From:	Kerridge, Marnie J 
Sent:	Monday, 30 November 2009 8:18 PM
To:	disabdis
Subject:	Application for exemption under DDA section 55: Cinema captioning 
and audio description


I refer to the Application for exemption under DDA section 55: Cinema captioning and audio description. 
 
At first read, this sounds like a reasonable application but there are many serious repercussions involved with this. 
 
The cinema industry has had many years to prepare, plan and implement sufficient accessable cinemas for its 
deaf, hard of hearing and vision -impaired patrons. To begin crying poor and beg for more time is a pure insult to 
those patrons who have been patiently waiting. We have waited and been denied too long. There is no excuse for 
not being ready for this now. 
 
The current set up with the cinemas is highly unsatisfactory. I live in regional Victoria and have NO access to 
captioned cinema despite lobbying and evasive promises. To travel to Victoria and pay premium prices to see a 
movie is a big blow to the hip pocket. To see movies at set times and not choose when and where makes my 
patronage doubly difficult. To not be able to promote the captioned cinema screenings to country deaf children and 
their family does not further promote the cause. To not be able to see the movies my children want to see is an 
insult.The cinema chains are responsible for their own difficulties. They have had ample time to consult and listen 
to their patrons and have been found wanting. 
 
Consumers have a right to criticise and question. We should not be gagged should this application go through. This 
is a service we are going to be using and we should have every right and opportunity to make this of a high quality. 
To ask us to honour an agreement where the cinema chains are immune from the DDA is contemptuous. It shows 
how little they think of us. There is no reciprocal working relationship happening here where the end goal is a 
satisfactory mutual outcome. 
 
There has been none or minimal community consultation with the deaf community. No schools with deaf students 
were approached and no individuals were approached through regular communication channels. Whilst not a 
member of Deafness Forum or Deaf Australia, I can confirm that many of those members were not a part of the 
consultation process. To say there has been extensive consultation is a mockery and an insult. 
 
I strongly urge that this exemption does not go through. Original agreements must be upheld. Original timelines must 
be followed. If we sway from this, what is to stop further deferments and delays to equal access from these 
organisations and others? They can afford to hold up progress of equal access with delays and half baked 
apologies. We however cannot afford to wait and do not deserve to be treated as second class citizens. 
 
To use another analogy - if this was a workplace safety issue, the repercussions would be enormous and no 
hesitation would occur at making the workplace safe. Why, then, cannot the organisation realise that disability 
access is as important? Why is the DDA so weak and allows so many loopholes for organisations to slip through? 
Do not let them make an example of us! 
 
 
Yours sincerely, 
 
Marnie Kerridge 

SEBASTOPOL 3356 
  
 
  
Important - This email and any attachments may be confidential. If received in error, please 
contact us and delete all copies. Before opening or using attachments check them for viruses and 
defects. Regardless of any loss, damage or consequence, whether caused by the negligence of the 
sender or not, resulting directly or indirectly from the use of any attached files our liability is 
limited to resupplying any affected attachments. Any representations or opinions expressed are 
those of the individual sender, and not necessarily those of the Department of Education and 
Early Childhood Development.