From:	asylumseekersfoundation [asylumseekersfoundation@bigpond.com]
Sent:	Sunday, 6 December 2009 7:22 PM
To:	disabdis
Subject:	Submission regarding audio described films 

Importance:	High


							1

Mr Michael Small  
Director Disability Rights Policy  
Australian Human Rights Commission 
 
Dear Mr Small, 
 


Application for exemption under DDA section 55 – Cinema captioning and audio description 

I write to you to express my concern at the above application by the major cinema chains. 
 
The present situation in Sydney is appalling for my visually impaired friends, with one screen at 
Paddington only showing Audio Described (AD) films intermittently. 
 
I am conscious of the problems my visually impaired friends have when trying to go to film screenings 
with their partners and friends. On many occaions I have attended films with visually impaired patrons 
who have been assisted by thier partners who provide ongoing description of films which can cause 
disruption to the other cinema patrons in the audiience.
 
Some of my visually impaired friends are regular movie goers and observe that these cinema chains 
schedule multiple screenings of new releases every day - and many sessions are attended by two to ten 
patrons.   


But the vision impaired patrons are only offered 3 screenings a week when a movie is available at one 
suburban cinema in Sydney. I often ponder at the probable outcome if this level of availability were 
offered to the general public. As I write this letter to you, I am advised that of the 12 cinemas funded by 
the Commonwealth Government in Australia to show AD films, only 2 have a session yesterday - this is 
actually an improvement on most days when none are screening. 
 
As well my friends tell me that this inadequate service is very poorly promoted and advertised and it is 
extremely difficult for the visually impaired in all age groups to find out screening details, even when they 
have partners who do not have a visual impairment.   
 
If this is the poor outcome of a $390,000 program between the Government and the independent 
cinemas, is it going to be any better if this application is allowed and the cinema chains propose to 
have 0.3% AD sessions a week within two and a half years? 
 
My view is that this application should be rejected totally and this inequitable and unfair discrimination 
ended. 
 

This attitude of the cinemas parallels their attitude in the past when they steadfastly refused to allow the 
entry of guide dogs into cinemas. 
 
Yours sincerely, 
 


 
Virginia Walker JP 153611
Winner of the 2006 Human Rights Community Individual Award