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

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on the sheet revised 13 May 2024, as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 17 (line 14), omit "18 months", substitute "12 months".

(2) Schedule 1, item 24, page 24 (line 7), omit "18 months", substitute "12 months".

The amendments I'm moving today would shorten the timeframe for the prominence provisions to come into effect to 12 months after the bill passes. As the bill currently stands, manufacturers would have an 18-month transition period, after which they would be required to ensure that their prominence obligations have been met. Having reviewed the views of many stakeholders, the submissions made to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee and the recommendations of that committee, I believe it is both appropriate and feasible to fast-track the prominence provisions. Specifically, the Senate committee, after thoroughly examining this legislation, recommended:

… that the Minister for Communications and the Australian Communications and Media Authority consider options for a phased approach to the proposed prominence framework and or a reduction to a 12-month timeframe.

Manufacturers have been aware of the proposed prominence obligations for some time now, giving them time to consider necessary preparations. Additionally, many of the changes necessary to meet the prominence provisions are controlled by software rather than hardware. So, while many of the manufacturers will be meeting the needs of the global marketplace, the truth is that the software is tailored to where the device is landing. As we all know, software updates happen at a sometimes frightening and frequent pace.

During the Senate inquiry into this bill, experts made it clear that many of the changes required could be made, effectively, overnight through a server update. In fact, some experts have suggested that the prominence requirements for manufacturers could be implemented within six months—six months sooner than the amendment that I am moving actually proposes. But, given the Senate committee's recommendation and given everything that I have heard, my amendments propose that the timeframe be shortened from 18 months to 12 months, because the truth is this: for every month that we delay, we risk Australians paying for content that is actually otherwise available to them free of charge because we simply don't have the prominence framework right in this nation.

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

I thank the member for North Sydney for her amendments and for her interest and engagement in these matters. I note that the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee recommended that the government consider options for a phased approach to the proposed prominence framework and/or a reduction to a 12-month timeframe. I have given this recommendation close consideration. I remain of the view that the 18-month period in the bill strikes a balance between a range of factors. Firstly, the prominence framework is novel, and an 18-month implementation timeframe is a prudent approach to the commencement of any new regulations. Secondly, the bill interacts with global manufacturing and distribution supply chains, with long lead times involved in the design, development, manufacture and distribution of devices. Manufacturers need a reasonable timeframe to adjust to the new framework. Thirdly, there needs to be a realistic period of time for the regulator, the ACMA, to establish the operative and detailed elements of the framework. This market is evolving rapidly, and connected TV devices are not homogenous. For these reasons, the government will oppose this amendment.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the House is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for North Sydney be agreed to.

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