From: Dean Barton-Smith Sent: Friday, 27 November 2009 5:00 PM To: disabdis Subject: Response to Application for exemption under DDA section 55: Cinema captioning and audio description Dear Sir/Madam I write as an individual and a person who is Deaf (all my life) how sickened and extremely dissapiointed I am to see such a application being submitted by the cinemas and to have the permission to not be challenged by a person with a disability for the next 2.5 to 3 years. The DDA came into force in 1992 and since that time a lot of communication, infomation and extensive lobbying has been undertaken by the community and respected advovacy groups to remind the corporate community of their roles and responsibility including their obligation to provide appropriate access for people with disability. In fact it has been 17 years sine the DDA was put in place that people with disability would expect a better accessible lifestyle. However this recent submisson from the cinema clearly indicates that the corporate sector does not or cannot adhere to their obligations and rather undertake what can only be described as a sleazy, progressive installation approach whereby people with disability may have to wait many. many years (or approach the next generation) before 100% access is provided. Australia has long has an international reputation of falling well behind with its international counterparts in regards to provision of full access across various areas such as employment, edcuation and media. Tis latest action, which virtually mirrors in many ways what the Free TV have submitted indicates that there is a possible collusion occuring within the media industry and that the recent decision granted by the HRC has created a precedent for future media companies to take advantage of. I live in Victoria and I find it very unfair and insulting to my human rights that despite a number of cinemas virtually 5 minute drive away from my home, yet I have to drive an hour away to access a cinema that will show open captions at a time that does not suit my and my family best whereas hearing people have the great privilege to have the option to watch many movies at a time and day that best suits them. Furthermore I find it extremely discriminating that cinemas can offer Gold Class provisions to movie patrons but will not ensure that they are accessible for people who are Deaf or have a hearing impairment or vision impairment. I think to grant such exemption that will favour the cinema and set another precedent that will disadvantage Australians with disabilities would be a national disgrace. I call for the HRC to ask all cinema companies to justify both financially and resource wise why they are not able to implement a clear and committed and progressive accessibility plan across all cinemas around Austrralia within the next 4 years. I also ask the HRC to direct all cinemas companies to open their financial books to show their current financial position and ask why they cannot deliver the expectations that they are obligated to provide under the DDA and: I remind the HRC to reflect on Australia's obligation under the CRPD and its recent ratification of our human rights and that this must take into account before any decision in regards to provision of such exemption. I remind the HRC that the current proposal by the cinema is a major insult to Australians with disability despite record high number of revenue generated from this industry and their share of the pie. Cinemas have had 17 years to get their act together and the best they can now offer is a pithy approach with an underlining intent to draw out the accessibility obligation as long and painfully as possible. I remind the HRC that recent decisions granted to the likes of Free TV will have long term implications for people with disability and to grant same for cinemas indicates that Australians with disability are to be treated like second class cousins. I am of the understanding that the proposal put forward by the cinema, and if rejected, can give the cinema more power to reduce or be immune from any discriminatory complaints. If this is what the current is and potentially will be then I hold little faith in the DDA and the HRC approach to human rights and be force to bow to large companies intimidation and influence. Lastly, if such exemption is granted, which immunes all cinemas from being sued for discrimination for up to 3 years, indicates a serious flaw in our current legislation. It is compared to someone having the rights to apply and victimise a person but that victim cannot do anything for at least three years. A extreme example I know but this is how this application and the outcome appears to look and as aperson with a disability who advocate for equal access and opportunities I would be extremely dissapointed if such exemption is granted without a significant improvement in access and with clear committed implementation and completion date across Australia in all cinemas and for all movites within 4 years. Anything less than this would be an indicator how companies still treat people with a disability like second class citizens and in breach of human rights. I trust my submission will give you a better appreciation on my objection to such application and the need for companies to be held accountible for their actions and be responsible for provision of access for Australians with disabilities. I look forward for a positive and productive outcome in due course. Yours sincerely Dean Barton-Smith 1992 Olympic Games 1990 / 1994 Commonwealth Games 1985-89-93-05 Deaflympic Games Founding President/Chairperson of Melbourne 2005 Deaflympic Games *************************************** Bayswater. Victoria.