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

I rise to speak on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021, which proposes to amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to reduce the expenditure required by subscription television broadcasting licensees on new eligible drama expenditure from 10 per cent to five per cent, provide for subscription television captioning rules to be made by legislative instrument, remove the requirement that all frequency channels allotted or reserved in a digital radio channel plan be within the same frequency band, provide that a regional commercial radio broadcasting licensee does not breach a licence condition if it is only as a result of the Australian Communications and Media Authority making a new licence area population determination and extend the time frame for the ACMA to make grants under the Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund beyond 30 June 2021.

Once again this government presents piecemeal tinkering to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 when what we need is holistic reform. More fundamentally, this bill puts the incompetence of this coalition government and the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts up in lights, and it's not simply because the minister introduced this bill, on 25 March 2021, with an incorrect second reading speech—something I have never seen in my 11 years in this parliament—which necessitated a correction by the minister, who came back into the chamber two hours later. He can't even get a second reading speech right. It's not simply because this minister didn't appear to even know what his own bill did when he introduced it. More fundamentally, this bill highlights the government's ongoing policy failure and delay when it comes to securing the future of Australian stories on our screens, their ongoing failure and delay when it comes to ensuring timely support for public interest journalism in regional Australia and their ongoing failure to get long-term media reform right. I note this bill has been referred to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 17 June, and I welcome the scrutiny that process will afford. Likewise, I welcome the constructive suggestions of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills and encourage the minister to address these satisfactorily.

Labor will not stand in the way of minor regulatory housekeeping, which is much of what this bill presents, but we will not be a part of this government's attempt to dismantle bit by bit the Australian screen content rules without anything new being put in their place. Labor will not stand in the way of the changes to captioning rules, changes to digital radio channel plans, changes affecting regional commercial radio licensees or the extension of the time frame for the ACMA to make grants for original journalism. These measures may not be perfect, but Labor won't stand in their way. But Labor will not support the halving of Foxtel's Australian screen content obligation in the absence of new requirements to support the screening of stories on our screens. That is why Labor will move the amendment which has been circulated in my name, to omit schedule 1 from this bill. This amendment would excise the provisions relating to the new eligible drama expenditure scheme and allow the balance of the measures in the bill to pass with Labor's support. To be clear, Labor is prepared to pass all the measures in this bill save for the halving of Foxtel's Australian content obligation.

The Australian screen content rules are the reason we have an Australian screen industry telling Australian stories to Australians and to the world. Content obligations have been a central driver of the production of Australian stories for years, but this government is watering them down bit by bit. The government has indeed been reviewing the Australian screen content rules—since 2017. That is how slow they have been, and they still haven't presented a full package of reforms to the parliament. On 6 May 2017, then Minister Fifield announced what he called a broad-ranging and comprehensive review of Australian and children's content. He said:

The review will identify sustainable policies to ensure the ongoing availability of Australian and children's content to domestic and international audiences, regardless of platform.

After all this time, there is still nothing to modernise Australian content obligations for the contemporary media environment, which now includes multiple streaming video platforms.

It is now well over two years ago that Labor committed to Make it Australian. The Make It Australian campaign goes back 50 years, almost as long as this government has been reviewing the rules. With its most recent push, it reminds us that in the 1960s there was no government support for an Australian film and television industry, because there was no Australian film and television industry. In 1961, guess how much drama on Australian television was Australian? It was just one per cent. Admittedly, that was only a few years after the introduction of television, but unfortunately the imbalance persisted. In the 1970s, in response to a lack of Australian stories on Australian screens, the industry united under the banner Make It Australian to demand action on local content. This prompted a response in Canberra that saw things improve.

The Australian screen sector, of which we are all so proud, didn't just grow out of nothing. It is not a naturally occurring thing. For all the deserved praise of Australia's world-class screen industry, the fact is that its success is underpinned by an enabling framework that includes subsidies, content quotas and other incentives. The modern-day Make It Australian campaign was launched by the screen sector in response to the growth of new platforms, services and technologies—new services which aren't captured by the policy and regulatory framework, but whose growth and uptake cannot be ignored. In 2012, the final report of the Convergence review, which was commissioned by the previous Labor government, noted this trend and recommended that significant media enterprises be drawn into a new policy and regulatory framework. The review proposed a new uniformed content scheme to apply to all content service enterprises that provide professional drama, documentary or children's content and that meet certain scale and service criteria. This:

… reflects the view that those enterprises that stand to make the most from the Australian market should make the greatest contribution to the achievement of public policy outcomes.

The review thought it appropriate to set a high bar for regulation in order to exclude small and emerging content providers as well as user generated content. Based on the information available to the review at the time, it was considered that a revenue threshold of $200 million and an audience threshold of half a million was consistent with sustainable investment in Australian content. At that time, there were no comparable enterprises to the traditional free-to-air and subscription broadcasters of sufficient scale to qualify for the scheme. But the review noted:

In the future it is realistic to expect that this group of services will be joined by non-broadcast services as those services continue to expand in line with shifts in consumer preferences.

How true that has become.

Where are we now, some eight years later? Australians continue to love broadcast television but are embracing online, catch-up TV and, for those who can afford and access it, subscription services as well. Of course, nowadays subscription services include streaming, video-on-demand services as well as broadcasting services. On 15 February 2021, the department's Bureau of Communications, Arts and Regional Research released analysis that shows subscription video on demand services continue to boom. The analysis states:

… Australians are continuing to subscribe to subscription video on demand (SVOD) services, like Stan, Netflix and Amazon Prime in record numbers.

Over 70 per cent of Australians are now accessing SVOD services. Netflix remains the most popular platform, with over 13 million accessing the service by June 2020.

That is to say, services regarded as small or emerging at the time of the Convergence Review have grown and firmly established themselves. Australians have a broader range of choices at their fingertips, and now creatives have an expanded range of opportunities. It is great news that these new platforms are sites where Australian content can be found and can be used to take Australian content to the world, but what is concerning is that the policy and regulatory framework has not kept pace.

This government has wasted a lot of time and resources on the question of updating the regulatory framework to address the rise of streaming services. Since May 2017 the government has run repeated consultation rounds on these issues yet still has not resolved the question. The department, the ACMA and Screen Australia have been raking over these issues for years, and stakeholders have been living with the anticipation and uncertainty of multiple consultation rounds the whole time. The minister's green paper is the most recent consultation process to be conducted on the question, to which submissions have only just closed. While the government continues to balk at regulating streaming services, which other jurisdictions around the world have already done, the government removes existing regulation.

Schedule 1 to the bill amends the Broadcasting Services Act to reduce the expenditure required by subscription television broadcasting licensees on new eligible drama from 10 per cent to five per cent. The explanatory memorandum notes that this measure would have a 'modest positive impact' for subscription broadcasters by reducing content expenditure, regulatory burden and levelling the playing feel with unregulated online streaming services. However, importantly, it also notes it will have 'a moderate negative impact on the production sector' as current expenditure could drop from around $25 million to $12½ million. The bill proposes to halve Foxtel's Australian screen content obligation without putting anything in its place, such as requirements for streaming services like Netflix to produce Australian content. This comes on top of the government's recent decision to water down Australian screen content rules for commercial free-to-air television broadcasters.

On 30 September 2020, the minister announced changes to the drama, documentary and children's content subquota under the Australian content rules for broadcasters. At the time, Labor said that these changes would mean fewer Australian stories on our television screens and fewer job opportunities for local creators. In response to this announcement, children's television producers wrote to the minister, saying they had been left 'stranded' by the changes. They wrote to the minister as follows:

As children's content producers, we are businesses that move with the times. We recognise that our audiences have shifted their viewing to include VOD platforms like Netflix, Amazon, Disney+ and Apple and welcome the opportunities this shift provides. We strongly support a progressive outlook for Australian children's content in an evolving on-demand world and we agree with the Federal Government on the need for policy change that supports a market driven approach to the sector.

But in abolishing the Free To Air quotas for children's content, with no corresponding legislation in place for the streamers or other adjustments, the Federal government has left the sector stranded.

Remember, these are businesses. In many cases, these are small businesses. Supposedly a core constituency of those opposite like to refer to them as the 'engine room' of the Australian economy. Well, these people are the engine room of the Australian content sector, and they say they have been left 'stranded' by this hapless minister and this government.

Ultimately, these changes did not come before parliament but were affected by the ACMA by standard, not subject to disallowance at the direction of the minister. These were the same subquotas that were suspended in 2020 as an emergency COVID-19 measure and then re-introduced in a watered-down form from 1 January 2021.

The government continues to kick the question of regulation of the streaming platforms down the road, failing to follow the lead of other countries by requiring them to invest in local content and create local jobs, including for local small businesses. The minister has failed to make it Australian. He has failed the creators and small businesses that comprise the screen sector. He has failed Australians who want more Australian stories, and he's even failed his own test.

The minister previously announced that he would harmonise the regulatory framework and address the disparity in regulation between broadcasters and online streaming services. The minister himself noted that the French, German and Canadian governments are moving to require platforms like Netflix and Amazon to invest in local content, but he has failed to utilise parliament's time to deliver on this today in this bill.

Bit by bit, the Morrison government is dismantling the Australian content rules, again, I say, without putting anything new in place. The government has cut ABC funding, which has reduced the funding available for the ABC to invest in Australian content. The government has watered down Australian-content obligations for commercial television broadcasters, and now, as I said, with this bill, they want to halve Foxtel's expenditure obligation. Again, for streaming providers, there are no regulatory obligations at all.

Similar to the sector, Labor is realistic and pragmatic. We recognise the need to modernise the screen content rules. We have consistently advised industry stakeholders since May 2017 that greater flexibility and modernisation are acceptable but that there must be something in its place. Labor will not be part of the dismantling of Australian content rules into a regulatory void. Labor acknowledges the challenging market conditions and the regulatory disparity between broadcasters and streaming services, but I tell you what: this bill is not the answer.

Labor is prepared to reconsider its position on the proposed halving of the new eligible drama expenditure requirement if and when—and we're not holding our breath—the Morrison government finally gets its act together and introduces legislation to regulate streaming services. For this reason, Labor will move to amend the bill to omit schedule 1 relating to subscription broadcasters during consideration in detail on this bill.

I now wish to turn to the Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund. On 14 September 2017, the government first announced the Regional and Publishers Innovation Fund. The media release heralded a new era for Australia's media, claiming:

The government is strengthening Australia's media industry, enhancing media diversity and securing local journalism jobs, particularly in regional areas.

At the time Labor warned that the fund was ill conceived, ideological and inadequate and that it would be too little, too late for many media organisations. Fast forward to today and it is indeed clear that this fund was poorly conceived and inadequate. Scores of newspapers have closed. Hundreds of journalism jobs have been lost.

This fund has had a very chequered history. It has been underspent, it remains underspent and it is expected to be underspent. The eligibility requirements have been altered as the government has made this intervention up as it went along. When the fund was originally introduced, departmental officials made it clear that they had not been involved in drafting the eligibility criteria, which were tainted with ideology. Later the fund was examined as part of the ACCC's digital platforms inquiry, which reported in June 2019. The ACCC found:

… many stakeholders were unsatisfied with Round 1 of the Innovation Fund grants, which allocated only AU$3.6 million of the AU$12.4 million available for the round. Publishers expressed concerns that:

The ACCC ultimately recommended that the fund be repurposed. The fund was majority underspent when in April 2020 the government repurposed around $36 million of it and re-announced it as the $50 million Public Interest News Gathering, or PING, fund, which has since been allocated to regional publishers as well as regional broadcasters.

Overall, the repurposing of the Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund into the PING reduced the amount available to publishers. In the 2018 round of funding, only $3.6 million was allocated. In the 2019 round of funding, $9 million was allocated. Then, in 2020, $5 million was set aside for grants to regional and metropolitan publishers and content service providers of public interest journalism.

At Senate estimates last week, the ACMA confirmed that it anticipates the 2020 funding round will too be underspent. On 27 May, the chair of the ACMA stated: 'There is $3.7 million yet to be committed, but we expect a small underspend as well, particularly in cases where grantees have asked to withdraw from the grant for various reasons of their own.' The chair then clarified that the small underspend would be under a million dollars. The failure to get this fund out the door in a timely manner is an indictment on this government and its failure to support regional media. It is a travesty that taxpayer funds intended for a sector in desperate need have not been put to work in supporting public interest journalism in our democracy. What's more, even if the amounts for this fund and the PING were combined, the total amount announced to support the media sector with direct funding grants is in fact less than what the ACCC recommended in the digital platforms inquiry. The ACCC concluded that $150 million over three years would be required before the program is reviewed in addition to stable and adequate funding for the public broadcasters. Labor considers that the minister should announce further funding in accordance with the ACCC recommendations to ensure that direct grants reach the media outlets in need.

I now turn to the provisions impacting commercial radio licensees. Labor notes the concerns of the commercial radio industry with this bill. The nature of these concerns begs the question as to whether the sector was even properly consulted on this bill. Commercial radio has concerns regarding the proposed addition of a sunset clause in section 43C(4) with respect to local content and section 52 with respect to control of licences. The explanatory memorandum to the bill states that the addition of the sunset clause signals the government's commitment to undertaking a review of the exemptions, to look at whether they remain appropriate and relevant and how they affect the market, licensees and the community. However, Commercial Radio Australia has flagged that the protection offered by section 43C(4) and section 52 should be retained and should not be subject to review or sunset in five years' time. CRA states that commercial radio stations have no control over the determinations made by the ACMA under section 30 of the Broadcasting Services Act. They submit it would therefore be inequitable for radio stations to find themselves inadvertently in breach of the act and prescribed licence conditions simply because the ACMA varies a population determination. The Senate inquiry into the bill presents an opportunity for further consideration of these concerns, but I do note them here.

Turning to the changes to captioning obligations, schedule 2 on captioning obligations provides for subscription television captioning rules to be made by legislative instrument rather than statute. The explanatory memorandum notes the benefit is to allow for rules to be amended in a more timely and efficient manner in line with the changing circumstances of industry and the views of Australians for whom captioning enhances their access to broadcast television. It is expected that future legislative instruments will be made following public consultation in which the views of persons with a disability are expressly sought. I understand that the disability sector is disappointed this amendment answers industry calls for a reduction in regulatory burden but not calls from the disability sector for enhanced captioning quality. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has sought and received further responses from the minister about these measures, as well as made constructive suggestions which we encourage the minister to address.

In conclusion, this government is now into its eighth year in power. In this time, they have had ample opportunity to effect holistic media reform. They have had the benefit of multiple reviews, inquiries and reports, each making recommendations for holistic reform, from the Convergence Review to the report of the Digital Platforms Inquiry. But the bill before us is yet more piecemeal tinkering from this government, and piecemeal tinkering has not served the media sector well. Tinkering with broken analog-era laws drafted decades ago simply doesn't cut it when what is necessary is an overhaul for the digital age.

When this government heralded a new era for Australia's media, back in 2017, Labor along with many others warned the government that its so-called media reforms were piecemeal and inadequate. We warned them that relying on secret deals with cross-bench senators to pass legislation, rather than on decent policy, wouldn't stand the test of time. Australia's media sector, particularly regional media, has weathered drought, cyclones, floods, bushfires, a mouse plague and digital disruption. In addition, government policy neglect left the sector exposed to external shocks, and it has been hard hit by COVID-19 and the recession. But one of the biggest obstacles facing regional media and the screen sector is this government, which feels no urgency to do its job to modernise and harmonise the regulatory framework.

In response to the hefty final report of the ACCC Digital Platforms Inquiry, the minister committed in 2019 to starting a staged process to reform media regulations, covering both online and offline media. He even released a so-called road map for action, something Labor had been calling for for years. But, I tell you what, it's a road to nowhere. The map is blank. It makes no mention of regional media reform and has no media reform processes or time frames beyond 2020, let alone any guiding principles or markers. In response, the industry has just made submissions to the minister's green-paper process, itself proposing a road map that has for so long been lacking. The minister did commit to reviewing content regulation but, sadly, has squibbed on that, leaving broadcasters with watered-down regulations for Australian and children's screen content, while letting global streaming services like Netflix off the hook.

As I have said, Labor will not be a party to the watering down of Australian content rules, and Labor urges the government to address the recommendations of the ACCC Digital Platforms Inquiry, including in relation to direct funding for regional media. To that end, I move the second reading amendment as circulated in my name. I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes:

(1) on 6 May 2017, the Coalition Government announced "a broad ranging and comprehensive review of Australian and children's content", yet over four years later there is still no sign of an Australian content obligation for streaming services;

(2) the Government has relaxed obligations on commercial free-to-air television broadcasters for Australian drama, documentary and children's programs;

(3) on 14 September 2017, the Coalition Government first announced the Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund, yet almost four years later some funding is still not allocated; and

(4) the ongoing delay and uncertainty in Government support and reform is undermining jobs and content in the screen sector and public interest journalism industry in Australia".

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Patrick Gorman (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Western Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Greenway has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Pat Conaghan (Cowper, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to rise to speak to the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill. The amendments proposed in this bill are designed so that Australia's media can continue to provide services that are not only relevant but engaging for audiences in the metropolitan and regional, rural and remote communities right across the country. The changes will also enable our broadcasters to focus on what they do best, which is provide great local content without irrelevant, burdensome regulations. The bill will ensure that there's a level playing field for all broadcasters, whether they be free, or subscription and streaming services, as we have seen evolve over the past decade. Perhaps most importantly, this bill also ensures that Australians have a choice as to how and when they access media and broadcasting services.

Broadcasting and subscription media have changed significantly since the current arrangements in the act were introduced in 2012. The introduction of subscription video-on-demand services such as Netflix; Stan; Disney+, for those of us who've got kids; and Optus Sport, and increased competition for advertising revenue from Google and Facebook, paid TV and paid news content have seen the industry evolve at an extremely rapid rate.

It's fair to say that the current state of play in the market makes it extremely difficult for what we term the traditional media outlets, such as the humble newspaper serving its community, as an example, when compared with the rapid rise of these new digital services and streaming services. The size and the complexity of the existing framework is arguably excessive for an industry sector that's operating in a far different environment than when this legislation was originally introduced. We've got free-to-air broadcasting, radio and local newspapers competing with subscription and live-streaming services, so it's important these amendments be made to ensure that there is a fair and equitable playing field for all broadcasters. A key component of this amendment relates to the Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund. This program provides individual grants of up to $400,000 to publishers to assist in increasing the sustainability of regional print and online news-publishing activities including news gathering, production and distribution. However, COVID-19 has delayed the delivery of the projects under this fund and the Australian Communications and Media Authority's administration of those financial grants to successful applicants by the closing date of 30 June 2021. If the proposed amendment to extend the time frame doesn't occur, the ACMA will no longer have legislative authority to award grants and make those instalment payments, which are so important, beyond June 2021. What that would mean effectively is that some regional and small publishers may miss out on the funding if they've not been able to meet their milestones before the expiration of that program, which would be absolutely devastating for them.

This program is so important for regional publishers as many of them have struggled and will continue to struggle, as a result of the pandemic, from competition and other broadcasting services. Particularly in my region, local regional and rural news services are key to ensuring all residents, no matter where they live, have access to the latest in local news. The news outlets not only provide news but also provide jobs, encourage diversity of opinion, provide information for local communities on local happenings and keep older Australians connected with their communities. In my electorate, 30 per cent of residents are aged 65-plus. Very often, particularly in lower socioeconomic areas, their only source of information is via the local newspaper and local radio station or locally produced TV news content. Indeed, a large number of older Australians don't have access to digital services or paid subscriptions and live-streaming services. They might not have had the NBN put on, they might not want it or they might not be able to afford it. They may not be tech savvy enough to do it. These changes are very, very important, and we need to make sure that those older Australians don't fall through the gaps where traditional news services are winding back and leaving just the digital services.

Sadly, in my electorate and of course in many regional communities, we've seen the demise of long-running newspaper mastheads and broadcasting services. Programs such as the regional and small publishers innovation program are designed to support them and to ensure that they have long-term sustainability. But the loss of local mastheads in my electorate on the Mid North Coast includes the Bellingen Shire Courier-Sun and the Nambucca Guardian News, and that's had a major effect not only on how residents access their local news but also during their day-to-day lives. For many residents, when they take a trip down to buy their daily paper or their weekly paper, it's not just a trip to buy the paper. They go down as part of their daily routine. They catch up with the person behind the counter or someone at a cafe, or they go and buy their milk or their bread, before they turn around and make that trip back home to read the latest news. So it does make a difference to their daily or weekly ritual.

The Port Macquarie News is another publication that has altered the way it provides services. It continues to be published in the Port Macquarie-Hastings area, but, instead of tri-weekly, it's now published just once a week, while its sister publication, the Port Macquarie Express, is no longer printed at all. To see these historically important publications forced to cease or reduce printing shows the severe consequences of the existing uneven playing field.

However, there is some good news for local readers—particularly those in the beautiful Nambucca Valley. Whilst a number of the local services in the electorate have closed down, encouragingly, in the last month, a new, independent newspaper has begun publishing. The Nambucca Valley's News of the Area is distributing approximately 5,000 copies across the region, to keep residents up to date with what's going on, and it is evening up that playing field. So the decision to publish in the Nambucca area needs the support of these proposed changes, so we can continue to see local people employed to produce local content.

There is also a reducing percentage of Australian content being broadcast. It is so important that we don't lose that great Australian drama or those documentaries or access to local sport or children's shows or 'soapies', as we call them. That home-grown content is so valuable to our culture. It provides opportunities for Australians and young talent to be featured on the international stage. If I said things like, 'How's the serenity?' or, 'Tell him he's dreamin',' or, 'That's going straight to the pool room,' you'd know exactly what I was talking about. And that's the Australian content and the Australian talent that we need to support.

This bill modernises Australian content rules for commercial free-to-air broadcasters. It provides greater support for the production and the distribution of Australian content across a range of media, whether they be the free media, subscription TV or streaming services.

In conclusion, the measures in this amending bill demonstrate the government's commitment to reform and to streamlining regulation across the broadcasting industry. With the rapid uptake of digital broadcasting services and the impact that that has had on our way of life, it is vitally important for legislation and regulation to reflect the current environment. The bill will ensure Australia's media industry can and will continue to provide services that are relevant and engaging for audiences in the metropolitan, regional, rural and remote communities right across this country, and I commend it to the House.

Susan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the member for Cowper and I might be reading different legislation, because, far from improving the situation for Australian creatives, this legislation contains one particular section that, on our side, we will not be supporting, and that is: undermining the existing content quotas for pay television services. The reason it's so important that these are not halved—which is what this legislation will do—is that, as the member for Cowper said, we do need to see Australian stories on our screens, but this piece of legislation is not going to make that happen. In fact, it will undermine it significantly.

For a kid in the 1960s, when I was growing up, there wasn't a lot of Australian content. There was no government support at that time for Australian film and television. There was no real Australian screen industry. In 1961, it was something like one per cent of drama on TV was Australian drama, and the other 99 per cent was foreign. That only changed when, in the 1970s, there were decisions made to support the Australian television industry. There were actually marches in the 1970s demanding local content quotas. That's where it started. It was a direct result of that that we started to see Australian stories more and more on our screens. By the time my kids were born in the 1990s and watching television, they were able to see a lot of Australian stories, everything from the Adventures of Blinky Bill through to Bananas in Pyjamasall the great Aussie kid stuff. As they have grown they have been able to be really nurtured and nourished by absolute quality Australian drama on our screens.

The devices on which we watch these things have changed, but Australian drama remains one of the few things that allows us to see who we are in the myriad of genres that is there. I don't know if it was watching Australian drama that was one of the reasons, but I have a daughter who is an actor. She wants to tell Australian stories, and I despair when I see legislation like this that will hit people in the industry, people who for the last year have seen things dry up. There are foreign productions here and they're hiring people, but very few of them are telling Australian stories; they're telling international stories. That's not to say that we shouldn't be making our stories head overseas. I remember living in New York in 1988. Of course, that was the era of Crocodile Dundee and one of our Australian stories was being well and truly told across the United States then. We should be ambitious. We should be trying to share our stories with the world, but we should not—and we will not on this side—be supporting legislation that makes it harder for those stores to even get made.

What we have here is a piecemeal approach to adapting to the changing platforms that we're facing. Whether it's people watching on iPads, whether it's streaming or whether it is the changes that are affecting pay TV, none of those things should be dealt with in isolation. Unfortunately, this is what the government has been doing time and time again, ever since it first talked about trying to bring our laws into the more modern environment. I think it was four years ago that they started talking about it. Yet here we are, in 2021, and we're getting little bits of stuff happening along the way.

The reduction in expenditure required by subscription television broadcasting licences on new eligible drama expenditure from 10 per cent to five per cent, which is what this legislation contains, will, according to the creatives who live in my electorate of Macquarie, covering the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury—and there are many creatives who use the mountains and call the mountains home—be a death knell on their industry. That's not just actors and directors; that's writers, set designers, graphic designers, the composers who write the music et cetera—the ecosystem of creatives who are involved in getting something from someone's concept in their head onto a screen. So we cannot support this. We'll support every other thing in this legislation but, as the member for Greenway has moved, we're moving an amendment to excise that particular section of the bill.

When I look at the bill and this part of it it really highlights the ongoing failure and the delay that the government has created when it comes to supporting Australian stories on our screens. Another area of the legislation that we're asked to pass here, which is around public interest journalism, also highlights a failure. I will speak about that a bit later, but it's basically a failure to get media reform in all its elements right. So, while we won't stand in the way of changes to captioning rules, the digital radio channel plans, the regional commercial radio licensees or the time frame for ACMA to make grants to regional journalism, we will not be supporting the halving of Foxtel's Australian screen content obligation without any new requirements being put in its place.

I want to take you to these screen content rules in more detail, and just think about the time line that we've had since 2017. The minister—Minister Fifield at the time—very boldly announced a broad-ranging and comprehensive review of Australian and children's content. This was a review that would identify sustainable policies to ensure the ongoing availability of Australian and children's content to domestic and international audiences regardless of platform. That was a very noble ambition, and I wish that's what we were here talking about today. But, after all this time, there is nothing modernising the Australian content obligations for this contemporary media environment.

The proposal in the bill to halve Foxtel's Australian screen content obligation without putting anything in its place—nothing such as requirements for streaming services like Netflix to produce Australian content—really means that when you combine it with other things that have happened there are very few opportunities for Australian stories to be supported. If anything, this throws a blanket, a wet blanket, over the creativity of telling those stories. It comes on top of the recent decision to water down the Australian screen content rules for commercial free-to-air broadcasters. You know, in the middle of COVID, under the cover of COVID, the minister announced changes to the subquota of drama, documentary and children's content on commercial TV. It was interesting that those changes did not come to the parliament but they were made by ACMA at the direction of the minister. Those same subquotas were then suspended as the emergency COVID measure and reintroduced in a watered down form from 1 July. At that time we said that the changes would mean fewer Australian stories and fewer job opportunities for local creators. Let me tell you what one of my constituents said about that change, about the plans to scrap quotas for local drama and children's programming: 'As a writer who's worked in the local industry for the past 12 years, I know how integral the current quota system is to ensuring that Australian audiences can see new quality content that both entertains and informs. Most kids shows are put together with money from a range of sources, both here and overseas, but a local sale through one of the major broadcasters has for every production company I've ever worked for provided the basis upon which the remainder of the finance is then secured. Without that linchpin, the viability of locally produced kids' content is very much under threat. The viability of my career as a writer and the careers of thousands of other creatives currently producing, engaging and enriching screen content that sells all around the world is under threat.' That's what the government did at the start of this year. That's the sort of impact that comes from decisions made by this government.

The government continues to kick the can down the road on comprehensive changes, comprehensive reform. I don't think the government knows what reform is. There's just lots of tweaking around the edges, none of it being matched up with any commensurate changes. The current minister, Minister Fletcher, has failed creators and the small businesses who really make up the screen sector, and, let's be clear, this are small businesses. These are small, independent operators. The people who live and work in the Blue Mountains have an ecosystem of their own, and their work generates work for other businesses, but they are all small. For a party that is meant to be supporting small business, those opposite do a terrible job of supporting the creatives, and that's without even talking about how many people missed out on JobKeeper in the last 12 months. It does seem that there is a determination to destroy these businesses, because for some reason being creative does not in their eyes constitute a small business. I might add that the poor quality of the NBN in my region also adds to that effect. It makes it hard for people to get businesses and to get the bandwidth they need, especially the creatives, to be able to operate.

The current minister has even failed his own test on these measures. He previously announced that he would harmonise the regulatory framework and address the disparity in regulation between broadcasters and online streaming services. At a time when the French, German and the Canadian governments are all moving to require platforms like Netflix and Amazon to invest in local content, there is an absolute vacuum on that issue here. That just says it all. The content rules are being dismantled effectively by this government, leaving only the ABC as a body that will invest, yet its funding is under extraordinary pressure and is being reduced. The content obligations for commercial TV are watered down and there is a halving of Foxtel's expenditure and nothing for the streamers. That is why we will not be supporting that component of the bill. I support the amendment that has been moved by the member for Greenway.

In the couple of minutes I have left, I will touch briefly on the Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund, which has clearly been an absolute dud in supporting and helping to maintain local independent journalism. I draw attention to the decisions being made by ACM in my electorate, where the North Richmond printing facility has been closed. That doesn't directly affect journalists' jobs, but it affects the other jobs that go with that process. It means there have been job losses. What's more, a lot of people have been kept on casual arrangements, and they are not receiving redundancies that are commensurate with the years that they've worked, even though they've worked regular shifts and regular days for years and years. I've had women in their 50s who have had the same shifts for decades, yet they are being considered as casuals and are not receiving redundancies for that time. When I see that these sorts of publishers are being given incentives, the incentives have been the wrong ones. They haven't achieved the outcomes that we need, and that is independent journalism—I say this is a former journalist and a commercial broadcaster. We need those voices. We need a multitude of voices to hold governments to account. I don't care who is in government, that is going to be the job of journalists, but this government is getting rid of those voices, which is an appalling situation to be in for the sake of a democracy.

This bill, this overall package of legislation, has many disappointments. It is disappointing that the government is having to extend and change the Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund. They had to change it to the PING Fund and now want to bring about more changes to it. We will support those, but we will not support a watering down of Australian content on pay TV.

David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to talk on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021. I mentioned No. 1, so I can only assume there is a No. 2 in the pipework somewhere. This is a really important bill that comes at a very critical time, a pivotal time, for traditional broadcasters. Other speakers have mentioned it earlier, but it has affected TV, radio and subscription TV services. Content producers, Australian screen producers and children's television show producers are all affected by this phenomenon. Digital disruption has been an existential problem not just for the traditional news platforms but for all of free TV, due to the growth of streaming services, video on demand and the social media platforms that we are all familiar with, like Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and Google, which has got its own version of most things. They are all digital platforms that are disrupting traditional ways that Australians watch and listen to their media. Unfortunately, because most of this is commercially run, not government run, this phenomenon is not just diverting eyeballs and eardrums away from traditional media, including newspapers; it is taking away the advertising revenue. That's why these reviews and changes to the legislation have to be critically looked at.

Regional news services in TV—the lifeblood of regional life—have recently closed. People are familiar with the announcement of WIN to close many of its regional news outlets. The announcement also included it merging with Channel 9. Recently, Prime new services have been reduced across eastern and southern Australia. It's been sad in the Lyne electorate for viewers of those TV news services. It's sad that so many high-quality journalists, cameramen, advertising sales staff and back-office support won't have the job that they were so proud of. This is not due to government regulation; this is due to disruption. The digital sweep through traditional media services takes no prisoners. It is ruthless in changing the pattern of what consumers do.

The government is in a very difficult position. The current regulations have many anomalies, which I'd better quickly get to, because we're about to finish. We all want free TV to continue and we all like our traditional regional radio services, but there are some regulatory burdens that are not to do with the digital phenomenon; some of them are to do with population changes and population growth. There might be some concern about the TV captioning regulatory changes, but I will make sure that, for people with disabilities, there is always some captioning service that is still there. From what I can see from the legislation, that will be the case.

There are also changes that need to be addressed in the digital radio space because now there is only one spectrum band for digital radio, so removing redundant legislation that covered many different bands is necessary for digital radio. There are some radio licensees who, just by virtue of population growth, will now have overlapping services, and they haven't done anything apart from being in an area of population growth. But that will put them in breach of their ACMA regulations and their statutory control regulations. Instead of having to provide 30 minutes of local coverage, they will have to provide up to three hours worth. Clearly that is not possible, so common sense has to apply. Just by being there and doing what they've always done, they will attract fines of up to $444,000.

I would like to speak more, and I think I will be given the right to continue should I reach the limit of time allotted for this debate, but our screen industry is a treasure that must be cherished. How would we see ourselves if we hadn't had shows like Mad Max, Rabbit-Proof Fence, Kath and Kim, Muriel's Wedding, Bluey, Happy Feet, The Castle, Strictly Ballroom, Crocodile Dundee and, recently, The Dry? These movies and television programs define our culture. They're a tourism magnet. They show Australia to the world, and their makers need to be reassured that we're going to make the video-streaming-on-demand people meet the same content criteria that all the traditional media have to meet. There is a disconnect, because they have got a leave pass. Other countries are putting content and quota laws in place—in Europe, in Canada. I could go on for a lot longer, and I look forward to finishing this speech.