Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

The fabric of our society fundamentally shifted the day TCN9 in Sydney began testing their broadcast television transmissions, on 16 September 1956. It would take them just six weeks to begin officially broadcasting, on 27 October that same year. HSV7 in Melbourne followed quickly, broadcasting to viewers on 4 November 1956. That was followed by ABV2, and then GTV9 on 19 January 1957. For many years, however, ownership of a television set was rare, with a 23-inch black-and-white TV expected to cost around 6,000 pounds in the 1960s, or half of the then average income of 12,400 pounds. Regardless, by the time commander Neil Armstrong and lunar module pilot Buzz Aldrin landed the Apollo Lunar Module Eagle on the moon's surface on 20 July 1969, the world had become accustomed to gathering around the box both to be entertained and to see the news for themselves. It is not an understatement to say that, since then, many of the most important events of our times have been witnessed directly thanks to these free broadcasting services.

I have very personal memories of the transition from radio to television, with some of my earliest recollections being of hearing the show Dad and Dave on the radio as my parents listened to it in the morning. Whilst the radio stayed on over breakfast, our family routine quickly expanded to include a gathering around the old black-and-white TV to watch the rugby league on a Saturday afternoon. The quality of broadcast was not always universal, and I remember the time we spent with my Aunty Sis in Broken Hill and watching her television screen, which was covered in red cellophane in the hope that it would somehow make the grainy grey snowstorm image behind it decipherable.

In 1975 something extraordinary happened. Those images, which had previously only been seen in black and white, exploded in colour. Many kids, including myself and my siblings, were hooked. In the 50-odd years since, the quality and style of broadcast has become unrecognisable from those early days, with my kids rarely sitting down in front of an actual television set to watch anything. Rather, their laptops, their phones, their iPads and other personal devices have become their key point of consumption, and that brings us to the legislation in front of the House today.

The channels through which broadcasts are delivered have evolved, as have the players in the field of content provision. Where once geographical distances restricted what could be viewed and where, images and content now stream around our planet on a constant basis. In this context, I believe the Communications Legislation Amendment (Prominence and Anti-siphoning) Bill 2023 is an important piece of legislation as it protects the public interest and ensures Australians can continue to access free programming on their TVs. However, I would argue that it could be strengthened in a number of ways, which I will discuss in more detail shortly. These include retrospectively applying the prominence framework to existing TV sets; extending the prominence requirements to search functions; extending the protections afforded by the antisiphoning scheme to prevent not only subscription broadcast services but also subscription streaming services from acquiring rights ahead of free-to-air broadcasters; and reducing the time frame for this legislation to take effect to 12 months from the passing of the bill.

To date, the interests, laws and players that govern what people see on their TVs and when they see it have not really drawn a lot of public attention. Rather, people have continued to consume their programming in a way that fits their lives with little regard to how that content is being dished up to them or who is responsible not only for its production but for putting it within their line of sight. Again, my experience here is personal. For me as a child, my time in front of the television was limited and it was dominated by Australian created content, which was mainly educational in purpose. It was Play School, Romper Room, Mr Squiggle and Skippy, with cartoons such as Scooby-Doo and Looney Tunes providing the animated content.

Fast-forward to my own children, and kids' content had expanded to a deafening roar, streamed 24/7 and available on a multitude of devices. It was iCarly, Teletubbies, In the Night Garden, Thomas the Tank Engine, Brum, and the difference was brought into stark contrast for me when I observed my beautiful four-year-old daughter making videos on my iPhone in which she spoke with an American accent. It seemed her consumption of Nickelodeon had taught her that the drawl that comes with being American was standard when it came to entertainment.

As anyone who knows me will tell you, I'm a fierce defender of human rights. By respecting everyone's human rights, I believe we create a society that is fairer, where all are treated equally and all have a responsibility for their own actions. So it may seem at odds with who I am to be standing here and speaking in support of this legislation today, as some have criticised it as a veiled attempt by the government to control what the population consumes by way of broadcast content. But I see this legislation differently. I see it as a protection mechanism to ensure that, as the content-streaming world explodes globally, our Australian culture and our right to free-to-air content are not lost.

Free-to-air TV broadcasters provide services in the public interest, from news programs to local stories and children's shows which reflect Australia's evolving national personality. Why should an entertainment organisation not based in our country, nor committed to our values, be able to position itself ahead of our free-to-air channels? Why should people who purchase a new television made overseas be offered content that is only available behind a paywall as the first option when they start their new television? Surely it's only fair that the content already produced here and available free of charge should be front and centre, and easy to find. This bill seeks to implement a public policy of ensuring that Australians can access coverage of culturally significant news and events on television for free. It seeks to ensure widespread access to information regarding local issues and events, and thus enables Australians to participate in public debate and democratic decision-making. It introduces a prominence framework which sets minimum requirements that manufacturers of internet-connected televisions and television-like devices must meet regarding the accessibility of free-to-air television content, ensuring Australian television channels are prominently displayed on new devices. It also amends and modernises the existing antisiphoning scheme to address the risk of significant sporting events migrating behind paywalls on online streaming platforms.

In an era dominated by the rapid spread of mis- and disinformation, and at a time when the cost-of-living pressure on all Australians is evident, this is exactly the type of legislation our government should be introducing. In reviewing the legislation, I concur with others that the fact it increases the likelihood of events being broadcast for free is a really good thing. I understand the arguments that this benefit is at the cost of other media content providers—and, potentially, sporting organisations themselves—but I'm comfortable that the public benefit and public need outweigh these concerns. Even as an event is broadcast through free-to-air, the availability of that broadcast confers a financial benefit to the free-to-air channel which, in turn, can be sold by them to commercial partners. The circle of investment therefore should continue to flow. Giving free-to-air broadcasters the first shot does not give them the right to lowball a potential partner.

I also do not shy away from saying that which is produced locally and costs nothing to consume should be given priority on all home screens for all viewing devices, both new and existing. I understand that the real estate on those devices is valuable to those who manufacture them, and I understand that these manufacturers want to reap these potential commercial benefits. But, from my perspective, the establishment of that market should not be the result of the incursion of ongoing and unnecessary expenses for Australian consumers, so I wholeheartedly support the prominence framework suggested in this bill. I also support calls for the onus of carrying local contents apps to be placed on the manufacturers, rather than on the free-to-air broadcast providers as, ultimately, if you wish to bring it to Australia then I believe you should meet our standards and our nation's needs.

This bill is a step in the right direction for Australia's prominence and antisiphoning framework, but I do believe it could be strengthened significantly to protect the public interest and to ensure that Australians can continue to access free programming on their televisions. Firstly, the government could consider expanding the prominence provisions of this legislation to cover existing sets. Sets are updated regularly over the air by the TV platforms and set manufacturers, making retrospective applications of these provisions technically possible. Without applying the prominence rules to existing sets retrospectively, it will take an excessively long time for these changes to have any real impact. In that time, literally thousands of Australians could end up paying for content that is in fact free elsewhere. As such, both existing devices and newly supplied devices that fall within the definition of 'regulated television device' should be subject to the new prominence regime.

Secondly, I believe the scheme should also regulate prominence within search results. Right now, if you search for a program that is available on free-to-air TV by using your smart TV search function, the free version won't necessarily be the first search result you see. In fact, you might not even know the program is available for free because there is no requirement to feature free-to-air content prominently in the search function. This could be fixed by extending the prominence requirements to search functions, and I urge the government to consider this change.

Thirdly, to ensure smart TV apps can access free Aussie sport, the antisiphoning provisions should be extended to cover both terrestrial broadcasts and free streaming rights. Anyone who has moved into an apartment built in the last five years in North Sydney will not have access to an aerial and so will need to watch free-to-air sport services via streaming, yet the bill currently only protects aerial-delivered broadcast rights. Changes in technology mean the antisiphoning scheme, which is long past due, should be expanded to ensure Australians are not required to pay for a plethora of subscriptions and services to watch iconic sporting events. To achieve this, free-to-air broadcasters should be afforded priority in acquiring not only the rights to broadcast listed sporting events on TV but also the rights to retransmit that content on their free on-demand broadcast services.

Finally, I would make one last appeal of the government, which I will be moving an amendment on—that is, to shorten the time for these provisions to come into effect. As it stands, manufacturers will have 18 months to implement this transition, after which they will be required to ensure the prominence obligations have been met. However, manufacturers have been aware this change was coming for some time now, and experts have suggested the prominence requirements for manufacturers could be implemented within six months. This is not a hardware issue, with much of the prominence cases controlled by software—and, as we all know, software updates happen frequently and seamlessly. During the Senate inquiry into this bill, experts may declare many of the changes required could be made effectively within days through a server update, and it should be possible for manufacturers to manage the software switch within six months and certainly within the 12-month time frame recommended by the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee.

Given this, I then asked, 'Why delay?' To leave it for 18 months is to see thousands of Australians potentially subscribe to a service they do not need, as the content they are searching for is already available for free on an existing Australian free-to-air network. In the next 18 months, there will be elections in the United States, in Canada and at home, and Australians should expect to have easy access to impartial, localised news coverage.

To those that argue against this legislation, saying it is anticompetitive or an attempt by our government to control what our population views, I say, 'Tell them they're dreaming.' Australians would be the first to yell, 'Not happy, Jan', if they realised they had been led to pay for something they could otherwise have seen for free. So let's get this legislation right and let's get it done now.

See this speech in context