Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Hansard source

I just want to remind the honourable member of a provision in the SBS Act at 11(3):

The Minister must not give a direction in relation to the content or scheduling of programs to be broadcast.

The act makes it very clear that it is the SBS board, not the parliament or the minister, that is responsible for programming and editorial decisions. It is the duty of the SBS board:

… to ensure, by means of the SBS's programming policies, that the gathering and presentation by the SBS of news and information is accurate and is balanced over time and across the schedule of programs broadcast; and

     …      …      …

… to be aware of, and responsive to, community needs and opinions on matters relevant to the Charter …

That is the context in which we are operating. The honourable member is entitled to ask me, if he wishes, to intervene with the editorial decisions or programming decisions of the SBS, but he knows very well that this is just a rhetorical point. I have no power to do so, nor should I have any power to do so. The same applies to the ABC. As I have said many times, the media policies of Vladimir Putin are no more admirable than his foreign policy. We do not want to be living in a country where the government of the day can direct the public broadcasters as to what to say.

Having said that, the boards are responsible to manage their services—and I am talking about both public broadcasters now. They do have an obligation to make sure that their news and current affairs are accurate and impartial. They do have an obligation to comply with their charter and the various broadcasting codes. I understand and I empathise with what the honourable member has said about the resentment in his community about the Struggle Street. It was a very hard-hitting program. I would say its critical review was very positive overall, but if any people portrayed in the documentary, or their representatives, believe that there has been breaches of standards or codes or SBS's charter, then they should complain to the SBS. And if they are not happy with that, of course go to ACMA.

As the minister, as honourable members would imagine, I get hundreds of emails urging me to do something, often quite contradictory things, to the ABC or SBS. Sometimes I get an email saying they have been too far to the left, followed by one saying they have been too far to the right. I get the full gamut and the answer is always the same. I would say, though, that the boards have to take their responsibilities very seriously.

In terms of spectrum and the use of spectrum by broadcasters: we have a spectrum review underway, as you know, and the consultation papers have been released. The reform directions are clear. We are consulting with the industry and the community, obviously. But the rationale for having restrictions on the way in which high-definition or standard-definition channels can be broadcast is really no longer there. As a matter of principle, broadcasters should be able to determine whether they broadcast in standard definition or high definition. The requirement to broadcast the primary channel in standard definition was obviously made at a time when the majority of Australians in fact only had standard definition sets—that is obviously no longer the case.

I trust that will give the honourable member some comfort, but the government generally wants to rationalise and provide greater clarity and freedom for the use of spectrum—obviously, consistent with protecting the public interest—and have regulations that are less prescriptive and less restrictive of innovative uses of spectrum.

See this speech in context