Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to make a contribution on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill, specifically around accessibility. This is an opportunity to fix the ongoing, disappointing approach that we take to the accessibility of our media for those who are deaf or hard of hearing and those who are blind or vision impaired. Unfortunately, most of our electronic media today is inaccessible. This hasn't been addressed, and it needs to be addressed urgently. We have an opportunity under this so-called reform to meet our commitments under the National Disability Strategy and our obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Tonight I want to address my comments around captioning and audio description—audio description for those who are blind or vision impaired; and captioning for those who are deaf or hard of hearing. The first area I want to look at is captioning. Of particular concern recently is the increasing number of exemptions to the obligation to provide accessible content—in this context, captioning—for broadcast programs, as outlined in the Broadcasting Services Act. I'm sure the deaf community has raised this issue with others in this place, not just me; they are urging us to stem these exemptions.

The act currently outlines provider responsibility for providing captions on free-to-air and subscription programs and the expected standard of quality in the provision of captioning on broadcast programs. I've been advised that between 1 July 2012 and 30 June 2016 broadcasters made 279 requests for exemptions or target reduction orders on captioned programs on the grounds that providing these services is unreasonable and unjustifiable. Do you know how many of those applications were denied? Just 38. So, even with the limited services that are available, broadcasters are getting around those provisions. These requests have resulted in 85 per cent of exemptions and target reduction orders being implemented, irrespective of the community's response in objecting to broadcaster requests. This number is growing and is inching closer to 90 per cent in the current time frame—from 1 July 2016 to the present day.

Access to information is essential for every Australian, not just those who don't have a hearing or vision impairment. Captions also have a much wider appeal than people would expect. For example, it's reported that non-English-speaking citizens; people with dyslexia; people in noisy environments such as shopping centres, airport lounges, pubs and hotels; children with disability; and ageing citizens also get a lot of value out of captioning. And I must say I'm one of those people who do use captioning when it's available.

The exemptions and target reduction orders are therefore counterproductive to an inclusive Australia. As we all know, the licence fees have been changed. It's a $70 million saving for broadcasters, so that savings can be geared to other areas. Deaf Australia and other community organisations working on issues around deafness and hearing impairment have been campaigning very strongly to get some of those savings being made by the broadcasters directed at making our services more accessible.

I would like to point out that Australia has an obligation under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. We are a party to that convention. We also have a number of obligations under the National Disability Strategy to improve accessibility. Deaf Australia, for one, is seeking to ensure that the Broadcasting Services Act is amended to repeal the mechanism that allows broadcasters to seek exemptions or target reduction orders on captioning. It wants to ensure that consumers who need this essential service will not be neglected, and will be equal citizens in an inclusive Australia. It also wants to see—and it advocates strongly for—the use of Auslan in some TV programs. It's absolutely essential that we make sure that our programs are accessible to those with a hearing impairment or who are deaf.

Then—and I have spoken about this issue in this chamber previously—there is the need for audio description. There is no requirement for audio description to be included on free-to-air television, let alone subscription TV. Currently, none of the free-to-air networks provide this service. For those who do not know what audio description is—although hopefully you do, since I've talked about it in this place on numerous occasions—it is delivered as a narration on a separate track to describe visual elements of a television program during natural pauses in dialogue. It is entirely different to listen to a TV program that is being described, rather than just trying to rely on the dialogue in a program. As we know, a lot is communicated visually in television programs. That is entirely missed if audio description is not available. This means that people who are blind or vision-impaired do not get access to television. In a lot of cases, when they're not getting audio description, they simply don't get what's going on.

I would like to foreshadow a second reading amendment that reads:

At the end of the motion, add, "but the Senate is of the opinion that all free-to-air television broadcasters should use the financial relief afforded by the reduction in licensing fees to offer audio description services for people who are blind or vision-impaired, and ensure provisioning of captioning services on all broadcast programs thus aligning with the National Disability Strategy 2010-2020, which calls for all broadcast programs to be fully captioned."