From:	Michael Uniacke 
Sent:	Sunday, 6 December 2009 10:09 PM
To:	disabdis
Subject:	Objection to s55 application for exemption - cinema access

To Commissioner Graeme Innes and to Director of Disability Rights Policy Unit 
Michael Small
I wish to lodge an objection to the application for an exemption from complaints under 
s 55 of the Disability Discrimination Act made by the four cinema chains, Hoyts, 
Greater Union, Village and Readings.
Although the chains seek an exemption for two-and-a-half years, the request is 
concerning because it takes little heed of what faces those who are Deaf, hearing 
impaired, blind and vision impaired. The cinema chains appear to be unaware of the 
broader human rights context of disability. I note that it took a complaint lodged ten 
years ago to force cinemas to confront their lack of access to people who are Deaf and 
hearing impaired, and more recently, access for those who are blind and vision 
impaired. 
Article 30 on the UN Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities refers to 
access to television progams films, theatre and other cultural activities in accessible 
formats. The Federal Government’s National Arts and Disability Strategy refers quite 
specifically to accessible practices in the film, television and broadcasting industry. 
These are examples of an international agreement and a policy document which 
reflect some of the extent to which disability rights have become a mainstream 
concern. I have seen little to suggest that the cinema chains take this development 
seriously.
The cinema chains reveal a lack of imagination in considering access issues. It is a 
great pity that they do not see people with sensory disabilities as an immense 
marketing opportunity, rather than as a problem. Cinema chains have not hesitated to 
cater for market segments, for example their Gold Class seating and service. It would 
not take much effort to realise the enormous number of people who would benefit from 
cinema access; about three million people have a hearing impairment, and Access 
Economics predicts this number will double soon after 2020. 
I also reject any claims with regard to the costs involved in providing access. Costs 
have been used to object to every social advance since the first attempts to abolish 
slavery. The cinemas have embraced 3D technology; the technology associated with 
captioning and audio description is equally a valid reason for uptake, and is arguably 
more so, because of the huge numbers of people who depend on it.  
I fear that granting this exemption will let the cinemas off the hook. There is an implicit 
assumption that Deaf and hearing-impaired people are expected to be “grateful” that 
there is any form of open captioning at all. These off-peak session times are cinemas’ 
equivalent of television’s graveyard shifts. They give an uncomfortable suggestion that 
cinemas are not serious about access, and are fundamentally uninterested in the 
issue.
I believe they must be held to their obligation to introduce full access as soon as 
possible.
Yours sincerely, 
Michael Uniacke