Policy

This section contains information on policy, legislation, and inquiries pertaining to audio description.  For information on general media accessibility, please visit the Media Access Australia legislation section.

Legislation

There is currently no legislation to requiring audio description on Australian media, as noted in the Access to Electronic Media for the Hearing and Vision Impaired Approaches for Consideration Discussion Report 2009. The report was released by the Minister for Communications, the Hon Stephen Conroy, and Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, the Hon Bill Shorten in November 2009.

Summary of proposals and downloads of Media Access Australia's response

Media Access Australia (MAA) hopes that this will lead to the introduction of legislation governing and requiring audio description in Australia.

MAA has compiled a summary of the submissions to a previous inquiry on media access. Extracted below are the submissions made by blind and vision impaired consumers.

• General
• Priorities
• Comments
• Targets
• Vision Australia's Targets 

General

To me TV and movies without audio description is(sic) like shoes without a soul (sic) in them (Lisa Hayes).

An estimated 500,000 Australians are vision-impaired. They include 50,000 who are blind, 4,000 of whom have a form of deaf blindness (National Disability Service).

Blind and Vision impaired consumers were less likely than deaf and hearing impaired consumers to respond to this inquiry. This may largely be largely due to the absence of audio description in Australia and a lack of awareness about its possibility. In fact even the Guide Dogs Association made comments about captioning without mentioning audio description.

While several priorities are listed, blind consumers primarily wrote personal testimonies about the importance of audio description rather than proposing definitive plans about the implementation of audio description. The most detailed implementation plan was proposed by Vision Australia.

Priorities

1. The first priority for blind/vision impaired consumers was to get text (emergency information, sporting scores, ‘more information on our website’ and final comments especially on Australia Story) with audio attached. (Melissa Ryan, Robert Altamore, Matthew Chan, Lynee Davis, Lisa Hayes, Kyrstal Keller, Tom Macmahon, Karen Passmore, Patricia Stillman). A number also wanted this on Advertising (Melissa Ryan, Erik Webb, Vision Australia).
2. Better promotion and labeling of audio described material where it is available and making this large enough for vision impaired people to read. (National Disability Service, Erik Webb).
3. Increasing importation of audio described material on DVD (Association of the Blind WA, Scott Nixon). RNIB proposed a reciprocal arrangement for television where Australia and the UK could share files and reduce costs.
4. A separate audio channel or something analogous to SAP (Marvin Hunkin, Disability Discrimination Legal Centre) or a trial on multichannels (Vision Australia).
5. A general increase in audio description across media forms and the devices used to display media (Marvin Hunkin, Evelyn Martin, National Disability Service, Steve Richardson, To Tran, Erik Webb) For example the DTS system should be expanded to relay audio discrimination (National Disability Service, RNIB).
6. Allowing blind consumers to actually access the audio described material through talking remotes or menus like the Dr Who box set (Marvin Hunkin, National Disability Service, Scott Nixon) RNIB proposes that user settings should be preserved.
7. Text descriptions of graphic material on websites (Tom Macmahon) and a growth in the usability of websites (National Disability Service).
8. Allowing Audio Description to be affordable for example not only the Sydney Theatre Company (Coral Arnold).
9. 9.  Handheld devices (Royal Society for the Blind SA) and Digital Radio (Vision Australia).

Comments

Consumers submitted that because of their impairment they engaged with media less frequently than they would otherwise or had done previously. (Maria Chapman, Chire Fulford, Sally Jary, Evelyn Martin, Karen Passmore). Those who had experienced audio description understood it to have significantly increased their experience.

Blind and vision impaired citizens felt that their choice was severely limited as very few media were audio described (Dr Lynne Davis, Chire Fulford, Kyrstal Keller). For example Marvin Hunkin requested that older DVDs also have access features.

There was also a particular focus on the need for inclusion in the cultural and social world and to be able to operate independently within it (Dr. Lynne Davis, Mark Enston, Lisa Hayes, Macular Degeneration Foundation and Janet Shaw) The joint submission of People with Disability and the Disability Discrimination Legal Centre commented on the federal government’s platform for social inclusion and the human rights obligations to provide access.

Respondents frequently commented that the lack of audio description meant that they missed out on information or were constantly asking their friends and family for information. (Christine Casey, Maria Chapman, Sally Jary, Kyrstal Keller, Margaret Macarthur, Tom Macmahon, Janet Shaw).

Audio description was perceived as important within the school system. It was submitted that it was vital to allow students to deconstruct texts (Mark Enston, Tom MacMahon) and to generally interact with the curriculum (National Disability Service).

Targets

The main theme was that blind consumers want more audio description.  If a target was set it was usually for audio description to be analogous with captioning (Association of the Blind WA, Sally Jary,  Nadio Mattiazo, Royal Society for the Blind SA, Disability Discrimination Legal Centre, Robert Altamore). Vision Australia provided the most detailed quota regime which is extracted below.  RNIB however noted that it is important to ensure that the quotas is high enough to ensure take up, the UK experience suggests 6-8% with appropriate promotion.

Some respondents highlighted the international implementation of Audio description and proposed that Australia adopt a similar framework (RNIB, Kystal Keller). 

It was also stressed that audio description should be included at the design and implementation stage rather than being an additional feature added retrospectively. (Royal Society of the Blind SA, RNIB and Vision Australia).

Respondents strongly believed that regulation was essential in order to ensure the rollout of audio description.(Association of the Blind WA, Disability Legal Centre, Margaret Macarthur, Tom Macmahon, Macular Degeneration Foundation, Nadia Matiazzo, Disability Discrimination Legal Centre). Royal Society for the Blind SA and Vision Australia saw a role for Disability Discrimination Act and or a related standard. Most other respondents more generally referred to standards or codes of practice. It was also noted that it would be essential to regulate quality with appropriate complaints mechanisms to enforce such (Disability Legal Centre). Finally People with Disability, Vision Australia and RNIB believe that the AFFC should create an incentive for audio description by only funding films with AD tracks.

The time period for implementation was also important to consumers. It was especially argued that it should not be delayed until the end of the simulcast as FreeTv proposed.  (Royal Society for the Blind SA).  While it was acknowledged that there exist technical hurdles for television description, Access Innovations noted that if you can not transmit audio description on television the files could be made available online. Vision Australia proposes that a trialed implementation on a multichannel would assist broadcasters to overcome some of these technical obstacles.

Vision Australian provided the most comprehensive list of targets

That the Australian government implement the following targets for the delivery of audio description services in Australia:

1. Television (free-to-air, digital, subscription)

1. No audio description on analogue television
2. 2009: Each digital television broadcaster to set aside time on digital multi-channel and/or time-shifted programming for "open" audio description from the time a multi-channel becomes available to them.
3. December 2011: 5% of programming content with audio description;
4. December 2013 (digital switchover complete): 10% of programming content with audio description;
5. 2014: Review of targets, with the expectation that an accelerated increase will be possible with new (MPEG4) technology that will allow the transmission of "closed" audio description.

2. Audio Description in Cinema:

1. July 2009: Inclusion of a contractual requirement that all movies produced with public funding must be fully accessible (i.e.,captioned and audio-described).
2. December 2009: all newly-constructed or substantially-refurbished cinemas to have facilities for playing audio-described movies;
3. December 2010: a minimum of 100 cinemas across Australia to have facilities for playing audio-described movies;

3. Audio Description on DVD (including Blu-ray):

1. December 2009: All movies released for cinema with audio description, and television content that has been audio-described here or overseas, to be available with audio description on the DVD version;
2. December 2009: All DVDs produced by Australian governments to be fully accessible (captioned and audio-described); Vision Australia:
3. December 2010: 50% of entertainment DVDs released in Australia to have audio description;
4. December 2015: 100% of entertainment DVDs released in Australia to have audio description.

Inquiries

Cinemas' submission to the Human Rights Commission on access requirements

Hoyts, Greater Union (including Event and Birch Carroll & Coyle), Village and Reading cinemas (‘the cinemas’) submitted an application to the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) for a temporary exemption of 2½ years from the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) (DDA) under section 55 of the Act in late 2009. If an exemption is granted, then the AHRC will not receive complaints about the exempted organisation under the DDA. The AHRC will grant exemptions when an applicant organisation specifically undertakes to reduce discrimination on the basis of disability.

The cinemas have proposed to do the following in their application:

• Increase the number of screens in cinemas operated by the applicants capable of delivering captions to 35 over the next 2½ years.
• Provide audio description capability in all those 35 screens, including a retro-fit of the current 12 cinemas offering captioning.
• Commit to a review of the current program in consultation with representatives from key stakeholders starting 9 months before the end of the Temporary Exemption period.
• Ensure accessible information on captioned and audio described film schedules.

The cinemas would implement the changes in a series of three-month phases, retro-fitting about three cinemas in each phase.

At the end of the 2½ years, the following cinemas would be capable of providing audio description and open captions (15 Greater Union, 10 Hoyts, 6 Village, and 3 Reading cinemas):

Bankstown	NSW	Hoyts
Belconnen	NSW	Hoyts
Chatswood	NSW	Hoyts
Coffs Harbour	NSW	Greater Union / Birch Carroll & Coyle
Erina	NSW	Hoyts
George St	NSW	Greater Union
Glendale	NSW	Greater Union
Lismore	NSW	Greater Union / Birch Carroll & Coyle
Parramatta	NSW	Greater Union
Penrith	NSW	Hoyts
Wollongong (Warrawong)	NSW	Hoyts
Darwin	NT	Greater Union / Birch Carroll & Coyle
Cairns	QLD	Greater Union / Birch Carroll & Coyle
Harbour Town	QLD	Reading
Mackay	QLD	Greater Union / Birch Carroll & Coyle
Maroochydoore	QLD	Greater Union / Birch Carroll & Coyle
Mt. Gravatt	QLD	Greater Union / Birch Carroll & Coyle
Myre Centre	QLD	Greater Union / Birch Carroll & Coyle
Rockhampton	QLD	Greater Union / Birch Carroll & Coyle
Toowoomba	QLD	Greater Union / Birch Carroll & Coyle
Marion	SA	Greater Union / Birch Carroll & Coyle
Tea Tree	SA	Hoyts
Hobart	TAS	Village
Launceston	TAS	Village
Eastland	VIC	Hoyts
Epping	VIC	Reading
Geelong	VIC	Reading
Jam Factory	VIC	Village
Shepparton	VIC	Village
Southland	VIC	Village
Sunshine	VIC	Village
Carousel	WA	Hoyts
Fremantle – Queensgate	WA	Hoyts
Innaloo	WA	Greater Union

Having proposed these undertakings, the AHRC asked the cinemas to provide more detail regarding their application. You can read the AHRC's request for further information here.

The cinemas have recently responded to the AHRC, and you can read the cinemas' response here [Word Doc - 266 KB]. The AHRC is now considering its decision.

The Human Rights Commission has rejected the cinemas' exemption application

The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has announced that it decided not to grant the cinemas' exemption application.  The AHRC stated that it made the decision in light of the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act (Cth), and that 'on balance the Commission did not consider the application to represent sufficient progress to be considered reasonable'.  The AHRC stated that it will make available its full decision soon.

For more information, visit the AHRC website.

United States legislation

On 26 July 2010, the US House of Representatives passed The Twenty-first Century Communications and Video Accessibily Act of 2009 with an overwhelming majority, 348 for to 23 against.  The bill was presided over by Rep Jim Langevin, the first quadreplegic elected to the House, after the rostrum was made wheelchair accessible.  A similar bill has recently passed the Senate’s Commerce Committee, meaning that the bills are close to becoming law.

The Twenty-first Century Communications and Video Accessibily Act of 2009 would:

·         Require that equipment providing advanced communications via a built-in speaker provide an internal means for hearing aid use;

·         Redefine ‘telecommunications relay services’;

·         Require interconnected and non-interconnected VoIP providers to contribute to the Telecommunications Relay Services Fund;

·         Require, unless it would be an undue burden (significant difficulty or expense), that equipment and services for advanced communications be usable by individuals with disabilities;

·         Require, if that requirement is an undue burden, that the equipment or service be compatible with existing commonly used peripheral devices or specialized customer equipment, unless that requirement would be an undue burden;

·         Establish an accessible products and services clearinghouse that is publicly available;

·         Authorise Lifeline and Link Up programs and other federal universal service support mechanisms to be used for those telecommunications services, Internet access services, and advanced communications that are needed by individuals with disabilities;

·         Define as eligible for universal service support certified programs that distribute equipment to make telecommunications service, Internet services, and advanced communications accessible by deaf-blind individuals;

·         Require every provider of Internet access service and every manufacturer of Internet access equipment, unless it would be an undue burden, to make user interfaces accessible to individuals with disabilities;

·         Require that apparatus that receives or plays back video programming and has a picture screen of any size be capable of decoding closed captioning, transmitting and delivering audio description (AD), and conveying emergency information (current law: (1) requires closed caption decoders only for apparatus having a picture screen that is at least 13 inches; and (2) does not require AD or emergency information conveyance capability);

·         Require that apparatus to record video programming retain and pass through closed captions and AD;

·         Ratify and considers in full force and effect the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC's) AD regulations contained in a specified Report and Order;

·         Define, for certain portions of this Act, "video programming" as including programming distributed over the Internet or by other means;

·         Require video programming owners, providers, and distributors to convey emergency information accessibly to blind or visually-impaired individuals;

·         Require that apparatus to receive or play back video, including using the Internet, allow control by individuals with disabilities and that on-screen menus be accompanied by integrated or peripheral audio output to enable control by blind or visually impaired individuals; and

·         Require each provider or owner of video programming and each multichannel programming distributor to ensure that video programming information and selection provided by means of a navigational device, guide, or menu is accessible in real-time by individuals with disabilities who are unable to read the visual display.

For the Latest in Policy News:

Policy News