Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

When crossbenchers move amendments, there is often not enough questioning about them, so I genuinely am grateful to Senator Macdonald. In terms of the history of this, section 43A of the Broadcasting Services Act places an obligation on holders of regional aggregated commercial television broadcasting licences to produce a minimum level of material of local significance to each area. That has been the history of the legislation for some 23 years. The policy rationale for that, as I understand it, was that, by virtue of getting a commercial television licence—the gift of a licence, if you like—there ought to be certain community service obligations, in a sense. That was the case in New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria—not Tasmania, but Tasmania was subsequently included, as I understand. South Australia—and, I think, WA and the Northern Territory—were subject to a review. That review of ACMA, or consideration of the markets in South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory, was intended to take place following this, because the areas listed under subsection 43A(2) excluded Tasmania, which was added in 2008. They were originally set out in the act in the late 1980s. I apologise for that. It was in the late 1980s, so this has been going for quite a few years. The review never actually occurred. That is referred to in the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal's Broadcasting in Australia 1989 report, Sydney July 1990, at page 3. I do not have that in front of me, but that is the reference for it. So it did not occur.

The trigger for these amendments and for the previous bill I introduced was back in February 2013 when WIN TV decided to remove their local news bulletins in the south-east of South Australia, centred around Mount Gambier, and in the Riverland of South Australia, centred around their Loxton studio. At that stage, there had already been an aggregation of news services, so about half was from the south-east and half was from the Riverland, because of cost-cutting. I have had discussions about Bruce Gordon, the legendary Australian, the owner of WIN. I am not referring to Bruce Gordon in respect of this, but my understanding from speaking to those in television is that, because there was a requirement to have local content on the eastern seaboard but not one to have it in South Australia, it was much easier for there to be a rationalisation to get rid of the bulletins in South Australia's Riverland and in the south-east. I hope that explains to Senator Macdonald the history of that.

The issue of what consumers want is this. Advertisers are concerned about how many viewers are listed as watching a particular program. We have requirements in terms of local content more broadly. Advertisers are interested in how many viewers there are—the bang for their buck, in terms of advertising. I understand that. I am not being critical of them. Market failure is perhaps not the right way to put it, but it is a case where there was a community demand for those programs in terms of local sports coverage and local government coverage. Local politicians, state and federal, got good coverage about local issues. Particularly during the drought in South Australia, the Riverland WIN TV had a key role. WIN TV's local bulletin in the south-east of South Australia covered forestry issues exceptionally well, whereas the metropolitan media did not.

What I was trying to do through these amendments was to remedy what I saw as an anomaly under section 43A of the act: that other states were included, but South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory missed out—although there are regional differences between WA and the Northern Territory. That is the basis of the amendments: that there is a case of, if not market failure, market distortion by not including South Australia in 43A, the amendment that gave protection to local coverage. Senator Macdonald, it is always a pleasure to get a question from you. I hope I have answered it in part at least.