Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Hansard source

I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (5), as circulated, together.

Leave granted.

I move:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 8 (lines 5 to 9), omit subsection 130ZZJ(5), substitute:

Broadcasting video on demand service applications

(5) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), an application is covered by this subsection if:

(a) the application is designed for the purpose of providing access to a particular broadcasting video on demand service; and

(b) the application is provided by:

(i) an entity mentioned in subparagraph (1)(b)(i), (ii), (iii) or (iv); or

(ii) an entity that provides a specified service that the Minister determines under subsection (2) is a regulated television service.

(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 8 (lines 22 and 23), omit subparagraph 130ZZL(1)(a)(ii), substitute:

(ii) the main interface most commonly used to provide access to applications that make audiovisual content available on demand using a listed carriage service; and

(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 17 (line 14), omit "3 year period", substitute "2 year period".

(4) Schedule 2, item 4, page 28 (line 12), omit "8,760 hours", substitute "4,368 hours".

(5) Schedule 2, item 4, page 33 (line 8), omit "5 year period", substitute "2 year period".

As I noted during the second reading debate, this is an important piece of legislation, and it's important that we get it right. The inquiry conducted by the Senate committee has enabled the bill to be carefully considered. The government's amendments will address a number of issues raised through the inquiry process, clarify the operation of certain provisions, tighten definitions and bring forward the statutory reviews of the two regimes. The first three amendments relate to the prominence framework.

Amendment (1) will clarify the definition of a regulated television service to make it clear that broadcasting video on demand, or BVOD, applications that are afforded prominence under the framework are those that are provided by the free-to-air broadcasters or other entities specified by the minister. This amendment will ensure that prominence is not inadvertently given to applications that happen to provide access to a regulated BVOD service but are provided by another party.

Amendment (2) will tighten the definition of the primary user interface, which is the part of a regulated television device on which free-to-air broadcasting services need to be made available. The bill as introduced provides a flexible definition of 'primary user interface' to accommodate the fact that these interfaces are not homogeneous and vary between devices. However, the current reference to BVOD services in the definition means that a manufacturer of a regulated television device would not be prevented from placing free-to-air BVOD services on a separate and lower tier of the primary user interface, compared to other audiovisual services such as paid subscription based streaming services. The proposed amendment would address this risk and ensure that free-to-air broadcasting services are treated no less favourably than comparable services.

Amendment (3) will bring forward the timing of the review of the prominence framework to commence as soon as practicable after the end of two years from commencement and application of the new arrangements, rather than three years as in the bill as introduced. The committee inquiry process highlighted the rapid technological and consumer changes that are occurring in the television market, and this amendment will enable these developments and the operation of the new framework to be assessed at an earlier point.

The final two amendments relate to antisiphoning. Amendment (4) will reduce the time before events are automatically removed or delisted from the antisiphoning list from 12 to six months. The increase in this period from six to 12 months in the bill as introduced was intended to bring the delisting period in line with the commercial reality of media rights acquisition, where media rights deals are typically settled more than a year in advance of the event taking place. However, through the committee inquiry process, the concern was raised that extending the delisting period may lead to protracted rights negotiations and put at risk the ability of Australians to see sport for free. The amendment will address this risk and retain the current six-month delisting period as it is under the current scheme.

Amendment (5) will bring forward the timing of the review of the antisiphoning regime to as soon as practicable after the end of two years from the commencement of the new arrangements, down from a five-year period in the bill as introduced. Expediting the time frame for the review will enable these developments to be considered at an earlier point, while affording sufficient time to assess the operation of the new arrangements and the impacts on industry and consumers.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

See this speech in context