Bills Digest No. 98, 2016–17
PDF version [769KB]
Dr Rhonda Jolly
Social Policy Section
16 May 2017
This Bills Digest includes information that was presented
in the Digest to the Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising
Flexibility) Bill 2015 as well as information resulting from a Senate inquiry
into that Bill and other relevant updated comments and discussion.
Contents
The Bills Digest at a glance
Purpose of the Bill
Background
Key issues
Purpose of the Bill
Structure of the Bill
Advertising flexibility
Product placement
Background
Committee consideration
Senate Environment and Communications
Legislation Committee
Parliamentary Senate Standing
Committee for Selection of Bills
Senate Standing Committee for the
Scrutiny of Bills
Policy position of non-government
parties/independents
Position of major interest groups
Opposition to changes
Figure 1: adherence to SBS Charter as
result of in-program advertising
In favour of changes
Further viewpoints
Financial implications
Statement of Compatibility with Human
Rights
Parliamentary Joint Committee on
Human Rights
Key issues and provisions
Comment
Box 1: the New Zealand public
broadcasting experience
Schedule 2: product placement
Comment
Appendix A: SBS Charter
Date introduced: 22
March 2017
House: House of
Representatives
Portfolio: Communications
and the Arts
Commencement: the
day after the Act receives Royal Assent
Links: The links to the Bill,
its Explanatory Memorandum and second reading speech can be found on the
Bill’s home page, or through the Australian
Parliament website
When Bills have been passed and have received Royal Assent,
they become Acts, which can be found at the Federal Register of Legislation
website
All hyperlinks in this Bills Digest are correct as
at May 2017.
The Bills Digest
at a glance
Purpose of the Bill
- The
Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising Flexibility) Bill 2017
(the Bill) amends the Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991 (the SBS
Act) to allow the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) to:
- increase
its potential revenue base by permitting it to employ more flexibility in the
- earn
additional revenue through the use of product placement endorsements in its
commissioned programming.
Background
- The SBS Act, which established SBS television as a corporation, sanctioned
the introduction of advertisements or sponsorship announcements. Until 2006,
advertisements were only allowed during periods before programs commenced,
after programs had ended or during what was labelled ‘natural program breaks'.
The time limit for these advertisements and sponsorship announcements was five
minutes per hour; it did not include station promotional material.
- Since
2006, however, the term ‘natural program breaks’ has been interpreted by SBS
management also to encompass breaks which are designed to occur within
scheduled programming (existing section 45(2)(b)).
- SBS
is currently permitted to broadcast 120 minutes of advertising and sponsorship
announcements within a 24-hour period.
Key issues
- The
Government argues that the changes in this Bill are twofold; they will make SBS
less dependent on Government funding, while at the same time they will assist
the broadcaster to secure for itself a sustainable, independent future. SBS
supports the proposed changes, maintaining that they will allow it to continue
to provide services at current levels, despite cuts to funding imposed through
government efficiency dividends.
- Commercial
broadcasters claim that allowing these changes to the SBS advertising regime
will reduce their advertising revenues by effectively transforming SBS into a
fourth commercial broadcaster. This will mean that four networks will share the
dwindling sources of revenue available to traditional broadcasters as a result
of the rise of new forms of media.
- Public
broadcaster advocates who object to advertising on SBS and the Australian
Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) argue that the proposed changes will make it
difficult for SBS to function effectively within the conditions of its Charter,
which requires it to contribute to, and promote the diversity of Australian
society. Moreover, as a result of the proposed changes, the broadcaster may be
inclined to place the needs of advertisers before the needs of viewers. Thus,
programming will be assessed on its ability to raise revenue, not on its
potential to deliver on Charter obligations.
Purpose of the Bill
The Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising
Flexibility) Bill 2017 (the Bill) amends the Special
Broadcasting Service Act 1991 (SBS Act) to allow SBS potentially
to increase its revenue base by permitting it to employ more flexibility in its
scheduling of advertising and sponsorship announcements.
Under the proposed new arrangements SBS will be able to
air more advertising and sponsorship announcements in prime time viewing
periods, provided it concomitantly reduces the amount of advertising and
sponsorship shown at other times throughout a 24-hour period.
The Bill also clarifies that SBS is allowed to earn
additional revenue through the use of product placement endorsements in its commissioned
programming.
Structure
of the Bill
This Bill consists of two schedules to amend the SBS
Act.
Advertising
flexibility
Item 1 of Schedule 1: provides new
flexibility arrangements for SBS to allow it to increase the time allocated to
broadcast sponsorship announcements from five minutes per hour to ten minutes
per hour in certain time periods—as it chooses. However, the total amount of
advertising and sponsorship announcement must not exceed the current allowance
of 120 minutes in each 24-hour period (proposed paragraph 45(2)(b)).
Product
placement
Schedule 2: authorises SBS to broadcast programs
that include product placement and requires the broadcaster to develop
guidelines with regard to product placement.
Background
SBS was established on 1 January 1978 as an independent
statutory authority to administer ethnic broadcasting in Australia. At the time
this consisted of two radio stations, 2EA Sydney and 3EA Melbourne. In 1980,
multicultural broadcasting was enhanced through the introduction of SBS
television.[1]
Initially, SBS television was funded solely through ‘such
moneys as [were] appropriated by the Parliament for the purposes of the
Service’.[2]
However, after SBS gained the television rights to the World Football Cup in
1990 it took advantage of the increase in audience this event attracted and
supplemented its funding by seeking commercial sponsorship for the occasion.
The success of this commercial undertaking led SBS to lobby the Federal
Government for permission for advertising to be associated with all SBS
programs, with the exception of news and current affairs programs.[3]
The SBS Act, which established SBS television as a
corporation, sanctioned the introduction of 'advertisements or sponsorship
announcements'. Advertisements, however, were to be only those 'that [ran]
during periods before programs commence, after programs end or during natural
program breaks'.[4]
It has been argued that Brian Johns, Managing Director of
SBS when the SBS Act was passed, was the principal force behind the advocacy
for advertising on the broadcaster. Mr Johns’ reasoning was said to be that
limited advertising (of five minutes per hour) would provide the broadcaster
with supplementary funding which could then be used to assist it to fulfil its
charter obligations by producing local content.[5]
SBS advertising policy remained unchanged until June 2006,
when:
... the SBS Board reinterpreted the concept of natural program
breaks and approved the inclusion of in‑programming advertising across
the SBS schedule. SBS managing director at the time, Shaun Brown, defended this
broader interpretation of natural program breaks using a similar argument to
that which Brian Johns had used—the SBS Charter requires the broadcaster to
produce Australian content, and funding needed to be found to meet this charter
obligation.[6]
The introduction of in-program advertising, particularly
in news services, drew considerable criticism from SBS audiences. SBS historian
Ien Ang comments:
This was seen as the worst example of commercialisation,
tainting the news and its special role within public service broadcasting. By
introducing a commercial element into the news, public trust and public
interest were seen as threatened. Critics argued that the news was now
vulnerable to ratings pressures and its editorial independence was in danger.[7]
Almost 30 per cent of SBS funding averaged over recent
years now comes from advertising.[8]
It has been claimed elsewhere that this situation is the result of the failure
of both Labor and Coalition Governments to fund Australia’s public broadcasters
adequately.[9]
Regardless of the reason, however, it appears as Brian Johns, Shaun Brown and
others, such as past SBS board member and now Chair of the Corporation,
Melbourne multiculturalist Dr Hass Dellal, have stated—advertising has become
fundamental for SBS survival.[10]
The National Commission of Audit and the Lewis Inquiry
into the efficiency of the ABC and SBS expressed the view that both public
broadcasters could, and should, rely less on government support.[11]
Indeed, the Lewis Report specifically suggested that there was scope for SBS to
increase its revenue under a more flexible advertising regime as proposed in this
Bill and a previous iteration of the legislation, the Communications Legislation
Amendment (SBS Advertising Flexibility and Other Measures) Bill 2015.[12]
The Lewis report presented a number options, such as increasing advertising
time during sporting events, introducing branded content and sponsorship in
particular program genres, as well as increasing advertising during peak
viewing times.[13]
The Explanatory Memorandum to this Bill argues in support
of advertising flexibility that in 2015–16 commercial free-to-air television
broadcasters (excluding WIN) earned $3.7 billion from advertising, while over
the same period SBS only earned $76.2 million from advertising and sponsorship.
The SBS revenue represents a two per cent share of advertising
revenue, despite its approximately seven per cent share of prime time
audiences. According to the Explanatory Memorandum, the discrepancy between
audience share and revenue suggests that SBS ‘could be earning significantly
more in terms of advertising revenue’ and that regulations which limit
advertising in prime time are ‘in part’ responsible for this situation.[14]
Committee
consideration
Senate
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee
The Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising
Flexibility and Other Measures) Bill 2015 was introduced during the 44th
Parliament to give effect to the same flexible advertising arrangements and
product placement provisions as are introduced in this Bill. The 2015 Bill was referred
to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry.
The Senate Committee received 27 submissions and held one
public hearing before reporting its findings in May 2015.[15]
The Senate did not consider that the proposed amendments
represent a move to establish SBS as a fourth fully commercial television
channel. Nor did the Committee consider that the proposed amendments would
interfere with the delivery of SBS's Charter obligations. It was convinced that
SBS had provided it with
... clear evidence that [the broadcaster] has managed its
existing advertising and sponsorship announcements arrangements for many years
and continued to deliver its Charter obligations. The committee has been
assured that SBS's programming commissioning and content decisions have not
been, or will be, driven by advertising or sponsorship announcement revenue
concerns.
In addition, the committee notes that the SBS board will be
required to develop governance and reporting requirements regarding the use of
product placements. This requirement mirrors that already applied to
advertising and sponsorship announcements. Together, they will provide
transparency to SBS's advertising, sponsorship announcements and product
placement.[16]
Labor Senators on the Committee and the Greens’ Senator
Ludlam disagreed with the majority Committee report and were persuaded that
risks to SBS charter obligations, editorial independence, the Australian screen
industry and commercial network revenues were significant enough for them to
consider then Bill should not pass.[17]
Senator Nick Xenophon also dissented from the majority report.[18]
At the time of writing, this Bill had not been referred to
the Senate Committee for further inquiry.
Parliamentary
Senate Standing Committee for Selection of Bills
On 29 March 2017 the Selection of Bills Committee
recommended that this Bill was not referred to a committee for inquiry.[19]
Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
The Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills noted in
its March 2017 digest that it had no comment to make on this Bill.[20]
Policy
position of non-government parties/independents
The Australian Greens have been traditionally vehemently
opposed to in-program advertising on SBS. In 2009, and again in October 2010,
the party introduced legislation to prohibit the practice, with the intention,
according to Greens Senator Scott Ludlam, of putting the onus back on
government to support the broadcaster.[21]
In relation to the 2015 proposal to change the advertising
regime on SBS, Senator Ludlam was reported in the press as saying that the
Government was attempting to ‘blackmail’ the Senate into supporting the
advertising changes—a reference to the efficiency funding cuts which could be
potentially offset by increased advertising revenue.[22]
In an interview with the online newsletter Crikey Senator Ludlam
remarked that he was:
... concerned about the remarkably divergent estimates about
the amount of money the proposal would actually raise (the commercial TV
lobbies say it would be $200 million over five years, but SBS says it expects
around half that). [The Greens] won't be in a position to announce our final
voting intention until we know who's right and who's wrong about the estimates,
and secondly, till we know what'll happen if, as is looking likely, the [B]ill
fails—we want to know whether the government is going to go ahead and cut SBS'
finances anyway ...[23]
Senator Ludlam was one of three Environment and
Communications Committee members who wrote a non‑Government Senators dissenting
report to the findings of that Committee on the 2015 Bill, and in the debates
on the Bill, Senator Ludlam asked the Government:
... when will you actually be happy? Will you be happy if this [B]ill
is passed and SBS starts broadcasting the same amount of advertising during
prime time as commercial TV stations? Is that what this is about? Will you be
happy when SBS is allowed to have as much product placement in its programs as
an episode of, say, MasterChef or The Block? Is that what this is about? Will
you be happy if the creeping commercialisation of the SBS spreads to the ABC
and we start seeing advertising breaks on 7.30? Is that where this is going?
Will you be happy if SBS is eventually rolled into the ABC under the cover of
meeting more of your efficiency targets? Will you be happy if both get
privatised or broken up to create a fourth commercial free-to-air TV network?
Is that what this is about?[24]
The Greens voted against the 2015 Bill and there is
currently no indication that the party has changed its stance on changing the
rules for advertising on SBS.[25]
While in opposition before 2007, Labor criticised the
introduction of in-program advertising on SBS, but during its term in
government between 2007 and 2013, it did little to reverse the situation.
Indeed, in response to a series of questions from the Save Our SBS organisation
prior to the 2010 election it made clear that its intention was not to disallow
in-program advertising ‘as it would substantially reduce the amount of funding
available to SBS to support the provision of high quality and diverse programming’.[26]
However, Australian Labor Party (Labor/ALP) Senators Anne
Urquhart and Lisa Singh also signed the SBS Bill inquiry dissenting report,
which primarily expressed concern the 2015 Bill was a legislative mechanism to
cut SBS funding.[27]
In citing concerns raised in submissions to the inquiry, the dissenting report
concluded that the 2015 Bill represented a significant risk to
SBS Charter obligations and editorial independence as well as to revenues for
the Australian screen industry and commercial network revenues. The
non-Government Senators dissenting report recommended that the 2015 Bill should
not be passed by the Parliament.[28]
In November 2014 Labor indicated that it was opposed to
budget cuts to SBS and the ABC.[29]
Senators Urquhart and Singh’s declaration in the dissenting their 2015 report
and the contributions of Labor speakers to debate on the 2015 Bill confirmed
the Party’s opposition to the legislation, with the ALP voting against its
passage.[30]
Since the introduction of this Bill there has been no indication that its
position will change.
Senator Nick Xenophon also dissented from the majority Committee
report on the 2015 Bill. Senator Xenophon argued in his report:
SBS holds a special place in Australian society. Its diverse
programming is reflective of our ever increasing cultural diversity. I believe
the non-commercialisation of SBS is essential to maintaining this broadcaster's
ability to continue to produce and televise programs that other networks would
be unwilling to broadcast. While the Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS
Advertising Flexibility and Other Measures) Bill 2015 does not increase the
total amount of advertising above the current limit of 120 minutes in any 24
hours, it will allow advertising to increase from 5 to 10 minutes in any hour
of programming. Furthermore, this Bill will make product placement permissible,
a measure I believe will constrict SBS's ability to offer the frank commentary
it is renowned for.
I must emphasise that I find the cuts to SBS's funding
repugnant. I am concerned that this is the beginning of a slippery slope as
governments try to wean SBS off public funding and towards an advertising
revenue dependant model. SBS has a specific charter to fulfil a specific need,
and any measures that impact on SBS's ability to do so must be rejected.[31]
The Senator added:
I also wish to put on the record that I do not support SBS's
current advertising activities, although I recognise they have been put in a
difficult position through no fault of their own. The government should ensure
that SBS is adequately funded without the need for this retrograde measure.[32]
Senator Xenophon was not in the chamber to vote on the
2015 Bill. There has no public comment from the Senator on this Bill at the
time of writing this digest, nor any indication that he or his party, the Nick
Xenophon Team (NXT) will vote in support of the current Bill.[33]
Senator David Leyonhjelm, from the Liberal Democratic
Party indicated in response to the previous iteration of this Bill that he was likely
to support changes to SBS advertising arrangements. Senator Leyonhjelm declared
that he would be happy if SBS so decreased its dependence on taxpayers that it
no longer required any government funding to operate.[34]
The Senator did not vote on the 2015 Bill. Senator Cory Bernardi (Australian
Conservatives), who was a member of the Liberal Party in 2015, voted in favour
of changes proposed in the 2015 Bill.[35]
He has made no comment at present on this Bill.
At the time of writing this digest it appears there has
been no comment from other Parliamentarians on the proposals in this Bill.
Position of
major interest groups
Opposition
to changes
Immediately following the introduction of the 2015 SBS Bill,
Free TV Australia urged the Senate to block the legislation. Free TV Chairman
Harold Mitchell claimed the advertising proposals would, in effect, ‘create a
new commercial broadcasting licence by stealth’ as SBS would be able to
schedule the same amount of prime time advertising as commercial broadcasters
and it would target the same advertisers.[36]
The Free TV Chairman contested claims by the Government
and SBS that the broadcaster would only earn an additional $28.5 million over
four years from the changes proposed in this Bill, arguing that there was ‘no
transparency’ for this figure.[37]
He claimed in fact that an independent analysis ‘demonstrated that SBS will
have the potential to earn an additional $148 million in advertising revenue
over four years’.[38]
Free TV’s press release maintained a position the lobby
group had taken previously, as did its submissions to consultation on the
Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) for the 2015 Bill and the Senate inquiry into
that Bill. The Free TV submission to the Department declared:
Commercial broadcasters should not be required to subsidise
funding cuts to a government-funded broadcaster. Free TV members pay extremely
high licence fees on top of Australian corporate taxes. Unlike SBS they are
also subject to increasingly onerous Australian content obligations.[39]
According to Free TV, if the 2015 SBS Bill had been passed,
there would have been an ‘inevitable’ loss of revenue for commercial
broadcasters, particularly in regional areas. The consequences of this loss of
revenue would have been the production of less Australian content, which in
turn would have resulted in industry job losses.[40]
Free TV’s argument was that while commercial broadcasters are required to
satisfy ‘heavy’ Australian content obligations, Australian programming
comprises only ten per cent of the SBS broadcasting schedule. Free TV insisted this
would not have altered as a result of increased commercial revenue gains.[41]
It could be argued in response to the Free TV claims that they
were not relevant to proposals that were, and continue to be principally
intended to offset revenue losses from government efficiency dividends, rather
than provide a new, additional source of income. In addition, given that the
Charter obligations of SBS are to provide services which satisfy the needs of a
multicultural society (see Appendix A for more detail), it would be
impossible for SBS to attempt to produce more in-house content unless it was able
to raise, or be provided with a phenomenal increase in revenue and staffing
bases. Therefore, its recourse to foreign programming as a major source of
programming, rather the generation of Australian content, could be considered
both practical and justifiable.
Free TV also questioned the assertion made in the 2015 Regulation
Impact Statement (which is repeated in the RIS for the current Bill) that ‘it
is not certain that any increase in SBS advertising spend will draw away
revenue that would otherwise have gone to other commercial free-to-air
broadcasters’.[42]
It argued that there is a finite amount of advertising money available and that
SBS and commercial broadcasters target the same advertisers for that finite
resource.[43]
In response, the current Explanatory Memorandum contends
that changes to the SBS advertising regime will be most unlikely to result in a
significant loss of revenue for other commercial broadcasters; it considers that
even if SBS were to earn an additional $20 million a year as a result of the
proposed changes, ‘this would result in a loss of less than one per cent for
any individual broadcaster’.[44]
Free TV disputed the 2015 RIS claim (also repeated in the
RIS for the current Bill) that the ten-minute hourly cap was ‘well below the
hourly limits imposed on the commercial broadcasters’.[45]
It argued that because advertising under the SBS Act does not include
program promotions, SBS could choose to broadcast four minutes of program
promotions per hour and still have 84 minutes of ‘non-program matter’ available
to sell as advertising space in prime time. Commercial free-to-air television,
on the other hand, because its 15 minutes limit on non-program content includes
promotion, could be in a situation where it is permitted only the broadcast of
78 minutes of ‘non-program matter’.[46]
In response, the current Explanatory Memorandum justifies
the Bill on the grounds that not all content on SBS is attractive to commercial
advertisers and that in some regional markets the broadcaster struggles to fill
five minutes of advertising per hour.[47]
Free TV was similarly adamant that SBS should not be
allowed to use product placement to supplement its revenue—for the same reasons
it opposed changes to the advertising regime on the broadcaster.[48]
The Free TV remarks supplemented comments made previously
by representatives of the major free-to-air commercial networks in relation to
public broadcasters generally, and specifically with relation to SBS
advertising. Network Ten Chief Executive in 2014, Hamish McLennan, for example,
asserted that commercial businesses would be made to ‘foot the bill for the
public broadcasters’ ongoing inefficiencies’ if legislation of the type
proposed in this Bill was passed.[49]
Seven West Media’s Chief Executive, Tim Worner, also believed commercial
broadcasters were being called upon to fund the ABC and SBS; he objected to
commercial broadcasters being asked effectively ‘to put our hands in our
pockets’ to fund public broadcasters.[50]
In its submission to the 2015 Senate inquiry, Foxtel
remarked that while there had been considerable debate about the effect changes
to SBS advertising requirements may have on free-to-air broadcasters, there had
been little consideration of the impact they would have on advertising revenues
for subscription television. While Foxtel acknowledged that its primary source
of income is subscriptions, it noted that nevertheless, a sizeable proportion
of its income comes from advertising. According to Foxtel, this would be
affected if SBS was given permission to introduce more advertising in prime
time and to include product placement in such areas as sport and food
programming, both of which represent important niche programming areas for
subscription television.[51]
SBS supporters have been opposed to in-program advertising
on the broadcaster for some time. Before the 2012–13 Budget, for example, the
Save Our SBS group encouraged people to send messages urging the Government to
increase funding for the broadcaster and to instigate the removal of
‘disruptive’ commercial breaks. Over nine thousand people responded to the Save
Our SBS plea.[52]
In response to the proposals in the 2015 Bill, film critic Margaret Pomeranz
and journalist Quentin Dempster, in conjunction with Save Our SBS and advocacy
group GetUp, launched a further plea for public support through a petition to
implore the Government to preserve the ‘integrity’ of the multicultural
broadcaster.[53]
And the Save Our SBS President, Steve Aujard, stated that, if passed, the
proposed changes would ensure SBS looked ‘no different from commercial TV’.[54]
In response to the 2015 RIS, Save Our SBS argued that the
changes will force the broadcaster:
... to concentrate on programs that aggregate audiences and
demographics to enhance advertising revenues. The Charter requires that SBS
broadcast programs in the preferred languages; contrary to this, the dominance
of English language-only programs on SBS ONE in television primetime (compared
to the period before SBS commenced in‑program advertising), indicates
that commercial bias is already occurring. Extending this through product
placement and ad averaging (actually a doubling of primetime advertising) will
destroy SBS's raison d'être.[55]
Save Our SBS agreed with the commercial television
argument that the changes proposed in the 2015 Bill, and reintroduced in this
Bill, will result in SBS being able to air 14 minutes of advertising (and
promotion) in prime time. It reinforced this argument by pointing out that its
‘spot checks’, conducted since 2009, consistently show that the principal SBS
television station airs its currently allowed advertising allocation plus four
minutes of promos per hour from 6pm to 12 midnight.[56]
An important argument made by Save Our SBS was that
increased dependence on advertising may to lead to SBS becoming ‘more populist’.
Save Our SBS cites internal studies undertaken in 2008 and 2013 in support of
its contention. These studies ‘strongly suggest that SBS will be less efficient
in Charter delivery if it were to double primetime advertising’. Save Our SBS
believes the reason that this will be so is that in-program advertising makes
advertisers the clients of SBS with the sole purpose of on-selling audiences to
advertisers. The SBS viewer becomes a product to be on-sold. In Save Our SBS’s
view, when advertising was between programs only, the viewer was more clearly
the client.[57]
The Lewis efficiency review also made this point:
... there will be a greater pressure on SBS management to
consider the trade-off of delivering on commercial expectations, against
delivering those functions described in the SBS Charter.[58]
Peter Lewis did not attempt to consider how SBS could
attempt to balance what must be acknowledged are critical tensions for a public
broadcaster increasingly tasked with funding revenues while delivering to a
diverse audience.
Findings from the Save Our SBS 2013 study are shown in
Figure 1 below. They indicate that of the 2,044 study participants, 72 per cent
considered SBS less faithful to its Charter since the introduction of
in-program advertising and 94.5 per cent wanted the broadcaster to devise a
plan to remove all advertising from within programs:
Figure 1:
adherence to SBS Charter as result of in-program advertising
Source: Save Our SBS, Submission to the SBS Community Advisory
Committee and the SBS Board.[59]
In October 2016, Save Our SBS
expressed concern following remarks at a Senate Estimates committee hearing that
the government intended to increase advertising on the broadcaster.[60]
The concern, however, was based on an incorrect assessment of the comments and clearly
an increase in overall advertising time is not associated with this Bill.
Nonetheless, the lobby group is currently conducting a further survey on
audience reaction to advertising on SBS.[61]
In its submission to the 2015 inquiry the lobby group
GetUp maintained proposed changes to SBS advertising rules would have ‘a
detrimental impact on the integrity’ of the broadcaster, placing the needs of
advertisers before the needs of viewers as programming is assessed on its
ability ‘to raise revenue’.[62]
GetUp also cited the findings of the Save Our SBS studies into in-programming
advertising and concurred with the assessment that it had made it increasingly
difficult for SBS to meet its Charter obligations as a result. Product
placement was also criticised as GetUp saw this as a means to threaten the
independence of journalists and restrict presenters in making comments that
could be negatively perceived by companies whose products were featured in
placements. GetUp concluded the 2015 proposals were a means through which government
could, and would justify further reductions to the SBS budget.[63]
In favour
of changes
The SBS submission to the 2015 Senate inquiry disputed
that changes to its advertising regime would interfere with its Charter
obligations.[64]
According to the SBS submission, as SBS has had to manage how it deals with the
situation of being a public broadcaster with commercial activities since 1991, it
has in place policies and practices which deal with this situation. Hence, it
is well-positioned to deal with increased flexibility in advertising and
sponsorship, while maintaining the integrity of its Charter.[65]
The broadcaster insisted that additional revenue would not only assist it to
maintain investment in multicultural and multilingual Australian programs and
services, but it would also help to secure the future sustainability of the
organisation—without compromising service levels.[66]
SBS was adamant that its ability to make efficiency
changes has been exhausted, so if the proposed changes in flexibility for
advertising were not accepted, it would be forced to make immediate cuts to
programs and services.[67]
Its first move in this direction was to sever its association with Freeview—at
a saving of around $630,000 per year.[68].
The action prompted Save Our SBS to comment that the broadcaster could save a
further $25.0 million over five years if it also severed its carriage agreement
with Foxtel.[69]
There would therefore be no need for it to compromise services.[70]
The issue was not as clear cut as Save Our SBS indicated, however, for as one
source commented a third of Australian households have a Foxtel subscription,
and anecdotal evidence suggests Foxtel subscribers view their free-to-air entirely
through the Foxtel platform. So withdrawing from the Foxtel carriage service
may have ‘effectively shut out SBS to up to 30% of Australian homes’, as well
as affect other sponsorship opportunities.[71]
In the 2015 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO)
the Government compensated SBS for the expected loss of revenue from the
advertising rule changes by providing the broadcaster with an extra $4.1
million in funding.[72]
This funding was cited as ‘a reprieve, not a restoration’ as it was only for
2015–16.[73]
The reprieve continued in the 2016–17 and 2017–18 Budgets when the broadcaster
received a further $6.9 million and $8.8 million in compensation.[74]
In 2015 the Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of
Australia (FECCA) supported the proposed changes to SBS advertising rules.[75]
The FECCA argued that its support was premised on its assessment of the
financial situation of SBS; advertising changes were a means through which SBS could
make some recompense for lost government funding support. At the same time the FECCA
noted that it had ‘repeatedly expressed its disappointment’ over funding
reductions to the broadcaster and its concern that these cuts may result in
‘SBS losing its core multicultural focus, providing a major impediment to
enabling the exchange of important information and promoting the diversity of
our society’.[76]
Further
viewpoints
In a 2014 interview with the online journal Crikey,
Max Baxter, Chief Executive of advertising agency Universal McCann (UM)
Australia, regarded the reaction to changes to SBS advertising rules from the
commercial television broadcasters as ‘extreme’.[77]
Mr Baxter did not believe more advertising dollars for SBS would significantly
detract from commercial revenues.[78]
Paul Brooks, national head of partnerships and investments at the Carat media
company, also considered any impact from added SBS revenue would be negligible
and that figures quoted by the commercial networks were ‘inflammatory’. Mr Brooks
cast doubt on the SBS estimation of potential revenue, considering it to be too
high.[79]
Steve Allen of Fusion Strategy advertising agency agreed
with these assessments and noted that one significant reason SBS is unlikely to
affect the fortunes of the commercial networks is because of its small audience
share—around five per cent of the metropolitan audience.[80]
Mr Allen made a number of other relevant points referring, for example, to the rise
of Internet advertising and the movement to advertisers using self-publishing, as
far greater threats to commercial television fortunes than advertising on SBS. Moreover
in Mr Allen’s view, which accords with findings from the Save Our SBS research,
SBS is ‘hamstrung’ when it comes to introducing more advertising, for if it
adds too many commercial breaks, it is vulnerable to viewer backlash.[81]
At the same time, Mr Allen acknowledged that there are advertisers
interested in targeting the linguistically and culturally diverse audience of
SBS as well as what he labelled the broadcaster’s wealthy, niche audience. Max
Baxter agreed, concluding:
SBS plays a niche role within the broader media mix for advertisers
... The type of advertiser who is spending big dollars on Seven, Nine or Ten
isn’t the type who’ll lift their dollars and drop them into SBS. The
demographics are just so different. But you can use SBS as a specialist
supplement to your core programming strategies. You don’t buy a commercial
network or SBS—you buy them together.[82]
In its submission to the 2015 Senate inquiry the
Communications Law Centre (CLC) argued that if the SBS advertising regime were
to be made more flexible, then ‘the regulatory framework that supports the
broadcaster should be strengthened to ensure that the character and quality of
the broadcaster’s services do not suffer’. This should apply in particular to
the SBS Act and codes of practice and guidelines so as to ensure the
broadcaster’s commitment to its Charter is maintained.[83]
As the CLC was concerned that introducing product
placement had the potential to mislead audiences, it called for regulatory
changes and changes to guidelines to emphasise that advertisements should be ‘
readily distinguishable from programming’. It added that in the case of news,
current affairs or other factual programing that code provisions ‘should
exclude or strictly limit’ product placement. Moreover, product placement
should be defined in order to clarify what advertising practices are permitted.[84]
Financial
implications
It is anticipated in the Explanatory Memorandum to this Bill
that the changes to advertising requirements for SBS will deliver an increase
in advertising revenue of $27.4 million over four years from 2017–18.[85]
This figure has been revised down from a calculation based on SBS estimates and
conclusions drawn in the 2015 Explanatory Memorandum from audience share
statistics for SBS that the broadcaster could earn up to five per cent of
television airtime revenue per annum.[86]
As noted earlier in this Digest, free-to-air television
broadcasters dispute low estimations for potential financial benefits for the
public broadcaster. They cite independent analysis in support of their claims
that SBS has the potential to earn nearly five times more than has been
estimated.[87]
Statement
of Compatibility with Human Rights
As required under Part 3 of the Human Rights
(Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth), the Government has assessed the
Bill’s compatibility with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared
in the international instruments listed in section 3 of that Act. The
Government considers that the Bill is compatible as it does not engage any
applicable rights or freedoms.[88]
Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Human Rights
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights
considers that the Bill does not raise human rights concerns.[89]
Key issues
and provisions
This Bill consists of two Schedules. The following
provides details of the major changes in the Schedules. The Explanatory
Memorandum provides explanation of all proposed changes.
Schedule 1: advertising
flexibility
Item 1 of Schedule 1 repeals paragraph 45(2)(b) of
the SBS Act
and inserts a new paragraph which varies existing requirements for
advertising and sponsorship announcements on SBS. Under the current SBS Act
SBS is allowed to broadcast no more than five minutes of advertising and
sponsorship announcements per hour over a 24-hour period—that is, 120 minutes
each day. Proposed paragraph 45(2)(b) will allow the broadcaster to
include up to ten minutes of broadcasting per hour in times it may choose, up
to a limit of 120 minutes per 24-hour period.
As noted previously in this Digest, the Government argues
that this will provide the broadcaster with more flexibility to determine the
times it will broadcast advertising and sponsorship announcements. While this amendment
will potentially increase advertising revenue, it will not increase the overall
amount of advertising allowed on the broadcaster.
Comment
As noted earlier in this Digest, in 2015 the proposed
change in an earlier iteration of this legislation was extensively criticised.
Commercial broadcasters saw it as effectively transforming SBS into a fourth
commercial broadcaster; thereby reducing their perspective client pool.
Supporters of public broadcasting were equally concerned about the
commercialisation of SBS. Their concerns were that allowing more advertising
will compromise the principles behind public service broadcasting—principles of
media that is financed by the public, for the public, free from political
interference and pressure from commercial forces. Moreover, that in the case of
SBS, further commercialisation will undermine multicultural broadcasting and
make it increasingly difficult for SBS to fulfil its charter obligations.
The SBS submission to the Senate inquiry into the 2015
Bill noted that many public service broadcasters accept advertising under
certain conditions (see the list provided by SBS at Appendix D of SBS’
submission).[90]
At the same time, it has been argued elsewhere that taking the advertising
option has presented difficulties for public service broadcasters. In the
United States, for example, a trend towards commercialisation has been
criticised as driving public broadcasting 'closer to the programming and
audience considerations that guide commercial broadcasting and against which it
is assumed that public broadcasting must stand'.[91]
Increased commercialisation has also been seen as threatening the maintenance
of other forms of revenue for public broadcasting.[92]
See also what could be considered an extreme example of
commercialisation—the New Zealand experience—in Box 1 below.
Box 1: the
New Zealand public broadcasting experience
In New Zealand, the original intention in creating a
state broadcasting system was that it was to be based on the BBC model.
Hence, as early as 1935–36 radio was nationalised and an inquiry into the
introduction of television recommended a state monopoly.
Despite the intention, however, with regards to
television practical considerations intervened to ensure a different reality.
Because of its small population, which could not generate sufficient income
through licence fees to support fully state-funded services, New Zealand
public service television was allowed to accept advertising as a
supplementary source of income from the time it was introduced in 1960.
As funding from advertisers increased during the 1970s
and early 1980s, public funding declined. By 1989, television was more than
90 per cent dependent on advertising revenue.[93]
According to New Zealand academic, Trisha Dunleavy,
while the Clarke Labour Government elected in 1999 could not reverse the
commercialisation of TVNZ, it attempted to revitalise the concept of public
broadcasting by imposing a public service charter.[94]
The Charter involved a dual remit whereby the broadcaster had to maintain commercial
performance, while simultaneously providing public service broadcasting.[95]
Two non-commercial channels (TVNZ 6 and TVNZ 7) were given specific
government funding of NZ$79.0 million over six years from 2006 and these were
relatively successful in attracting audiences.[96]
In 2011 a National Government passed legislation to
repeal the TVNZ Charter. An amended television Act specified the functions of
TVNZ are for it to be a successful national television and digital media
company providing a range of content and services on a choice of delivery
platforms and maintaining its commercial performance.[97]
The National Government did not renew funding for stations TVNZ 6 and 7.
In the 1980s a statutory body, NZ on Air, was introduced
to act as a funding agency to promote New Zealand content in programming.
There are a number of limitations on this agency, which include its
obligation to consider the 'potential size of the audience likely to benefit'
from projects funded.[98]
Commentator Paul Norris calls TVNZ a lost cause, a
public broadcaster in name only and New Zealand academic Trisha Dunleavy
argues: ‘New Zealand, to its national shame and to the detriment of
potentials for a better informed society and better functioning democracy,
does not have a centrepiece [public service television] channel: one that
operates entirely free from the demands of advertisers, is universally
available to citizens at no direct cost, and that caters to a general
audience (from toddlers to retirees)’.[99]
|
Commercial free-to-air broadcasters posit that allowing
more advertising revenue to flow to SBS will effectively result in its becoming
a commercial network. However, the proposed changes in this Bill would most
likely not result in SBS receiving financial support from advertising changes
that would approximate anywhere near that which the commercial broadcasters
currently enjoy from government. For example, commercial free-to-air broadcasters
have consistently complained about licence fees and lobbied for reductions.
This lobbying has increased as the popularity of new online media offerings has
threatened their traditional sources of revenue.[100]
The previous Government responded to the broadcasters’ complaints by making two
reductions to licence fees and the current Government further reduced these
fees in 2016.[101]
Given the amount of revenue to government forgone as a
result of licence reductions for enterprises that are purely profit-generated,
the trepidation expressed by the commercial free-to-air broadcasters appears excessive.
It could be argued that this is especially so given that SBS is predicted to
generate less than $30 million in additional revenue over four years from
the proposed variation in advertising rules. Reports are that the commercial
free-to-air broadcasters currently benefit from licence rebates by at least
$100 million collectively each year. Even if SBS were to achieve greater than
anticipated financial gain annually, it is unlikely that it would reach this
figure.[102]
In addition, as one report comments, licence fee rebates
are not the only benefits that commercial free-to-air broadcasters enjoy; they
also gain from other government largesse. One example of this largesse can be
seen in insistence of successive governments in retaining an anti-siphoning
list, which prevents certain televised events as listed by the government, from
being appropriated or ‘siphoned off’ by pay television operators so that only
those that subscribe to a pay service are able to view those events.[103]
It is claimed the benefits from such largesse in total amount to over $1.0
billion per year.[104]
Schedule 2:
product placement
Item 1 of this Schedule proposes to define advertisement
in the SBS Act for the purposes of distinguishing advertisements
from product placement. The Schedule does not define product placement, but
nonetheless, item 3 specifically authorises SBS to broadcast product
placements and to include product placement on its digital services (item 8).
At the same time, items 4 to 6 increase the current
obligation on the broadcaster to develop and publicise guidelines on the kinds
of advertisements and sponsorship announcements ‘that it is prepared to
broadcast’ also to address the kind of product placements it is prepared to
include in the programs it broadcasts.
Comment
Allowing SBS to earn money from product placement in the
programs it commissions is in direct contrast to the situation that currently
exists in the United Kingdom. For the most part the British Broadcasting
Corporation (BBC) does not allow product placement; it must not commission,
produce or co-produce output for its licence fee funded services which contains
product placement. All programmes made by the BBC, or an independent producer
for broadcast on BBC licence fee funded services, also must be free of product
placement.[105]
The BBC can broadcast an acquired programme containing
product placement if it receives no financial benefit from the placement, but
it must not acquire a programme from a third party on the condition that the
product placement within the programme will be broadcast.[106]
Similarly, Australia’s principal public broadcaster
generally prohibits product placement. The ABC states that ‘[p]roduct placement
and other forms of embedded or surreptitious advertising are prohibited’.[107]
The broadcaster’s editorial guidelines allow that in ‘exceptional cases’, it may
use content that contains product placement provided:
- the
ABC played no role in the commissioning or production of the content
- the
content has intrinsic editorial value
- the
product placement is not unduly frequent or unduly prominent and
- the
ABC’s editorial independence and integrity are not undermined.[108]
It could be argued that because SBS operates under a
hybrid model the above restrictions should not apply and that product placement
is a less intrusive way for the broadcaster to supplement government funding
than direct advertising. However, SBS purists would most likely not accept this
argument; they would take the view that advertising is advertising, whichever
way it is packaged.
Appendix A:
SBS Charter
- The
principal function of SBS is to provide multilingual and multicultural radio,
television and digital media services that inform, educate and entertain all
Australians and, in doing so, reflect Australia's multicultural society.
- SBS, in performing its principal function, must:
(a) contribute
to meeting the communications needs of Australia's multicultural society,
including ethnic, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities; and
(b) increase
awareness of the contribution of a diversity of cultures to the continuing
development of Australian society; and
(c) promote
understanding and acceptance of the cultural, linguistic and ethnic diversity
of the Australian people; and
(d) contribute
to the retention and continuing development of language and other cultural
skills; and
(e) as
far as practicable, inform, educate and entertain Australians in their
preferred languages; and
(f) make
use of Australia's diverse creative resources; and
(g) contribute
to the overall diversity of Australian television and radio services,
particularly taking into account the contribution of the Australian
Broadcasting Corporation and the community broadcasting sector; and
(h) contribute
to extending the range of Australian television and radio services, and reflect
the changing nature of Australian society, by presenting many points of view
and using innovative forms of expression.[109]
[1]. Enabling
legislation was the Broadcasting
and Television Amendment Act 1977.
[2]. Broadcasting
and Television Amendment Act 1977, section 79Z.
[3]. I
Ang, G Hawkins and L Dabboussy, The SBS story: the challenge of cultural
diversity, University of New South Wales Press, Sydney, 2008, p. 249.
[4]. Special
Broadcasting Service Act 1991, section 45.
[5]. Ang
et al, op. cit., p. 250.
[6]. R
Jolly, The
ABC: an overview (updated), Research paper series, 2014–15, Parliamentary
Library, Canberra, 2014, p. 47. Cites Ang et al, pp. 250–51.
[7]. Ang
et al, op. cit., p. 204.
[8]. Figure
deduced from analysis of recent SBS Annual Reports.
[9]. Jolly,
op. cit., p. 48.
[10]. Ibid.,
cites F Farouque, ‘In
defence of SBS’, The Sydney Morning Herald, 5 August 2010.
[11]. Australian
Government, ‘Part
2: expense measures’, Budget measures: budget paper no. 2: 2014–15, p.
66; National Commission of Audit (NCoA), Towards
responsible government: phase one, NCoA, Canberra, February 2014, pp. 193–95;
and Department of Communications, ABC and
SBS efficiency study: draft report, (Lewis report), Department of
Communications, Canberra, April 2014.
[12]. Parliament
of Australia, ‘Communications
Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising Flexibility and Other Measures) Bill
2015 homepage’, Australian Parliament website.
[13]. Lewis
report, op. cit., p. 85.
[14]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising
Flexibility) Bill 2017, p. 5.
[15]. Senate
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Inquiry
into the Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising Flexibility and
Other Measures) Bill 2015 [Provisions], The Senate, Canberra,
May 2015.
[16]. Ibid.,
p. 17.
[17]. Non-government
Senators, Dissenting
report, Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Inquiry
into the Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising Flexibility and
Other Measures) Bill 2015, The Senate, Canberra, May 2015.
[18]. Senator
Nick Xenophon, Dissenting
report, Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Inquiry
into the Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising Flexibility and
Other Measures) Bill 2015, The Senate, Canberra, May 2015.
[19]. Selection
of Bills Committee, Report,
4, 2017, The Senate, 30 March 2017.
[20]. Standing
Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Scrutiny
digest, 4, 2017, 29 March 2017, p. 12.
[21]. S
Ludlam, ‘Second
reading speech: Special Broadcasting Service Amendment (Prohibition of
Disruptive Advertising) Bill 2009’, Senate, Debates, 7 September 2009,
p. 5737.
[22]. M
Knott, ‘Bid
to double SBS ads comes under fire’, The Sun Herald, 1 February 2015,
p. 10.
[23]. M
Robin, ‘SBS
ad averaging bill likely to be stymied in the Senate’, Crikey, 11
March 2015.
[24]. S
Ludlam, ‘Second
reading speech: Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising
Flexibility and Other Measures) Bill 2015 ’, Senate, Debates, 16 June 2015,
p. 3501.
[25]. Communications
Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising Flexibility and Other Measures) Bill
2015, Second Reading, Division,
Senate, Debates, 24 June 2015, p. 4389.
[26]. Save
Our SBS, ‘Labor
SBS policy for the 2010 federal elections’, Save Our SBS website, 20 July 2010.
[27]. Non-government
Senators, Dissenting
report, Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, op.
cit.
[28]. Ibid.
[29]. ‘Take
a stand for “our” ABC, implores Shorten’, The Advertiser (Adelaide),
24 November 2014, p. 12.
[30]. For
example, the second reading speech by Jason Clare, J Clare, ‘Second
reading speech: Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising
Flexibility and Other Measures)’, House of Representatives, Debates,
26 May 2015, p. 4581 and the results of the vote in the House of
Representatives, Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising
Flexibility and Other Measures) Bill 2015, Second Reading, Division,
House of Representatives, Debates, 26 May 2015, p. 4581.
[31]. Senator
Nick Xenophon, Dissenting
report, Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, op.
cit.
[32]. Ibid.
[33]. Second
Reading, Division, Senate, Debates, 24 June 2015,
op. cit.
[34]. Robin,
‘SBS ad averaging bill’, op. cit.
[35]. Second
Reading, Division, Senate, Debates, 24 June 2015,
op. cit.
[36]. Free
TV Australia, SBS
Legislation creates 4th commercial TV licence by stealth, media
release, 24 March 2015.
[37]. Ibid.
[38]. Ibid.
[39]. Free
TV Australia, Submission
to Department of Communications, Inquiry into SBS advertising flexibility:
regulation impact statement, (RIS submission), 10 March 2015, p. 2.
[40]. Ibid.
[41]. Ibid.
[42]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising
Flexibility and Other Measures) Bill 2015, p. 9; Explanatory
Memorandum, Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising
Flexibility) Bill 2017, p. 9.
[43]. The
Free TV submission cited Nielson Adex data which reports that 85 per cent of
advertisers on SBS also advertise on commercial free-to-air television and
PricewaterhouseCoopers analysis from Australian Entertainment and Media Outlook
2014-2018 findings that growth in free-to-air television advertising revenues
has ‘remained flat since 2008’, and has a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR)
forecast of just 1.4 per cent over the next five years, Free TV Australia,
Submission to Department of Communications, op. cit., p. 7. Note
references for the sources cited are not provided, but are included in the Free
TV, Submission
to Senate Environment and Communications Committee, Inquiry into Communications
Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising Flexibility and Other Measures) Bill
2015, 13 April 2015.
[44]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising
Flexibility) Bill 2017, p. 9.
[45]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising
Flexibility and Other Measures) Bill 2015, p. 6; Explanatory
Memorandum, Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising
Flexibility) Bill 2017, p. 7.
[46]. Free
TV Australia, RIS submission, op. cit., p. 8.
[47]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising
Flexibility) Bill 2017, p. 12.
[48]. Free
TV Australia, RIS submission, op. cit., p. 10.
[49]. D
Davidson, ‘If
SBS ads double, we should get our licence fees back: Gyngell’, The
Australian, 20 November 2014.
[50]. Ibid.
[51]. Foxtel,
Submission
to Senate Environment and Communications Committee, Inquiry into Communications
Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising Flexibility and Other Measures) Bill
2015, submission no. 2, 13 April 2015.
[52]. Save
Our SBS, ‘Why SBS received a
funding increase’, Save Our SBS website, 8 May 2012.
[53]. Save
Our SBS and GetUp!, ‘Preserve
its integrity! Don’t increase ads on SBS’, CommunityRun website.
[54]. Save
Our SBS, Government wants to
fully commercialise SBS with new law, media release, 24 March 2015.
[55]. Save
Our SBS, Submission
to the Department of Communications, Commercialising SBS by stealth: a
response to the SBS advertising flexibility regulation impact statement,
15 March 2015, p. 6.
[56]. Ibid.,
p. 7.
[57]. Ibid.,
p. 5.
[58]. Lewis
report, op. cit., p. 85.
[59]. Save
Our SBS, A
study of 2044 viewers of SBS television on advertising, Charter, relevance and
other matters: a submission to the SBS Community Advisory Committee and the SBS
Board, submission to the SBS Community Advisory Committee and the SBS
Board, Save Our SBS Inc, Melbourne, July 2013, p. 12.
[60]. N
O’Loughlin, Senate Environment and Communications Committee, Official
committee Hansard, 18 October 2016, p. 31 and Save Our SBS, ‘SBS to double primetime advertising
if bill passes’, comment page on website, 18 October 2016.
[61]. Save
Our SBS, ‘Survey: is SBS doing
it right?’, Save Our SBS website, 1 April 2017.
[62]. GetUp!,
Submission
to Senate Environment and Communications Committee, Inquiry into
Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising Flexibility and Other
Measures) Bill 2015, submission no. 4, 14 April 2015.
[63]. Ibid.
[64]. SBS,
Submission
to Senate Environment and Communications Committee, Inquiry into
Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising Flexibility and Other
Measures) Bill 2015, submission no. 7, 13 April 2015.
[65]. Ibid.,
p. 3.
[66]. Ibid.
[67]. Ibid.
[68]. Freeview
is the free digital television service in Australia which presents and promotes
Australia’s free-to-air channels and content to all Australians. Freeview
encourages Australians to watch free-to-air content across various platforms by
promoting its benefits that include more than 25 channels and catch-up services
for free. SBS re-joined Freeview in March 2016 and D Davidson, ‘SBS
quits Freeview in “tantrum”’, The Australian, 14 May 2015, p. 9.
[69]. SBS
pays Foxtel a fee to retransmit SBS content. S Aujard and Q Dempster, Disconnect Foxtel, don’t sack
SBS staff, media release, Save Our SBS, 26 June 2015.
[70]. M
Robin, ‘SBS2's
The Feed slams Pomeranz, Dempster as staffers brace for job cuts’, Crikey,
26 June 2015.
[71]. D
Knox, ‘Cut
the cable: lobby group tells SBS to withdraw from Foxtel’, TV Tonight,
27 June 2015. Note: the TV Tonight website, claimed that carriage
fees for SBS were less than half those suggested by Save Our SBS, but it
provides no evidence to substantiate its claim.
[72]. Australian
Government, Mid-year economic and fiscal outlook 2015–16, Appendix
A: policy decisions taken since the 2015–16 Budget: expense measures, pp. 128
and 153.
[73]. M
Robin, ‘SBS
gets $4.1m, but it's a reprieve, not a restoration’, Crikey, 16 December 2015.
[74]. Australian
Government, Portfolio
budget statements 2016–17: budget related paper no. 1.3: Communications and
Arts Portfolio, p. 323 and Australian Government, Budget
measures: budget paper no. 2: 2017–18, p. 286.
[75]. Federation
of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia (FECCA), Submission
to Senate Environment and Communications Committee, Inquiry into
Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising Flexibility and Other
Measures) Bill 2015, submission no. 3, 13 April 2015.
[76]. Ibid.
[77]. M
Robin, ‘A
fourth network by stealth? Media buyers shrug off SBS’ threat to commercials’,
Crikey, 20 November 2014.
[78]. Ibid.
[79]. Ibid.
[80]. Ibid.
[81]. Ibid.
[82]. Ibid.
[83]. Communications
Law Centre, Submission
to Senate Environment and Communications Committee, Inquiry into
Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising Flexibility and Other
Measures) Bill 2015, submission no. 27, 19 May 2015.
[84]. Ibid.
[85]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising
Flexibility) Bill 2017, p. 3.
[86]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising
Flexibility and Other Measures) Bill 2015, p. 5.
[87]. Free
TV Australia, SBS Legislation creates 4th commercial TV licence by stealth,
op. cit.
[88]. The
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights can be found at page 15 of the
2017 Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill.
[89]. Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report, 3, 2017, The Senate, Canberra, 28
March 2017, p. 17.
[90]. SBS,
Submission
to Senate Environment and Communications Committee, op. cit. p. 19.
[91]. W
Rowland, 'Public broadcasting in the United States', invited submission to Encyclopedia
[sic] of Communication and Information, Macmillan, New York, 2002.
Not available online.
[92]. Ibid.
[93]. T
Dunleavy, Public
television in a small country: the New Zealand "experiment" twenty
years on, Flow, University of Texas, 15 May 2009.
[94]. Ibid.
[95]. TVNZ Charter.
[96]. P
Thompson, ‘Govt
shows double standards over broadcasting’, The Dominion Post, 27 March 2011.
[97]. Television
New Zealand Amendment Act 2011.
[98]. T
Dunleavy, Public
television in a small country: the New Zealand "experiment" twenty
years on, op. cit.
[99]. P
Norris, ‘A race to the bottom’, New Zealand Listener, 222(3644), 13 March 2010
and T Dunleavy, ‘Don’t
go there: the ongoing undermining of PSB in New Zealand’, Open Democracy
website, 24 February 2014.
[100]. See,
for example, a diagram which provides a comparative analysis in F Papandrea, State
of the newspaper industry in Australia, University of Canberra
News and Media Research Centre, Canberra, 2013, p. 9.
[101]. In
2010, the Labor Government announced a rebate for television licence fees of 33
per cent for 2010 and 50 per cent for 2011. The 50 per cent reduction was
extended to the end of 2013 by regulation and confirmed in legislation at that
time. The reduction in fees from nine per cent of gross annual earnings to 4.5
per cent was justified as a move to protect local content, and it was argued it
would help counter the significant financial pressures faced by commercial
television stations as a result of emerging and convergent technology and an
increasingly challenging operating environment. In 2016 the current government
further reduced television licence fees by 25 per cent (the reduction also
applied to radio licence fees). See R Jolly, Broadcasting
Legislation Amendment (Television and Radio Licence Fees) Bill 2016,
Bills digest, 15, 2016–17, Parliamentary Library, Canberra,
29 September 2016.
[102]. K
Quinn, ‘TV
producers, actors slam licence fee cuts for commercial free-to-air networks’,
The Sydney Morning Herald, (online edition), 3 December 2012.
[103]. For
more detail on the anti-siphoning scheme see R Jolly, Sport
on television: to siphon or not to siphon?, Research paper, 14,
2009–10, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 11 February 2010.
[104]. B
Keane and G Dyer ‘Television:
the land where the age of entitlement never ends’, Crikey, 12 February 2014.
[105]. BBC
Editorial Guidelines, ‘BBC
licence fee funded television services and product placement: guidance in full’,
BBC website, April 2011.
[106]. Ibid.
[107]. ABC,
‘Editorial
policies: advertising and sponsorship restrictions’, 1 August 2014.
[108]. Ibid.
[109]. Special
Broadcasting Services Act 1991, section 6.
For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to members of Parliament.
© Commonwealth of Australia
Creative Commons
With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, and to the extent that copyright subsists in a third party, this publication, its logo and front page design are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence.
In essence, you are free to copy and communicate this work in its current form for all non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute the work to the author and abide by the other licence terms. The work cannot be adapted or modified in any way. Content from this publication should be attributed in the following way: Author(s), Title of publication, Series Name and No, Publisher, Date.
To the extent that copyright subsists in third party quotes it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material.
Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of the publication are welcome to webmanager@aph.gov.au.
Disclaimer: Bills Digests are prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament. They are produced under time and resource constraints and aim to be available in time for debate in the Chambers. The views expressed in Bills Digests do not reflect an official position of the Australian Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal opinion. Bills Digests reflect the relevant legislation as introduced and do not canvass subsequent amendments or developments. Other sources should be consulted to determine the official status of the Bill.
Any concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff. To access this service, clients may contact the author or the Library‘s Central Enquiry Point for referral.