Our National Conference, to be held in Dunedin in October this year, will explore the theme “Blind Citizens – Our Voice, Our Future”. What does this mean? Why are we on about having, and perhaps more importantly, needing to have, a voice? What does it mean for our future?

Our National Conference, to be held in Dunedin in October this year, will explore the theme “Blind Citizens – Our Voice, Our Future”. What does this mean? Why are we on about having, and perhaps more importantly, needing to have, a voice? What does it mean for our future?

In the last thirty or forty years, people with disabilities have begun to see ourselves as people with the same rights and obligations in society as everyone else. We may have a lot of different impairments that impact on how we do things, but when people think of us as disabled, what we now say is that in general it is society, not our impairments, that disables us.

A simple example might help. Suppose you and I find ourselves waiting for a train. We are both on our way to work in the city. I am assuming that you don’t have a disability. A train arrives and I turn and ask you something like “excuse me but is this train going to the city? You are helpful and you answer the question, but at the same time you might just be thinking that the reason why I have had to ask you which train this is is because I am blind and can’t see the sign on the train. So I need your help. But actualy, the reason why I have had to ask you which train this is is not really because I am blind, it is because there is no audible announcement to tell me what it is. The people who run the trains are meant to serve the public, but in this case they have invested in systems to display this information only visually, thus excluding blind and vision impaird people. If they had used a different system that displays as well as speaks that information, they would have inherently included blind and vision impaired people in the public they serve, and I, like you, would have been able to decide whether to board that train without having to ask for help.

Now let me take the example one step further. Suppose when you get to work you will be interviewing applicants for a vacancy you have. One of the applicants is blind, and your immediate reaction is that this means he or she can’t do the job. You will remember how you helped me this morning because I am blind and couldn’t see the sign on the train. You will perceive that blind people need help with everyday things. You will ask yourself how will this person function in your office, where chances are that all the established systems and procedures assume people can see. Today is not going to be that person’s lucky day. But suppose your office as a matter of routine uses technologies and procedures that are fully accessible. If this was the norm, you would probably see the blind applicant in front of you as potentially capable. You would no longer focus on his or her disability but instead you would just focus on their abilities like you would anyone else.

We people with disabilities have the same aspirations to work, recreate, have relationships and play our part in Society in the same way as everyone else. This is why we perceive Society itself as disabling us, particularly when there are universal design and technology options that would mean we are more included, if only society would use them. But when Society overlooks such considerations, like when the train only has a visual sign, or when a building has no wheelchair access, we feel excluded, not given the same value as everyone else.

There are two points that are fundamental to what this is all about. First, people with disabilities envisage a society that can and should be more inclusive, particularly given the universal design and technology options that are available nowadays. It will be more and more important for society to be inclusive if we accept that people are nowadays living longer and disability will affect us more as we get older. Secondly, we are prepared to stand up for ourselves and call for change so society will be more inclusive. We speak for ourselves; we don’t need others to speak for us.

The push for this change of thinking came largely from the organisations that people with disabilities formed ourselves to represent us and advance our own cause. It has culminated in many countries, including New Zealand, ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Article 4.3 obliges countries to closely consult with and actively involve people with disabilities in decisions that affect us, through our representative organisations. Article 33 obliges each country to ensure that people with disabilities and our representative organizations are able to participate fully in monitoring the Government’s performance as it works to meet its obligations under the Convention.

So what are our representative organisations? what does it actually mean to have a voice?

This Association was born in 1945, one of the oldest established “Disabled People’s Organisations” (DPOs) in New Zealand. Blind people began to demand to be included in and have direct influence over decisions that would directly impact on our lives. It is well accepted that diverse groups of people can, and do, form organisations to directly represent their interests. Organisations like trade unions and professional associations have a widely recognised mandate to speak on behalf of their members because that is the main reason why such organisations are formed. The same applies to DPOs like the Association of Blind Citizens.

The primary role of DPOs, like typical consumer organisations, is to represent the interests of and speak on behalf of their disabled members. Such organisations generally have strong democratic community-level processes that ensure the organisation’s policies really do reflect the views of the organisation’s grass roots members. Only DPOs therefore are the true voice of people with disabilities.

The only way to achieve meaningful consultation between Government and people with disabilities is to work through the organisations that we, ie the ones who are disabled, have established for that very purpose. An organisation cannot just call itself a DPO. A DPO must have as its primary purpose an obligation, above everything else, to represent its members and be an effective conduit between the consultation process and the grass roots of the disabled community it represents. A DPO therefore must actively encourage involvement from a wide cross-section of the people with disabilities the organisation represents. It should create an environment in which its members can exchange ideas and influence the thinking of others, where leaders can flourish and policies can develop that broadly represent the needs and aspirations of the disabled community.

The Convention gives special status to DPOs by recognising that Governments must involve people with disabilities and the organisations that represent us in decisions about us. The organisations that truly represent us are DPOs. But we mustn’t forget that there are of course numerous other organisations that are not DPOs but which work closely with us. Most of these organisations are charities set up to provide the specialised services we need. Often they are able to make strong public statements on matters that are important to people with disabilities. They also play a crucial role in shaping the consensus view of the disabled community on issues that are important to us. But even though such organisations play an essential role in advancing our cause, they cannot actually speak on our behalf unless they possess the essential characteristics of a DPO as I outlined earlier.

In my view, DPOs have a special status that is now recognised by the Convention that New Zealand has signed up to. Our Government now has at least an implied obligation to ensure that DPOs have the resources they need to flourish and play their part as the true voice of people with disabilities.

Our National Conference, to be held in Dunedin in October this year, will explore the theme “Blind Citizens – Our Voice, Our Future”. What does this mean? Why are we on about having, and perhaps more importantly, needing to have, a voice? What does it mean for our future?

In the last thirty or forty years, people with disabilities have begun to see ourselves as people with the same rights and obligations in society as everyone else. We may have a lot of different impairments that impact on how we do things, but when people think of us as disabled, what we now say is that in general it is society, not our impairments, that disables us.

A simple example might help. Suppose you and I find ourselves waiting for a train. We are both on our way to work in the city. I am assuming that you don’t have a disability. A train arrives and I turn and ask you something like “excuse me but is this train going to the city? You are helpful and you answer the question, but at the same time you might just be thinking that the reason why I have had to ask you which train this is is because I am blind and can’t see the sign on the train. So I need your help. But actualy, the reason why I have had to ask you which train this is is not really because I am blind, it is because there is no audible announcement to tell me what it is. The people who run the trains are meant to serve the public, but in this case they have invested in systems to display this information only visually, thus excluding blind and vision impaird people. If they had used a different system that displays as well as speaks that information, they would have inherently included blind and vision impaired people in the public they serve, and I, like you, would have been able to decide whether to board that train without having to ask for help.

Now let me take the example one step further. Suppose when you get to work you will be interviewing applicants for a vacancy you have. One of the applicants is blind, and your immediate reaction is that this means he or she can’t do the job. You will remember how you helped me this morning because I am blind and couldn’t see the sign on the train. You will perceive that blind people need help with everyday things. You will ask yourself how will this person function in your office, where chances are that all the established systems and procedures assume people can see. Today is not going to be that person’s lucky day. But suppose your office as a matter of routine uses technologies and procedures that are fully accessible. If this was the norm, you would probably see the blind applicant in front of you as potentially capable. You would no longer focus on his or her disability but instead you would just focus on their abilities like you would anyone else.

We people with disabilities have the same aspirations to work, recreate, have relationships and play our part in Society in the same way as everyone else. This is why we perceive Society itself as disabling us, particularly when there are universal design and technology options that would mean we are more included, if only society would use them. But when Society overlooks such considerations, like when the train only has a visual sign, or when a building has no wheelchair access, we feel excluded, not given the same value as everyone else.

There are two points that are fundamental to what this is all about. First, people with disabilities envisage a society that can and should be more inclusive, particularly given the universal design and technology options that are available nowadays. It will be more and more important for society to be inclusive if we accept that people are nowadays living longer and disability will affect us more as we get older. Secondly, we are prepared to stand up for ourselves and call for change so society will be more inclusive. We speak for ourselves; we don’t need others to speak for us.

The push for this change of thinking came largely from the organisations that people with disabilities formed ourselves to represent us and advance our own cause. It has culminated in many countries, including New Zealand, ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Article 4.3 obliges countries to closely consult with and actively involve people with disabilities in decisions that affect us, through our representative organisations. Article 33 obliges each country to ensure that people with disabilities and our representative organizations are able to participate fully in monitoring the Government’s performance as it works to meet its obligations under the Convention.

So what are our representative organisations? what does it actually mean to have a voice?

This Association was born in 1945, one of the oldest established “Disabled People’s Organisations” (DPOs) in New Zealand. Blind people began to demand to be included in and have direct influence over decisions that would directly impact on our lives. It is well accepted that diverse groups of people can, and do, form organisations to directly represent their interests. Organisations like trade unions and professional associations have a widely recognised mandate to speak on behalf of their members because that is the main reason why such organisations are formed. The same applies to DPOs like the Association of Blind Citizens.

The primary role of DPOs, like typical consumer organisations, is to represent the interests of and speak on behalf of their disabled members. Such organisations generally have strong democratic community-level processes that ensure the organisation’s policies really do reflect the views of the organisation’s grass roots members. Only DPOs therefore are the true voice of people with disabilities.

The only way to achieve meaningful consultation between Government and people with disabilities is to work through the organisations that we, ie the ones who are disabled, have established for that very purpose. An organisation cannot just call itself a DPO. A DPO must have as its primary purpose an obligation, above everything else, to represent its members and be an effective conduit between the consultation process and the grass roots of the disabled community it represents. A DPO therefore must actively encourage involvement from a wide cross-section of the people with disabilities the organisation represents. It should create an environment in which its members can exchange ideas and influence the thinking of others, where leaders can flourish and policies can develop that broadly represent the needs and aspirations of the disabled community.

The Convention gives special status to DPOs by recognising that Governments must involve people with disabilities and the organisations that represent us in decisions about us. The organisations that truly represent us are DPOs. But we mustn’t forget that there are of course numerous other organisations that are not DPOs but which work closely with us. Most of these organisations are charities set up to provide the specialised services we need. Often they are able to make strong public statements on matters that are important to people with disabilities. They also play a crucial role in shaping the consensus view of the disabled community on issues that are important to us. But even though such organisations play an essential role in advancing our cause, they cannot actually speak on our behalf unless they possess the essential characteristics of a DPO as I outlined earlier.

In my view, DPOs have a special status that is now recognised by the Convention that New Zealand has signed up to. Our Government now has at least an implied obligation to ensure that DPOs have the resources they need to flourish and play their part as the true voice of people with disabilities.