Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

No, you weren't born yet, absolutely! I'd gone through a particularly torrid matter of the heart and was looking for some emotional succour and I spent the day listening to Triple J's Hottest 100. It was 1991. Let me tell you what was on Triple J's Hottest 100 in 1991. No. 1 was 'Smells Like Teen Spirit', by Nirvana. No. 2 was 'Love Will Tear Us Apart', by Joy Division. That wasn't a particularly great song for me to be listening to in that 'State of Mind'. 'Lithium' by Nirvana—it all had a pretty bleak quality, I must say. There was 'Throw Your Arms Around Me' by Hunters and Collectors, 'Tomorrow Wendy', 'How Soon is Now' by the Smiths, 'Blister in the Sun' by Violent Femmes—I've heard that song at many Young Liberals conventions after dark. So there are those of us on this side of the chamber who have engaged with Triple J in the past. I was a fan of Triple J. I'm more likely now to listen to jazz on the ABC after dark, I must say, but I do listen to our public broadcaster.

One point that has been missed in this debate by those on the other side who have spoken on this topic is with respect to how advertisements have assisted one of our great public broadcasters, the SBS, in delivering quality material to the Australian people. SBS's annual Corporate plan 2020-21 says on page 13:

SBS's unique hybrid funding model means that commercial returns may be channelled back into curating Charter-focused content, while continued government funding supports allows for stability and long-term creative ambitions to be realised.

So we have an example of a publicly owned broadcaster that has a hybrid model. There is a degree of advertising on SBS and its charter has not been undermined. Those on the opposite side of the chamber should reflect on the fact that SBS has managed to run ads whilst being true to its charter. It has not undermined its independence. It has not undermined the important public function that it undertakes.

SBS's 2019-20 annual report, at item 1.2A in the financial statement, says that in service delivery, including advertising revenue, SBS generated $114 million in revenue. Isn't that a good thing—that, whilst having the safeguards in place to protect its editorial independence, especially around news and current affairs, it's managed to generate a stream of revenue that has allowed it to produce more content? Isn't that a positive thing? Why do we have to be so negative about commercial realities? Appropriate advertising can generate revenue, which can assist in paying for quality content for the benefit of the Australian people.

SBS has appropriate safeguards in place with respect to advertising. I quote from section 5 of the 2014 code of practice. It says:

SBS may broadcast advertisements and sponsorship announcements that run in total for not more than five minutes in any hour of broadcasting. Revenue from advertisements and sponsorship announcements assists in the funding of programming which fulfils SBS's Charter obligations.

Those opposite haven't mentioned this at all—this hybrid model and its success. SBS hasn't been mentioned by those opposite in the course of this debate because it undermines their argument. This hybrid model works. I quote again from section 5 of the code of practice:

All decisions regarding commercial revenue are subject to the overriding principle that the integrity of the SBS Charter and SBS's editorial independence are paramount. SBS reserves the exclusive right to determine what is broadcast on SBS services.

That's entirely appropriate. The safeguard is there that permits advertising on a public broadcaster, which enables SBS to produce more content, Australian content, for the benefit of the Australian community. What's the problem? It actually works.

Again, we look at the facts. I don't need an ABC fact-checker on this. The ABC, or whoever's listening, you can do your fact-checking on me. On page 75 of the annual report 2020, there is a section dealing with the SBS Ombudsman. This details the complaints, because SBS has a complaint process if you have some concern about ads undermining the editorial independence of SBS.

Let's look at the figures. During 2019-20 there were 34 complaints with respect to accuracy on SBS—not many. And there were 29 complaints with respect to how different programs were classified—again not terribly many, but a few complaints. How many complaints were there about advertising on SBS? There were eight complaints about advertising on SBS, fewer than one a month. So where's the issue? Isn't it a good thing to allow our public broadcasters to generate a stream of revenue which will enable them to produce more Australian based content and actually discharge their service?

The reality of the matter is: there are so many calls made upon us in this place for funding, from so many desirable endeavours, and so many things that we need to address in this place. The track record of advertising on SBS demonstrates that it can work in the context of a public broadcaster. We've seen it work. Eight complaints in 2019-20—that's all there have been. I've been trying to find out how they were resolved to see how many of them went through to ACMA or the different complaints authorities and were assessed and judged. But that's all there were—only eight complaints in the whole year. How many people watch SBS? There were only eight complaints. They could have been eight complaints from one person for all I know. I don't know how many people actually complained. But there's the proof that a hybrid model actually works, and it enables SBS to produce more content for the benefit of the Australian people. Isn't that a good thing? Wouldn't we like to see more women's sport on our public broadcaster? If, in order to get that women's sport on our public broadcaster, there needs to be some advertising or sponsorship, what's wrong with that? SBS has demonstrated that it can work.

We need to be open-minded with respect to funding opportunities for our public broadcasters. They provide an absolutely invaluable service to the Australian community. I can't believe those opposite are not aware of the fact that SBS runs ads. I'm a frequent watcher of SBS—SBS World Movies, a lot of the cultural programming on SBS and current affairs in particular. I assume those opposite are watching SBS, but not one of them in this debate has mentioned advertising on SBS. I can only assume it's because there's some sort of ideological objection to having ads on a public broadcaster, even though it works. So don't come into this place—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President—throwing bricks at those of us on this side of the chamber and accusing us of being ideologues, when you're not prepared to enter into a reasonable discussion about a hybrid funding model which, over the course of quite a few years, has proven to be successful, as demonstrated by the fact that there were only eight complaints during 2019-20 in relation to advertising on SBS.