Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I present the final report of the Joint Select Committee on Broadcasting Legislation.

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

The parliament established the committee at the same time as the government released its broadcasting legislation reforms in March this year. The government's package of bills was its response to two thorough, high-profile reviews: the first being the convergence review into the policy and regulatory framework around converging media and communications; and the second being the Finkelstein review into codes of practice, convergence and the production of quality news. The committee's terms of reference centred on three potential policy changes that the government considered could also be implemented: abolishing the 75 per cent audience-reach rule for television; providing that a program supply agreement alone could indicate control of a broadcaster; and giving the Australian Communications and Media Authority the power to require on-air reporting of its findings.

The committee held a public hearing into the first term of reference on Monday, 18 March 2013 in Canberra. It received submissions on all three terms of reference from 13 organisations. The committee supports the first policy proposal because the reach rule is becoming redundant with the advent of the internet and converging media. However, there was concern at the hearing about whether local regional news would continue if the reach rule were abolished. In recognition of this concern, the committee's support for the proposal is based on two conditions: one, that there should be legislation on legally enforceable undertakings to support local content in regional Australia; and, two, there should also be a clear definition of local content to ensure that regional viewers have access to appropriate levels of high-quality, locally devised and locally presented programs.

I note that, in relation to legally enforceable undertakings, Nine Entertainment Co. Holdings Pty Ltd tabled a draft undertaking to the Australian Communications and Media Authority, pursuant to section 205W of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, in the form of a legal undertaking. This undertaking committed Channel 9 in the event of a merger to producing no less than 22 minutes of news that relates directly to the licence area and no less than 16.5 minutes of news that relates directly to the local area. Channel 9 Chief Executive Officer David Gyngell further committed during the hearings to amendments to the undertaking to make them 'sturdier' if required.

It is interesting to note the diverging views put to the hearing in relation to the benefit of broadcasting local news in regional areas. Prime Media Group indicated that they have a large investment in local news and that it generates substantial commercial returns, both directly and indirectly. They went on to say that they do about 140 local news and weather updates every day and that they did not believe that local news would disappear with a change to the 75 per cent rule. They said

The reality is that local news services deliver audiences well in excess of 40 per cent and 50 per cent of the total audience, and any broadcaster that took the blade to local news services would suffer from an audience point of view. Whether the revenue comes directly into local news programs or other parts of the schedule is really irrelevant because it is a bit like the AFL: you get a halo effect in revenue and audience from having local news.

So Prime are unequivocal in relation to the benefits of having local news in regional areas. WIN stated the opposite. They said:

WIN spends probably three to four times the amount of revenue it actually generates to produce those news services. There is no commercial gain for WIN in producing so many news services.

In my view, the arguments from Channel 9 and Prime are more persuasive than the arguments from WIN.

The committee does not support the second policy change. There was no support for it during the inquiry. However, it may be appropriate to revisit this issue at a later date, especially given that the government and the parliament regularly review and change broadcasting policy.

The committee supports giving the Australian Communications and Media Authority the power to require on-air corrections, clarifications and directions based on its findings. The authority demonstrated to the committee that there is a gap in the sanctions it can impose on broadcasters. Industry expressed a range of concerns during the inquiry about on-air reporting of regulatory findings; however, these issues can be addressed, and doing so will ensure that the measures will be fair on broadcasters. A key example of the need for this provision is a recent breach of the commercial TV code of practice by WIN TV when it failed to broadcast factual material accurately. WIN TV compounded the breach by refusing to comply with an ACMA recommendation that they make an on-air statement concerning ACMA's findings. WIN broadcast a statement by a representative of the curiously and some would say deviously named Australian Vaccination Network. WIN claimed this broadcast was in the interest of balance. What was broadcast from the Australian Vaccination Network was:

All vaccinations, in the medical literature, have been linked with the possibility of causing autism, not just the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine.

If ACMA cannot enforce the broadcasting of a correction to such a blatantly wrong and dangerous statement the committee believes it should be given legislative power on this issue.

I thank the organisations that assisted the committee during the inquiry through their submissions and their participation at the hearing. I also thank my colleagues on the committee and former chair Senator Matt Thistlethwaite for their contribution to the inquiry and report. As always, I am grateful for the excellent and professional work carried out by the secretariat.