From:	Cheryl Martin [
Sent:	Monday, 7 December 2009 11:26 AM
To:	disabdis
Subject:	Objection to exemption under DDA section 55

Michael Small  
Director Disability Rights Policy  
Australian Human Rights Commission 

Dear Mr Small

RE: Application for exemption: Cinema captioning and audio description 

I lodge my objection to the recent application made by Village Roadshow, Greater Union, 
Hoyts and Reading Cinemas requesting exemption from the Disability Discrimination Act for 
a period of two and a half years regarding complaints about accessibility to captioning and 
audio description. I object on the grounds that those with hearing and visual impairment and 
disability should not be further disadvantaged by not being able to access recreational 
activities available to the hearing and sighted members of the community. There is 
technology available which seems to be not being applied on commercial considerations. 
That is the right of a competitive business. However a coalition of supposed competitors 
seeking this exemption seems to promote discriminatory practice on the part of an industry. 
 To seek HREOC sanctioning of this discriminatory decision is to ask the wider community to 
approve such exclusionary practices. This is not acceptable to the general community. The 
Federal Government has already indicated that the strategic direction in arts and 
entertainment should be toward an inclusive approach for the hearing and sight impaired. 
Why should there be a decision made contrary to this on commercial grounds?

It needs to be asked. Who are the hearing and sight impaired? Apart from those from all age 
groups with a profound disability, there is also the growing proportion of the older adults in 
the community who have disposable income to attend film screenings and are also affected 
by these impairments. I believe the Applicants may have miscalculated the number of 
consumers they are alienating in taking this path.

If the Applicants are already planning to increase the number of screens available and retro-
fit 12 of these, why do they need to have an exemption to do this work? Surely this is an 
activity which would be applauded as progressive if it did not come at the price of an 
exemption from complaint.

If the applicants were acting in good faith they would have set the timelines for dialogue with 
disability groups and stakeholders to be pre-dating the application and continuing throughout 
the exemption rather than commencing `nine months’ before the end of the exemption 
period. 

Most organisations welcome complaints and feedback as a way to improve their 
performance and competitiveness. There is a proud history of community complaints 
resulting in social justice and removal of discriminatory practices. I believe this application is 
out of step with community attitudes and should be denied.

Yours Sincerely

Cheryl Martin