Neil O’Keefe (former Federal Transport Parliamentary Secretary under Bob Hawke)
By Neil O’Keefe in memory of Angus Downie in admiration of his skill at managing politicians, in particular in relation to improvements in road safety and disability transport
Angus Downie – journalist and disability advocate extraordinaire!
For many years before my election to Parliament in 1984 I had listened to Angus Downie (OA) report regularly on topics of the day on the ABC morning show AM. I was a devoted listener and was quite a fan of Angus.
Imagine my surprise (and delight) when one morning late in 1994 he sought a meeting with me. I did not know of his disability; I only knew him through his radio voice and written articles – and had no inkling of what the meeting held in store!
So keen was I to meet Angus that I did not even seek a briefing – just ”let’s do this as soon as possible” was my response to my staff.
When he entered my office in his wheelchair I was a little taken aback – his disability did not fit with my perception of the roving reporter right at the heart of some of the pretty difficult jobs that he had done at times.
Then we got down to it – and I still shake my head in disbelief at the way things turned out – and the magnificent way Angus played the hand he had been dealt.
At the time Angus was Chair of the Disability Transport Users Association. They were advocating much stronger public and official awareness of both the need and economic potential of designing public transport which was more accessible for people with disabilities.
While having strong empathy for the cause my immediate response was to wonder why Angus felt it useful to talk to me. The vast platform of public transport vehicles (trains, boats, planes, buses, trams and taxis) were purchased or contracted by State Governments and private operators – not the Federal Government.
I thought that legally and constitutionally we had no role to play in changing design priorities in this field – other than by possibly leading a new policy approach and seeding it with incentive dollars. This was what I expected Angus to be pitching!
“Well yes, that’s the general idea. But there is something a little more urgent about to land on your desk” he said. “hasn’t Laurie Brereton (my senior Minister) told you about this yet?” Apparently, Laurie had decided that “disability transport” was an area which could be delegated to me – but hadn’t yet let me know about it!
Then came the corker. Angus informed me that the DTUA had secured a Federal Court injunction preventing the South Australian Government from taking possession of a fleet of 100 new buses. The buses had been designed without any reference to the needs of people with disabilities and this was about to become a major problem.
“You can expect an urgent call from the South Australian Transport Minister (name) – she sees this as your fault!” Angus told me.
“But I don’t see how,“ was my response. “We don’t play any role in the process”.
“Well, you do now” said Angus – and got down to the heart of the issue he had come to talk to me about.
The legislative history behind Angus Downie’s Disability Access Success
After the March 1993 “True Believers” victory Paul Keating appointed me as Parliamentary Secretary for Transport and Communications (a short time later wound back to only Transport with me cut out of responsibility for the Communications side of the portfolio).
Why the narrowing of my portfolio duties? Well, a poor showing by new Communications Minister David Beddall in question time (while trying to defend a stuff up) led to the Opposition running the issue as a “Matter of Public Importance” (normal opposition tactic).
Apparently, I did a better job on our defence during the MPI because John Howard was heard by the Speaker (Leo McLeay) to say that “at least he is making a decent show of it”.
McLeay (not a friend of mine) had already been protesting to my senior Minister (Laurie Brereton) that I was getting too much positive media coverage and needed to be pulled back from the front line I was establishing. This was the last straw for him. So the major Communications policy area (Telecom/Australia Post/PAYTV/Media rules etc) were removed from my arena.
Most of the expertise and performance that gave me an edge at the time was due to my having the corporate knowledge in these policy areas. During the period of the tumultuous leadership challenge and in the lead up to the 1993 election there had been a high turnover of Ministers in these portfolios; while I had remained as Chairman of the Policy Committee. I knew the stuff they were struggling with.
Once things settled down and I was “put back in my box” Brereton allocated me the National Road Safety Strategy as my key policy area and left me to it. Normally it would have been an insignificant policy front at the Federal level because almost all matters relating to road rules and regulation were State responsibilities and there was little role for the Federal Government to play.
However, again I was touched on the shoulder by another massive piece of good political fortune.
The National Road Safety Strategy
Hidden away in the Federal Department of Transport and Communications was a small policy unit (National Road Safety Strategy) headed up by Peter Makeham – a highly intelligent and dedicated public servant who knew his stuff and could see a way to rise to the challenge. All he needed was a politician to take him seriously – and in me he found his man!
Again – I had some policy history here and was not caught flat footed. That enabled me to seize the opportunity once Peter explained his suggested approach.
Again – back to the beginning.
By 1990 Australia’s national road toll had reached horrendous proportions. Annual deaths were in the order of 3500 and hospitalised victims were around 10 times that; 35,000 per annum. The human and social cost was staggering, and the economic cost was off the scale.
At the time Victoria seemed to be the only State taking it seriously. Compulsory wearing of seatbelts and enforcement of .05 drink driving legislation (random breath testing) had been introduced there and it was clearly having a positive effect. But the other States were hesitant to follow for fear of upsetting drivers by curtailing their freedoms.
Then one of those things occurred that sometimes set off an unexpected chain reaction in politics. The then Prime Minister Bob Hawke was moving through Adelaide Airport on a Sunday evening on the way to Canberra when he was approached by Gordon Trinca, the leading trauma surgeon in Australia at the time, who confronted him with a demand that we become serious about the appalling road toll. Mr. Trinca told him that the surgeons had just resolved at a weekend conference in Adelaide that they would seriously consider refusing to treat road accident victims in future as a protest at the failure of governments to act on the situation.
Bob Hawke protested that it was not a Federal responsibility as, under the constitutional arrangements, the whole road regulation area was up to States. “We don’t care” protested Trinca. “You are the nation’s Mr Fixit – you find a way!”
On returning to Canberra, Bob called in Bob Brown (his Land Transport Minister) to discuss the problem and sought an assurance that we might be able to do something to help. The end result was a massive policy success which has never been credited to Bob Hawke – perhaps we can add this to his record.
Bob Brown sought me out as Chairman of the Policy Committee and put forward ideas that the Department had – but was concerned that we had no real role to play or any ability to coerce the states into action.
However at least the thinking began on preparing a National Road Safety Strategy that could work if we could secure agreement of the States – and contribute some funds as a sweetener to make it more palatable for them.
The core elements were:
- Driver behaviour
- Introduce compulsory seat belt wearing in all states and territories
- Introduce .05 as the national uniform alcohol limit (just as importantly enforce it)
- Slow down speeds around schools and in suburban streets
- Truck driver hours and logs
- Compulsory helmets for motorcyclists and bicycle riders
- Zero alcohol for learner and probationary drivers
- (note: no emphasis on driver training – which I return to later)
- Vehicle Safety
- New safety requirements
- Crash testing in labs to refine passenger safety in the capsule
- (better seat belts, air bags, collapsible steering wheels, child capsules etc)
- Motorcycle lights on
- Road design and safety
- Divided roads on national Highways
- More roads deemed “national” for extra funds
- Pacific Highway upgrades
- “Black spots” for specific treatments
- Roundabouts replacing criss-cross intersections
- Speed humps and traffic calming in suburban streets
- Enforcement and research
- Funding to assist states with “booze buses”
- Funds to increase school crossing supervision
- Funds to expand formal road safety research
- Public Education
- Joint funding with States of numerous road safety campaigns
- Particular emphasis on young drivers (high risk group)
The Package worked!
This program was quite extensive and had been thoroughly planned and thought through by Peter Makehem and his team. They already had an action plan ready to go – they just wanted to be taken seriously. It was now my baby – but I don’t think anyone (let alone me) realised what an exciting ride it was to become.
We had been allocated a small amount in the Federal Transport Budget for use as seeding money to encourage the States to sign on to the package. It surprised me how little was needed to bring this about. I think it had really been a lack of leadership and co-ordination in the past – as it had been left to each of the States to do their own thing.
Now the Federal Government was becoming involved and was bringing a national strategy (backed by some dollars) and had nominated me to lead the way. State Transport Ministers made me very welcome as I visited each one to discuss the plan and things fell into place quite quickly.
In particular, the “black spots” road funding policy was a huge success. It was easy to research which locations were the worst for particular kinds of accidents and to come up with sensible engineering solutions or enforcement solutions for them.
Simple solutions like a roundabout at a cross-roads intersection turned serious head on and side on car crashes into glancing blows – saving lives and reducing the extent of the damage.
Enforcing wearing of seatbelts and implementing booze buses to back up new .05 legislation had an immediate impact.
Separating head on traffic with centre dividers on major roads turned out to be a low cost “no brainer” – the number of head-on deadly accidents at these “black spot” sites immediately fell.
Giving pedestrians “centre of the road” safety islands made it safer to cross busy roads; multiple simple low-cost solutions which had big benefit returns.
The cost finally understood!
Not long after we lost office in March 1996, I was invited to the Annual Conference of the National College of Road Safety to receive an Honorary Life Membership Award. I said to the Chairman that I didn’t think my short term in the drivers’ seat (three years) compared to the experience of the many career-dedicated members in the College warranted such an award.
He responded by telling the audience that it wasn’t just about recognising the remarkable success of the strategy under my leadership – but that I was the one who had finally got Treasury to understand that the road toll was not just a “human” trauma but a huge “economic” impost on the community.
This was true. Early in 1994 I began to talk publicly and in the media about the annual cost of the road toll ($1.6 billion) in hospital beds, rehabilitation of serious injuries, insurance, crash repairs, job losses and absenteeism – the list goes on.
I made the comparison with the lost productivity on the waterfront which still needed further reform. The political landscape was alight with attacks on the MUA and its members. The Productivity Commission billed this national annual cost of poor container loading rates at $400 million.
“The nation is in apoplexy about the MUA while the road toll is four times the waterfront in cost and lost productivity” became my war cry! It was picked up by senior Ministers and Treasury and more funds became available to drive the strategy – which was clearly working.
By March 1996 (when we lost office) the national road toll had been more than halved to a little over 1,600 – still way too many – but an extraordinary result in itself.
There had been moments where we met roadblocks in co-operation – mainly around State hesitance to bring .08 alcohol levels down to .05 as a national standard. It wasn’t all “happy families” as I set about holding back road funds until we got the package accepted – but it worked.
There’s an old adage in Canberra: “never get between the Premiers and a bucket of money!!” It certainly proved true in this instance.
But – these were just minor niggles – every State Transport Minister could hold his/her head high over this remarkable example of national co-operation and implementation on important social and economic policy.
I often said at forums and public meetings that the task was quite strange. It wasn’t a matter of pounding away at the policy need – every single Australian was agreed that we had to reduce the road toll! The problem was that large numbers were drivers and they all had their own idea of what needed to be done next!
Again, it was Peter Makehem and his team to the rescue. “It must be research driven” he told me. “It can’t just be what you think is a good idea -or the one most drivers complain about – we can only get uniform co-operation if we back the particular strategies with their own research”.
Some areas were self-fulfilling. Reduced alcohol and compulsory seatbelt wearing simply needed enforcement. Once drivers were being stopped and checked regularly the results in lower accident numbers was a direct straight-line graph.
The whole effort led me to another little homily that seemed to work well in public forums.
I coined the phrase ”You don’t solve a big problem with a big answer! You have to break it down into building blocks – a solution for each and lay the foundation as a pyramid – building on the base as we go!”
Alcohol, speed, seatbelts and black spots were the foundations that produced quick visible results that gave everyone confidence that the strategy was working – then it picked up a momentum of its own.
Even now the national road toll is about where we left it in 1996. Lots more drivers on the road now – but the improvements have kept pace. Still a long way to go – but a wonderful story to know about now.
Driver and Rider training: unfinished business!
The insistence that we couldn’t just allocate funds according to “guesses and feelings” carried right through to myself. I was convinced that encouragement for access to improved driver training once a driver had completed the “P” phase had to be part of the formula.
This seemed to be just plain common-sense to me!
But Peter Makehem and his team kept telling me that there was no research to back this up. There was no debate that early introduction to driving had to be graded as well as being proficiency and knowledge based. The tests to enter the process from beginner to fully licenced was based on these principles across the nation.
There was also clear agreement that “L” and “P” phases drivers must maintain “zero” blood alcohol contact.
Grading began with “L” plates, then moved up to “P” plates and then on to a full licence. The debate then became one of “experience” vs “training” to take drivers to the next level of safety. My view was that they were not mutually exclusive – but if there was no research to guide us, then let’s create some!
But that was not a simple as it sounds. Improved hazard perception and advanced driver training was highly debated among the experts. My position was that in every place in the workforce (and especially in emergency services) when we were looking for improved safety, productivity or performance we turned to improved training standards: “why wouldn’t this be so for road safety?”
The experts claimed that experience was the best teacher – and anecdotally had become convinced that drivers who underwent advanced training became over-confident and took more risks; becoming a danger to themselves as well as everyone else.
“But there is no research to tell us that” I rebutted! “You keep telling me this for the other side of the debate”. But try as I may – I ran out of time (we lost the election in March 1996) and failed to get in place a crafted research study to shed more light on the merits or otherwise of advanced training once a driver had passed through the “P” phase.
(Some years later (in 2009), in my role as Chairman of the Victorian Motorcycle Advisory Council, I was able to persuade the team to invest in a significant research project on motorcycle rider safety to answer some of these questions about the role of advanced training for experienced riders.
It was agreed that a 10 year program would commence with a study of the riding experience of 2,000 newly licensed riders. Those who had advanced to a full licence and had completed at least 12 months experience would be offered a free advanced rider course as part of the study.
Their accident history would then be monitored and compared over a 10 year period with the parallel experience of riders who did not take up the course.
I haven’t heard the outcome of this study – which should now be complete (I’m on the case now!))
Angus Downie – A lesson in getting things done
With this background, I was very interested to hear in late 1994 what use Angus Downie thought I could be to him as the Chair of the Disability Transport Users Association
The Keating Government had managed to get through the National Parliament in 1992 the new National Discrimination Act. It had been hard won. It made it an offence to discriminate against people or groups on the ground of various themes which had long been in public debate (colour, race, religion, gender and so on).
Nobody had talked about people with disabilities in this context. And yet it was immediately clear to me that Angus and the Court were right. This was a new field that the Act had placed in the spotlight and it had to be resolved – and quickly.
At that first meeting Angus held back on his planned strategy for a resolution. I could see later that he had decided to let the pot boil a bit before putting forward the DTUA proposed solution (which was pragmatic, realistic and brilliant).
Over the next couple of months I took calls from all the State Transport Ministers. Panic was setting in. They all had new trains, trams and buses in the pipeline and couldn’t sit around hoping the Court might change its’ mind. One even proposed that we amend the Act to exclude disabilities from being perceived as an area of discrimination. That was clearly not on – but we did have to find an answer!.
We had scheduled in April 1995 a meeting of the Ministerial Council of Transport Ministers (these happen annually in each major portfolio) and this issue had risen to the top of the agenda as a matter of “urgency”.
On the Thursday before the meeting Angus and I met again. He knew I was looking for a solution and he put it on the table. Bottom line he would “call off the dogs” if I could secure an agreement by all transport Ministers (State, Territory and Federal) to commit to designing disability access into all future new public transport investments over the next 15 years.
This would mean that by 2010 the entire fleet would be on the way to being accessible. It was a good proposal and I felt it could win support at the Ministerial Council. I said to Angus that I would put it on the table, do some lobbying beforehand and see how it went.
“No – I want to make the presentation” he responded. “I want to be sure we have put our whole heart and soul into it!”
I had to tell Angus that I didn’t think this was possible. Ministers were not in the habit of inviting outsiders to address the Ministerial Council. He wouldn’t take no for an answer and we left it up in the air on that Thursday afternoon.
On Friday I discussed the idea of him presenting with our senior officials and they set off to try to persuade their State counterparts to agree to the proposal that we invite Angus to make a 15 minute presentation of the proposed plan.
The pressure was on – they all needed a solution and by late Friday afternoon it had been agreed. It was too late to arrange a formal invite and transport arrangements so I phoned Angus and confirmed that he should get himself to Adelaide by Monday morning (costs and accommodation to be later refunded by the Federal Department).
And so it happened. On Monday morning (date) Angus was invited to address the National Ministerial Council of Transport Ministers to put forward the plan. It was to be after morning tea – we planned to discuss the issue at the early session and agreed to the process.
As a little aside: just before we broke for morning tea I suggested that all the Ministers introduce themselves during the break (and be nice about it!). I pointed out that Angus had been trying to secure meetings with them all for over two years – with very little success.
The scene in the morning tea cove was something to behold; the full queue of national transport ministers lined up with their cup of tea and biscuit in hand one after the other saying hello to Angus and making him welcome. I wish I’d taken a photo!
It all went well. The presentation hit the mark and the meeting quickly endorsed the package. Departmental officers then had a brief to make it happen – and so it rolled out across Australia over the next 15 years.
Two postscripts:
- It wasn’t all plain sailing.
Private operators in the bus and taxi industries (in particular) were livid that they were now being forced to design in disability access across their fleets. They saw it at first as major investment for very few passengers. They were recovering from the recession and regarded this as a ludicrous government impost.
It took time; but I was able to persuade them that it didn’t have to be all the vehicles in the fleet. It needed just to meet the needs of the Act – to show that sufficient was being done to avoid the legal claim of discrimination.
- Angus was right about the economics of it all.
He pushed hard on the line that there were vast numbers of people with limited transport access who had money to spend and who were itching to get out, spend money and live a more normal life. They wanted to visit friends, go to restaurants, theatre, sporting events, holidays – the list goes on.
Time has shown just how true this was. Now it is commonplace to see the changes that came about over that period and the huge difference they have made to society in general and for people with disabilities in particular.
It just needed a bit of fresh thinking – backed by the legal requirement. We see low floor buses and trams, raised platforms, aircraft lifts for wheelchair access, ramps for train carriages, taxis with space and lifts, buses trains and trams with special areas to park wheelchairs – just to name some of the improvements. It’s really quite mind boggling how easy it all was once disability access to public transport received the attention it deserved.
A very sad finale
In October 2010 Angus Downie passed away. The day before he died, he left a message on my phone that he wished to chat and could I call him back.
I can’t recall the reason but it took me two days to return the call. It was answered by his carer, who told me that Angus had passed away only hours earlier. He told me that Angus knew he was at the end and was making one of his last calls to me to thank me for making it all possible.
“You were his hero” his carer told me. I was gobsmacked that he still even remembered me 15 years later; let alone thought about me that way.
I have remained ever sad that I did not speak to him on that last day. The boot was on the other foot. Way back from those early days of listening to him on the radio: he was my hero – not the other way round!
