Amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to: require national broadcasters, commercial television broadcasting licensees and subscription television licensees to provide a minimum number of hours of television audio description per week; and provide for the Australian Communications and Media Authority to enforce and review the new requirement.
The bill amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 by introducing a requirement for national broadcasters, commercial television broadcasting licensees, and subscription television licensees to provide a minimum number of hours of audio description per week. This is to be enforced by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) through a new Part 9D - Division 3A.
From the explanatory memo:
The Bill will draw on the existing legislative and regulatory framework as it applies to captioning and provide differently for audio description where appropriate. It introduces a phased approach to implementation, beginning with 14 hours per week in the first three years, increasing to 21 hours in the fourth year, and 28 hours in the fifth year. Exemptions can be granted by ACMA in cases of unjustifiable hardship.
The bill also outlines the conditions under which exemptions can be granted and establishes compliance reporting and record-keeping requirements. It mandates ACMA to conduct reviews of the implementation and effectiveness of the audio description requirements.
The bill should be supported because it promotes greater equality by ensuring that individuals who are blind or have low vision can access television content, thereby reducing discrimination against them in terms of media consumption [Judgment]. By providing audio descriptions, the bill aligns with Australia's commitments under international human rights treaties, like the CRPD, enhancing social inclusion and cultural participation for people with disabilities [Judgment]. Moreover, the bill strengthens democratic engagement by enabling a broader section of the population to participate in cultural and informational media, promoting a more informed society.
The bill should be opposed because it imposes additional operational costs on broadcasters, which could lead to economic inefficiencies. The requirement for a minimum number of audio description hours may not be financially feasible for smaller broadcasters, potentially leading to increased prices for consumers or reduced service offerings [Judgment]. Additionally, while the intent is to promote equality, it might inadvertently create a one-size-fits-all mandate that does not account for the varying needs and capabilities of different broadcasters, which could stifle innovation and flexibility in how they provide accessible services.
2019-02-12
Senate
Before Senate
STEELE-JOHN, Sen Jordon
Unspecified
Discrimination / Human Rights, Media / Advertising, Civics