This struggle to get captioned cinema predates me even becoming deaf so I don’t know a lot of the early history of it. The trouble is I don’t know a lot about the recent history of it either. I knew it was an issue but thought there would be a consultation process.

I am sure both Deaf Australia (DA) and Deafness Forum (DF) have done their best in what must have been a really wearing process over years. I’d like to know why they made the decisions they did from them, either face to face or at least on a website somewhere.

Maybe I am all going to be shocked all over again and find out that the AHRC approves this DDA exemption but I think, based on the big response, this application will be rejected.

I’d like to know what happens next. Will Deaf Australia and Deafness Forum just go back into negotiations with the cinemas ? Given that there isn’t currently agreement between DA, DF and those of us who have made submissions whose view will they be arguing for ?

Also, what if the exemption is granted ? What will happen then ? I would really like to know the answers to these questions and hope that these two organisations are going to respond to them soon, because we need to decide amongst ourselves what we are willing to accept.

I wish to draw your attention to the information that was previously submitted by Phil Harper and Carla Anderson.

? Jointly, these exhibitors have 1,182 screens across Australia.
? They show approximately 30 movies per screen every week.
? That’s a total of 41,370 screenings per week (1182 screens x 5 sessions per day x 7 days)
? Of these, only 105 will be captioned and audio described. This is equal to less than 0.3% of all movies

Clearly the level of access that is being granted to people who are Deaf, hearing impaired, Blind and vision impaired is not adequate, nor is it acceptable.

I further would like to draw your attention to the information provided by the Disability Discrimination Legal Services inc in Melbourne, Again in an earlier submission.

“In considering an exemption application the Tribunal must do so in the light of the Charter. In particular, the Commission referred to the observations of Justice Bell in Lifestyle Communities (No. 3) [2009] VCAT 1869 at paragraph 96 that the purpose of the Equal Opportunity Act ‘did not permit the grant of exemptions in order to achieve convenient, economic and practical outcomes, but that the true purpose was to promote equal opportunity and prevent discrimination’

I am of the view that the exemption that has been applied is based purely on economic reasons and offers no realistic equal access nor does it address what are clearly discrimnatory practices occuring from the Cinema industry. There is no clear aim as to what further increases will occur at the end of 2.5 years. In short the application is nothing more than a stalling tactic.

Further there are close to four million Deaf and hearing impaired Australians and countless other Blind and vision impaired Australians who, if offered realistic access, would attend captioned cinema or cinemas providing audio description. If the access was realistic and flexibly the costs for implementing access would be largely offset in increases in numbers of the targeted people who would attend the cinema.

I further believe there exists technology and strategies to implement access for the targeted stakeholders. It is already happening in comparable countries around the world and for a country as wealthy as Australia it is well within their financial capacity to provide.

Based on this information and a clear madate in rejecting the exemption from people who have taken the time to submit to this process I object to the granting of any exemption.

Sincerely
Gary Kerridge