Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I will just reword it. Senator Ludlam knows that what he says is not factual. It is just something he made up to try to get the attention of the Twittersphere. Many will sit by and allow that misinformation and that abomination of facts to go unchallenged. I have to say that I am one of those senators who will not. That is why I draw attention to it.

Senator Ludlam was saying that SBS will now have constant advertisements. If he read the bill, or listened to the minister's speech, he would understand that SBS has a strict limit of five minutes per advertising hour, which equates to a maximum of 120 minutes of advertising shown per day. However, SBS earns the majority of its advertising revenue during peak viewing times, between 6 pm and 10 pm, when it broadcasts special events such as the FIFA World Cup. The bill will amend the Special Broadcasting Service Act to allow for a more flexible approach, allowing the SBS to show up to 10 minutes of advertising per hour, but with a daily overall limit of 120 minutes. This will allow SBS to schedule up to 10 minutes of advertising during higher-rating programs, to increase its overall advertising revenue, while scheduling less advertising during other hours so that the 120-minute daily cap is not exceeded.

I do not know what Senator Ludlam could not understand about that. He was alleging that there will be wall-to-wall advertising on the SBS should this bill pass. Clearly, if he had bothered to read the bill, rather than try to get a run in the Twittersphere, he would have understood these issues without deliberately inventing arguments that he knows are simply not factual. The bill will enable SBS to earn $28.5 million of its funding via advertising flexibility. The proposed amendment will enable SBS to average its current advertising allocation of five minutes per hour across the schedule.

This is somewhat interesting: I understand that TheAustralian Financial Review reported at the end of 2014 that Mr Gyngell is the highest paid CEO in Australia, making around $19.6 million a year. It would be curious if the large free-to-air networks were to claim that this legislative amendment could lead to job losses, including in regional areas, when the CEO of a commercial network is being paid close to the total amount SBS is seeking to generate. Some of the arguments that have been put forward about the bill simply do not warrant further consideration.

I point out that this bill was investigated by the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, which took evidence from a range of people. After consideration, the bill was recommended by the committee, and it is my submission to this chamber that the bill should be passed.

SBS's primary concern about this legislative change, according to its evidence, is the impact on its audience. SBS understands that any change to its advertising arrangements will impact audiences. But SBS conducted research which showed that the overwhelming proportion of respondents, some 73 per cent, would prefer that SBS offer the same amount of its unique programming and services funded by slightly more advertising rather than risk losing those programs and services altogether.

I reiterate that ABC and SBS have to tighten their belts the same as everyone else does to help pay off Labor's debt of $700 billion, which is costing the average Australian hundreds of dollars a second in the interest that we pay to lenders. SBS, the same as everyone else, has to tighten its belt. That means that, for SBS to continue with the same programming, it needed to get revenue from somewhere else—and it can get that revenue through increased flexibility in the way it advertises. It seems to me that it is a win-win situation for all concerned. The bill provides the flexibility that SBS needs, and that will enable SBS to continue to promote the things that make SBS unique.

I recognise and give credit to the Liberal government and Liberal prime minister who actually set up SBS, who recognised the need for a multicultural broadcasting entity. As with so many innovations in Australia's way of life and governance, this was an initiative of a Liberal government and a Liberal prime minister—something, of course, that the Greens would never recognise. With those comments, I urge the Senate to pass this bill in its entirety.