Justine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I also rise tonight to speak on the Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising Flexibility and Other Measures) Bill 2015. On this side, as previously indicated, we do have many concerns and oppose this bill. We have concerns about SBS being essentially forced to have to increase their advertising due to the fact that there are so many severe budgetary cuts brought in by the Abbott government. This bill will essentially change the fundamental purpose of SBS.

Let's have a look at the bill itself. The government is amending the SBS Act in two key ways—firstly by increasing its potential revenue base by creating a so-called 'more flexible' scheduling of advertisements. This would mean allowing for an increase in the amount of advertising that can be shown on SBS in prime time, which is, of course, between 6 pm and midnight. That is an increase from five minutes per hour to 10 minutes per hour. This would be within the existing limit of no more than 120 minutes of advertising in any 24-hour period.

Secondly, this bill amends the SBS Act to specifically authorise SBS to earn revenue through product placement in its commissioned programs, including food or sports programs. This would then allow for additional earnings through the use of product placement endorsements in its commissioned programming. Also, the SBS Act's definition of 'advertisements' has been changed to allow the use of product placement. Whilst schedule 1 does not define 'product placement', item 3 specifically authorises SBS to broadcast product placements and to include product placement in its digital services. SBS will also be required to develop publicly available guidelines on the kinds of advertisements and sponsorship announcements it is prepared to broadcast. It will also need to address the kind of product placement it is prepared to include in the programs that it broadcasts.

The act which established SBS programs and corporation had already allowed for the introduction of advertisements. Up until 2006, advertisements were noninvasive or were allowed before and after programs or during what were labelled 'natural program breaks'. The advertisement times were strictly limited to five minutes per hour and did not include station promotional material. Since 2006, the SBS management has interpreted 'natural program breaks' to encompass breaks which are designed to occur within scheduled programming.

As I stated before, SBS is currently permitted to broadcast only 120 minutes of advertising and sponsorship announcements within a 24-hour period. The government would have us believe that all these new changes they have brought in are necessary to ensure SBS becomes more self-sufficient and less dependent upon Commonwealth funding in order to maintain current service levels. But, indeed, like all things this government do, this action is in fact quite misleading. It is meant to disguise their ideologically driven attack against public broadcasters. The fact is that these changes are occurring due to the cuts to SBS. The deep cuts imposed on this organisation are cruel and unjust. Many concerns have been raised in relation to these cuts. Commercial broadcasters have made claims—and rightly so—that by allowing and, indeed, compelling SBS to engage in the pursuit of advertising dollars it will effectively transform SBS into a fourth commercial broadcaster. This means it would cease to be a public broadcaster, of course, free from the associated constraints and commercial realities.

Others further argue that by compelling SBS—a public broadcaster—to compete in a finite revenue pool it effectively would result in a subsidy from them to administer what is essentially supposed to be a public asset. Those who maintain that the SBS and ABC as public broadcasters should be free from the reality of advertisements also argue that the proposed changes would limit their ability to operate within their charters. That is what they need to be doing—operating within their charters. SBS's charter clearly directs SBS to promote and contribute to the diversity that is multicultural Australia. We do not need to have SBS in the position where they are essentially forced to be second-guessing what their commercial partners may prefer. Rather, they should be focused on programming that specifically delivers upon their obligation.

Moreover, as a result of the proposed changes, the broadcaster could possibly be forced to be in the position to be more inclined to place the needs of advertisers before the needs of viewers. Thus, programming could potentially be assessed on its ability to raise revenue, not on its potential to deliver on charter obligations, which should be the primary objective of SBS.

All these changes are occurring due to the Abbott government's breaking of its election commitment. We all remember the night before the election when the Prime Minister, who was actually looking straight down the lens of the SBS camera, said the words that there would be no cuts to the ABC and no cuts to the SBS. Clearly this was untrue. That is exactly what happened; there were cuts to both, as well as cuts to many other areas that we have spoken about in this place many times.

On budget night last year the government cut more than half a billion dollars out of the ABC and SBS. They were very harsh cuts. This year's budget papers have revealed the extent of those cuts and how wide-ranging they are. There it was in black and white in those papers—some 215 ABC and SBS employees have lost their jobs because of the government's cruel and unjust cuts.

Despite those previous false claims from the Prime Minister of no cuts to SBS, the Abbott government in their 2014-15 budget also included a funding cut of $53.7 million over five years for SBS. That is a huge cut, indeed. $25.2 million of these cuts were direct to the organisation. SBS have, of course, been forced to comply with these cruel cuts. They had to streamline many of their back office functions, which we all know means redundancies. That was the reality. A further $28.5million was cut on the basis of allowing SBS to alternatively raise the revenue. In other words, they were told, 'Forget about your core business. You will now have to compete against commercial providers and raise income to cover what this cruel government has taken away from you.'

All of these changes are subject to the legislative amendment to SBS's advertising restrictions being passed. The Minister for Communications has made it clear that if the bill does not pass then SBS are on their own and will not receiving any additional funding. SBS have confirmed the position they will be put in by this bill. They will be forced to make up for this funding cut through further slashing of jobs and services from within the organisation. The SBS submission to a Senate inquiry on this bill states that SBS would be left with very few options to achieve further savings outside of SBS programming. At the inquiry, many senators and members raised concerns which focused on their fears that this bill will increase the amount of time allocated to advertising on SBS. Fortunately, at least at this stage, that is not the case. The number of minutes SBS are allowed to allocate to advertising and sponsorship announcements will not change under the proposals in this bill. There will, however, be more advertising shown in peak viewing periods. Many people have concerns about that.

As we know, SBS play such an important role in Australian life today. They stand at the forefront of so many great initiatives. Much of the programming they provide is thought-provoking and sometimes very edging sometimes viewing, which creates such a great difference. SBS also create such an important format for ethnic communities, both providing a valuable way to communicate with specific groups and providing a way to greatly expose and enlighten the general community within Australia to many different aspects of our wonderful multicultural society. It is these great aspects of SBS that we should continue to celebrate and nurture, not cut further. We have such great provision of informative multicultural programming, very in-depth news stories and great content that really does showcase the great diversity of our modern Australian community.

Labor is very mindful of the industry feedback which points out the need for caution so as to not turn SBS into just another commercial broadcaster. Labor believes that, as a public broadcaster, SBS needs to be driven by a purpose more important than profit. We believe they need to have the capacity to fulfil their charter, and that should be their primary obligation. We are concerned that, if this bill were to pass, the scales would be tipped too far in favour of profit over the public benefit—the massive public benefit—that can be maintained by ensuring that SBS is kept essentially as a public broadcaster and is kept in the position of adhering to their charter and their responsibilities and the obligations that come with that.

This bill, as it currently stands, is really a recipe for more ads during the most popular shows on SBS. That is the commercial reality of what will happen in those prime time periods and very popular shows that will be on. The reality is that there will be a whole lot more advertising during that time on SBS. That is, in fact, what will happen. Indeed, there has been a large outcry right across the community in relation to this bill and some of the impacts upon SBS. Some consumer groups, particularly Save Our SBS and GetUp, are very strongly opposed to this bill, and they have made those concerns very well known. It is evident by the collection of more than 61,000 signatures on a petition calling on the parliament to oppose the bill, and I know that concern is spread right throughout the community. Indeed, in my area too I receive a lot of feedback and concern about cuts to SBS and about cuts to ABC as well.

The main tenet of the argument put forward by groups such as the ones I mentioned—Save Our SBS and GetUp—is that further commercialisation of the SBS would undermine the ability of SBS to adhere to its charter responsibility, which is to:

… educate and entertain all Australians …

Effectively, what will happen is that we will see the creation of a fourth commercial network by stealth, if you like. That, as I say, is a concern expressed not just by those groups but, indeed, by thousands and thousands of people who have signed those petitions. In fact, Save Our SBS argues that the bill's intent is to increase dependence on advertising and may lead to SBS being forced to adopt a more populist approach to their broadcasting. Save Our SBS also cites some internal studies that were undertaken both in 2008 and 2013 in support of its claim that they would adopt a more populist stance.

They would indeed be forced to adopt a more populist stance because the increase in prime time ads could lead to deficiencies in the delivery of their charter, according to all the studies that I cited before. The studies further state what many already believe to be the obvious consequence. The reality is advertisers will want and, in fact, demand access to what is one of SBS's most valuable commodities, the very loyal audiences. They will have very high viewing audiences, and it is those that advertisers want to be able to access in prime time in those very important shows due to the very widespread respect that people have for SBS and their programming.

In Save Our SBS's view, when advertising was between programs only, they viewed that the viewer was more important. Their concern is that now, with these proposed changes, the scales will tip in favour of the advertising client and they will become the priority. It will not necessarily be the viewer, who should be at the heart of all the decision making. It should not be driven necessarily by what the advertisers may be wanting or may require. As I have said, studies into in-program advertising agree with the assessment that it has made it increasingly difficult for SBS to meet its charter obligations as a result of an increase of this advertising just by the natural conflict that it does create.

The proposed changes in this bill could, therefore, have a detrimental impact on the very integrity of the SBS, placing the needs of advertisers before the needs of viewers, as programming could be assessed potentially on its ability to raise revenue and not so much on its ability to meet the charter or upon its ability to reflect the needs or wishes of the communities that they endeavour to represent. It may mean you will not have the great diversity of programming or the thoughtful, provoking programs that we see on SBS that I think all of us would know can challenge us and entertain us, and we would not want to see that in any way sacrificed for other agendas. In a sense, seeing SBS just becoming another commercial provider would indeed be quite detrimental.

It is a concern to see these cuts. This year's budget really is a statement of, if you like, a recommitment of last year's budget, in terms of its cuts and the impact of those cuts. We have seen them across so many areas. As I have said before, we saw the now Prime Minister saying before the last election there would be no cuts to the ABC or SBS, and that is precisely what we have seen. So it is a broken promise, and it is one that many people are very concerned about in regional areas as well. They see that reflected as the responsibility of the National Party. I know ABC and SBS are important everywhere, but they are very important in regional and rural areas, and people are very, very concerned about any cuts—potential and real cuts like we are seeing.

As I am concluding, we should never forget the Prime Minister's statement before the last election when he said:

No cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no change to the GST, and no cuts to the ABC or SBS.

Yet that is exactly what we have seen. It is the Abbott government's dishonesty and incompetence that continues to hurt Australian families. Many families that did rely, firstly, on jobs generated by our great public broadcasters have been impacted. But our broader community has been impacted by the very unfair and unjust cuts to ABC and to SBS, two great institutions that this government promised not to cut. Yet, in government, that is precisely what they did, and I know that many people in regional areas certainly condemn the Abbott government for those cuts. It has been very harsh and it has meant their access to services has decreased. I certainly call on the government to reverse these very harsh cuts.

See this speech in context