Bills Digest No. 4, 2017–18
PDF version [627KB]
Monica Biddington
Law and Bills Digest Section
Dr Rhonda Jolly
Social Policy Section
7
August 2017
Contents
The Bills Digest at a glance
Purpose of the Bill
Background
Committee consideration
Senate Standing Committee for the
Selection of Bills
Senate Standing Committee for the
Scrutiny of Bills
Policy position of non-government
parties/independents
Opposition
Greens/NXT and independents
Position of major interest groups
Free-to-air commercial broadcasters
Subscription broadcasters
Other responses
Financial implications
Statement of Compatibility with Human
Rights
Key issues and provisions
Date introduced: 15
June 2017
House: House of
Representatives
Portfolio: Communications
and the Arts
Commencement: 1
July 2017 (retrospectively from that date if the Bill is passed after 1 July
2017). If the Broadcasting
Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017 does not pass the
Parliament and receive Royal Assent, the provisions in the Bill do not
commence.
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 August 2017.
The Bills Digest at a glance
Purpose of the Bill
- The
purpose of the Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017 (the Bill) is to
introduce a tax on transmitter licences associated with commercial broadcasting
licences which are issued under Part 4 of the Broadcasting Services Act
1992.
- The
transmitter licences are issued under section 102 of the Radiocommunications
Act 1992.
Background
- Since
2010 there have been a number of reductions in licensing fees for commercial
television licensees but free-to-air commercial broadcasters have argued that ‘onerous
and restrictive’ licence fees should be removed completely.
- As
part of its commitment to media reform the Turnbull Government announced prior
to the 2017–18 Budget that broadcasting licence fees would be abolished and
replaced with a tax which would be imposed for the use of radiofrequency
spectrum.
- This
Bill proposes to introduce the new regime for setting prices for spectrum use.
Stakeholder concerns
- There
is general industry support for the reductions in licence fees for commercial
television and radio broadcasters.
- Some
stakeholders have expressed concern that licence fee reductions should be
accompanied by increased obligations to deliver local content or better
services for specific audiences.
Key issues
- This
Bill sets out the conditions for the imposition of the tax to be paid by the
holder of a transmitter licence associated with a commercial broadcasting
licence, the formula for the tax, caps on the tax and rebates from the tax.
- The
Bill intends that Ministerial determinations will be crucial in setting the tax
and in determining various aspects of its functioning. The Senate Standing
Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has expressed concern that a fundamental
function of the Parliament, that is, the imposition of tax, will be impacted by
this delegation of powers.
Purpose of
the Bill
The purpose of the Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017
(the Bill) is to introduce a tax on transmitter licences associated with
commercial broadcasting licences which are issued under Part 4 of the Broadcasting
Services Act 1992 (the BSA). The transmitter licences are issued
under section 102 of the Radiocommunications
Act 1992 (the Radcomms Act).
Background
Currently, under the BSA a person or entity
providing a commercial broadcasting service (as defined by section 14 of
that Act) on radio or television must hold a commercial radio or television
broadcasting licence.[1]
Under the Radio Licence Fees Act 1964 and the Television Licence
Fees Act 1964, a licence fee is payable annually by the holder of a
commercial radio broadcasting licence or a commercial television broadcasting
licence respectively.[2]
The BSA requires that, within six months after 30 June each year,
licensees must give the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) a
broadcasting licence fee return to pay a proportion of their gross earnings as
fees for using the scarce public asset of radio spectrum.[3]
Few changes were made to this commercial licensing fees
regime before 2010 and those changes that were made were more likely to involve
increases in licensing fees.[4]
Since 2010, however, there have been a number of reductions in licensing fees
for commercial television licensees.
In 2010, the Minister for Broadband, Communications and
the Digital Economy, Senator Stephen Conroy, announced a rebate of 33 per cent
for 2010 and 50 per cent for 2011.[5]
The 50 per cent reduction was extended to the end of 2013 by regulation and confirmed
in legislation at that time.[6]
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.[7]
The free-to-air networks were not satisfied with these licence
fee reductions; they argued that what they labelled ‘onerous and restrictive
licence fees’ should be removed completely. Only then would a fairer
competition environment be realised and this would give the broadcasters capacity
to invest in Australian jobs and production.[8]
As part of its commitment to media reform the Turnbull
Government responded to the commercial broadcasters call for more licence fee
relief by announcing in the 2016–17 Budget that it would further reduce licensing
fees by 25 per cent.[9]
In announcing the reductions the Minister for Communications, Mitch Fifield
said:
The Government's decision to reduce the fees recognises that
the Australian media market has changed significantly since broadcasting
licence fees were first introduced, with the move to online and on-demand
content fragmenting the market for media services and increasing competition
for audiences and advertising dollars.
In turn, this is placing increasing financial pressure on
Australia's commercial broadcasters whose main competitors, including online
operators such as Netflix and Apple, pay no licence fees.
The Government will consider further reductions in
broadcasting licence fees later in 2016 as part of a broader package of reforms
that will include consideration of the pricing of broadcasting spectrum.[10]
Minister Fifield’s promise was fulfilled when he announced
prior to the 2017–18 Budget that broadcasting licence fees would be abolished
for commercial free-to-air broadcasters, and this commitment was confirmed in
the Budget.[11]
At the time, the Minister also noted that the Government would set a price on
the use of radiofrequency spectrum. He argued this policy would more accurately
reflect the use of spectrum and give commercial broadcasters ‘flexibility to
grow and adapt in the changing media landscape, invest in their businesses and
in Australian content, and better compete with online providers’.[12]
This Bill proposes to introduce the new regime for setting
prices for spectrum use. The Bill passed the House of Representatives on 21
June 2017 and was introduced in to the Senate on 22 June 2017. On 28 June 2017,
the Minister announced an interim suspension of licence fees for commercial
television and radio broadcasters for the 2016–17 financial year.[13]
Committee
consideration
Senate
Standing Committee for the Selection of Bills
On 15 June 2017 the Senate Standing Committee for the Selection
of Bills recommended that this Bill and the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment
(Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017 not be referred to a committee for inquiry.[14]
Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills reported
on this Bill on 21 June 2017. The Committee was concerned that a fundamental
function of the Parliament—to impose a tax—was being delegated to the Minister
by the Bill.[15]
Clause 8 of the Bill proposes to provide the
Minister with the power to determine by legislative instrument the amount of
tax to be imposed on individual transmitters. Clause 13 provides for the
disallowance of Ministerial determinations made under subclause 8(2). Clause
11 proposes that a termination time for the imposition of the transmitter
tax is to be determined by the Minister and clause 14 provides that the
Minister may make rules that provide for rebates for the whole or part of the
transmitter tax payable by commercial broadcasters.
While the Committee noted that a cap on the amount of tax
set in the primary legislation partly addresses its concerns, it still believed
that clauses in the Bill represent a ‘significant delegation’ of the
Parliament’s legislative powers.[16]
In relation to the power of the Minister under clause 11
of the Bill to determine a ‘termination time’ after which no further
transmitter tax would be imposed, the Committee noted that the Explanatory
Memorandum says that if such a Ministerial determination were made it was
‘expected’ that would be after five years of the tax’s operation. However, the
Committee noted that there is nothing in the Bill which would limit the making
of a determination in this way.[17]
Similarly, the Committee noted that there is nothing in the Bill which
‘guide[s] the exercise of the Minister’s power to determine rebates’ for taxes
paid.[18]
The Committee concluded ‘that it may be appropriate for
these clauses [clauses 8, 11 and 14] to be amended to require the positive
approval of each House of the Parliament before a new determination comes into
effect’.[19]
The Committee was also concerned that subclause 13(2)
proposes to disregard the standard disallowance procedures in subsection 42(2)
of the Legislation
Act 2003 by requiring the Parliament to pass a resolution disallowing a
determination within the 15 sitting day disallowance period in order for the
disallowance to be effective. This would be contrary to subsection 42(2) of the
Legislation Act which provides that where a motion to disallow an
instrument is unresolved at the end of the disallowance period, the instrument
(or relevant provision(s) of the instrument) are taken to have been disallowed.
The Committee cites Odgers’ Australian Senate Practice, which argues that this
provision in the Legislation Act ‘greatly strengthens the Senate in its
oversight of delegated legislation’ by not allowing an instrument ‘to continue
in force simply because a motion has not been resolved’.[20]
The Committee sought further justification from the
Minister on the reversal of usual disallowance procedures.[21]
At the time of writing, a response from the Minister had not been made
available.
Policy
position of non-government parties/independents
Opposition
As noted earlier in this Digest, while in Government Labor
reduced licence fees for commercial free-to-air broadcasters, noting that decreasing
fees would ‘enable commercial television broadcasters to continue to innovate
and thrive in Australia's rapidly changing media landscape’.[22]
With regards to the proposal to abolish fees, Shadow
Minister for Communications, Michelle Rowland, has made little specific
comment, although she has noted that Labor supports the Government’s media
changes with the exception of removing the two out three media ownership rule.[23]
At the same time, Ms Rowland has accused the Government of an ad hoc approach
to media reform—addressing the issue of licence fees while neglecting other
sectors which have also felt ‘increased competitive pressures in the
contemporary media landscape’.[24]
In making this criticism Ms Rowland singled out the issue of content reform arguing
that the production sector is also suffering in the new media environment, but
it is only recently that a review of content has been considered. Moreover, she
has argued that despite licence fee cuts, commercial broadcasters have not
increased their commitment to Australian content.[25]
With regards to the interim licence fee relief which has
waived licence fees for the 2016–17 year, Ms Rowland considers that the
Government is ‘robbing the public purse’ of returns on broadcasters’ use of
spectrum for the period.[26]
Greens/NXT
and independents
In past debates on licence fee reductions, the Greens have
expressed concern that broadcasting fee reductions served only the interest of
commercial television broadcasters and not the public interest. In 2013, Greens’
Member of the House of Representatives, Adam Bandt, believed that the ‘gift of
public spectrum’ to be provided to commercial television broadcasters should
come with increased Australian content obligations, and so proposed that these
obligations were doubled from 1 January 2015.[27]
Greens’ Senator Scott Ludlam made a similar point that broadcasting spectrum
was not a free gift, it was a public good, the use of which carried with it
obligations.[28]
Speaking on the Government’s media reform proposals in
September 2016, Senator Nick Xenophon supported reductions in licence fees for
commercial free-to-air broadcasters. Senator Xenophon argued that the revenue
loss from these fees should be recovered by imposing a turnover tax on
foreign multinationals such as Google, Facebook and Netflix which have reaped a
massive increase in online advertising revenue from Australian sources and who
have ‘cannibalised’ free-to-air networks’ revenue.[29]
Senator Xenophon has continued to call for a tax on the likes of Google and has
argued that he will pursue the matter ‘with enormous vigour’ in his
negotiations with the Government on its media reform proposals in this Bill and
the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017.[30]
There appears to be no specific comments made by other
independents on this aspect of the Government’s media reform package.
Position of
major interest groups
Free-to-air
commercial broadcasters
For some time certain commercial broadcasters have been
recorded as arguing that licence fee reform is a priority issue for commercial
free-to-air broadcasters.[31]
Seven West Media’s Tim Worner, for example, has claimed that abolishing licence
fees could do more to assist commercial broadcasters to remain financially
viable than removing cross ownership and reach rules.[32]
In 2016 in arguing for the removal of licence fees, Seven West Media also stressed
that Australia’s fees were substantially more than those paid in other
countries. Seven West Media also claims that local content obligations are
greater than those imposed by many international regimes.[33]
In a similar vein, Nine Entertainment also maintained in March
2016 that free-to-air television broadcasters not only pay licence fees, they
also directly employ over 7,000 people and contribute $4.7 billion in direct
value to the Australian production industry.[34]
In contrast, multinational content companies, such as Netflix, pay no licence
fees and neither do they invest in Australian content, talent or production
staff.[35]
Chairman of the television lobby group Free TV Australia,
Harold Mitchell, has insisted for some time that television licence fees must
be removed if broadcasters are to continue to invest in Australian programming.
Mr Mitchell has added that without the onus of licence fees, broadcasters
may be better able to position their businesses to adjust to changes in
technology and consumer viewing habits.[36]
Similarly, Commercial Radio Australia’s (CRA) Chief Executive Officer, Joan
Warner, has also pointed out that Australian commercial radio broadcasters pay
higher licence fees than their overseas counterparts and claimed that only fee
relief will allow radio to compete against unregulated international businesses.[37]
The commercial broadcasters welcomed the announcement of
the Government’s 2017 media reform package and the promised abolition of
licence fees. CRA commented that the licence fee removal together with the
small increase in spectrum fees would amount to a 94 per cent decrease in
commercial radio fees and Free TV Australia assessed the change as ‘crucial’
for Australian jobs and for the industry’s ‘ability to continue creating great
local programming that is watched by millions of Australians every day’.[38]
The commercial broadcasters also welcomed the Government’s
interim fee relief when licence fees were suspended for the 2016–17 year
pending the passage of the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting
Reform) Bill 2017 and this Bill.[39]
Subscription
broadcasters
Subscription television broadcasters have consistently
criticised reductions to licence fees. The Australian Subscription Television
and Radio Association (ASTRA) labelled the last reduction to fees in announced
in May 2016 as a ‘tax payer-funded gift’.[40]
According to Andrew Maiden, ASTRA’s Chief Executive Officer, in exchange for
paying licence fees, free-to-air broadcasters ‘enjoy a legislated ban on
competition, guaranteed access to broadcasting spectrum and the world’s most
protected market for sports broadcast rights’.[41]
Twelve months later, subscription television operators had
revised their position sufficiently to be able to accept the 2017 media reform
package which contained the licence fee abolition proposal. Clearly, as a May
2017 ASTRA press release conformed, the acceptance was based on the outcome of
negotiations which delivered concessions for subscription broadcasters with
regards to the anti-siphoning list and sports rights. ASTRA noted, however,
that its support for the package was based on its acceptance as a whole.[42]
Other
responses
In 2016 the Australian Communications Consumer Action
Network (ACCAN) called for free-to-air networks to use the savings from licence
fee cuts to improve captioning on free-to-air television for people who are deaf
or hard-of-hearing and to put in place technology that would allow the networks
to introduce audio description for people who are blind or vision-impaired.[43]
In 2017 in response to the media reform package announcement, Disability Policy
Advisor, Wayne Hawkins, iterated ACCAN’s previous appeal arguing that ‘a $90
million per year windfall for broadcasters, should be contingent on
broadcasters providing greater access services for viewers with disability’.[44]
Screen Producers Australia Chief Executive, Matthew
Deaner, has made a number of pleas for savings from licence fee reductions for
free-to-air broadcasters to be accompanied by further obligations to invest in
local content.[45]
In 2016 Mr Deaner claimed that ‘commercial free-to-air's investment in drama, documentary
and children's production is around $160 million annually, less than half that
spent by these broadcasters on sports’.[46]
In response to the June 2017 suspension of licence fees
for the 2016–17 financial year, Mr Deaner noted that the suspension of licence
fees was based in part on arguments
‘that they will use these windfalls to invest in local content’. Mr Deaner
quotes Australian Bureau of Statistics figures to argue that previous
reductions in fees have not delivered on these promises; he contends in fact
that in the case of commercial television broadcasters, since 2011–12 they
have:
... cut their commitment to Australian drama
and documentaries by 20 per cent and increased the substitution of Australian
content for cheap second-run New Zealand content. The broadcasters are also
moving more production in-house, from 44 per cent of production in 2011-12 to
55 per cent in 2015-16. This, together with worsening deals being offered to
the independent production sector, should be ringing competition alarm bells in
the Government and the ACCC. Independent producers are being driven to the
wall.[47]
Professor Peter Wells from the University
of Technology Sydney has commented on the Government’s media reform package
that there are not enough measures in it to save free-to-air commercial
broadcasters.[48]
Professor Wells considers that the abolition of licence fees and the
replacement tax proposed in this Bill ‘pales in comparison to the [commercial
television] industry’s recent losses’.[49]
Financial
implications
It is estimated that the transmitter tax will deliver
$43.5 million to the Government each year over the period 2017–18 to 2020–21
($174 million in total across this period).[50]
This revenue does not compensate for the loss of revenue
which will result from the provisions in Schedule 5 of the Broadcasting
Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017. These will amount to an
estimated revenue loss of $417.7 million in the period 2017–18 to 2020–21.[51]
In addition, the Government will also make payments to assist broadcasters
affected by the transitional transmitter licence arrangements. These payments
are estimated at approximately $18.4 million for the period to 2020–21.[52]
As noted earlier in this Digest, the Government has also
exempted commercial radio and television broadcasters from paying licence fees
for the 2016–17. Based on the savings estimated by the Government for the
period to 2020–21, this exemption will represent a further revenue loss of
approximately $100.0 million. The Government’s announcement estimated that the
measure would save the industry around $127 million.[53]
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.[54]
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights considers
that the Bill does not raise human rights concerns.[55]
Key issues
and provisions
This section does not discuss all clauses in this Bill.
For a detailed analysis of all clauses, see the Explanatory Memorandum and for
discussion of the issues raised in clauses 8, 11, 13 and 14 see
the section relating to matters raised by the Senate Scrutiny of Bills
Committee earlier in this Digest.
The clauses in the Bill define the entities to which the
transmitter tax would be applied, who would determine the amount of the tax
applied and the conditions relating to determinations which affect individual
transmitters.
Clause 4 sets out that tax will be imposed on a ‘transmitter
licence associated with a commercial broadcasting licence’. The clause defines
what constitutes such a transmitter licence. It will be a transmitter licence
issued under section 102 of the Radcomms Act where a related licence
referred to under section 102 was allocated under Part 4 of the BSA. In
addition, a transmitter licence issued to a commercial broadcaster under
section 100 of the Radcomms Act for the purposes of re-transmitting
services on the basis of a decision by ACMA under subsection 34(1) of the BSA
is also to be considered a transmitter licence associated with a commercial broadcasting
licence.[56]
The Explanatory Memorandum confirms that because commercial
radio and television broadcasters are the only ones eligible to hold
transmitter licences covered under the tax, the holders of these licences will
be required to pay the tax (clause 10).[57]
Clause 6 describes the conditions for the tax
imposed on transmitter licences. Subclause 6(1) provides that a
transmitter licence, issued on or after 1 July 2017 and associated with a commercial
broadcasting licence is subject to the tax. For these licences, the tax would
be imposed on the issue of the transmitter licence and the anniversary of the
day the licence came into force. The tax would be imposed for the time the
licence is in force up to the termination time (see clause 11, discussed
below).
For a transmitter licence issued before 1 July 2017 that
is associated with a commercial broadcasting licence, the tax would be imposed
on the anniversary of the day the licence came into force, during the period
the licence is in force up to the termination time (subclause 6(2)).
Termination time is described in clause 11 as a
time determined by the Minister by legislative instrument; the termination time
cannot be retrospective of such a determination (subclause 11(2)). No
tax will be imposed after the termination time. As discussed above, the
Explanatory Memorandum states:
It is expected that if the Minister were to make such a
determination in the future, it would be after five years of its operation, in
order to transition the commercial broadcasters to a spectrum usage charging
regime.[58]
Subclause 7(1) provides that the amount of tax to
be imposed under subclause 6(1) on the issue of a relevant transmitter licence
on or after 1 July 2017 ‘is the total of the individual transmitter amounts for
the transmitters covered by the licence immediately after the licence came into
force’. Subclause 7(2) provides that the amount of tax to be imposed on
the anniversary of the date that a relevant transmitter licence comes into
force is the total of the individual transmitter amounts for the transmitters
covered by a licence on the day of that anniversary.
Clause 9 provides a table for a transmitter amount
cap for individual transmitters for the financial year beginning on 1 July 2017.
It also provides a formula for determining individual transmitter caps for
financial years from 1 July 2018. Individual transmitter amount caps from
1 July 2018 onwards will be calculated by indexing the previous financial
year’s cap. The indexation factor is set out in clause 12 and is based
on changes in the Consumer Price Index. The annual caps as set are based on the
maximum power levels at which transmitters are licensed to operate.
Clause 13 sets out the process for disallowance of a
ministerial determination made under subclause 8(2). Subclause 13(2)
outlines that either House can disallow the determination by moving a
disallowance motion within 15 sittings days of the tabling of the determination
and then passing the resolution within 15 sitting days of that motion. As
discussed above under ‘Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills’,
this is a departure from the standard disallowance procedure under section 42
of the Legislation
Act 2003 (which is disapplied by subclause 13(5) of the Bill).
Under section 42 of the Legislation Act, a legislative instrument will
be disallowed if a disallowance motion is not resolved within 15 sitting days,
whereas under clause 13 of the Bill, specific action must be taken by the
relevant House in order to disallow the determination. This means that if the
notice of motion to disallow is not put to the vote within 15 sitting days of
being made, the determination will come into effect. As set out above, the
Scrutiny of Bills Committee has sought further information from the Minister on
the justification for this approach.[59]
Clause 15 explicitly states that the Act has no
effect to the extent (if any) to which it imposes a tax on property of any kind
belonging to a state. The Explanatory Memorandum provides that this has been
included in the ‘unlikely event that a State may end up owning the entire
shareholdings in a commercial broadcaster, ... and the High Court were to find
that in such circumstances the State included the commercial broadcaster owned
by the State. This provision is included for consistency with section 114 of
the Australian Constitution, which prohibits the Commonwealth imposing
taxes on States’.[60]
[1]. Subsection
12(1) of the Broadcasting
Services Act 1992.
[2]. Radio Licence Fees
Act 1964 and Television
Licence Fees Act 1964.
[3]. Australian
Communications and Media authority (ACMA), Broadcasting
licence fee requirements handbook: for commercial radio and television
broadcasting licensees, ACMA, Canberra, September 2015; see Appendices
B and C for licence fee formulae.
[4]. For
example, costs associated with the conversion to digital television were
recovered from the commercial television industry under the Television Licence
Fees Act 1999 and legislation introduced in 2007 required that revenue
earned from analogue and digital radio broadcasting services is counted for the
purposes of calculating the radio broadcasting licence fee. B Jaggers, Radio
Licence Fees Amendment Bill 2007, Bills digest, 144, 2006–07,
Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2007.
[5]. S
Conroy (Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy), Government
moves to protect TV content, media release, 8 February 2010.
[6]. More
detail can be found in A Holmes, Television
Licence Fees Amendment Bill 2013, Bills digest, 95, 2012–13,
Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2013.
[7]. Conroy,
op. cit.
[8]. Nine
Entertainment Co., Submission
to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Inquiry
into the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Reform Bill) 2016
[Provisions], 23 March 2016, p. 4. The submission cites information from
Deloitte Access Economics, Economic
contribution of the film and television industry in Australia, report
prepared for the Australian Screen Association, Sydney, February 2015.
[9]. Australian
Government, ‘Part
1: revenue measures’, Budget measures: budget paper no. 2: 2016–17, p.
8.
[10]. M
Fifield (Minister for Communications and the Arts), Supporting
public broadcasting and creating a more competitive environment for commercial
broadcasters, media release, 3 May 2016.
[11]. M Fifield (Minister
for Communications and the Arts), Major
reforms to support Australian broadcasters, media release, 6 May 2017; Australian
Government, Budget
measures: budget paper no. 2: 2017–18, p. 9.
[12]. Ibid.
[13]. M
Fifield (Minister for Communications and the Arts), Interim
financial relief for Australian broadcasters as Labor engages in partisanship,
media release, 28 June 2017; Television Licence
Fees Amendment Regulations 2017; and Radio Licence Fees
Regulations 2017.
[14]. Senate Standing Committee for Selection of Bills, Report, 6, 2017, The Senate, 15 June 2017, p. 3.
[15]. Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Scrutiny
digest, 7, 2017, The Senate, 21 June 2017, pp. 21–24.
[16]. Ibid.,
p. 22.
[17]. Ibid.
[18]. Ibid.
[19]. Ibid.
[20]. Ibid.
Cites JR Odgers, H Evans and R Laing, eds, Odgers’ Australian Senate practice:
as revised by H Evans, 14th edn, Department of the Senate, Canberra,
2016, p. 445.
[21]. Ibid.
[22]. A
Albanese, ‘Second
reading speech: Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Convergence Review and
Other Measures) Bill 2013, Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 2013’,
House of Representatives, Debates, 19 March 2013, p. 2629.
[23]. The
two out of three rule (cross-media ownership rule) allows a person only to
control two of the regulated media platforms (commercial television, commercial
radio and associated newspapers) in a commercial radio licence area. M Rowland
(Shadow Minister for Communications), Fifield’s
media reform package coming apart at the seams, media release, 28 June
2017.
[24]. M
Rowland, ‘Second
Reading speech: Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill
2017, Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017’, House of Representatives, Debates,
21 June 2017, p. 7169.
[25]. Ibid.
[26]. M
Rowland (Shadow Minister for Communications), Fifield’s
media reform package coming apart at the seams, media release, 28 June
2017.
[27]. A
Bandt, ‘Consideration
in detail: Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Convergence Review and Other
Measures) Bill 2013, Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 2013’, House of
Representatives, Debates, 19 March 2013, p. 2632.
[28]. S
Ludlam, ‘Second
reading speech: Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Convergence Review and
Other Measures) Bill 2013, Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 2013’,
Senate, Debates, 20 March 2013, p. 2261.
[29]. N
Xenophon, Deal
or no deal: media law changes must include licence fee cuts and a fair tax on
Facebook, Google and Netflix, media release, n.d. Note: a turnover tax
is a tax levied on turnover (revenue) at a specific rate, irrespective of the
source of revenue and whether or not the revenue is associated with any profit
or loss to the entity.
[30]. R
Lewis, ‘Xenophon
wants taxes on Google, Facebook’, The Australian, 9 May 2017, p. 9.
See also: Parliament of Australia, ‘Broadcasting
Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017 homepage’, Australian
Parliament website.
[31]. D
White, ‘Malcolm
Turnbull expected to play hard ball on TV licence fee cuts’, The Sydney
Morning Herald, (online edition), 22 July 2015.
[32]. D
Crowe and J Mitchell, ‘Forces
massing to fight Fifield's media reforms’, The Australian, 2 March
2016, p. 6.
[33]. Seven
West Media, Submission
to Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Inquiry into
the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Reform Bill) 2016 [Provisions],
23 March 2016, pp. 13 and 43.
[34]. Nine
Entertainment, op. cit., p. 5.
[35]. Ibid.
[36]. Free
TV Australia, Free
TV calls for abolition of broadcasting licence fees, media release, 15
September 2016.
[37]. Commercial
Radio Australia (CRA), Commercial
radio industry welcomes licence fee cut, media release, 10 November
2016.
[38]. CRA, Commercial
radio welcomes removal of licence fees, media release, 6
May 2017; and Free TV Australia, Broadcasting
reforms positive for Aussie content and local jobs, media
release, 6 May 2017.
[39]. Free
TV Australia, Interim
relief on TV licence fees a welcome step, media release, 28 June 2017.
[40]. Australian
Subscription Television and Radio Association (ASTRA), Taxpayers
foot $150 million handout to ‘free’ television, media release, 3 May
2016.
[41]. Ibid.
[42]. ASTRA,
Media
changes a welcome first step, media release, 6 May 2017.
[43]. Australian
Communications Consumer Action Network (ACCAN), Free-to-air
networks should use budget windfall for improved accessibility features,
media release, 4 May 2016.
[44]. ACCAN,
ACCAN
calls for more accessibility on free-to-air TV, media release, 18 May
2017.
[45]. M
Mason and D White, ‘Free
and pay TV row over licence fees’, The Australian Financial Review,
14 March 2016, p. 30.
[46]. M
Mason, ‘Budget
2016: free-to-air and pay TV clash over licence fee cut’, The Sydney
Morning Herald, (online edition), 3 May 2016.
[47]. Screen
Producers Australia, SPA
welcomes relief for broadcasters, but notes the entire value chain is under
pressure, media release, 28 June 2017.
[48]. P
Wells, Budget
2017: TV licence fee cut pales against losses, media release, 12 May
2017.
[49]. Ibid.
[50]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017,
p. 3.
[51]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill
2017, p. 12.
[52]. Ibid.
[53]. M
Fifield (Minister for Communications and the Arts), Interim
financial relief for Australian broadcasters as Labor engages in partisanship,
media release, 28 June 2017.
[54]. The
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights can be found at pages 4 and 5 of
the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill.
[55]. Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Human Rights, Human
rights scrutiny report, 6, 2017, 20 June 2017, p. 26.
[56]. Subsection
34(1) of the BSA allows ACMA to make parts of the broadcasting services
bands available for temporary allocation in a licence area, for purposes
including re-transmission of services. This allows ACMA ‘to make efficient use
of the broadcasting services bands, and ... ensure that parts of those bands do
not remain unnecessarily idle’: Revised
Explanatory Memorandum, Broadcasting Services Bill 1992, p. 30.
[57]. Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., p. 16.
[58]. Ibid.,
p. 16.
[59]. Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Scrutiny
digest, 7, 2017, The Senate, 21 June 2017, p. 24.
[60]. Explanatory
Memorandum, op. cit., p.18; and Constitution.
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.