Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

There is only one reason why we are considering the Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising Flexibility and Other Measures) Bill 2015 tonight, and that is that, on election eve, in a range of commitments that were given by the then Leader of the Opposition, now Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, with hand on heart about what would happen, designed to influence the way the people voted at the election, a commitment was made that there would be no cuts to the SBS. Knowing that there was a strong level of support within the community for public broadcasting, the Prime Minister went out of his way, repeatedly, to indicate that there would be no cuts to funding. Subsequent to that, he got into office and, as we have seen since the 2013 election, all the commitments that were made—and support was secured off the back of those commitments—were trashed. We had a situation where the public broadcasters were to lose funding. This is an attempt to try and make up for that. While the coalition dresses this up as an efficiency dividend, it is clear that it is a cut, and the public broadcasters have no choice but to attempt to do these types of things to secure more advertising in an attempt to make up for funds lost. Financial pressure is exerted on them by the coalition, which many people know in their heart of hearts does not support public broadcasters, because, for quite some time, it has maintained a position—that is unsubstantiated—that the public broadcasters are completely anti-coalition. As a result, the public broadcasters face this type of punishment, through lower funding, greater pressure on their operations and therefore less capacity for them to undertake the type of broadcasting that the coalition believes is against its political interests—which is complete and utter rubbish.

So we have this bill. Labor has already indicated that it is against the proposed amendments to the SBS Act because these changes are a covert attempt by the Prime Minister to force SBS to run more advertising to earn money, at the same time as he is cutting its budget, in clear breach of an election promise. These amendments are a blatant attempt by the government to turn SBS into another commercial broadcaster, bearing in mind that commercial broadcasters are already under financial pressure of their own. But the coalition intends to turn SBS into a commercial broadcaster instead of letting it focus on its main objectives, one of which is to effectively be the country's main multicultural broadcaster.

People in my area have developed a particular view about SBS, and rightly so. SBS has not endeared itself to Western Sydney, and in particular the areas of Western Sydney that I represent in this place. In fact, its actions over the last few weeks, with specific reference to a particular program, Struggle Street, have done nothing to engender support for SBS. If anything, they have turned the views of the people that I represent in this place quite against SBS, and rightly so. In its own charter, SBS's key objectives are to promote diversity in Australia and contribute to the understanding and acceptance of cultural, ethnic and socioeconomic diversity within the broader community. Like many others who valued SBS growing up, I certainly operated on the belief that this public broadcaster would offer a chance to broaden public perspective, that it would generate better appreciation of the challenges and demands of others in the community but not do so in a way that demeans or denigrates.

Recently, SBS did just that. It engaged in questionable methods in its filming and production procedures when producing the show that I have referenced, Struggle Street. It targeted a number of families within the electorate of Chifley. Many constituents have contacted me say—and they are right to say this—that the show reinforces improper, unfair stereotypes of the people living in this part of Western Sydney. But the biggest problem with the show is the ethical missteps that occurred by SBS and the production company, KEO Films. I want to focus in particular on one of the biggest ethical issues that stood out to me, which is the issue of consent. It became apparent that the people featured in this program by SBS did not give informed consent to be featured in this television program. It raises serious questions about how SBS and KEO Films went through the process of obtaining consent. These were experienced filmmakers and TV broadcasters dealing with inexperienced and vulnerable participants—participants who were not provided with copies of the release forms once they were signed, participants who were not offered independent legal advice before consenting to be filmed.

These issues are most serious, especially in the context of filming underage children and people with diminished capacity or disability. Out of the 11 people that the first episode focused on, one person is said to be suffering from cognitive impairment that causes periods of confusion and anxiety. Another was depicted to be frequently under the influence of the drug ice and had several scenes related to their drug use. One person suffered permanent brain damage from a motorcycle accident. Many more participants were depicted to be habitual drug users and frequently under the influence. Serious questions could legitimately be raised about the capacity of these people to give simple consent, much less informed consent. Brain damage and mental illness do not preclude a person from being informed about their rights or being able to advocate for their own needs. But their inclusion in a television show, particularly one of this nature, calls for a much more rigorous approach to consent than simply getting these people's signatures on forms.

Consent is the cornerstone of journalistic professional ethics, and it was simply breached here. Since SBS and KEO Films seemingly skirt serious ethical issues, I fail to see how this program is in line with the SBS charter or its principal functions and duties. In light of these serious breaches of conduct, I would certainly be calling on SBS and KEO Films to drop the legal action with which they have threatened the Mayor of Blacktown, Councillor Stephen Bali. Councillor Bali was right in his position to voice the deep objection of our area to the way in which people from our area were portrayed by this program, particularly in the promotions around this program. They were treated as simple comedic fodder by SBS, there to be denigrated and demeaned, and all for one purpose and one purpose only: to boost ratings. SBS management and KEO Films did not care one bit about the lasting impact on the people that I mentioned, and they certainly did not care about people in our area who have always had to struggle against stereotypes about their capability, their capacity and their right to participate in the broader society.

SBS believed that it could turn these people into a joke, and when we objected, through our own mayor, what did it try to do? It tried to threaten legal action against him for raising those concerns, simply in an attempt to shut his voice out of this debate and stop him from raising what many of us felt was unfair treatment by a public broadcaster that should have known better.

Councillor Bali and Blacktown council were simply standing up for our community and were wanting to make sure people were portrayed in a better, fairer light. There are many people across neighbourhoods in the electorate I represent who not only work hard to change their own lives but also open up opportunities for others. They do it with few resources, they have to fight to hold onto these resources and protect them wherever they can. The even bigger challenge is to help those who feel the weight of stigma and low esteem generated by it. For example, young people in the Chifley electorate regularly approach me, saying they will not list their residential address on resumes for fear of being turned down or denied job opportunities because employers view them in a less favourable light. This is what people in my area have fought for some time. I know their capability; I know their ability to participate. I know what they can bring in an employment or a community context because I see it every single day. Yet SBS thinks that by putting out, particularly promotions, that turn people in our area into a joke or a laughing-stock believe it is fair game and if you dare object to this, if you dare say that it is doing the wrong thing, it then tries to slap legal orders on you to threaten you from objecting to that. It is a disgrace that a public broadcaster can do this, particularly to people in my area.

I want to be able to say to the people in my area that I am enormously proud of them—people such as the students from Loyola Senior High who were on ABC's Q&A program recently, speaking out against Struggle Street, highlighting the fact that they do great things. Student Johanna Larkin highlighted the stigmatisation of Mount Druitt on a national level and delivered her question with such conviction that Struggle Street was debated between the audience and panellists for most of that episode of Q&A.

We have many other community groups in this area that are doing great things to change the fortunes of people who may otherwise not have the ability or the chance to fully participate in society. I think, for example, of Mount Druitt's Learning Ground, at Bidwell, doing terrific things in helping people get a second chance. It is, as I have said, often the home for second chances, helping turn people's lives around. They do so with the minimum of funding and they do not have a chance to show the great work that they do. Eagles Raps is at risk of losing funding in my area. It was portrayed in this particular program and was denied the chance to show all the good things that it does in its area and that I see quite often. What about the schools and community groups, the sporting organisations in our area that achieve well? Chifley College, Bidwill Campus have a rugby union team that is competing with some of the best in the state. You do not get to see anything that they do in this area. Ted Noffs Foundation and Mount Druitt Street University right now are compiling great stories and inspirational ones about the things they are seeing in our local community. They are having to do it in response to the negative views that are being expressed or being portrayed through this show.

I think that there should be more opportunity for good news. I certainly call on the public broadcaster SBS to undertake that to correct what it has done and the damage it has caused in our area. I would like shows to come out and be able to do just that, to discuss the types of social issues that are being dealt with in some neighbourhoods within our area, because the reality is there will always be something that you like about your neighbourhood and there will be things about your neighbourhood that you would like to change. That is not alien to any suburb in this country. However, people in our area have had to put up with these types of things for many years and do not need the reinforcement of it.

To be honest, I do not know in this case why the federal government refused to actually carry the concerns of people from western Sydney. Conservative politicians have no problem chipping public broadcasters if they are chipping other conservative politicians. But when we relied upon the government to actually say to SBS that what it was doing was out of line, they refused. I note the presence in the chamber of the communications minister, who expressed a view that it was not his job to be raising the concerns of people about Struggle Street. He said that it was not his job to influence the mandate of the broadcaster. Yet he felt—and I say this directly to him—that he could express his views about certain members or representatives of the public broadcaster the ABC on The Bolt Report. If it is good enough to raise those views there, Minister, why wouldn't you speak up for the people who have been mistreated by SBS's Struggle Street? —people in my area who do not deserve to be turned into comical material by SBS in the way that it did that promotion. I know for a fact that if you were there with the people in my area, you would feel just as strongly as I do. I feel that you should be speaking up for the people of this area, because I know in you, Minister, that you would not support that type of treatment. I think people would have benefited from you expressing the view, rightly so, that a promotion that categorised people in this area in that way was wrong and out of line and should not have been conducted in the way it was. And you could speak with equal fervour about that, as you have in other instances where you believe the public broadcaster has not acted in a way that has met expectation.

I certainly feel strongly about it. I certainly believe, Minister, if I can say to you: it is wrong for SBS to threaten public figures with legal action because they dare react to the unfair way in which SBS categorised people in our area. I would certainly urge you to consider that in due course. But if SBS wants more advertising to promote this type of rubbish TV that has gone on and demeaned the people of the area that I represent then, quite frankly, from my own perspective, and putting aside all the great points that have been expressed by our side in this chamber, I certainly feel it should not have the opportunity to continue to denigrate people who I feel deserve a better chance than what was expressed or demonstrated by SBS in that terrible program.

See this speech in context