role and how it will work, but I suspect it falls significantly short of what we would like to see.

We are told that people will be assessed as quickly as possible after joining the Foundation. That’s got to be good.

We also understand that the staff at the front line who will be carrying out these visits and assessments will be able to provide some direct assistance to the blind person right there and then. This should be an improvement over the current system where the assessor then refers other more specialist staff to visit. Staff can easily be trained to give basic advice, provide simple equipment, teach simple techniques and take simple steps right in the home to directly and quickly help someone who is coming to terms with blindness, without the added delay and expense of sending out a fully trained rehabilitation specialist. Practical assistance right at the start, along with good advice, should hopefully help a blind person and their immediate family come to terms more quickly with their situation so the blind person can get to the point where they will agree to attend centre-based teaching programmes. So that’s got to be good.

We know that group sessions will run at various times in Foundation centres around the country, and at times in other locations. Just how this will work in practice is still unclear. Some centres will probably have sufficient population to support frequent programmes, while blind people living in some parts of the country may have to wait a while before a programme is run in their area. But we also know that people will be able to attend programmes in another centre that may be further away rather than wait for a programme in their local centre. It is highly likely in my view that some people may have to wait for quite some time for a teaching programme in their immediate area, but then we also know that individualised training will still be available so how all that wil work remains to be seen.

We have not been told specifically but it is our understanding informally that people will have to get themselves to the centre to attend their teaching programmes. Remember these are mostly newly blinded people so they are not ready yet to just pick up their cane and stride out to catch the bus. We know also that some areas have poor public transport. Perhaps there will be a role for volunteer drivers to help with this in some situations. It is not clear to me at this stage how this will impact on different people and I have to hope that the Foundation will make every effort to see that blind people are not disadvantaged if they are unable to physically get to the teaching programme.

We also know that the Foundation will be putting in new computer systems this year to support the new service model. Also we know that teaching Programmes will be scheduled centrally for the whole organisation. Time will tell whether this works in practice. Staff are by far the most expensive resource, and you would have to think that the software, high speed communications networks and technology available today should enable the Foundation to readily manage the workloads of all rehab staff to deliver these services with maximum efficiency.

Finally, we know that the Foundation will evaluate these changes by asking blind people to comment on their experience. This is standard nowadays, but it is not a substitute for honest consultation with leading consumer organisations such as the Association. People who are still learning to cope with sight loss or blindness are likely to be happy with any service provided, and cannot be expected to have the depth of experience to know what level of service they should expect.

I am personally disappointed that the Foundation has not really taken consumer organisations into its confidence with respect to these changes, especially given that the Foundation’s Chief Executive had indicated there would be an opportunity to be involved. These are the most significant changes to the way services are delivered since “Focus on Rehabilitation” in the 1990s. Back then, there was considerable collegiality between Board members, Management, staff and consumer organisations as we all worked together towards a common goal of moving the Foundation away from the old social worker-based services to focus directly on giving blind people the essential skills we need to get on with being blind. The benefit of that partnership approach was that we as consumer leaders could play a role in helping consumers accept and welcome the new model. And that is what we did back then when Focus on Rehabilitation was introduced. I can readily contrast that with today’s rather different management style which is much more isolated, controlling and directive. And while that may seem critical, I do talk regularly to many Foundation staff and I do pick up the vibe that a lot of staff feel that management is distant and remote and staff in general seem not to know much more than the consumers.

I believe social organisations like the Foundation work best under a collegial, inclusive management style, and certainly today’s disability philosophy believes that people with disabilities should be fully included in decisions about the services we receive. But some would say that having gone through the consultation exercise, and stakeholders have told the Foundation what they want, we should give the Foundation space to make its own internal management decisions; managers have the right to manage and they should be judged by their results. So let’s give credit where credit is due.

Overall I think we should be pleased with the announced changes. We can have some confidence that the Foundation has got it right. But make no mistake, we are not partners in this, not yet anyway. All we can do is tell you what we know. I think the new service model heads the Foundation in the right direction but you can see from these comments that many questions remain. The Foundation faces some huge challenges with funding, shortages of skilled staff, costs of running local centres, and the list goes on. There was a clear call in the 2020 discussions for the Foundation to focus and prioritise its services. This is a first step. These changes will hopefully bring some efficiency gains and should deliver training programmes that are more supportive and inspirational so blind people can be better equipped to live productive, fulfilling, self-directed independent lives.

But could it have been even better? The 2020 discussions prepared us for the possibility that some services might be dropped altogether. Are we any closer to identifying the highest priority services and, if needed, services that could be dropped? If a service had to be cut, which one would it be? The Association continues to call for meaningful discussions on prioritisation of services. In a sense, the Foundation has lost the chance it had to really make a major change to the services it delivers. It is not just that the funding squeeze may ultimately mean that a service must be dropped. Just think, if a lower priority service had been identified and dropped soon after the 2020 project concluded early last year, and I think we were ready for that possibility, that would have freed up valuable resources to make the remaining services even better. Every organisation must have regard to its priorities. It hasn’t happened and I believe the Foundation has missed a valuable chance.

Still, I urge the Foundation to take consumer organisations more into its confidence as the planning continues. The Foundation should see its consumer organisations as valuable fonts of knowledge coming from many years of experience as blind people. This is particularly important given how much institutional knowledge the Foundation has lost in recent years. We know from our long experience what works and what doesn’t, and what we would like to see improved. We will not always agree, and we don’t always agree even as consumers, but the more we are partners, the more we can dialogue, the more we can resolve our differences and become committed to supporting the Foundation’s success. To ignore our collective knowledge is a big mistake.

First and foremost, like all other students, blind and low vision students have a right to be educated to their maximum potential. This is the principle that guides our approach to this topic. As blind adults who have had the benefit of good education, we’re interested in special education because we want to ensure future generations of blind New Zealanders have the best possible chance to gain full employment and all the other usual benefits, and take on all the usual obligations, of citizenship.

Like most other disability groups, we support the principle of inclusion, which in simple terms means that a student with a disability has the ultimate right to be educated at a local school along with other students who do not have a disability.

But unlike some who are opposed in principle to special schools, we see an important place for a special school in the education of blind and low vision students. The current special school for these students is BLENNZ, the Blind and Low Vision Education Network NZ. It has a campus at Homai in South Auckland and a number of visual resource centres around the country. It employs most of the specialist teachers who teach the fundamental skills of blindness, such as braille, adaptive technology, and how to get around with confidence.

A special school is important because it can provide an alternative setting for a student to be educated if he or she is not coping in a mainstream school. It might be easier for that student to spend some time learning in a special school setting, where they can also learn the fundamental skills of blindness, so that they might then be able to cope properly in a mainstream school environment. A special school can also provide a setting to bring blind and low vision students together in small groups for short-term intensive courses focusing on specific topics, such as learning music through braille, gaining the most from adaptive technology, and learning other fundamental blindness skills. One advantage of this approach is that if a student is the only blind or low vision student at their school, they get the opportunity to meet other students with a similar disability. Friendships can thus form and nowadays there is considerable scope for blind and low vision students to support each other around the country by phone and email.

We acknowledged that the number of specialist teachers has significantly increased in recent years. But we emphasised that it is crucial that funding be maintained and linked to the numbers of students from year to year, to ensure there will always be enough teachers specially trained to teach these skills to future generations.

These specialists perform another important role as well. Particularly in mainstream schools, they help the blind student access the education offered by the school. Often this involves turning printed and visual information into an accessible format.

Obviously it is important that blind and low vision students have access to the specialist support they need, but this should not let the school itself off the hook. We emphasise that all schools have an obligation to ensure that they deliver education in a way that is accessible to everyone. When a blind child is in the class, the teacher has the same obligation to teach that child as he or she does to teach the others in the class. Teachers must therefore plan their education so that it includes students with disabilities as much as possible. We believe all teachers should have a basic grounding in how to teach students with disabilities.

We are very concerned when it appears that schools essentially ignore the needs of a blind or low vision student, expecting that these will be picked up by the specialist support teachers provided by BLENNZ. Schools should be obliged, for example, to choose school textbooks that are available in accessible formats or which are at least readily transcribable. Schools should also be obliged to work to time frames so a blind or low vision student is not penalised by the delays often inherent in obtaining materials in an accessible format. Think how you would feel as a parent if your child came home from school saying that he or she did not have the same materials to read as the other kids in the class. In our experience, often when a blind student is penalised in this way, it has been the result of poor planning on the part of the school.

In a similar vein, schools are nowadays developing exciting new e-learning environments. Today’s technology offers wonderful new opportunities to directly include blind students, but only if these students can have access to today’s specialised technology, and, perhaps more importantly, if schools ensure that their e-learning environments are accessible in the first place. We expressed a real concern to the review panel that it is all too easy for schools to overlook the principles of accessibility and universal design when creating their e-learning environments. In our experience, it is often very expensive if not almost impossible to add accessibility to a technology project as an afterthought, and sometimes a complete redesign is required. But it is generally not expensive if accessibility is included as a guiding principle in the design from the outset.

The principle of accessibility must be fundamental if blind and low vision students are to be properly educated in mainstream schools. Few people nowadays would question the need for the school environment to be physically accessible so students in wheelchairs can fully participate. Blind students generally have no difficulty physically in a building, but if when they get into the building they find everything inaccessible, they are in much the same position as the physically disabled student in a wheelchair who can’t get up the stairs. Thus we believe that accessibility of information and technology is just as important. That way, we can guarantee a blind student can fully and independently participate in their education in much the same way as their sighted peers.

But I did get to have a good break over Christmas and I do think I see things a lot clearer now in my own mind and I’m sure that will start to influence how I approach the issues we are working on.

The main purpose of the blog is to keep you up to date with what we’re up to. I can tell you we’re well and truly back into it for this year. The Board has met once already and we’re meeting again this weekend. This weekend we’ll be putting time into some strategic thinking. I’ll have more news on the outcomes of these meetings in the next couple of weeks. Suffice it to say that the blog is back and you’ll be reading a lot more very shortly about some of the serious challenges we are having to face.

The starting point is to understand how blind people access information. Because publishers almost never publish books in an accessible format, it falls essentially to the mostly voluntary blindness agencies around the world to apply their own resources to create accessible versions of books. According to the World Blind Union’s Right to Read campaign, limited resources mean that only some five per cent of books are accessible to blind people. In New Zealand, the primary agency that produces books in accessible formats for blind people is the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind. They take a variety of everyday books and magazines and produce copies in accessible formats such as audio (talking books), braille, large print and DAISY (DAISY is an open standard for accessible digital information developed and maintained by the DAISY Consortium). But the Foundation is small by world standards, so it obtains much of its accessible format materials from larger cooperating blindness agencies around the world.

Regardless of the format or the method of producing it, the act of producing an accessible version of a published work generally involves making a copy of that work. Therefore, it is mainly the law of copyright that governs what agencies like the Foundation can and can’t do when they make accessible copies of published works. In the past, the process would start with the blindness agency writing to the publisher to request permission to make the copy. Generally, but not always, permission would be granted, but there would often be a lengthy delay. Of course, making that accessible copy without permission would be a violation of copyright law.

In 1994, New Zealand became one of the first countries in the world to provide a copyright exemption clause directly in law to allow registered agencies to produce accessible versions of published works without infringing copyright. Under section 69 of our Copyright Act, agencies such as the Foundation can make accessible copies of published works without obtaining permission. The exemption means that as long as they follow the procedures detailed in that section of the Act, they can make these copies without infringing copyright. This clause was not without its critics, and I am sure that some detailed research into the relevant papers at the time would reveal some notable authors who publicly expressed their opposition. Perhaps they thought blind people were wanting a free ride, something for nothing, but I suspect that the opposition that was expressed at that time was simply based on the principle that the copyright holder has the ultimate right to retain control of their work and this exemption would have been seen as a violation of that principle.

But that was fifteen years ago and a lot of water has gone under the bridge since then. Now, all the major countries we relate to in New Zealand have similar exemptions. In the past, when the blindness agencies obtained permission directly from the copyright holders, that permission could be given so the agency involved could make copies for blind people throughout the world, or in English speaking countries, etc. So the blindness agencies were generally able to exchange accessible format materials with relative ease. Now that permission is generally not needed, the agencies making accessible format copies under the relevant exemption in their country are generally only allowed to provide those copies to blind people in the country they serve.

Ironically, this causes a serious problem for small countries like New Zealand. It is now much harder, and sometimes just impossible, to get accessible books from the big agencies in other countries. They can now plan their production runs without having to worry about getting permission from the copyright holders. If New Zealand wants to buy from them, presuming they are willing to sell, it is generally required that the agency in New Zealand must produce a letter from the copyright holder giving permission to the selling agency to make and sell the copies we need. But even if that permission can be obtained, the selling agency might not be in a position to schedule production of the copies we need without significant expense, which the Foundation has to pay for.

Another problem arises because accessible formats nowadays are conveyed digitally and are essentially accessible to sighted people. In the past, talking books were recorded onto tape in a non-standard format so they could only be played on talking book players that would generally be only available to blind people. Braille was produced directly on paper and would only be readable to someone who knows how to read braille. The accessible books we used in the past had little value to sighted people. Nowadays, many talking books are now produced on CD and other formats and are readily playable on everyday MP3 players and the like. Braille might still be read on paper but the files are produced on computer and can be easily copied and decoded to get back to the original print which can be read without any knowledge of braille. This all means that the accessible format copies we use nowadays are valuable to the general public. Publishers now see these copies as posing a significant risk because end users can easily get at the content and freely copy it on the internet. No longer do blind people enjoy the protection that was inherent in the specialised formats we used to use.

I should point out here that it is perfectly feasible to use standard encryption and security technology to prevent illegitimate copying or at least to discourage it. Some blindness agencies already do this. But managing the technology can be problematic, particularly given the increasing variety of players we can use today, and no such technology is completely secure, so it is certainly not universally used.

I’m sure you can see now how complicated this all gets. The simple fact is that it is now significantly more difficult and expensive for the Foundation in New Zealand to obtain accessible format books from other agencies, and in some cases the books are just not available at all. You would think that today’s technology would make it easier, but in some ways it is proving to be counter-productive.

One solution is seen by many to be the adoption of some sort of treaty or agreement by the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) that would provide a means for blindness agencies around the world to exchange accessible format copies of books. Agencies such as the World Blind Union and the DAISY Consortium have been actively lobbying for something like this. The idea is that ultimately WIPO would agree on how this could be done, ie it might be done by means of a new copyright treaty or by amending an existing treaty.

In May this year, Brazil, Ecuador and Paraguay proposed a treaty along these lines. Word in the blogosphere was that at first at least countries such as USA, Canada, Australia, the EU and even New Zealand acted to block it or prevent discussion. It was said that this was as a result of intense lobbying by publishers, particularly in the USA.

I am not in a position to know how New Zealand conducted itself at the recent talks. But the outcome in the end was that the proposed treaty is still on the table. It will be evaluated further by the various countries and discussed again at the next session of the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights.

I don’t think we can expect any solution very quickly on that front. Even if agreement could be reached, it would be of little value unless each country we deal with amends its domestic legislation to implement the treaty. When you consider the time it might take for countries to fine-tune and ultimately agree on such a proposal, and the time it will then take for the various countries we deal with to amend their domestic laws, I think it could be more like ten years before international copyright exemptions really make a difference. Of course another option is for New Zealand to try to establish bilateral arrangements with the countries we deal with the most, and the Association of Blind Citizens is actively promoting that as an alternative approach.

The Association recently met with representatives of our Government’s Ministry of Economic Development and discussed the approach New Zealand will take to discussions on copyright exemptions in future. We acknowledged the concerns of publishers, but we got them also to acknowledge that there are human rights issues at stake here. Yes, we claim the right to read the same books, at the same time, and at the same price as everyone else, and we argue that in today’s modern world, publishers who do not make a reasonable effort to produce their material in an accessible (even if copy protected) format are discriminating against us on the grounds of our disability and breaching the laws in many countries. That will be the subject of my next and hopefully the final blog on this most complicated, yet fascinating, topic.

Amazon is a well-known publisher of electronic books or e-books. These books are electronic files you read using a portable electronic device often called an e-book reader. In Amazon’s case, their reader is called the Kindle. The second iteration of the Kindle, the Kindle 2, was released in February this year. This caused considerable controversy in the blind and intellectual property communities as I will explain shortly. To my knowledge, the Kindle experience is so far only available in the US because of various import/export laws and other restrictions.

The concept of the e-book aims to deliver much the same reading experience through electronic means as people get from reading a printed book, paperback, newspaper or magazine, except that the typical e-book reader gives the advantage of being able to read many thousands of books through the one portable device. The more recent Kindles have a screen that even attempts to emulate the look of ink on paper. So the basic idea is that you choose something to read and it comes up on the screen, and you essentially read it like you would a piece of paper. The controls on the unit let you turn pages and move through the text at will.

The Kindles have built in memory for holding a large number of books and they also work wirelessly so you can access books and other content directly from Amazon. And you don’t even have to have your own internet service because Amazon makes this available directly to Kindle users by an arrangement with a major US telecommunications company.

The idea of course is that the customer buys content from Amazon, and reads it on this highly portable reader. As long as the customer is in a coverage area (rather like using a mobile phone), they can switch on and directly access Amazon to get more content and, I believe, surf the web and access other information as well. Of course Amazon is not actually the publisher; no doubt they in turn pay publishers and authors for the rights to publish their content in this way.

The Kindle 2 introduced a new innovation into this fast changing world of e-books, built-in high quality text to speech. This means that when you open up an e-book to read, instead of reading it on the screen, you could make the Kindle 2 read it to you in its synthetic voice. Text to speech technology has tended to be rather specialised. It is used a lot by blind people when we access information on computers, and also quite extensively in telephone-based ordering systems. The technology has developed amazingly in the last twenty to thirty years, but it still does not really approach the qualities of a professional narrator who can deliver human emotion and expression that is appropriate to the content. But text to speech is certainly much better than it used to be, and it has become very affordable, and Amazon clearly saw benefits in bringing it to its customers. They would be able to read books in the car while driving, for instance, well, you know, while still keeping their eyes on the road.

There is already a growing and competitive market for audio books. Some people who really want to have something read to them in the car have demonstrated that they are willing to pay a much higher price for that privilege. You can well imagine the concerns of audio book publishers when they realised that a device like the Kindle 2 could seriously erode their sales, because it would let people pay just the standard fee to Amazon to get the book and they could then choose whether to read it on the screen or have it read to them by the machine itself. Sure it might not match what a good narrator could do, but on the other hand almost any book available to Kindle users could be read this way, ie there would be much more choice than the audio book market currently offers.

It seems that Amazon, naively perhaps, may have under-estimated the significance of their new text to speech functionality when they released it earlier this year. Ironical perhaps when you realise that Amazon also sells audio books. The Wall Street Journal quoted the Authors Guild’s Executive Director, Paul Aikin, as saying “they don’t have the right to read a book out loud. That’s an audio right, which is derivative under copyright law.” The essence of what he was saying is that any reading of a book out loud is a potential infringement of copyright. Of course their stance sparked howls of outrage as people pondered on the possibility that even reading bed time stories out loud to their children might be a breach of copyright.

The blind community immediately took a stance based on human rights, upholding the principle that we should have the same right to access published information as sighted people. The President of the National Federation of the Blind said: “blind people routinely use readers, either human or machine, to access books that are not available in alternative formats like Braille or audio. Up until now, no one has argued that this is illegal, but now the Authors Guild says that it is. This is absolutely wrong. The blind and other readers have the right for books to be presented to us in the format that is most useful to us, and we are not violating copyright law as long as we use readers, either human or machine, for private rather than public listening. The key point is that reading aloud in private is the same whether done by a person or a machine, and reading aloud in private is never an infringement of copyright.”

So here we all were, ready for a major slugging match that might really have defined our legal rights. But then, Amazon gave in. Remember Amazon’s business model relies on cooperation with authors and publishers. In the end, they agreed that publishers would be given the facility to disable the Kindle’s text to speech function so it can’t be used on their specific content. So the matter was concluded on the basis of commercial reality, leaving the battle over the important legal principle it raised to be fought another day.

Blind people dream of a world in which we can have access to the same information as what sighted people already enjoy. When I was younger, we just accepted that it was physically impossible for us to read, so we made do with the assistance of others to do the reading for us. But that was before today’s world of information being published electronically. Nowadays, virtually everything that is published has come from a computer. The development of the e-book and the ability to pay for content directly through a system such as the one run by Amazon means people can completely bypass paper altogether. All the technology building blocks are now in place that let me as a blind person order my copy of today’s best seller from an online publisher and have it transmitted to me so I can read it with my choice of technology. It can even be secured so that only I can read it, in case I should be tempted to pass copies to other people. But can I access all the books out there? Well there are some organisations that make this possible for a limited range of titles, but generally speaking the answer is no, I can’t.

In essence, the reason today why blind people can’t read the same books as everyone else is not because books are published in print and it is physically impossible for us to read that. Nor is it because technology hasn’t developed enough. NO, the barriers that prevent us from reading much of what is published are man-made. They arise from the fundamental changes taking place right now in the way content is published.

First, while there certainly are open standards for e-books, the big publishers like Amazon use proprietary formats designed to ensure that you can only read the content they make available through their equipment. Compare that with the traditional physical book. Once a physical book is out in the community, it can be read by anyone with good eye sight who knows how to read. It can be loaned to your friends and passed on to others at used book stalls; in fact one physical copy might last for centuries and be read by hundreds of people. But that’s because when you buy physical books, you own them and they are self-contained. You might not be legally able to copy them but they are still your books and physically you can do with them what you want. But that is not so true for e-books. The new approach, now made possible by today’s technology, is that you don’t own your book; you simply own the right to access it using prescribed equipment that is under the on-going control of the company that sells you the content. This is not something you can easily lend or even sell to someone else.

The big publishers now have an ability they never had before to control access to their content right to the end user. So we’re seeing a battle between the big players in which each one hopes to corner the lion share of the market. The same technology revolution that has the potential to open up the whole world of information to blind people has given publishers new ways to slice and dice their content into different formats targeted specifically to different markets and specific regions, and it gives them much finer control over who can read that content and by what means they can read it. As the wider community warms to new technology-based ways to read, publishers now see new ways to clip the ticket thus creating new revenue streams. And the race is on to see who can corner the biggest share of the market.

In essence, this development has only been a reality for a short time and as a global society we have not yet developed a social consensus on what constitutes acceptable behaviour. The laws that control this activity are grounded in commerce and copyright, but in my view the traditional copyright laws are inadequate to deal with today’s reality because in the past there has always been a degree of separation between the way content is produced and the way it is consumed. The new technology takes away that separation, and society as a whole must consider the consequences.

At the same time, the blind community now considers that the right to read is a fundamental human right. The World Blind Union launched its Right to Read campaign in April last year. We are not demanding a free ride. The catch phrase for the World Blind Union’s Right to Read campaign is “the same books at the same time and at the same price as everyone else”. It seeks to persuade publishers to openly include the blind community in their markets, and they encourage the adoption of new copyright exemptions to promote the availability of books in accessible formats throughout the world. That will be the subject of my next blog.

The thing about physical barriers is that they are easy to see and understand. When the disability movement really took off in the late sixties and seventies, it built on the gains won by earlier movements that fought for racial equality. The first focus of the disability movement was to claim our right to live in the mainstream of society, to fight against discrimination in areas such as employment and access to public spaces. In this regard we have been largely successful I think, with many countries now having legislation to ensure that public spaces are basically accessible to people with disabilities and to prevent discrimination on the grounds of disability in various aspects of life.

It was easy for Society to confront the need for places like schools to be physically accessible, so people with disabilities could have equitable access to education. It was also easy for Society to understand what to do. You build buildings more appropriately, with ramps and other facilities for people with disabilities, and over the last thirty years I guess that has become pretty much an established practice for a lot of public buildings. Sure there are always arguments over resources and it’s not a perfect world but I think no one can deny the progress we have made in that respect.

I can recall writing an article in the early 1980s I think. It was in the early days of mainstreaming blind students in ordinary schools in New Zealand and I commented that now the school library was physically accessible it would mean that people with disabilities could physically go to the library, browse the shelves and read the books there. Right? Well not blind students. Blind students have always been able to physically get to the school library but we have never been able to read any of the books there. Our problem has never been one of physical access.

The problem with what we call the information barrier is that it isn’t physically there; you can’t actually see it. It can take a while for the penny to drop. I can recall comments from those earlier days like “we’ve done so much and still you’re not satisfied”. No we weren’t satisfied because, basically, stairs are not a problem to us. Those comments came from people who just hadn’t stopped to think about accessibility in terms of the final outcome. They only thought of it in physical terms. That was why I painted the picture in that article of the blind student in the “accessible” library, surrounded by books she can’t read. And I’m not sure it’s that different today, with many schools running their own intranet and e-learning centres which are still largely inaccessible to blind students.

But let us not forget though that in those days it was before the computer, well to be more precise, before computers became commonplace, because I recall I did have an Apple IIE in those days. In those days there was no practical solution that would give us access to that whole wealth of information on the library shelves. Blind people would have to wait, in the meantime relying on specialised blindness agencies such as our own Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind to help us get the information we need.

Now let’s fast-forward to today, some 25 years later. You might think that in today’s electronic world, blind people should at last be able to access all the information we could want. Surely, we blind people should at last be satisfied. Well the answer is no, I’m afraid we aren’t yet satisfied, and for good reason.

Over the next week or so I will be publishing three articles on this blog on the subject of overcoming the information barrier, and I hope these will help improve understanding of why this is still a fundamental issue for blind people. Actually I would say it is probably now the single most important issue for us.

The first will give you my take on the recent outcry that occurred when Amazon released its Kindle II e-book reader that has built-in synthetic speech. Synthetic speech is a major access technology for blind people, but for those of you who don’t know what happened, you will learn how Amazon had angered the publishers of information, what they chose to then do about it, and how that caused outrage in the blind community. I will give you my commentary on what I think are the implications of that episode for blind people.

The second article will look at the issue of copyright and why copyright exemptions are needed to ensure that materials in formats blind people can use can be readily moved from one country to another. It used to be for instance that blind people in small countries like New Zealand could readily borrow books on cassette from the big producers in the USA, the UK and other countries. This was a great way for blind people, particularly students, to obtain more specialised reading that we couldn’t expect to get from a local source such as the Foundation of the Blind.

But that’s all history now everyone has gone digital. I’ll be telling you why in this second article. The matter was recently discussed at a meeting of the World Intellectual Property Organisation. So did New Zealand behave itself when the matter was discussed? You’ll find out later this week.

The third and final article in this series will give you my take on where to from here. Why is it that as we progress more into the digital age, it seems to be harder for us to confront the issue and get over the barrier. It is sometimes said that there are none so blind as those who will not see. Is that the problem here? Is it just that the world still just doesn’t get it? Maybe, but I suggest also that our problems are to some extent of our own making and we really need to make sure we send a clear and consistent signal to the world to let them know what we want. I will be suggesting there is some conflict in the signals we are currently sending and we need to get our own act together.

I want to bring you up to date with the latest developments concerning the Foundation’s governance proposal. This is important because it is all about our ability as members to directly govern those specialised services that are there to meet our needs as blind people.

Some of you reading this won’t know what this is about so perhaps some background is in order. The Foundation of the Blind is New Zealand’s primary provider of services to blind and vision impaired people. It is governed by a Board of Directors which, apart from one seat, is elected by its roughly 11,000 consumers. The change to this model came about in 2002, when the Foundation changed its name from the “Royal New Zealand Foundation for the Blind” to “the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind”. The change from “for” to “of” heralded a new era, what we referred to at the time as an era of self determination. It was not won lightly. It came after some years of concentrated and purposeful advocacy that saw the whole active blind community unite in the pursuit of change.

Late last year, The Foundation’s Board circulated a proposal that would significantly change the way that Board is elected. It would see us electing six directors, with the other three appointed by the Board itself.

While still only a proposal for discussion, it arose out of growing concern that the Constitution, now nearly seven years old, is perhaps not delivering as much as we had hoped. Even in 2007, the Association raised some concerns with the Foundation’s Board, hoping that this would encourage them to carry out a review of the Constitution after its then first five years of operation. Among other things, we were concerned about the process of cooption, the lack of information about how individual directors perceive their role and perform their duties as directors, and the fact that elections have always favoured candidates who are already on the Board.

While we acknowledge that the Foundation’s Board is committed to consulting with consumers and stakeholders and is genuinely motivated by the need to ensure high quality governance of the Foundation, we were disappointed that the Board developed its proposal on its own and without discussion with stakeholders. We felt that the wider blind community must first engage in genuine dialogue about problems people might perceive in the Constitution before any proposal could be considered in detail. We also wanted to see an independent group steer the process from here, rather than the Board develop a final proposal on its own. Of course the Board would have a view which is valued, but governance is something that is even above the Board itself.

In March, we formally asked to meet with the Foundation’s Board to discuss our concerns. I am pleased to advise now that that meeting has taken place and we have reached genuine agreement over the way forward. A joint statement has now been released which I am including here for you:

Statement on prospective amendments to the governing rules of the RNZFB

Representatives of the Board of Directors of the RNZFB and representatives from the Board of the Association of Blind Citizens of New Zealand Inc met at Awhina House the evening of May 14th to discuss procedures around proposed changes to RNZFB governance.

We agreed the following:

“That there is a consensus around the need to establish an independent review group to evaluate, and if necessary make recommendations on, resolving perceived problems concerning the current rules and processes governing the RNZFB. By extending the period of consultation with stakeholders over the next year, we believe there will be greater understanding of, and agreement around, resolving any issues standing in the way of sound governance of the RNZFB.

The independent review group of around six persons will have an external facilitator and members will be selected for their experience of consumerism, stakeholder relations and governance. Terms of reference are currently being developed and, along with review group membership, will be subject to agreement by key stakeholders. It is anticipated that in 2010 a Special Meeting of Members will be called to endorse or otherwise, any recommendations for amendments to the constitution of the RNZFB. It is hoped that any changes will be in place in time for the 2010 election of Board Directors.

Law firm, Buddle Findlay have tabled their draft report on the external review of the Foundation’s current constitution. This 40 page report is available to interested stakeholders by phoning Raewyne Lovich, 09 355 6920.”

D M McKenzie
Chair
RNZFB Board of Directors

Clive Lansink
National President
ABC NZ

We think this is good news because an independent group will now be formed to not just consider the current proposal and any submissions people may make on that, but also it should take more time to canvas the issues with members in general, and if this group feels the need to recommend any change to the Constitution, it will be one that will hopefully have widespread support. The terms of reference for that group will hopefully be drawn up very soon.

I hope this means now that we will enter a constructive debate on just what is good governance when applied to an organisation like the Foundation?

The Association is not strongly advocating any particular model of governance. We believe that governance is something that in the end is for the entire blind community and other stakeholders to discuss and resolve. However one principle that I believe the Association continues to uphold is the principle of self determination, which means blind people taking charge of our own services.

We applaud the Board for its willingness to step aside from directly managing the review process. Directors will of course be welcome to participate in the discussion like anyone else.

PS, for those of you who wonder about the significance of my reference to “quest for equity”, it is the title of the history of the first fifty years of our Association, as written by Greg Newbold. It charts the organisation’s progress as it led the way from the days in which blind people lived in institutions and worked in sheltered workshops to today’s world in which we demand to play our full part as citizens of the community.

One section of the blind community that is often not heard is that of young people. On this occasion, I’m referring to blind and low vision people between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five. These are young adults, old enough to have left school, ready to take on the world, yet still at that age where it isn’t exactly cool to be going to meetings of an organisation like our Association. I can easily recall my attitude at eighteen years of age. I certainly had no time for meetings and commitments.

From time to time we have talked about a youth branch, and that may happen at some stage if enough young people want to get behind a concept like that. But in the meantime we want to give blind youth an opportunity to have their say on issues important to them, and I’m pleased to announce that our Board decided recently to host a one-day forum for blind and low vision youth.

We should have a formal announcement out by the end of May and we plan to run it in August some time. As already stated, the target age group will be eighteen to twenty-five. Once announced, we will publicise this as widely as we can and we will be inviting blind and low vision people in this age group from all over New Zealand to contact us with some sort of indication as to why they would like to attend this forum. Our plan is to select up to sixteen people and bring them together for one day at our expense.

We hope the young people who attend will feel encouraged to speak openly about the things that most concern them about their situation as a blind or low vision person. We will provide a facilitator so even the ones who are the most shy will speak up, but apart from that, the older folks will stay away and not influence the process. No strings; no obligations.

I’m sure we all remember what life was like when we were young but I don’t think any of us who are much older than this age group can really appreciate life for people in this age group today. Young people today have to deal with a vastly different world. On the one hand, they face challenges we never had to face when we were young, but on the other hand there are new opportunities now which we could only have dreamed of.

The Association has always cared a lot about the next generation. I can remember older blind adults who helped and encouraged us when we were growing up, and it was only when I became an adult that I realised they were Association members. Now we are older, we have the same commitment to the next generation. We are committed to ensuring that what comes out of this forum will influence our programme of advocacy over the next few years. And if it is really successful, I hope we’ll be planning the next one before too long.

Sighted people, that is. Blind people have not been able to use them because even though we can at least on some models learn which button is which, we can’t actually interact with these machines because we can’t read what is on the screen. Sure it’s possible on some machines to learn a series of actions that might result in getting a certain amount of money, but there is always the risk that something might go wrong, and ultimately the machine is likely to take your card if you persevere and as a blind person you wouldn’t know the reason why. We just think that access to ATMs is a human right since banks have some obligation to serve us to the same standard as they serve others, and technology has existed for some time now to make ATMs accessible to us.

I’m pleased to say that in the last couple of years there has been a bit of a “quiet revolution” going on, thanks largely to our Association’s continued advocacy and the favourable response of the banking industry. We must remember that these machines are often upgraded or replaced, and we always hoped that in time the banks would start to buy new machines with the capability of talking to us so we too could use them.

The first talking ATMs to appear were installed in 2005 by the New Zealand Association of Credit Unions. Though not a trading bank, they led the way in making banking more accessible to blind people.

But since then several banks have started to install them, and the numbers are growing.
At the time of writing and according to information the Association has recently gained from the banks, ANZ the National Bank should have a massive 400 audio enabled machines installed by the end of May (we believe), Westpac now has 113 installed, ASB Bank has 79, and the Association of Credit Unions has 51. So basically that’s over 600 audio enabled machines in total either installed or coming very soon. That’s a tremendous and positive change.

Other banks are a little slower, but we are in touch with them and we believe they are making progress. We particularly hope that New Zealand’s own KiwiBank will install talking ATMs when their ICT infrastructure upgrades are complete.

The machines vary in detail, but the basic principle is that you plug a standard pair of headphones into the machine. It senses this and automatically starts to talk, giving the blind user full control over their transaction. Some machines even blank the screen during an audio transaction, which we think is a positive move because a blind person cannot always be sure no one is watching.

It is understandable that the banks did not want a lot of publicity during the early installations because even their own staff have had to find out about them.

But now we think it’s time to start telling people about our success. What we need now is publicity so particularly blind people with one of these machines close by can be aware of them. It may take a while for us to start using them because, let’s face it, we have had to get along pretty much without them, and often we can get cash from shops etc when we buy something using EFTPOS. But now that these machines are here, and a good number of us will have at least one machine in our area, I hope we will start using them like sighted people already do.

Now I had to walk back about a hundred meters or so which was no big deal, but it gave me a moment to ponder on why this had happened, particularly because I do this every day and quite often it seems drivers just don’t understand where I want them to stop. Like most drivers in Auckland, and I think more than anywhere else in New Zealand, English was not this driver’s first language. But it wasn’t as if he couldn’t converse at all in English. Believe me I know how frustrating it is when you end up with a driver who simply cannot communicate. This guy could communicate, but it was as if my words just didn’t register.

On another occasion with a different driver I think, we were going along and I decided that I wanted to stop quickly at a dairy that is part of a block of shops we were about to go past. So I just asked the driver to quickly pull in at the block of shops coming up on the left. The driver sort of grunted and I assumed he understood, but when we didn’t slow down and went through the next roundabout, I realised we were way past those shops. I asked the driver why he hadn’t stopped at the shops and I could tell by his response that he simply knew nothing of what I meant.

These situations are not unusual, particularly in Auckland. I suppose we have to accept the reality that kiwis who speak English don’t seem to want to drive taxis. So we have a lot of drivers for whom English is a second language. But I am convinced that the problem I am referring to is not simply one of poor language. I have met plenty of drivers whose English is bad but who somehow still make the effort to communicate and engage, and I’m ok with that because we live in a multicultural world, and you can at least have a basic conversation.

The problem I am referring to is hard to describe but you know it when you find it. The driver is driving the car alright but seems to be completely disconnected from the job. Conversation breaks down because the responses you get which may still be in reasonably good English just don’t make any sense. It is as if the driver knows the words but not their meaning.

There is also a certain worldliness that is increasingly lacking in the industry. I have always believed that there is more to driving taxis than just taking people to a specified destination. Drivers are often expected to know about places to go, perhaps most important for visitors, such as where is a good restaurant nearby. There are many reasons why drivers need to be able to converse in a meaningful way with the passengers. I remember once getting hungry one late night in Brisbane and I had no idea where to go to get something to eat. I could have got over it but in the end I gave in. I called a cab and asked the driver to take me to where I could get a decent burger. I don’t know what I would have done if that driver didn’t know what a good burger was or where we could get one, but we drove to a late night place and I got a good feed, which put me in a much better mood to go to sleep.

My favourite burger place in Auckland for many years has been Al and Pete’s in Parnell. There was a time when every taxi driver knew where it was. But not anymore. I almost always have to tell them. But I don’t mind that so much. So typically I’ll say ok we’re going to such and such a place, and on the way I want to stop at Al and Pete’s which is a takeaway place at the top of Ayre Street on Parnell Road. Now that’s clear enough I think, but increasingly I find drivers just don’t understand, and so it then falls to me to find some other way to describe where I want to go.

I often wonder whether the problem I am describing affects blind people more because the drivers might be used to people pointing and using other visual signals, and of course that’s not what we do. But even so, these guys deliver a public service and blind people are part of the public. Is it too much to ask to just communicate in plain English?

The Taxi Federation was in the news last weekend saying that the recession has resulted in a decline in takings, and ultimately taxi fares may have to go up.

I already spend a fortune on cabs and perhaps that’s just the way it is. I realise that it’s great to have a fleet of people out there just waiting for my call. I know that the guy who turns up at a moment’s notice to drive me where I want to go, that guy has bills to pay and has to make a living too. So I accept that in the end prices may have to go up and I may have to pay more.

But I would feel better about that if the taxi industry showed more commitment to delivering a proper service. We all need reliable transport, and often people with disabilities, particularly blind people, need a reliable taxi service more than most. In obtaining their license, drivers should not only have good local area knowledge, and I don’t just mean roads, but they should be able to demonstrate an ability to actually communicate meaningfully. I do wonder sometimes how some drivers have got their license. I don’t expect a driver to debate the finer points of politics or nuclear physics with me, but I don’t think it is too much to expect a driver to know what a block of shops is or a basement parking garage for that matter. Apart from driving us efficiently to where we need to go, taxi drivers need to know some basic things like where are different kinds of restaurants, shops, doctors, pharmacies, bank machines, and yes, where to get a decent burger.

Government and local authorities have an obligation to ensure that the urban environment is accessible to everyone, including people with disabilities. I recently blogged about how people with disabilities have moved out of an era dominated largely by living in institutions to today’s world in which we live in the community. Living in the community means working, studying, shopping, socialising, enjoying entertainment, playing sport, and doing everything else that comes with being part of modern society. Without an effective public transport system, a city designed largely for people who drive cars is, frankly, likely to seriously impede the mobility of people with disabilities and other transport disadvantaged groups, preventing us from participating to our full potential in the community.

It is actually that simple. Think about the way life has changed in our larger and even our not so large cities. There might have been a time when we were content to just live and socialise in the neighbourhood, maybe get the bus to and from work and just shop at the local shops. Now we must travel much further to larger mega-centres to do even basic shopping. Now we are encouraged to attend large events such as shows and concerts held in big stadiums and events centres that might be many kilometers away. Cities are getting larger, and often it is economic pressure that forces people to live further away from the city centre. It is not unusual now for people to drive forty or more kilometers each way every day to get to work, which might be anywhere in the metropolitan area. Social networks now extend right across the metropolitan environment and are not simply centred in the local neighbourhood. Now it is not unusual for people to travel right across the region just to meet for dinner. People with disabilities have the same right to socialise and participate in the community as everyone else.

People with disabilities have always been much more dependent on public transport than people in general. Many of us just have no choice other than to use public transport. But as the urban environment changes, the public transport system is not keeping up. There once was a time when it was simply enough just to take the bus to town every so often. But not any more. If all of us are to go to cricket games, or to support our local rugby or league teams, if we are to go to concerts and other big events, if we are to support our kids when they play in inter-school sports, if we are to buy the things we need, if we are to meet up with friends, and so on, then all of us need to be able to travel comfortably and with dignity to all these places scattered throughout the urban environment. Social mobility should not be something enjoyed only by people who drive.

Society in the end controls how our cities develop, where the roads go and which areas are dedicated to which activities. People can’t just build what they like where they like. Government and local authorities are primarily responsible for how our urban environments develop. The city planners who continue to expand and change the urban environment without ensuring public transport keeps up are failing in their obligations to people with disabilities and other segments of the public who can’t drive. In fact they hav let everyone down because they have created an environment in which people are really forced to drive if they are to do most things. They have created a self fulfilling prophecy: if people have no option but to drive if they can, then most people will have cars and they will expect to be able to use them all the time.

I don’t know to what extent politics has entered this issue, why National has now overturned Labour’s initiative, and while I do have my political views, this blog is not the place for me to air them. But in the end it comes down to this. There has been disinterest in and devaluing of public transport by successive governments and at both national and local levels for decades. We thought perhaps the recent sudden rise in petrol prices, the general economic crunch and increasing awareness of the environment had led people to recognise the true value of public transport to everyone, not just people who can’t or don’t drive. For those of us who depend on public transport, there was a real sense that at last things might be moving in the right direction. In fact, some of the initiatives that were to be funded by the regional tax were directly relevant to people with disabilities and would have improved the overall accessibility of public transport.

This latest announcement tells us that the power still rests with people who have little regard for public transport, and who just want to jump into their cars whenever they feel the urge and drive on an ever-expanding network of roads which we all must pay for. Yes, in the end, we all pay for it, either directly or indirectly, even those of us who don’t drive. The region will now have to find an alternative source of funds or scrap some of the plans altogether.

Somehow public transport is expected to pay for itself in a way that nobody ever expects of roads. Because roads in general don’t come with any direct income stream, our only way of assessing their value is in terms of the general public good, the idea that we can all drive freely on them so we all benefit. But it seems investment in public transport is often seen as an optional cost which tends to only benefit the poor or disadvantaged. It is only ever measured in financial terms and we fail to value it in terms of the general benefit to the public as a whole.

As long as this attitude prevails, people who can’t or don’t drive will not be able to participate to our full potential as members of today’s urban society. People with disabilities may no longer be in institutions, but we will be spending more time home bound if public transport does not catch up with the needs of today’s modern urban environment.

So why does it matter? What’s in a label. Looking at the whole disabled population, we used to be handicapped or crippled. Some time later we were disabled, and then we were “people with disabilities”. We are even referred to sometimes as “people experiencing disabilities” or “people who experience disability”, though I have to say I draw the line at these terms as being just too cumbersome.

The fact that the way we refer to ourselves has changed over time reflects something of the journey that we people with disabilities have travelled.

Prior to the 1980s, society tended to view disability as an injury to be cured by medicine or rehabilitation, in order that the person could join or rejoin society. People with disabilities were perhaps encouraged to do our best to adapt to society, but often found ourselves largely segregated from it, living, learning and working in separate institutions. The term “handicapped” brought with it the idea that we might be shown some sympathy and forgiven for not being able to integrate and contribute fully.

Nowadays, we people with disabilities have moved to the point where we claim the right to fully participate in Society. The terminology we now use reflects the idea that I might have a disability of some sort, but the extent to which I can or cannot interact with Society is more the result of how Society itself is structured than the result of my disability. The term “people with disabilities” emphasises that we are people first, equal in value to any other people; it’s just that we have a disability.

Take blindness for instance. There are lots of things I can’t do because I’m blind: like driving a truck. No question there. But there are things you might think I can’t do because I’m blind, but which I could do if only society worked differently, like reading a newspaper or reading what a teacher writes on a board. You might assume for example that when I am in a class room or lecture, and I ask the teacher to read what they are writing, this is because I am blind and can’t read it for myself. Not so. The real reason why I might ask a teacher to read what they are writing is that the teacher who doesn’t read what they write on a board has simply chosen a visual method of communicating their thoughts that discriminates against me. If I ask a teacher to read what they write on a board, I am not asking for a special favour; if I am a person of equal value, then that teacher has a duty to try to teach me like anyone else, and he or she shouldn’t use communication that discriminates if it can be avoided.

Anyway, I have a tendency to digress and right now I must resist that temptation. But I hope this helps you understand that the terms we use are not adopted merely for political correctness; they can be deeply significant to our very soul.

Sometimes we come up with new terms which may or may not catch on, but if they do catch on, it is because they more correctly pick up the nuances that people in general feel are important, and this can change over time.

Blind people have been blind for as long as I can remember, but a number of terms have been used to describe people with at least some vision. When I was much younger, people with some vision were typically referred to as “partially sighted”, and more recently as “visually impaired”, “vision impaired” and “low vision”. “Partially sighted” and “visually impaired” have fallen out of favour for various reasons, and in recent years, I think the terms “vision impaired” and “low vision” have become the most accepted terms. So for some time, when describing the entire population it serves, the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind would use the term “blind, deafblind and vision impaired”, and only a few years ago when the Blind and Low Vision Education Network NZ (BLENNZ) decided on its name, there was a clear preference for “low vision” over other terms.

The term “partially sighted” began to fall out of favour in New Zealand a number of years ago, I think possibly even since the 1980s. But it’s not as if such transitions are clearly defined. If I look at my own writings, I can find instances in which I used the term up to 2002, but not since then. It is widely used in North America (particularly Canada) and in the UK, and it often appears in World Blind Union documents. But when I looked into this recently, I quickly became aware that even in those parts there is some debate as to what “partially sighted” really means.

We generally don’t have commonly used words to indicate full capacity. The term “sighted” is an exception, but according to the Oxford English Dictionary, the main reason is that “sight” is used in different terms that describe the nature of what someone sees, even though the person is still fully sighted, and it has other meanings that are nothing to do with being able to see, meanings to do with the ability to perceive, imagine, predict. So not only do we have words like “near-sighted”, “far-sighted”, “long-sighted” and “short-sighted” which describe the nature of how some people see, but we also have words like “insight” and “foresight” which have nothing to do with seeing visually. So it seems to me the term “partially sighted” evolved as yet another variation of the type of sight anyone might have, but the term is not really suggestive of a disability.

For some reason, the Foundation has again started using the term in its writings. It was used in last year’s business plan, and again in its document released this year considering the organisation’s priorities looking out to 2020. We know that in July last year, one director expressed his objection to its use, but though the Board has not officially decreed that it be used, it seems that it is being used because of the influence of at least some other directors. This has caused some upset and people were moved to bring a remit to our Association’s National Conference calling on the Foundation to cease using the term and to use “vision impaired” instead. Despite the remit passing, the Foundation has so far not been moved to think again, and it is still using the term. We have again reiterated our view that the Foundation has no good reason for bringing the term back, and should cease using it.

If you focus on the community of people served by the Foundation, the problem with the term “partially sighted” is that there is a group of people who do not consider themselves blind enough to be called blind when they might have enough sight to, for example, see an object on the street and avoid it, but who also don’t consider they are sighted enough to be comfortable using that term. The terms “vision impaired” and “low vision” came into common usage because they more inclusively apply to the whole group of people with vision impairments.

When it comes to terminology, we all have our personal likes and dislikes, and we can generally give reasons for our views. People who favour the term “partially sighted” argue for instance that it reflects a positive attitude, like the cup is half full rather than half empty. They have even argued that a term like “vision impaired” has no logical basis and is simply politically correct. But people who don’t like “partially sighted” actually see this as the very problem. They argue that there is nothing wrong with being blind and people shouldn’t use terms that somehow avoid the very disability they do have. They reject the argument that the term is merely politically correct, noting that the anti-politically-correct brigade often trots that argument out as a desperation measure designed to trivialise the other view.

So why has the Foundation started to use “partially sighted” again? We know of no outcry against “vision impaired” which has been in use for some time. It could be that Management has simply made an error, but in that case they could have quietly changed their ways after our remit. They haven’t, and we believe the reason is that Management is being influenced by the personal views of at least some Directors. So is this an example of good foresight as the Foundation, perhaps with the benefit of hindsight, seeks to take us back to something good from the past when the rest of us didn’t see its value? Sadly, I think it is more that the Foundation is being over-influenced by “our dim-sighted politicians” (James Adair, the history of the American Indians, 1840).

We urge Foundation Management to have regard for the remit passed by last year’s Conference, which we think continues to be the largest regular gathering of blind New Zealanders who make it their business to meet to discuss issues of concern to the blind community. We urge the Foundation to use terms that are regarded by our community as more inclusive and appropriate, and to avoid terms which have a tendency to cause upset. Do not be influenced by the views of Directors unless the Board as a whole has the courage to pass a formal policy decision on the matter. We have been moved to speak out on the issue and we expect the Foundation to listen, or give good reason why it should not. The opinion of individual directors should carry no more weight than anyone else’s personal opinion.

Most blind children today attend local schools, and face immense challenges in their education. Subjects are often taught visually, and nowadays there is a lot of technology in the class room. But much of this is inaccessible to blind children so they can easily miss out on getting the same education that other children get. But these children also need to learn basic skils that relate to their blindness or low vision, such as learning braille, how to walk around safely, how to effectively use specialised technology, how to be independent, how to behave socially, etc. To teach these children everything they need to know takes a lot of extra time, and extra money for the specialist teachers these children need.

We’ve spent quite a bit of our time in the last few years lobbying for more specialist teachers. New Zealand compares rather badly with other countries when we look at the number of specialist teachers we have for the number of blind and low vision students.

Working closely with the parents of vision impaired, Ngati Kaapoo, other consumer organisations and the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind, we achieved some success last year, in that the Government approved an additional fifteen specialist teachers to work with blind students in the mainstream. These teachers are starting work right now, and that will make a big difference to the support BLENNZ can give to these students starting this year.

I guess it does illustrate the point that often when it comes to advocacy, it is persistence in the end that pays off, and it is one example of service providers, consumers and parents working cooperatively together to pursue a common vision. But speaking of persistence paying off, this year will also see a fundamental change in the way BLENNZ is governed. The Minister of Education recently announced that BLENNZ will get a new Constitution. Although that sounds rather ho hum, it is important for a couple of reasons.

The vast majority of the roughly 1200 blind and low vision students in New Zealand attend local schools. So, even though they get support from the specialist teachers employed by BLENNZ, they are not formally enrolled with BLENNZ itself and so their parents have not had an opportunity to influence the governance of blindness education services. Under the new Constitution, these parents will be able to elect several parent representatives to the Board, alongside a parent rep for students who are enrolled with BLENNZ.

Another significant change in the new Constitution will be the formalising of partnership agreements between BLENNZ and this Association and the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind. The Association is the largest generic consumer organisation of blind adults, and the Foundation is of course the largest provider of blindness services in New Zealand. Our two organisations will now be able to directly appoint trustees to the BLENNZ Board, whereas previously this was done by the Minister. Tangata whenua wil also be able to directly appoint a trustee.

The new BLENNZ Board is therefore going to have stronger links to the whole parent group, to the blind community and to the Foundation of the Blind itself. All parents want the best for their kids, and blind adults too want to ensure that the next generation of blind people has the best opportunity to learn to get on with maximum independence in a sighted world. I think the new Board gives us the best possible chance to achieve that vision.

It seems to me that as technology keeps “improving”, it is actually becoming more difficult for blind and low vision people to do our business on the net. It should be the other way around because the net, if well managed, offers huge potential for blind people to do business in a way that is more inclusive than ever. So why are we heading in the wrong direction?

First, I give some examples of situations that are typical and which I have recently experienced myself, and then I comment on why we need more regulation of business websites.

I recently went to Parris for the Louis Braille conference. I’ve already blogged about that. I paid my own way. A few weeks before I was due to leave, I logged onto the Air New Zealand airpoints site, as I have done many times before, only to find that they had updated it with “Flash” technology, and now it was completely inaccessible to me. I was no longer able to check my airpoints balance or check if I was owed any points on recent flights. I complained to Air New Zealand, as I know at least one other blind person also did. They told me this week that they are fixing it so maybe it will turn out ok in the end, but it shouldn’t have happened in the first place. Imagine if it was my bank that suddenly made its website inaccessible. Now that really would make me angry, and it is scary to think that in today’s environment, that could easily happen.

In another example, a shopping site I visit from time to time works with one popular screen reader I have (I’ll call it reader A), but not with another reader which is also quite popular (I’ll call it reader B). Without getting too technical, the site uses a website coding technique that makes certain menu options invisible until you track the mouse over them. The irony is that the reason why this site works with reader A and not B is because reader A actually reads the text which is not displayed, but it is not always desirable for a screen reader to read text that is actually not visible. The more technically correct solution is that this site could be easily re-coded to follow accessibility standards, and it would then work with both readers, with no detriment to sighted users.

In another example, the organisation where I work has a payroll kiosk that all staff are meant to use for checking payslips, applying for leave, etc. It has a main menu of categories, and within each category are a number of functions or things you can do. But for whatever reason the functions within each main menu option don’t display with screen reader A, ironical really since this is the same reader that displays text on the above shopping site that doesn’t work with reader B. However, by using yet another screen reader (reader C), I was able to see the functions I need, like access payslips. So now I know more about how this system works, I can now use reader A and advanced screen reading techniques to access these functions even though the reader doesn’t actually bring them to my attention.
At the risk of boring you, I will mention one other situation. I typically use Internet Explorer 7, but I sometimes need to use the latest version of Firefox. Sometimes a website has what they call a “capcha” screen in which you need to see an image on the screen, identify the distorted letters in that image and then enter those letters. Some websites do this to avoid automated programs from logging in. Sure, some sites offer an audio equivalent that some blind people can use, but this is not common and there are a number of technical problems inherent with that approach. There is a technology that helps blind people handle visual capcha screens but so far to my knowledge it only works on Firefox.

So what does this all mean? It means that no longer can I just rely on one combination of screen reader and browser to do my everyday business online. Carrying out my business on the net nowadays is increasingly dominated by hitting unexpected obstacles, and having to switch between browsers and readers to see if a given combination might work with a given website. Most of us have a clear preference for a given browser or screen reader, but there seems to be more situations now in which another browser or reader, which may be less preferred, actually performs better. I have two popular browsers and three screen readers at my disposal, but that’s just ridiculous.

We’re having to jump through more and more hoops just to get our business done. I say, enough is enough. Let’s get back to some basic principles. The internet is no longer for geeks. It is now a place in which many different people expect to do business. It is also increasingly expected that everyday people will do their business on the net. Think of all the TV ads nowadays that refer you to a website. How people manage these days if they don’t use the internet, I don’t know.

It is time now to regulate the behaviour of businesses on the net. Now I immediately hear people arguing that one of the greatest strengths of the internet has been its lack of regulation. I agree. But is it really true to say that the internet is unregulated?

The internet has not been regulated by legislation, but it would be wrong to think of the internet as unregulated. It has for a long time been controlled by the World Wide Web Consortium often known as the W3C. This is the group that sets standards for the various languages that are the very foundation of the internet. The fact that your browser, developed by one group of developers, can go to a web page written by someone else entirely separate, and display it, is directly the result of the standards set by the Consortium. It is the fact that both can access the publicly available rules that can be found in one known place, and follow those rules, that makes the internet work. So yes the internet has been largely unregulated in a legislative sense, but its very success has been the result of a form of public cooperative regulation.

But what has changed is that there is increasing use of proprietary end to end technologies such as Shockwave and Flash to deliver business content over the internet. These are the technologies that require you to install a “plug-in” to make them work. Such technologies fall right outside the regulating influence of the World Wide Web Consortium. There is a very important difference between this new proprietary approach compared to the traditional standards based approach to the internet. The traditional approach effectively says: I have some content for you, and if your system follows these publicly available rules, you can read and interact with that content. You have the choice of using any browser that follows the public standards. In fact, if you have the skill, or access to someone else who has, you can create your own browser that follows the standards and access this content. The proprietary approach essentially says: I have some content for you, and if and only if your system has this proprietary software (the plug-in), and provided we use the proprietary tool to develop our website, you can read and interact with our content. You may have access to a crash hot programmer but you won’t have the information you would need to develop your own software to access this content. You can only access it if your system runs this plug-in. Sure it may be that popular browsers will be able to install the required plug-ins; after all, people wouldn’t develop such technology if it couldn’t be used by many users. But not only are plug-ins not always available on all systems, but also, at least initially, they almost always don’t work with screen readers. So this is not just a question of accessibility for people with disabilities, this issue can impact on users of less common browsers such as those that run on PDAs or even home televisions. Websites that use these technologies gamble that they will deliver a better experience for the majority of customers, and thus improve their bottom line, even if they end up locking out some other customers altogether.

To be fair, some technologies such as Flash (as I understand it) publish information to web developers to help them ensure their websites are accessible when using that technology, and they make information available so screen reader developers can make their readers work with them. But experience tells us that the developers of new technologies like this do not consider accessibility from day one. They come to it later, even if reluctantly, by the time many websites are already using it. Each new proprietary end-to-end technology that comes along just adds to an increasing multiplicity of separate protocols that our screen readers need to understand, and it is still up to the screen reader vendors to decide if they will invest in unlocking any given technology for blind users. So when a new technology is unleashed on the net, there is generally a significant time lag before the technology vendor builds accesibility features into it, before website developers learn to use these features, and before the screen reader developers even think of catching up, and during that time blind people are generally locked out of any website that uses that technology. Developing screen readers is not cheap, and we the end users of screen readers end up paying for that in the end.

The new technologies might deliver a great new web experience for some, but each one generally locks blind people out, and leads to its own set of considerations if business websites are to be accessible. The W3C on the other hand is the most well established standards setting body for the net, and it is committed to ensuring accessibility is built into their standards and guidelines. Even that doesn’t ensure that all websites are accessible, but at least we should only have one place to go to find such standards, and these standards are non-proprietary and freely and readily available to anyone. In theory they can be implemented by any browser on any system.

Now let’s draw an analogy to the physical accessibility of public buildings to people in wheelchairs, something that is very much taken for granted now and backed by legislation in many countries. These standards are the cornerstone of how people with disabilities expect to have full access to the urban environment. They typically define accessibility in terms of physical measurements that can be independently verified, the maximum gradient of a ramp, the minimum width of a doorway, etc. You actually don’t determine whether a building is accessible to people in wheelchairs by finding someone in a wheelchair who can or cannot access it, you determine it by independently verifying whether the building complies with known standards. Imagine where people in wheelchairs would be if we could build public buildings with extra steep ramps, but deem them to be accessible because someone somewhere makes a particularly powerful chair that can get up them. The person with an average wheelchair would be left outside in the cold.

And that is what is happening on the net. As a blind person, if you can stumble on the right combination of technology, you might be able to use a given website when it uses a proprietary technology that does not comply with the W3C standards. But is it fair to expect us all to have that magic combination of technology, or even to know what works and what doesn’t? You can see from my earlier examples, based purely on my own experience, that the right combination that works can be different for different sites. And given my long career as a software developer, I am probably amongst the most technically competent, so what must life be like for blind people who don’t have my level of technical knowledge? Well for many blind people, their negative experiences on the net have pretty much turned them off using it altogether, or they may only use it for the most basic tasks.

There is another important reason for standards. Suppose I take a human rights action against the owner of a website that I feel is inaccessible. Would it be reasonable for the other party to defend the action by demonstrating that the site is accessible if you use a particular combination of operating system, browser and screen reader? And then, even if that is true, and I don’t have that equipment, has the site still discriminated against me personally? Is any given site accessible or not accessible purely because some arbitrary person (expert or not) says it is or it isn’t? It seems to me that in the end, any argument over accessibility can only be settled fairly by a process of independent verification rather than someone’s personal judgment. If I am to argue successfully that a site is inaccessible, and hence that the owner may be breaching human rights law by discriminating against me on the grounds of disability, then I should have to show that a particular standard is breached. Ideally, this should not be a matter of opinion but a matter of independently verifiable fact. If the standards are met, then the website should be deemed accessible.

Let me be clear hear: I am focusing only on how we as citizens do our everyday business on the net. I don’t care if you put your personal diaries, blogs, photos etc up on the net in a way that is inaccessible. The issue to me is that people with disabilities need to be sure that we can do our banking, buy our groceries, pay our tax, and carry out all manner of other transactions on the net, if this is what people in general expect to do. If the net is now a mainstream place for people to do business, then businesses and entities that use the net in this way need to be regulated to ensure that everyone can carry out everyday transactions regardless of the equipment people have and whether or not they use a screen reader. These organisations are serving us as members of the public, and they are already bound by a host of rules and regulations that control how they do their business. Why should the net be any different?

The W3C publishes guidelines on accessibility, which is an attempt to assist website developers to ensure maximum accessibility of their content. In particular, guideline 4.1 deals with maximising compatibility with current and future browsers, including assistive technologies. Developers are urged to not display “content that relies on technologies that are not accessibility-supported when the technology is turned off or not supported”. Although this statement is unfortunately a double negative, I think it means essentially that a technology should not be used if the content would be inaccessible without it.

But I would go further. In my view, no technology should be used on a website offering business or public services unless the standards that make it work are authorised by an agreed single body such as the W3C, are publicly available and readily implementable in any browser, and are inherently accessible to assistive technologies, or, perhaps, unless the technology is only used to provide an ancillary rather than a core function of the site.

There are those who argue that such an approach will kill innovation. One reason why technologies like Flash come along from time to time is because people feel there is a need for a web experience that the traditional standards can’t deliver. I don’t know how much merit there is in that, but the cynic in me says that one motivation for companies developing proprietary technologies like this is the hope of earning royalties from their use. They sell the tools to the website developers who expect to improve their bottom line by using such tools. But I say “Too bad”. I am experiencing more and more frustration on the net, and if that is the result of innovation, then let’s not have innovation. But actually, all I am calling for is agreement on some rules that will guarantee that people with disabilities can access public business websites as I believe we are entitled to do as citizens of society. In the environment I am proposing, I am confident that there will still be room for innovation; it will just be more controlled and thought through before it is unleashed on us, and hopefully it will be open and not proprietary.

Another argument against my view is that standards on their own do not encompass all the problems that can impact on how usable a site is. So a site can meet all the standards, and yet it can still be so hard to use that it is practically inaccessible. I acknowledge this but the appropriate response is to develop better standards and guidelines that we can all see, rather than allow businesses to use an increasing array of new and inaccessible proprietary technologies that essentially lie outside the standards altogether.

Yet another argument is that standards are only as good as the people who enforce them. Experience with public buildings is that many new buildings exist today that clearly don’t comply with the standards, and yet have been given a certificate of compliance. Internet standards are even less enforceable because no body exists to enforce them. My response to this is, if we have standards, then we must advocate for them to be enforced. The fact that standards may not be enforced is not an excuse for not having standards at all, because without standards, our arguments merely descend into personal opinion.

We now live in an information age and people with disabilities now claim that access to information is a fundamental human right. This principle is now enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. What we need now is a clear principle in law that websites that deliver business and public services must comply with the web accessibility guidelines of the World Wide Web Consortium. The Association of Blind Citizens has a group of people interested in technology who are doing their best to monitor this ever more complex situation so we can better advocate for what we need if blind people are not going to be increasingly shut out of tomorrow’s technology-based world. We need to develop policies on what website accessibility really means. I’m sure we’ll have more on this subject on this blog before too long. Cheers, and why not share your comments.

Sometimes the blog will be rather personal, and that is the case this time. For me, this year began with a personal trip to Paris to share in the celebrations of the 200th anniversary of the birth of Louis Braille. New Zealand was actually very well represented by something like eleven people, with a number of us paying our own way just to be there.

So why was this so important? Because prior to the invention of the braille method of reading and writing, blind people were essentially illiterate and generally unable to be educated. Even Louis Braille himself, when he as a small child was allowed to attend his local school in Coupvray, was denied the opportunity to move out of the first grade because he could not learn to read and write. Various attempts had been made in different countries to come up with a system for blind people to read and write. Some books were made where the printed letters were produced in a tactile form that could be read, even if laboriously, and one system of reading and writing even involved tying knots in string. But in the end, only the system invented by Louis Braille succeeded, primarily because it was the fastest for reading and also because it gave blind people the ability to write efficiently. The essence of literacy is perhaps the ability to quickly write down one’s thoughts and ideas so they can be readily retrieved and built on. It was a pity however that his system only became well established long after his death.

The braille system for reading and writing is deeply significant for people like me who use it, but it has wider significance for blind people because it was critical to the idea that blind people could be educated at all. Nowadays we pretty much take it for granted that we have the right to education, and some of us probably don’t care much about how this came about. But for me, I saw this as a once in a lifetime opportunity to connect with the past and to understand something about the man who in his own lifetime could not have foreseen the difference his invention would make. It was particularly moving to visit the relatively modest Braille family home in Coupvray, and picture the life that Louis would have had as a young blind child growing up in that village. I reflected on how the various circumstances of the time came together to give Louis the very idea that led to his invention.

In today’s technological world, there is a lot of debate about the very relevance of braille, even amongst blind people. It is easy to understand how, 200 years ago, without a system like braille, blind people were illiterate. But is it fair to conclude that blind people today who don’t know braille are illiterate? Nowadays we can use computers and other equipment to store and retrieve personal information, which gives us what some would consider to be a form of literacy. There is no doubt that a blind person today with good keyboard and computer skills can go a very long way in life without knowing any braille at all. Given this, and also that some blind people are simply unable to learn braille because their fingers for a host of reasons may just be damaged, it is easy to see how some blind people view braille users as elitist, particularly when we might sometimes be evangelical about it.

I personally want to avoid evangelising about braille, but I still ask myself what is it about braille that is so significant, even in today’s world? I answer the question this way. Mankind invented writing many thousands of years ago. The ability to write down thoughts and ideas, whether on the walls of caves, on parchment or on paper, is inherently linked with the very development of language and communication. This is the very foundation of modern society, the essence of what separates mankind from other animals. Despite today’s technology, the humble book and pen and paper are still as ubiquitous as ever. So if sighted people aren’t trading their books and pens for computers that you can talk to and which can talk back to you, then what does that tell us about reading and writing? Whatever literacy means to us today, there is clearly still something very fundamental in the way our brains can directly connect to the written word without any intervening technology. The most recent example of this is the braille signs that have been in our taxis since October. Now when I get into a taxi, I can instantly and almost subconsciously read the braille sign on the door that tells me the taxi number, etc. Sure, we could have developed a technology to do that; I could bring out my hand-held reader and an RFID tag in the car would give me all the information I could ever want to know about the taxi. But for years of course there has been a visual sign in taxis to tell sighted people this information, and I don’t see society in general wanting to change that in favour of a newfangled technology to do the same thing.

I can understand that some blind people will choose not to learn braille and people can live very happy and successful lives without it. But as long as mankind is turned on by the direct connection with the written word without intervening technology, it seems to me that braille will have a unique status for blind people. Print is inaccessible to us. Braille is our form of writing. Call us elitist if you like, but we are no more elitist than the millions of sighted people who read and write print and who wouldn’t have it any other way. I guess if Louis hadn’t invented the system of writing that bares his name, someone else would have. But he did, and we thank him sincerely for that gift. At the time, it was the gift of true literacy. Whether that is the case today is a matter of sometimes strongly held opinion. But whatever term we can come up with to encapsulate that essential connection between the brain and the written word, that is the essence of what braille is for blind people, and there is no alternative. That is why we must ensure that braille remains the fundamental tool of reading and writing for blind people, and that all blind people have the chance to learn to read and write.

New Zealand now has a new government. At the time I write this, the newly announced Ministers of Cabinet are still digesting their first briefing papers and no doubt many different groups are hoping to get their attention. It will be a while before the Association can get a look in.

The Association has no political axe to grind so we are happy to work with either a National or a Labour led government. But one thing that does concern us, based on our recent meetings with various National Party politicians, is that National really did not have well developed disability-related policies or strategies. We also know that the new government has talked of cuts in public spending, and we will be concerned if such cuts are in areas that impact on services that are important to people with disabilities.

But our message will remain consistent as we advocate for a fully inclusive society in which we as blind and vision impaired people can live with maximum independence. The more independent we can be, the more productive we can be as members of Society.

In early October as usual, we held our annual National Conference, this time in Dunedin. I have heard lots of positive comments from people about this year’s conference so perhaps people will agree it was one of our more successful ones. The theme was “literacy for all, from braille to email”, with particular attention to braille as we lead up to the two hundredth anniversary of the birth of its inventor, Louis Braille. . The open day was particularly enjoyable, with a number of guest speakers talking not just about braille, but also about literacy and what it means to be literate as a blind person in today’s world. One presentation that stands out in my mind was by nine-year-old Renee Patete, who, along with her mother, spoke about the significance of braille and the braille technology she uses. She read her speech confidently and fluently, but not from paper; no she read it from her portable Braillenote. This illustrates for me that we can be hopeful that the next generation of blind people will be completely at home reading with new braille and low vision technology in tomorrow’s “connected” world.

Another highlight was the tribute paid by the Association to Mary Schnackenberg, for her outstanding service to the blind community through her various roles at the Foundation. We have always valued highly our braille and talking book library service, and there is no doubt that much of what we have been able to enjoy has been largely the result of Mary’s leadership and commitment to the goal of maximising our opportunity to read information of all sorts. She was given a very beautiful stone sculpture which I know she will cherish for the rest of her life.

Like all conferences, this one produced a number of remits and resolutions for action. The Board has since met to set out the work for the coming year. Some of the more public activities we will be giving priority to next year include:

• Some of our members, who receive personal assistance from caregivers and other people employed under government contracts, feel that these people are often not particularly conversant with blindness and seem to be uncomfortable or not confident when working with them. We feel there are some serious training issues that need to be addressed, and we will be lobbying the Ministry of Health and other relevant departments for better training for these people.
• We plan to develop our “Great Barrier Brief” by producing briefs to cover specific areas. One of the first to be done will be a brief outlining our objectives in the area of public transport and Total Mobility. This will be a major theme in next year’s Wellington Seminar.
• We will continue to lobby the Government to uphold the principle that public information, and personal correspondence with public bodies should be in accessible formats. Today’s technology can make it possible so we feel this is not unreasonable.
• Early next year, we will be making submissions to the Electoral Commission as we continue to advocate for fully accessible elections, and for a pilot scheme to be tested in conjunction with the next election in three years.
• We will continue to work with other organisations of people with sensory impairments to advocate for a full review of services to people with sensory disabilities. There is a feeling that sensory disabilities are not getting the resourcing priority they deserve.
• With an increasing number of companies entering the telecommunications industry, we will again give priority to lobbying for full recognition of the principle that telecommunications services must be fully accessible and available to everyone on an equitable basis. We continue to urge the Foundation of the Blind to support our position.

You can see we will be busy, and through this blog I’ll keep you up to date with our progress.