From:	Joanne Beckwith 
Sent:	Wednesday, 11 November 2009 12:20 PM

RE:Temporary Exemption AHRC cinema captioning

Being the parent of three children , two of which have different disabilities I find that 
having to be an advocate for equal access and opportunity is frustrating at best. The 
erosion of a child's rights to equal access and opportunity is fundamental and 
paramount to achieve a happy, productive, self-reliant adult. Holding organisations to 
ransom, using cost as a weapon is simply not on, it is part of the whole package, you 
either show films or you don't. Ok a compromise on number of screens seems 
reasonable however the cinema organisations are play with semantics when it comes 
to the service they are providing for deaf and hearing impaired children.

I find it staggering that collusion between Hoyts Corporation, Greater Union Organisation, Village Cinemas and 
Reading Cinemas is being condoned on such a massive scale. I also find that the period for comments in this case 
has been reduced from the six weeks generally provided by the Commission to a four week period equally 
staggering. Shame on all involved who did not think the ramifications of such an arrangement would not 
establishing precedent for the erosion of disability rights, access and opportunity . This approach is insulting and 
downright patronising, is it now a requirement  to be part of a specific group or organisation if you have a disability 
in order for your rights to be preserved or considered? It would be interesting to see what the ACCC promotes 
competition and fair trade in the market place to benefit consumers, businesses and the community. It also 
regulates national infrastructure services. Its primary responsibility is to ensure that individuals and businesses 
comply with the Commonwealth competition, fair trading and consumer protection laws.would find with the 
applicants letter.

Frank Perikleous claims in his letter ...'More recently the program has increased to 12 cinemas actively screening 3 
sessions per week of current films released to the market.' This statement is misleading as any reasonable person 
would assume this include G and PG films. Since 2001  the Hoyts Corporation, Greater Union Organisation, Village 
Cinemas and Reading Cinemas have not consistently provided equal access and opportunity to deaf and hearing 
impaired children. In Melbourne there are never more than three sessions a week 
per cinema organisation,  a Wednesday during the day, Friday evening and 
Sunday afternoon and it is strictly the one film for the week. However this is 
not for children this is for the deaf and hearing impaired as a collective.

It would appear that there is no requirement or obligation to provide the same cultural 
exposure and experience for deaf and hearing impaired children. My daughter who is now 
eleven and profoundly deaf has never been able to watch a movie suitably rated for her age group during the 
school holidays in Melbourne.  She is subjected to all forms of media advertising and continually asks when she 
can see a film with her friends. What do I tell her? My enquiries direct to the cinemas have always blamed 
distributors. It would appear that the whole programming is purely based on a Sydney centric model, so if our 
school holidays don't line up with Sydney my daughter cannot see what her peer group has access to. Our School 
holidays do not align with Sydney. 

The exclusive nature of this exemption and other exemptions is harmful and damaging to children who already 
feel isolated by deafness. Limited screens, screenings and limited product exacerbates social isolation which is 
hard enough for deaf and hearing impaired children,  resulting in periods of depression and negativity about self. 
In our family's personal experience when a film of suitable rating and appeal eventually appears on the screen 
and our daughter wants to see it with a friend, they have invariably seen it and so the experience and pleasure is 
not to be had.

What do I tell my daughter if exemptions are continually granted to cinema 
organisations and distributors?
1) Sorry but apparently if you are a big enough company you can discriminate.
2)Yes the advertising is like someone a bully teasing you sweetheart, but you know sometimes big business get 
there own way if they don't want to do something. 
3)Well sweetheart it's like this, although there is supposed to be equal access and 
opportunity if big cinema organisations and distributors get together and complain they 
are given a piece of paper called an exemption which says they don't have to provide 
equal access and opportunity for deaf children. I know there are special lifts and ramps 
and seats for people with physical disability,  but you're different you're deaf and you'll 
just have put up with being excluded from our culture.

I propose the applicants  be required to provide no less than three captioned 
screenings of every advertised film with a classification of G and PG  during the local 
state government school holidays (ie specific to the state or territory) for each of the 
current and proposed cinemas. This may go some way to recognising the needs and 
impact the current exclusive arrangement has on young deaf and hearing impaired.

The finger pointing between the cinemas and distributors is easily fixed. Make it a 
requirement to protect the rights of children, otherwise withdraw advertising 
permissions for P and PG films.

Regards,
Joanne Beckwith