Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Communications) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to have the opportunity to make a contribution on the Broadcasting and Other Legislation Amendment (Deregulation) Bill 2014, which makes some changes to the Broadcasting Services Act and a number of related acts. These include the digital switchover and restack. As we know, analog services ended in December 2013, so these provisions and the related provisions concerning simulcast rules were, indeed, fulfilled more than a year ago. Other amendments concern planning powers, auditing expenditure, compliance with new eligible drama rules, licence areas, and the ACMA's role in the code of practice review.

I want to focus most of my remarks on the issue of captioning, which is contained within this bill. Listening to the community of interests around this issue has informed Labor's approach on this matter and the amendment that the shadow minister has brought before the House. Just to give you an idea of some of the community of interest that has been alive in this matter, in October 2014 I received correspondence from Deaf Australia which said in part:

I am unsure if you are aware of Federal Government's bill covering certain elements of the Broadcasting Services Act that deals with captioning issue … Along with Media Access Australia, Australian Federation of Disability Organisations, Deafness Forum of Australia, Australian Communication Consumers Action Network and the Human Rights Commission, we are concerned that the deregulation was drafted with provisions that approach the whole issue solely from the perspective of the television industry … The elements of the drafting does not appear to have any knowledge of how captioning works in practice and how it will be regulated in real-world situation.

I am quoting that directly just to illustrate the level of concern that many who are concerned with this legislation have expressed.

The minister's second reading speech on this bill in this place said:

Reflecting stakeholder feedback, the communications portfolio deregulation road map identified captioning reporting as an area for reform in 2014.

I am sure that is true, but the problem is that some key stakeholders in the accessibility area were not afforded sound consultation, and that is a fact that has been conceded in the Senate inquiry outcomes, which I will discuss in a moment.

There are two limbs to the opposition's amendment that we have before us. The first is about the review of captioning requirements and compliance reporting. I turn specifically to the Senate committee inquiry, which recently gave its report into this matter. Part of what it discussed in terms of captioning obligations was the issue of granting exemptions from captioning obligations for new subscription television channels from one to almost two years depending on when the new service commences and removing the obligation for the ACMA to conduct a review of captioning obligations by 31 December this year.

Schedule 6 of the bill, concerning captioning, was as I said a specific area that was addressed in the Senate committee report, and I want to turn to paragraph 2.71 of the report and its discussion on consultation:

A significant number of the submitters to the inquiry expressed concern that there had been a lack of adequate consultation in relation to the proposed amendments to captioning obligations and NEDE scheme audits.

Here are a couple of examples. Deaf Australia said:

… we did not have an opportunity to provide any detailed feedback. They [the Department] just told us what the proposed changes were going to be. I do not believe that there has been any adequate or appropriate consultation with consumers or broadcasters.

It goes on in paragraph 2.73 to note the Age and Disability Discrimination Commissioner, the Hon. Susan Ryan, agreed that the captioning amendments in the bill should be delayed pending further consultation. Paragraph 2.74 says:

Mr Varley from Media Access Australia noted that the bill proposes to repeal the provisions requiring the ACMA to undertake a captioning review by 31 December 2015.

It goes on:

Mr Deaner from Screen Producers Australia argued that there had also been a lack of adequate consultation …

Paragraph 2.76 says, to their credit:

Dr Pelling, Department of Communications, acknowledged in evidence to the committee that consultation in relation to the proposed measures in the bill could have been improved:

…   …   …

I think it is true to say that in an ideal world we would have preferred to have an exposure draft; but, given the timing of the process and the way the bill was developed, an exposure was not able to be released.

Kudos to the department for acknowledging that. We do all learn from experience, but I think it is a salient reminder that, while we may all be focused on a certain area of intent—in the government's case it is to demonstrate that this spring cleaning needs certain fanfare to go with it—we need to remember what underlies that, and that is to ensure that we have sound policy arising as a result.

I will very briefly look at some of the committee's comments:

The committee acknowledges that access to captioning is of fundamental importance to the deaf and hearing impaired communities.

I do not believe anyone in this place would dispute that. In conclusion, paragraph 2.85 says:

The committee notes that a large number of submitters indicated that that the consultation processes in relation to the bill had been inadequate.

I think I have made that point, but I would also like to turn to a couple of matters that were raised in the human rights committee of the parliament concerning these issues.

In the 16th report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights the committee looked at this bill and raised a couple of matters of questions for the minister, seeking his advice as to the compatibility of the amendments with the captioning obligations of the right to equality and non-discrimination and the related rights of persons with disabilities. These were the questions sought, and the minister provided a number of responses, which were contained in the 18th report of the human rights committee. It was noted that many of these elements could in fact be justified on the basis that they were proportionate or otherwise fulfilled a legitimate policy expectation of the government.

I will point to one of the interesting elements arising from the 18th report, and that is in relation to the blanket exemption from captioning requirements for all new subscription television services for at least one year. The committee noted that it remained concerned that this might still have an adverse impact on deaf and hearing impaired viewers because, if there were no captioning requirements for all new TV subscription content, that content would of course then be inaccessible. As noted in paragraph 2.12 of that report:

… it is not clear to the committee that the limitation is proportionate to those objectives. This is because there is currently a mechanism by which a subscription service can seek an exemption if required (that is, through an application to ACMA, which must assess each application on its merits).

The point I am making here is that we have in the bill before us provisions for a blanket exemption for new subscription TV services when in fact there is a provision for exemption by application already contained here. I note the conclusion the committee came to on this point:

… the automatic exemption for at least 12 months for all new subscription services from the requirement to provide captioning of content may be incompatible with the right to equality and nondiscrimination.

I simply note these. I do not intend to move any amendments, but I simply wish to note this. We know it is a fact that captioning requirements on subscription TV licensees are more complex than those which apply in the free-to-air environment. But, to again quote the minister I his second reading speech:

To achieve a better outcome in the long term—

that is, in relation to subscription television services' captioning requirements—

the Department of Communications will conduct further consultation with the industry to identify ways in which the subscription television captioning regime could be improved to best suit the needs of all stakeholders.

I commend the department on the work I know they will diligently carry out. I simply urge them to take into account some of the comments that have been made by the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights in relation to that issue.

I do want to mention something a bit closer to home: the work, the efforts and the passion of two individuals, David Cunningham and Paul Robertson. They are the co-creators of the Dangerous Dave show. It is a collaborative disability project which aims to present through the media, utilising ICT, the broad spectrum of issues facing Australians with a disability.

I had the pleasure of sitting down with Dave in Seven Hills, to discuss not only this bill but also to film a pilot interview in which we discussed a wide range of issues confronting people with a disability, including how people with a disability are portrayed in the media and how successful the Broadcasting Services Act has been in achieving its objectives, including its stated aim of taking into account the portrayals in programs that are likely to incite or perpetuate hatred against or vilify any personal group on the basis of physical or mental disability.

Amongst other things, Dave and Paul are working to: improve community awareness, understanding and education of disability in all its forms; increase the level of people with disabilities participating in the media; and fight the stereotypes that often surround people with a disability. As University of Wollongong academic Shawn Burns wrote in The Conversation:

Too often, media representation of people with disability is embedded within familiar models of 'tragedy' and 'hero' – but the weekend’s coverage of potential changes to the disability support pension and the welfare system paint an equally distorted and harmful image.

As people with a disability Australia president, Craig Wallace told TheSydney Morning Herald regarding classifying people into having permanent and non-permanent disabilities:

'The reality is that it isn’t as simple as that. I’ve got a permanent disability and I work.’ Mr Wallace also cautioned against the media demonising people with disabilities … ‘We are not rorters, we are not slackers,' he said.

These incidents I believe highlight why Dave and Paul's project is so important in informing and breaking down stereotypes. They also help to inform me how disappointed they were regarding the fact that the ABC's Ramp Up website, which worked to address these very issues, has come to an end.

The late-great Stella Young said, in a co-written article in the editorial of 5 June 2014 on the Ramp Up website:

After much speculation about the future of Ramp Up since the Federal Budget announcement, we have some news to share.

As many of you are aware, in 2010 the ABC received funding to establish an online destination to discuss disability in Australia. … Our current contract with DSS finishes on 30 June this year and has not been renewed.

The publication of ABC Ramp Up will cease on 30 June—

That was last year—

however the website will remain online as a resource for the disability community.

… … …

… Ramp Up has published over 500 pieces of original content …

And I would urge everyone watching or listening to go and have a look at some of those amazing pieces of original content. It is an archive of 3½ years of discussions and conversations regarding disability in Australia. includes, if you read nothing else, '17 things Stella Young wanted you to know'.

I have also had an abiding interest in the ability of ICT to be a transformational power in terms of the digital divide but also more broadly of being an enabler of people with a disability. I want to acknowledge some of the amazing successes that have been taking place and the potential for ICT and captioning, for people with a hearing impairment, but also for people with a visual impairment through audio description. I think we need to do a lot more as a society to increase access to audio description. Just to give you a useful description, this is from the ABC audio description trial in April 2013:

Without knowing what’s on screen, TV becomes a guessing game for Australia’s 600,000 blind and vision impaired people. That’s where audio description (AD) comes in. AD is a track of narration which describes important visual elements of a TV show, movie or performance. It’s delivered between lines of dialogue and means that those who are blind or vision impaired can switch it on to keep up with the action without relying on other people.

It notes that audio description was provide for a number of programs for the trial, including: Rake, Lowdownand Summer Heights HighI would love to know how Rake was audio-described—just to give a flavour of some of the very important things I think we should be doing more of as a community to improve accessibility in this area.

See this speech in context