Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Through the chair, Senator O'Sullivan will get the opportunity. He is not on the speaking list; he is happy to sit on the back row sniping, as he does so well. Through you, Mr Chair, I am happy to hear Senator O'Sullivan's actual views.

The extraordinary thing is that nobody, apart from these ideologues, actually wants this to happen. There are no interest groups demanding that SBS carry more advertising. Nobody is marching in the streets demanding that the public broadcasters be privatised. Nobody wants what is occurring here—the creeping commercialisation of a really treasured public institution. In fact, it is quite the opposite. We have a petition with 62,000 signatures on it opposing more advertising on SBS. I dare you to find five people who think it is a good idea to increase prime time advertising on SBS.

We have all of Australia's major free-to-air broadcasters—Seven, Nine and Ten—all opposing the changes. They might seem like slightly unlikely allies, but I think that they have a really valid point. The commercial broadcasters are struggling, as it is, with declining ad revenues and declining forecasts for the kind of ad revenues that they rely on solely—ad revenues, in-program advertising, sponsorship agreements and various other commercial arrangements. The last thing that they want is a fourth commercial competitor, juiced up with taxpayers' dollars and bidding into a pool that is the same size of advertising content on prime time. So I think that they do have a point.

We have poll after poll showing that Australians regard SBS and the ABC as two of the nation's most trusted institutions. Australians trust the ABC and SBS a damn sight more than they trust your government. That is just a fact. That is not a Greens opinion. That is just weight of numbers. Sorry, colleagues, but it is true. The truth is the government is only pursuing this course to satisfy the demands of a rather extreme ideology. Let us get that to the end, but the tactics are that of blackmail. It is nothing more complicated than that. It is as cheap as hell blackmail: 'Pass our broadcasting bill or SBS gets it. We're just going to cut the budget unless you allow us to increase the amount of advertising that they run in prime time.' I respond really poorly to blackmail. There is only one way to deal with people of that character: refuse to play the game. We will be opposing the bill.

It is bad legislation and it will deliver poor outcomes for SBS. The audience hates it. There will be negative outcomes for the rest of the television industry, because you are bidding in an advertising pool that is not growing; in fact, there are arguments that it is shrinking. As senators we should be listening to the basic common sense and commercial reality that the broadcast environment has got to and send the bill back to the drawing board.

There has been a lot of debate about how much money the legislation will allow SBS to raise, and the estimates diverge wildly. The bill's regulatory impact statement estimated $8 million to $9 million per year. This is not a total of more advertising money for SBS. Let us be really clear about that. It allows SBS to run double the amount of advertising on prime time plus four minutes of its own sponsorship materials and its own promo material. It is 14 minutes an hour, in prime time, of non-content.

The Lewis review into the ABC and SBS—when they were investigating 'efficiencies', as you chose to call it—put estimates a lot higher. They said: $20 million on the table. The industry group Free TV estimated a lot higher: around $148 million per year. We do not know where SBS's figures come from, because they have been deemed commercial-in-confidence. That is not that helpful when you are trying to form a view. All of these outcomes are negative, both for the viewers of SBS, the station itself, and the broadcasting industry, more generally.

If the government's estimates are correct, the bill substantially increases advertising on SBS and degrades people's viewing experience for a mere $8 million a year, which the government could afford to pay. If we held the Prime Minister to his word—and we have all learnt, through bitter experience, that we cannot do that—this would not be happening, certainly not for $8 million a year. If the higher estimates are correct, we should pay more attention to the views of the free-to-air industry and the commercial broadcasters. That is ripping ad revenues out of the pool of commercial broadcasters who have local-content obligations that SBS does not have. We should take their arguments more seriously. There is simply no room in a market the size of Australia for a fourth commercial network.

The iceberg hidden under the water, as a number of commentators have pointed out, is formally allowing SBS to pursue more product placement in its programs. It is likely to influence its programming choices towards content that is more likely to make it more money, putting in place a direct conflict with the charter. Chasing the Masterchef stuff or The Block is just long-form advertising and may be very entertaining. It does nothing for me but it is out there and people love it. It is really easy for SBS to say that it will not happen. They have been protesting. We have had a number of Senate committee inquiries where SBS has had a gun to its head, in the background, so I am not really blaming SBS management. They have been put in this position by the executive, by this government, who said, 'We won't cut your budget,' and then 'Now we're cutting your budget.' They have sent SBS forward to argue. We have not been able to get to the bottom of whose idea this was. That was one of the disappointments of the committee process—that it has not been possible to pinpoint whose brilliant idea this was.

Anyone who has spent any time in a large media organisation will know that the sales and editorial departments continually clash over issues of independence and that sales has a history of winning—not within SBS, necessarily, because their charter obligations are so strong and the audiences demand it. That is what this government is sabotaging with a bill of this kind. The other iceberg we should be mindful of is the likelihood of further cuts. As SBS's advertising restrictions are lightened and it makes more money, there will be nothing to stop a future government from using that situation as an argument to lighten its restrictions further. This is scope creep. This is a step along the way. We know this is not the last time this issue will be visited. The communications minister of the day will be back in this place arguing for further measures to push SBS towards full commercialisation. That long-run trend has been evident for many years. It is a slippery slope.

The first step down that slope was taken 25 years ago when SBS opened up to advertising, to seek sponsorship to help it broadcast the World Cup, and it has been sliding faster ever since. I guess both sides are somewhat guilty of this, but this government has elevated it to something of an art form. You are responsible, when you come into government, for the maintenance and protection of these public institutions. The most fundamental principles that we should hold, when debating measures like this, are to not try to fix something that is not broken. SBS is not broken. It is a treasured institution. It does a wonderful job of broadcasting content that reflects Australia's multicultural society. So stop messing with the formula.

Here is some advice to Liberal and National MPs on that side of the chamber, with their instinctive loathing of all things public. Whether it is public housing, public health, public education, public transport for public broadcasting, the coalition are desperate to hollow out these treasured public institutions and convert them to for-profit commercial operators. Why don't you quit your well-paid public-sector jobs and go work for the private sector? Knock yourselves out. Quit your public-sector jobs and go work in the private sector. Maybe you are just not cut out for government. Maybe it is just not for you. We will be standing up for SBS and its charter obligations and will not submit to this shallow blackmail. We oppose the bill.