From:	Gary Kerridge 
Sent:	Friday, 4 December 2009 2:59 PM
To:	disabdis

I write in reference to  the Application for exemption under DDA section
55: Cinema captioning and audio description.

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


Gary Kerridge
National Disability Coordination Officer
Western Region of Victoria