When the previous Managing Director of SBS retired mid last year, other staff soon left. Some were shown the door by the new boss and others walked of their own accord. The head of TV was one of them.

Then in October last year, SBS’s Managing Director, Michael Ebeid told Senate Estimates that plans to appoint a new head of television had been dashed.

So when the TV schedule was made up for this year, it was done so on a sort of auto pilot; there being no one solely in charge of television. Surprisingly SBS has come up with a schedule that in part, shows lots of promise – if you separate out the ‘more of the same’ stuff.

A program not to be missed is Once upon a time in Cabramatta. It airs on 8 January. It’s the untold story of how the Vietnamese community overcame the odds and found their place in multicultural Australia.

From Prime Minister Fraser’s landmark decision to open Australia’s doors to thousands of refugees at the end of the Vietnam War, this three part series follows the Vietnamese people of Cabramatta as they struggle to find their place in a foreign land.

The 80s and 90s see the arrival of street gangs, a heroin epidemic and the first political assassination in Australia’s history. The Vietnamese people are vilified and demonised and it seems Cabramatta represents all that is wrong with Asian immigration. But as the century draws to a close there is a remarkable turnaround and the Vietnamese people finally find their voice – speaking up to claim their rightful place in their adopted home. Cabramatta becomes a community transformed. Australia, a continent changed forever.

Some of the other programs that SBS has in store for this year are below.

Freddy Flintoff Versus The World – 2 January.

Cricketing legend and ultimate bloke, Freddie Flintoff, tries his hand at some of the most extreme sports and challenges on offer around the world. But, ever the competitive sportsman, he won’t be trying anything out without turning it into a competition so he’s also enlisted other athletes who retired at the top of their game to see if they can beat him. Against opponents that include Dennis Rodman, Iwan Thomas and Dennis Wise, Freddie challenges himself at extreme events including the skeleton bob, wing walking and rodeo bull riding.

Who Do You Think You Are? resumes early in the new year.

The celebrated genealogy series Who Do You Think You Are? returns to SBS for its fourth Australian season. Actor John Wood, funnyman Shaun Micallef, AFL legend Michael O’Loughlin, actress Melissa George, journalist Kerry O’Brien and actor Vince Colosimo take a journey into their family history in this fascinating chronicle of the social, ethnic and cultural evolution of Australia’s national identity. Travelling across the country and around the globe, their personal journeys are revealing, sometimes shocking and always emotional.

24 Hours in Emergency – 5 January.

With 70 cameras filming round the clock for 28 days, 24 Hours in A&E offers unprecedented access to one of Britain’s busiest A&E departments, at King’s College Hospital. Each episode focuses on patients who were treated within the same 24-hour period. The series captures the joy and heartache faced by patients and their families, as well as the hard work and professionalism of the A&E staff. From life-threatening traumas to embarrassing mishaps, 24 Hours in A&E is an intimate, powerful and sometimes comic insight into life – and death – on the frontline of a busy hospital.

Vet Adventures will screen in January.

Vet Adventures follows Dorset vet Luke Gamble as he travels the world treating animals in need. Visiting countries as diverse as India, Grenada, Malawi and Mexico, this unique series sees Luke challenge his skills to treat any species of animal that needs help – both domestic and wild – in places where they have no one else to turn to.

One Born Every Minute USA early this year.

American version of One Born Every Minute, the show that looks at the drama and emotion of a maternity unit from the perspective of the parents-to-be and the maternity ward staff.

Early in February Red Cliff (parts 1 & 2). This film is not to be missed.

In Asia the film was originally released in two parts, totalling over four hours in length. The first part was released in July 2008 and the second in January 2009. But outside Asia only a single 2½ hour film was released. SBS will screen the full version in two parts.

Set in 208 A.D., in the final days of the Han Dynasty, shrewd Prime Minster Cao Cao convinced the fickle Emperor Han the only way to unite all of China was to declare war on the kingdoms of Xu in the west and East Wu in the south. Thus began a military campaign of unprecedented scale, led by the Prime Minister, himself. Left with no other hope for survival, the kingdoms of Xu and East Wu formed an unlikely alliance. Numerous battles of strength and wit ensued, both on land and on water, eventually culminating in the battle of Red Cliff. During the battle, two thousand ships were burned, and the course of Chinese history was changed forever. Directed by John Woo, it stars Tony Leung, Takeshi Kaneshiro and Zhang Fengyi.

Bollywood Star is promised this year too.

Inspired by the huge success and influence of Bollywood movies, SBS brings a taste of Bollywood to Australia. Renowned Bollywood producer/director Mahesh Bhatt is offering a place in his next movie to one Australian to become the next Bollywood Star. This four-part series follows the search for an Australian Bollywood star: an unknown who will go on to win the prize of a lifetime – a part in a Bollywood movie.

Each applicant will have their own unique set of circumstances and background but all are striving for the same goal – to become a star in the biggest movie industry in the world. The first two episodes will feature a national talent search, whittling down hundreds of applicants to a shortlist of 20. In the final two episodes the participants are reduced to six finalists, who travel to Mumbai for two weeks intensive Bollywood training in singing, dancing and acting with the top Indian industry professionals. The final winner will be selected by Mahesh himself and take away the prize of an exciting role in his next feature film.

As well as experiencing the glitz and glamour of the Indian film industry the six finalists will see and live Mumbai life first hand. For some the trip will be more than a competition – it will be a journey of self-discovery and cultural identity.

Danger 5 scheduled for February.

Set in a bizarre, 1960’s inspired fantasy World War II complete with tropical bars, dancing women, cocktails, cigarettes and talking animals, action comedy series Danger 5 follows a team of five international, super skilled, super good-looking spies on a mission to kill Hitler. Danger 5 is the finest group of special operatives the allies have to offer; Jackson from the USA, Tucker from Australia, Ilsa from Russia, Claire from Britain and Pierre from Europe.

Mad Men (series 3) – 18 February.

Set in 1960’s New York, Mad Men follows the lives of the ruthlessly competitive men and women of fictional Madison Avenue advertising agency Sterling Cooper; an ego-driven world where key players make an art of the sell while their private world gets sold. In season three, against the backdrop of rapid social and political changes playing out across America in 1963, the conflicted world of Creative Director Don Draper (Jon Hamm) slowly begins to implode as new economic realities threaten the future of Sterling Cooper, and his dark past and constant philandering begin to bear on his faltering marriage to Betty (January Jones).

Luke Nguyen’s Greater Mekong – 23 February.

Celebrated chef, Luke Nguyen, in the third instalment of his popular series, takes viewers on a culinary journey across the Greater Mekong region of Southeast Asia. Beginning in Yunnan Province, China, Luke takes to the backstreets and traverses mountainsides to prepare the dishes that have sustained customs and communities for centuries. Luke explores how food is integrated into Myanmar’s many ethnic cultures. In Yangon, he cooks with three generations of Burmese women, while in the Shan State he tends to the floating gardens of Inle Lake with Intha farmers. In northern Thailand, Luke learns a thing or two from local Mekong River fishermen. They reveal the Mekong is more than a source of food to the people that live along its shores, it is a way of life.

Then in in March it’s the Toughest Place to Be (series 2).

This three part series follows three experienced and qualified professionals who find out what it would be like to do their job under some of the toughest conditions on the planet.

2012 Paris-Roubaix can be seen on 29 March.

The most prestigious single-day professional road cycling race, the Paris-Roubaix is known for its rough terrain and cobblestones, which make for a gruelling event. Beginning in Compiègne in northern France, the 260km race has been dubbed the Hell of the North and follows a winding route to Roubaix. SBS will show the 2012 Paris-Roubaix live.

A program that worth considering later this year is Go Back To Where You Came From – series two. Worth considering because – series one – screened last year, was a brilliant piece of television. The test will be: can SBS come up with the goods again? We hope so. The sad truth is though, that invariably the 2nd or 3rd of any production is often not as good as the first.

If you missed it, Go Back To Where You Came From – series one, was about racial tensions in Australia. It followed six Australians who travelled on a rickety boat taking the same journey as those seeking asylum here, but in reverse order. They agreed to challenge their preconceived notions about refugees and asylum seekers embarking on a confronting journey. Over the course of the three episodes, prejudices were challenged and insights gained. It was as much an eye opener for the six participants as it was for the audience, as we – the audience – were witness to situations that stirred the deepest of emotions in the most horrific and seemingly hopeless circumstances. It was a rare piece of television. If SBS can do half as good this year, it’ll still be worth watching.

2012 FA Cup Final – 5 May.

The best club football teams in the English football leagues go head-to-head in the world’s longest running and most respected club football tournament, the FA Cup. The FA Cup final is one of the most highly-anticipated football matches of the year and showcases the very best of English football. The 2012 FA Cup Final will be broadcast live on SBS from Wembley Stadium.

2012 Tour de France – Saturday 30 June to Monday 23 July.

In 2012 SBS will broadcast its 22nd Tour de France with over 60 hours of live coverage in high definition over three weeks. After becoming the first Australian to win the yellow jersey in 2011, Cadel Evans will be looking to take home the title once again.

SBS’s coverage of the 2012 Tour de France will include every stage live and exclusive, plus daily highlights. It will be hosted by Michael Tomalaris in his 17th year as host, with commentary from Phil Liggett and Paul Sherwen.

The 2011 Tour de France was SBS’s 21st broadcast of the Tour and its most successful to date. The final stage, broadcast on 24 July, was the most watched Tour de France stage ever in Australia.

For up-to-date information on all programs see the SBS schedule.

Stay tuned. With the appointment of a head of television there’s more to come.

This show appears to be a rehash of the many panel and discussion programs that have come before it and at first you wonder what CQ can bring to the Australian public that hasn’t been done before. However, SBS have struck upon a novel idea. Rather than pad out the studio with members of the public, slowing the pace of discussion and limiting the range of argument, they have crammed the studio with academics, experts, journalists, politicians, documentary makers and just about anyone with an a sliver of insight into the issue.

To call it a lively debate would undersell this program. The exchanges crackles with tension, with Anton Enus jumping in to pull the contributors apart from one another. The show opens with a journalist accusing the Daily Telegraph of reportage in line with war time propaganda. This isn’t members of the public using the opportunity to attack politicians they dislike; these are journalists and academics making aggressive accusations about each others’ conduct. There are times this is less a discussion than a verbal boxing match.

Participants include former Immigration Minister in John Howard’s government Amanda Vanstone, Pino Migliorino from the Federation of Ethnic Communities Council of Australia, the Daily Telegraph’s Joe Hilderbrand, from SBS’s Go Back To Where You Came From – Bahati Masudi, Liberal Party candidate Dai Le, and a host of others.  University academics and social researchers have something to say too. The arguments, counterarguments and accusations are fired out fast and frequent and the range of topics covered is diverse to say the least.

CQ deals with the issue of the media’s relationship to asylum seekers in an expansive light bringing several new perspectives and arguments, as well as being thoroughly entertaining with one of the most informative, energetic and entertaining discussions in years. CQ: Cultural Intelligence is definitely worth a look.

On Wednesday (26/11/11) the government voted in favour of a motion, tabled by Senator Scott Ludlum, communications spokesperson for the Greens, reiterating the value of SBS to Australian society. He also gave notice of a private bill, aimed at removing commercial breaks during programs on SBS television.

The Special Broadcasting Service Amendment (Natural Program Breaks and Disruptive Advertising) Bill 2012 will be tabled next year.

Save Our SBS President, Steve Aujard said “We fully support the recognition of SBS with legislation to curtail advertising.

“For over a decade now, SBS has suffered from the effects of chronic underfunding by successive governments. Advertising breaks during programs were introduced five years ago to make up the short fall, a decision we believe goes against the spirit of independent public broadcasting.

“The commercialisation of SBS five years ago has been a disaster. Its rate of growth from television ads has been in decline since 2008 and negative since 2010. Viewers dislike the breaks in programs and Hansard clearly shows the legislators never intended ads in programs anyway. SBS is a special broadcaster.

“Save Our SBS hopes Senator Ludlam’s bill will be an excellent opportunity to resolve the funding shortfall and diminish the effects of advertising on program quality.

“SBS was the world’s first multicultural broadcaster; the commercialisation of the past five years has brought the organisation to a crossroad. If government fails to recognise the need for appropriate public funding in next years triennial budget, there will be an irredeemable slide away from its historical mandate towards implacable commercialism.”

Save Our SBS has been campaigning for a phasing out of advertising on SBS since 2007 and a significant increase in public funding.

It is believed this is for the long awaited Bill to address the issues around the commercialisation of the SBS that has occurred over the past five years. Senator Ludlam promised as much during the 2010 election campaign.

We await with bated breath for an opportunity to read the Bill referred to today, when it becomes available.

SBS has been permitted to broadcast advertisements since 1991. However in late 2006 SBS television broke a long standing understanding and began to disrupt television programs for advertisements. It changed to look like that of a commercial broadcaster. At the time Senator Conroy described this change by SBS saying, “the introduction of in program advertising to the SBS in effect makes the SBS a de facto fourth free-to-air commercial television station and serves to erode the fundamental tenets of public broadcasting”.

Although the contents of Senator Ludlam’s Bill are not known and won’t be released until it is tabled in 2012, it is no secret that, like the Minister, he is no fan of the commercial breaks disrupting SBS television programs. For that matter neither are most people who work at SBS. Audiences and the loyalists of supporters of SBS have voiced objection too, particularly as SBS is  a public broadcaster. It is perhaps the biggest open-secret ever, that management do not like the ad breaks either. But strapped for cash, SBS requires government assistance to resolve this.

In a statement issued last month, Senator Ludlam made the point that “It is vital that SBS remains a strong public institution. Without proper public funding, the independence of SBS will be undermined as will its capacity to cater to all manner of target audiences – regardless of whether they are lucrative enough to attract advertising dollars”.

In a comprehensive budget submission published on his website earlier today, Senator Ludlam concluded, “whatever additional funding the Government chooses to appropriate for SBS, we believe it is essential that a substantial fraction of the additional funding be used to retire as much in-program advertising as possible”. Viewers want the same. An end to ad breaks on SBS-TV. Senator Ludlam submitted that SBS should be given $90m p.a. for this purpose. SBS put the figure at a lower amount. Save Our SBS would support overall funding for SBS at not less than half that of the ABC.

Notice of the Bill today came on the back of a multi-paragraphed ‘motherhood’ motion that Senator Ludlam gave Notice of yesterday. It was a motion in support of SBS, that drew on its history and emphasised that the SBS is more relevant today, than any other time in history. The Managing Director of SBS, Michael Ebeid made the same point at the October Senate Estimates when he said, “SBS is truly more relevant today than it ever has been in its last 35 years of history, mainly because of our cultural complexity in Australian society”.

Senators Ludlam’s ‘motherhood’ motion in support of SBS concluded by asking government to consider whether the resources allocated to SBS are sufficient to allow it to fulfill its mandate. Essentially the motion was saying SBS needs more government funding. The motion is reproduced in full below.

That the Senate—

1. Notes that

a) In Australia there are twice as many people speaking languages other than English and that Australia is more culturally and racially diverse than 30 years ago, at the time of the formation of the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS)

b) research demonstrates that tensions and fault lines exist in Australia, with particular sensitivity around refugee intake.

2. Notes that Australia’s SBS

a) was the first multicultural broadcaster established anywhere in the world

b) transmits in a different language every hour, with 7 million viewers watching SBS TV in over 60 languages per week

c) exposes Australians to cultures and ideas beyond the Anglosphere

d) portrays multicultural Australia and tells the stories of Aboriginal people

e) has the purpose of inspiring all Australians to explore and appreciate our multicultural world and contribute to an inclusive society

3. Calls on the government

a) To consider whether the resources allocated to SBS are sufficient to allow it to fulfill its mandate and take full advantage of the education, employment and creative opportunities provided by digital multi-channeling and the NBN.

Save Our SBS has been campaigning for greater funding for SBS and a phasing out of advertising since 2007. In a submission by Save Our SBS to the Minister last month the organisation called for a significant increase in public funding for the SBS in the forthcoming triennium with sufficient funds granted to SBS to end all disruptive breaks in television programs.

The SBS Your Language app has a range of great functions including live streaming of SBS Radio 1, Radio 2, POPAsia, and SBS chill, audio on demand – a mix of podcasts and audio highlights. It also has the ability to listen to previous programs, which is really handy. The user can set a schedule that automatically selects the language of choice. More than one language can be selected. The schedule is more than a traditional schedule though because is has a notification function to remind the listener about their programs.

Commenting on the i app, the SBS Managing Director, Michael Ebeid said, “The Your Language app extends the reach of the more than 60 SBS Radio language programs with listeners now able to access their favourite programs at a time that suits the listener”.

And there’s more. A tap of a button in the app can be used to send an email, a text message or phone the program. The app has been well thought out.

Aside from listening, the app displayed a graph of an SBS poll. It was not clear though how many people had participated in the poll.

If your mobile device is not an i one, for the time being you may have to settle for a third party radio app such as TuneIn Radio. It’s a free app useful for live streaming, audio on demand and POD casts and works across all platforms – iPhone; Android; Blackberry; Symbian; and Windows. It doesn’t have all the features of the SBS Your Language app and SBS live streaming is not fully functional there but downloads of SBS programs are possible. If using TuneIn Radio, search for SBS. There is always that old fashion thing called a radio – of course.

All-in-all, the SBS Your Language app is well architected, easy to use and it does everything it claims. It’s free and definitely worth downloading and using. This is by far the best radio app available. Audio buffs can listen in high quality digital audio.

It is not known if the app will be released for Blackberry, Symbian, or Windows. Standby for the Android version soon.

For example, SBS is the only broadcaster without a third television network. And there’s a need for an increased number of SBS radio stations too. After all, there are many more languages in Australia now than when SBS radio began 36 years ago. New and emerging communities, especially from African nations are expanding, although under-represented in our media than their established counterparts. Just as the mainly German, Greek and Italian communities of 30+ years ago made their presence on the multicultural and ethnic airwaves, space now needs to be made available for our newer communities. That would be possible if SBS were to expand its digital media outlets. SBS’s POPAsia is an example of digital media. It’s their very successful internet radio station for younger Asians.

The internet is an area that SBS would dearly love to take to its full potential. But SBS has never received government funding directly for this. Although SBS has some mobile apps, its number is few compared to other media. In fact SBS has not received funding for any of the above – more TV and radio networks, nor its internet services.

Recently Save Our SBS approached SBS regarding the above. We also asked if their aspirations had progressed beyond the wish list we had compiled from the public comments SBS had made in the past.

A spokesperson for SBS confirmed that SBS would like to:-

• Develop and expand SBS’s internet services.
• Offer apps across every platform.
• Open more television channels and digital radio stations.
• Improve migrant representation at SBS.
• Extend language skills in the community including English language tuition programs.
• Offer productions in languages other than English (LOTE), both imported and local.
• Innovate multiculturally relevant programs in an Australian context, like, “Immigration Nation” & “Go Back To Where You Came From”.

The spokesperson also said that SBS’s budget was over stretched to the point of restricting any of the above or that below from occurring.

The spokesperson added that SBS was aware of a great need in the culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities for things like expansion of:-

• News services relevant to communities within an Australian perspective.
• Audio language services to those areas not currently serviced.
• Local content to convey multicultural Australian stories.

Save Our SBS endorses the above. They are all worthwhile and within the SBS Charter.

The question is how will SBS achieve any of the above with current levels of public funding as they are? It won’t come from advertising. The past year in  particular has seen a massive drop in TV airtime sales. That’s mainly due to multi-channelling which has resulted in the dilution of the advertising dollar. There is general consensus within SBS now that revenue from advertising is no longer sustainable. One senior person described it as “an addiction”. Now with a diminishing return.

The world of multicultural broadcasting has taken a few twists and turns in recent years but now that SBS has a good vision for the future, it’s time for government to fund it – beyond just ‘catching up’. SBS is worthy of a position at the very top of the priority list.

Funding may not be clear, but one thing is; SBS has a first-rate vision for the future and an investment in SBS, would be a worthwhile investment in our rich and culturally diverse nation.

The group is the joint initiative of Steve Georganas (Labor Member for Hindmarsh), Senator Scott Ludlam (Greens Senator for Western Australia), and, Paul Fletcher (Liberal Member for Bradfield).

In a statement the group said “SBS stands alone as Australia’s Multicultural and Multilingual Broadcaster and for many years has played a vital role in the Australian media and society. In a challenging and rapidly changing media environment this role is, more than ever, critical in maintaining and promoting a cohesive Australian society”.

The official launch date of the group: 11 October – attended by the SBS Board and Management as well as special guests from SBS television, and their Parliamentary friends.

The primary goal of the friendship group is to raise awareness among Parliamentarians of SBS and its potential for the future. It’s a group supportive of SBS – for Parliamentarians. The group will meet occasionally and receive briefings on SBS issues and initiatives.

The idea for a television series focusing on immigration came after SBS commissioned the Ipsos-Eureka Social Research Institute to conduct a study and produce a report, a national attitude research project to explore and contrast the Australian public’s attitude to immigration and their perception of Australia’s immigration history. The Institute summarized its findings in the Ipsos Mackay Report. The research study for the Report was conducted in late 2010 before SBS aired Immigration Nation: A Secret History Of Us and prior to Go Back to Where You Came From was broadcast.  It would be interesting to see whether the screening of Go Back to Where You Came From shifted public opinion.

The week after the program was broadcast, SBS held a discussion program hosted by Anton Enus where the series participants spoke of their attitudes. But did the attitudes of the wider Australian community change as a result of Go Back to Where You Came From?

The answer may be an interesting one considering the controversial issues of the refugee swap deal with Malaysia, combined with the further arrival of boats from Indonesia, and difficulties for Julia Gillard’s government. This also coincides with the 10^th anniversary of the Tampa incident, which led to the Howard government implementing the controversial pacific solution, a policy aimed at deterring asylum seekers from attempting the voyage to Australia.

Overall the Report concludes that support for asylum seekers has declined over the last decade, whilst support for skilled migration has increased. Currently there is only moderate support for the idea that Australia should accept the current number of asylum seekers, with the majority of participants wanting to see an overall decline.

Of the 1375 people who participated in the study, the Report notes 22% with strident anti‑immigration views, not just hostile to asylum seekers and refugees but all migration into the country, even if it would be beneficial to Australia’s economy. Reasons cited for their views included the racial make-up of new arrivals, the availability of jobs and housing, terrorism and a general distaste for the salaries and superannuation received by politicians.

At the pro-immigrant end of the report, 28% of those surveyed showed strong support for both asylum seekers and acknowledged the positive effects of immigration. This group cited racism and a lack of tolerance as a problem in Australia and prioritized other concerns such as housing and the cost of living.

In between these two groups came a range of opinions on immigration and asylum that couldn’t be defined as exclusively pro or anti-immigration and asylum. Whilst many accepted that legal immigration was advantageous to the Australian economy, there was considerable concern about the impact that immigrants and asylum seekers would have on Australian culture, the strain on government services and whether they could integrate into society.

Many of the survey’s findings will come as little surprise. Following on from the Tampa incident and the 2005 Cronulla riots, it is clear that a section of Australian society is suspicious of both asylum seekers and different ethnic groups in general. More startling however is how consistently the same concerns about immigration have risen in Australian society. As the Report notes, over the last three decades, the issues surrounding immigration remain a high concern for Australian, despite the fact the worst fears about what migrants might do is rarely realised.

It is interesting to note the shift in the language used to criticize asylum seekers. In the 1980’s and 90’s, fear of asylum seekers related to the belief that they would take Australian jobs. Now, in a time of near full employment and the rise of skilled migrants the focus has shifted to asylum seekers as queue jumpers who will be reliant on welfare from the government. It seems those critical of asylum seekers are happy to shift their rhetoric to suit their preconceived notions rather than change their opinions to match the facts.

It should also be re-iterated that nearly a quarter of Australians have expressed views opposed to migration that would be beneficial to the countries economy. This is a staggeringly large percentage of the population willing to support positions that go against their own interest. Concerns about asylum seekers also appear to link into wider concerns about the Australian government and are used as evidence that it isn’t listening to the general public, prioritising the wrong issues and is wasting public funds. Perhaps it is unsurprising that many politicians see this as an issue that should be avoided as it is laced with pitfalls and ill feeling. Perhaps of more concern to SBS in terms of the role of the media, all phases of the research showed reasonably low levels of trust in the information gleaned by media, with 58% of participants trusting the media ‘only slightly’ or ‘not at all’.

Despite these concerns the Report finds reasons to be optimistic. It notes that resistance to particular ethnic groups clearly and quickly break down over time. There is also much belief in the tolerance and adaptability of the young generations, recognition that Australia should remain multicultural and that immigration has enriched many aspects of Australian society. Overall, SBS had good reason to be pleased with Go Back to Where You Came From in terms of production values, ratings and the discussion the series generated in the media and online. The findings of the Ipsos-Eureka Social Research Institute shows that further output relating to immigration and asylum would be welcome.

At the start of the journey, one of the six is openly racist and five are hostile towards refugees. One of the participants says, “People who come here without any documentation by boat should be immediately expatriated.” But will this journey change preconceived notions?

The participants begin the journey in Sydney, where they are disposed of their passports, phones and wallets, before being split into two groups sent to spend a week with refugees who now live in Australia.

Half spend a week with the Masudis, a Congolese family  resettled in Australia in 2009, whilst the rest accompany several Iraqi refugees who arrived via boat.

We hear the experiences these refugees went through before arriving in Australia and see what impact their stories have on the six participants.

Following their week long split up, the two groups are reunited in Darwin before boarding a fishing boat for the dangerous journey to Malaysia. It doesn’t take long for the rickety vessel to run into trouble, taking on water and eventually having to be rescued by the coast guard. Thankfully, nobody is hurt and the journey was in fact a controlled exercise using a navy training vessel.

In Malaysia, the six participants experience the anxieties refugees face before boarding a boat to Australia, sharing a flat with 52 Burmese refugees and keeping their bags packed at all times in case immigration control conduct a raid. They then join and observe a dramatic midnight raid by the Malaysian immigration authorities on a suspected refugee hideout. By this point many of the group can see why so many people are willing to risk the dangerous journey to make it to a less hostile climate.

Split up once again into two groups, half are taken to a refugee camp in Kenya whilst the rest experience the existence of urban refugees in Jordan, a city already burdened with nearly two million Palestinian refugees. In an unexpected twist, the six Australians are able to travel back even further. Half journey into the Congo with UN peacekeepers, whilst the rest make it into Iraq, completing in reverse, the same journeys experiences by the refugees they stayed with in Australia during the first episode of the series.

Finally, after a long 25 day expedition across the world, the journey concludes with a debriefing in Dubai. Although many have changed their opinions about how refugees in Australia should be treated, others still hold onto the beliefs they began with.

This certainly isn’t the first documentary about the refugee experience, but there are two aspects which give it a fascinating twist. The first is the tone. There is no doubt SBS are trying to create a documentary that gets people talking, the title alone gives this away. It’s a continuation of the approach that saw Immigration Nation on our screens earlier this year, a documentary that dispensed with neutrality and wore its agenda on its sleeve. More importantly, it will place Australians and their opinions on asylum at the centre of the narrative, holding a mirror up to the nation’s views on asylum seekers and migration.

In a recent interview for the June edition of Monthly magazine, the newly appointed Chief Executive Officer & Managing Director of SBS, Michael Ebeid, said he hoped Go Back to Where You Came From would be a “catalyst for discussion about what matters in a diverse society today”. An ambitious aim certainly. Whether it can live up to the noble aim is yet to be seen.

The program is hosted by Dr David Corlett. He has worked with refugees and asylum seekers as a case worker, researcher and advisor since 1998.

Go Back To Where You Came From will be broadcast during Refugee Week on SBS ONE at 8:30pm on 21, 22 and 23 June. It’s worth watching.

POPAsia http://www.sbs.com.au/popasia The site blurb reads: “The very best non-stop Asian pop hits in Mandarin, Cantonese, Japanese, Korean and more – streaming 24/7”. Before establishing POPAsia it was known that many Asians did not own a radio set and younger people had a preference for listening to music and radio on-line. The uptake of the service, measured by the number of hits to the site, has been very impressive for SBS. POPAsia appears to be filling a void Australia.

Anther  radio station, SBS chill, was also launched on-line. Its purpose is not as distinct as POPAsia nor is its relevance to the SBS Charter clear.

SBS chill http://www.sbs.com.au/chill is a middle of the road music station. Below an on-line-player, the webpage displays a selection of previous and coming tracks with an opportunity to click and buy on selected tracks. A click will redirect to the exact track on the iTunesApple site. It’s convenient but none the less, a marketing ploy. It’s unclear if there’s a financial kick-back to SBS. The SBS chill site reads: “Relax and enjoy chilled sounds from around the world streaming 24/7 on SBS digital radio and live online”.

SBS also stream on-line radio news and current affairs on World News Australia Radio http://www.sbs.com.au/podcasts/naca/radionews. Like World News Australia on SBS-TV, their on-line radio service is excellent.

SBS has an equivalent to iView but without a name. SBSview might be a good one. Whatever it’s called, it is not easy to find either. Rather than click through an array of menus and screens, the direct link http://player.sbs.com.au/programs is worth remembering. It will redirect to: Sneak Peak TV; Full Episodes; and, Web Extras.

Unfortunately many of the on-line TV programs begin with an advertisement which you can’t scroll past. If you just want to browse until you find the program you like, this can be off-putting because you might end up seeing the same ad at the beginning of each program until you locate the desired TV program. One of the recent on-line ads was for the wine festival State, which was viewable at anytime of day for every program on the site that carried the ad. This raises the question of advertising on-line. Are SBS doing this responsibly? Advertisements for alcohol are not allowed on television during times when children might be watching and the same standard ought to apply to the SBS website too.

The development of the SBS website has been slow. It has also been without government funding.

One of the impressive features of SBS’s website, is the multiple Language Site drop down menu.

SBS.com.au has input from World News Australia, television, program specific sites, and radio. Streaming and download services are available. There are SBS blog sites, a corporate section and more.

But it’s not all rosy. There are an unacceptably high number of broken links, and clicks that go to nowhere. Written reports, submissions and material in the public interest is often moved and removed as fast from the site as it appears. SBS have removed most of the content that was pre 2009; material from the old website. However, it is difficult to build a website that is big. And the SBS site is massive.

It had a major make-over about 18 months ago. It needed it. But it needs to be overhauled again. Rebuilt.

It’s not a mobile friendly website. There are some SBS apps for mobile phones but these are limited.  Mobile apps are not cheap to develop, especially when the main site is not already mobile-friendly. At commercially discounted rates, there may be no change out of $75k per app per system for a site that is already mobile friendly. If SBS are to develop their internet presence, they need to act for users of the iPhone, Android, Windows, Blackberry, Symbian, and generic mobile systems. Considering that SBS has never received any specific government funding to develop the internet service, it’s not doing too badly.

Aside from it being slow and difficult to navigate through, some basic understandings and principles ought be developed within SBS, like don’t delete any text based material ever. Especially if it’s a SBS submission, report, code, guideline or material of public, or academic interest. Archive it instead. And develop a system that won’t allow run-away broken links.

No doubt the new boss, Michael Ebeid will want to develop the SBS internet services to 21st century standard. Given his marketing experience and past background with an internet company, he may be well equipped to do so and make a worthwhile site, better. A less clumsy site would be a start.

Ebeid’s broadcast experience has been in the public and commercial spheres.

Previously Ebeid was at the ABC, where he was the Executive Director of Corporate Strategy and Marketing.

Prior to that Ebeid spent ten years with Optus Communications. His last role was Director of  Commercial Operations for the Consumer Division, responsible for strategy, business development, regulatory and finance across internet, Pay TV and telephony. Earlier, Ebeid worked at IBM for nine years in Australia and Asia.

SBS Chairman, Mr Joe Skrzynski, said: “Mr Ebeid brings to SBS a special set of personal and professional skills, with the right blend of operational and strategic experience from his twenty-four years in the Media, Telecommunications and IT technology sectors which represent the three arms of the convergence changing the entertainment and information landscape in Australia.

“He is extremely well suited to lead SBS in its mission to promote social harmony by helping migrants to settle and participate fully in Australian society, and assisting all Australians to understand and appreciate the benefits of cultural diversity.

“As SBS moves into its fourth decade, its Charter is more vitally relevant than ever. Not only is our population manifestly more complex and diverse, but today there are three million Australians whose first language is not English and that is twice as many as when we were first formed,” Mr Skrzynski said.

On his appointment, Mr Ebeid said: “I am very excited to be joining SBS, an organisation that has been inspiring its audiences to explore and appreciate our multicultural world, and has helped contribute to a more inclusive Australian society. I am looking forward to ensuring that SBS grows its relevance and reach at a time when the media landscape and audience habits are fundamentally changing. SBS is an organisation that can and does make a difference, and it is an honour to lead it.”

Ebeid was born in Cairo, Egypt, and moved to Australia with his family when he was three years old.

In the past 24 years Ebeid has worked in senior management and executive roles across the technology, telecommunications and media industries.

At the ABC he led the creation of the ABC’s first cross divisional strategic marketing plan,

Prior to the ABC when Ebeid when at Optus Communications, he was Director of Commercial Operations (CFO/COO) for Consumer and Multimedia, Optus’ largest division with over 3000 staff. He led the formation of the division in 1999 when revenues were $560m, then embarked on a series of strategic initiatives turning the business around and taking revenues to $1.8b in four years. He was responsible for managing the division’s finance, strategy, regulatory and business development teams across telephony, internet and Pay Television. Ebeid also played a key role in Optus Television’s Digital Interactive TV launch and the Foxtel/Optus Content Sharing deal in 2001, and was on the Board of Pay TV’s industry body, ASTRA, from 2001-2005.

Prior to Optus, Ebeid was an executive at IBM for nine years in various finance management, sales and marketing positions, and worked in Tokyo and other Asian countries.

Ebeid has a Bachelor of Business (Charles Sturt University), International Executive Development Program (INSEAD Business College, France), and Media Strategies Program (Harvard Business School).

Ebeid was raised and educated in Sydney where he lives with his partner.

His interests are in Film, the Arts and Current Affairs, and his leisure activities include scuba diving, water skiing, sky diving and travel.

Ebeid replaces Shaun Brown.

SBS Chair, Mr Skrzynski paid tribute to Mr Brown. In August last year Brown announced his retirement. He may be credited for convincing the SBS Board in 2006 to run advertisements within programs. At the time, described as a “bold” move, but one that offended many in the community.

This may be the start of a cultural change to end racism and embrace those from other cultures. SaveOurSBS.org welcomes such. At the heart of the Policy is a new advisory body to be called the Australian Multicultural Council (AMC). It will operate from 2012 and will succeed the current Australian Multicultural Advisory Council (AMAC).

The Immigration Minister said “The new body will act as a champion for multiculturalism in the community; will advise the government on multicultural affairs; and will help to ensure Australian Government services respond to the needs of migrant and refugee communities”.

The government will seek to “to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination” through a National Anti‑Racism Partnership. The task is to “deliver an anti-racism strategy”, Chris Bowen said.

The implementation of the multicultural policy will be assigned to Senator Kate Lundy. She will now be the Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.

In a media release, the Chair of FECCA, the Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia, Mr Pino Migliorino said, “We congratulate the government on telling the world that Australian multiculturalism is unique, successful and vital in creating a peaceful and harmonious society. We commend the Minister for his eloquent exposition of the genius of multiculturalism and acknowledge the passion of thousands of Australians who supported our advocacy. The world will watch while we celebrate Australian multiculturalism; this is only the beginning.”

The Policy has four main points which are:-

• celebrating and valuing diversity
• maintaining social cohesion
• communicating the benefits of Australia’s diversity
• responding to intolerance and discrimination

These are all excellent values.

So where does our multicultural broadcaster, SBS, fit within all this?

Mr Bowen said the Policy was “built on a whole-of-government approach”. That being said, SaveOurSBS.org expects that when the next triennial funding is announced for SBS in 2012, this “whole-of-government approach” might also include increased funding for SBS so it may execute its role more effectively. SBS’s role in nurturing diversity and celebrating multiculturalism via the communication of radio, TV and the internet, is like most other things, dependant on having sufficient funds.

While nothing was specifically mentioned in the Policy in relation to our multicultural broadcaster, nor was specific reference essential, it would appear not to be outside the scope of the “whole-of-government approach” of the Policy for government to now be able to justify an increase in public funding for SBS. Time will tell if government will do this or abdicate its responsibilities for SBS; leave it to struggle through reliance on the commercial sector.

The Policy was developed as an expression of support for Australia’s multiculturalism and an endorsement of the Australian Multicultural Advisory Council (AMAC) statement which was presented to government for consideration last year. The Policy was also formed in response to the Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia’s “Different but Equal – National Multicultural Agenda”, also in 2010.

The entire 16 pages of The People of Australia – Australia’s Multicultural Policy can be read in full at http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/multicultural/pdf_doc/people-of-australia-multicultural-policy-booklet.pdf and in languages other than English (LOTE) here http://www.immi.gov.au/living-in-australia/a-diverse-australia/multicultural-policy

The documentary makers are certainly ambitious and have identified an interesting and relevant part of Australian history and culture to explore. The recent events on Christmas Island, where a boat carrying refugees crashed onto the shore leading to 48 deaths, was a stark reminder of Australia’s continuing problems with immigration. To coincide with Immigration Nation, a series of discussion programs will be broadcast on SBS Radio to further explore the issues raised during the series. A further discussion will take place at the Old Parliament Building in Canberra in partnership with the Museum of Australian Democracy.

If Immigration Nation fulfils its promise, it may be a welcome catalyst for constructive debate regarding Australia’s attitude towards race and immigration in the country.

Immigration Nation premieres on SBS-ONE on Sunday 9 January 2011, at 8:30pm. The three part series concludes on 23 January.

The full SBS program schedule is here.

On 28 October this year SBS celebrated 30 years of television and 35 of radio broadcasting. The celebration was held at the Fox studios in Sydney. Following welcome drinks and finger food, the evening’s meal was preceded by an official welcome to Country and acknowledgement of the Gadigal People of the Eora Nation. Soon after and in one of his finest speeches yet, the Minister responsible for SBS, Senator Stephen Conroy outlined the fascinating history of SBS – their story.

Senator Conroy’s speech

Good evening everyone, it’s a real pleasure to be here to mark this historic milestone for Australia’s very Special Broadcasting Service.

I’d like to acknowledge:
• Joe Skrzynski, SBS Chair
• Gerald Stone, SBS Deputy Chair
• SBS Board members both past and present
• Shaun Brown, Managing Director of SBS
• Senator Kate Lundy, Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Citizenship
• Julie Bishop, Deputy Leader of the Opposition
• Gladys Berejiklian, NSW Shadow Minister for Transport
• All SBS management and staff, both past and present

35 years ago, the Whitlam Government made a visionary decision to launch Government-funded radio services to assist new Australians to settle in to their new home.

Ethnic Affairs radio, as it was then known, was an essential service that allowed migrants to more easily find their way in a strange new land.

Its creation was a significant step away from the Australia of old, which had operated the notorious White Australia Policy, to a new and inclusive nation that welcomed people from all over the world.

The creation of what was known as “ethnic” television five years later, by the Government of Malcolm Fraser, was a continuation and expansion of this important step.

It demonstrated a bi-partisan commitment to a multicultural Australia, and led to the creation of the Special Broadcasting Service to manage both radio and television services for Australians from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.

From its earliest focus on providing services for newly arrived migrants, SBS’s vision was expanded in the 1980s and 1990s to one of promoting the benefits of cultural diversity to all Australians.

In doing so, SBS grew to be a broadcaster that has hugely enriched our national culture, changing the very nature of Australian society – and always for the better.

On a fraction of the budget of the average broadcaster, SBS now provides a truly breathtaking range of services – services which contribute far more than just entertainment to Australia.

And I’m not just talking about the World Cup – although this year’s coverage of that all important tournament was arguably the finest and most comprehensive in the world!

SBS now broadcasts two free-to-air TV channels, operates two subscription TV channels, and runs four radio networks in 68 languages.

Its programs reflect the real, “lived” diversity of Australian society, more so than any other broadcaster, including the ABC.

And, in this digital age, SBS also provides online services that reflect and celebrate the strength of Australia’s cultural diversity and social harmony.

30 years ago Australia was very fortunate to see the establishment of a broadcaster that is very special indeed – in fact, unique in the world.

Over the last three decades, SBS has had an undeniable impact on Australia, promoting a more inclusive and yet outward looking society, one which has built on the great strengths of its increasingly diverse citizenry.

An Australia without SBS is now unimaginable.

Congratulations to all involved with SBS, both past and present, on reaching this important milestone.

Happy Birthday, and here’s to the next 30 years.

Other speeches were given that evening while a five course multicultural feast was served. Guests watched live performances from various cultures and projected video of SBS’s past achievements and history.

Later, the Chairman of SBS, Joe Skrzynski continued the SBS story and spoke of the future.

Joe Skrzynski’s speech

Tonight is a celebration, and I trust you will enjoy seeing, hearing and tasting from our multicultural buffet. At the same time it is important to reflect on such an occasion as to how we are fulfilling our mission, and how we think of the future. The context for SBS is that Australia is a new world multicultural society, absorbing successive waves of migrants from different countries. SBS was created to welcome and support them, and to inform and educate them in their own languages and in English about Australia, and at the same time inform, educate and entertain all Australians so that they better understand and value cultural diversity at home and abroad.

From humble beginnings, with coverage of eight languages on radio with limited coverage, SBS has grown to be a national broadcaster, broadcasting in 68 languages weekly on radio, reaching about 40% of Australians each week across two free-to-air channels, in addition to World Movies and STVDIO on subscription television, and over a million visits a month across our websites in English and in 68 other languages.

It is indisputably not only Australia’s, but the world’s most distinctive and diverse broadcaster, and has been a potent factor in making Australia a cosmopolitan society in a rapidly globalising world.

It has garnered numerous international and national awards for its programs along the way, including an Academy Award, and this year the majority of the peer group awarded Logies – and, just last night, 8 nominations for the AFI.

Now the success of Australia as a multicultural society could lead some to think that SBS is “mission accomplished”. They would be wrong. Today there are more than 3 million, or twice as many Australians as in 1975, who speak a language other than English at home, and the diversity of race, religion and cultures has multiplied among newer arrivals, so that the mission has in fact expanded, quantitatively and qualitatively!

Technology has presented fresh challenges. Global satellite distribution and cheap home receivers mean many, especially newer migrants, can and do tune into home country broadcasts to the virtual exclusion of English language Australian media, posing the risk of them falling into “media ghettoes”, where their principal source of knowledge about Australia is through the eyes of their old country media. Our surveys show that they distrust mainstream Australian media, other than SBS.

So the need for SBS “in language” and English services is greater than ever. The cohesion of our multicultural society cannot be taken for granted. It is a work in progress, and requires continuing and sophisticated government programs, including a vigorous SBS to ensure its success.

In recognition of these enormous social and technological changes impacting upon our services and industry, we recently re examined the organisation’s strategic direction and reshaped SBS’s Corporate Plan.

The plan outlines our ambitions for the future, and explicitly states that the role of SBS is to contribute to social inclusion in Australia.

Our aim is to be a vital factor in the harmonious integration of migrants into Australian society, whilst valuing their distinctiveness; to be a catalyst for the nation’s conversation about multiculturalism – informing and educating all Australians so as to promote harmony and enable us to minimise friction and maximise the benefits of the skills, cultural and linguistic richness and global networks of our diverse migrant communities.

The strategies to do this are based on creatively exploiting new technologies. Digital TV has tripled the channel capacity of SBS TV. This resolves the dilemma of the past, whereby with just one channel, English language programming of broad appeal across all communities competed with niche “in language” programs in prime time.

Across all its TV channels, SBS will be able to be both broad and distinctive, with much more “in language” programming.

Another new strategy which I can announce tonight sees the further development of SBS “on demand” services to pilot Virtual Community Centres for individual language groups. These will be the “go to” media destination for those communities, providing on-demand access to SBS TV and radio programs, additional on line content specially commissioned or acquired, links to community and government services information and, a first for SBS, user generated content from the individual community itself.

The first of these Virtual Community Centres will be for Australian Chinese speaking communities, and will be launched next month, including the pilot of an Australian-Mandarin language news service. This will be a first for Australian television – a domestic in-language news service. We have had in-language Australian news on radio, but now will pilot extending that to television.

But some things will not change, notably our commitment to drama and documentaries that reflect the reality of our multicultural society in a way that other broadcasters simply do not. This means more programs like the award winning East West 101, The Circuit and First Australians.

So, this is the anniversary vision for SBS incorporated in its new corporate plan. It will be implemented progressively as funding permits.

On behalf of SBS, thank you for being part of the story so far, and welcome to the next exciting episode of SBS, six billion stories and counting.

Listening to the speeches (above) were the 300 guests that SBS had invited to their birthday celebrations. 

The night was attended by dignitaries, representatives from various ethnic community groups, as well as current and past on-air presenters and others associated with SBS.

SBS-Chairman, Joe Skrzynski with Majida Abboud from SBS Radio and Malcolm Turnbull, Shadow Communications Minister (pictured) at the SBS 30th/35th birthday party held in Sydney on 28 October 2010.

The food delights for the evening were created by Yaama Dhiyaan,  (the welcome sharing plate); Guillaume Brahimi (first course); Luke Nguyen (second course); Sean Connolly (third course); Adriano Zumbo (dessert).

Luke Nguyen is well known to SBS viewers for his Vietnam series while Sean Connolly introduced viewers to multicultural families across Australia in My Family Feast. In 2011, Guillaume Brahimi will present a French Food Safari on SBS-TV and Adriano Zumbo will take viewers behind the scenes in his kitchen.   

Also attending the SBS 30th/35th birthday party was the SBS Managing Director, Shaun Brown with Liz Courtney and former SBS MD, Nigel Milan (pictured).

A separate party was held at another time for current employees of SBS who were not able to attend the birthday celebrations at Fox studios.

Many changes have occurred since multicultural broadcasting commenced. No other broadcaster in the world exists like SBS. For more information about the history of Australia’s multicultural broadcaster see the TelevisionAu.com – Channel 0/28 website, the Wikipedia – Special Broadcasting Service website and the SBS website. Also of interest Clare Dunne who pioneered multicultural broadcasting. Other information about SBS is on the SaveOurSBS.org website.

Hakim and Davis currently work as reporters on Dateline.

Dateline’s Executive Producer Peter Charley said each will continue to work as reporters. One will present the program while the other is on assignment.

Charley said, “The idea of putting working Video Journalists in the studio to host the program returns Dateline to the essence of what has made it such a distinctive program – Video Journalism lies at the heart of what we do.”

“Yalda and Mark represent the cutting edge of Video Journalism, the core of Dateline’s unique approach to story-telling.”

27 year old Yalda Hakim speaks five languages. She is acknowledged as a highly talented reporter. Last year she won the United Nations Media Peace Prize for Best Australian Television News coverage. She has filed stories globally, including from Afghanistan, Norway and India. Born in Afghanistan she fled Kabul with her family when Russia invaded. Hakim has been reporting for Dateline for the past two years.

Mark Davis has hosted Dateline before. He is a pioneer of Video Journalism and one of Australia’s most respected journalists and presenters. The high standards of his work have become the benchmark for Dateline. He won five Walkley awards, including the prestigious Gold Walkley for Blood Money.  Most recently Davis reported on Wikileaks founder Julian Assange and Dutch politician Gert Wilders.

Dateline first aired in 1980 on SBS Radio, 3EA (Ethnic Australia) in Melbourne. In 1984 it was picked up by SBS television.

The Chairman of SBS, Joe Skrzynski, told SaveOurSBS.org that as a consequence of not receiving additional funding from Government, SBS must continue to take advantage of its commercial license.

No doubt by the time the Budget is announced for the next triennial funding for SBS (2012-2014), there will be a different economic climate. In a different economic climate or with prompting from the Greens and Independents, the government might feel more inclined to provide the funding SBS seeks to surrender in-program advertising and expand its operations. SBS may become a beneficiary of the hung parliament.

Sometime during the course of this hung parliament the Greens Communication’s spokesperson, Senator Scott Ludlam will move that his Special Broadcasting Service Amendment (Prohibition of Disruptive Advertising) Bill 2009 (Bill Number 165/2009) become law. If passed, that would mean SBS-TV would only be allowed to place advertisements between programs and not in them. The Greens also want SBS to receive additional public funding to offset lost revenue due to stopping in-program advertising.

SBS believes that if television ads were placed between programs only, income from TV advertising would be reduced by about half, compared to interrupting programs.

In March this year, SaveOurSBS.org made a formal submission to SBS that it ought to cease interrupting programs on SBS television for advertisement and promo breaks. However the plans that SBS now have to further pursue the commercial path are outlined in the recent SBS Corporate Plan 2010-2013. It provides forecasts for revenue from advertising and sponsorships. The Plan does not separate television advertising from radio, internet or other advertising. However, it is well known that advertising on SBS-TV accounts for most of the income from advertising.

The Corporate Plan (page 13) predicts that advertising revenue will be in the order of $86,666,000 for the current financial year and that this will rise by 6.68 percent to $92,457,000 in the 2011-2012 year. It will rise by a further 6.03 percent in 2012-2013 amounting to $98,040,000. Thereafter SBS forecasts a massive increase of 27.32 percent for the year 2013-2014 resulting in $124,827,000 from advertising. The Corporate Plan does not explain why SBS expects an increase of 27.32 percent for a period three years into the future nor why they have forecast a decline of minus 11.94 percent for the year 2014-2015, giving a stated income of $109,917,000 for that year from advertising and sponsorships. SBS predicts that by 2013-2014 revenue from all advertising will peak at 57.84 percent of government appropriation monies. The full projected finances (revenue and expenditure) including forecast funding from government can be viewed here.

From a strategic point of view SBS needed to provide advertising revenue forecasts. It may need to draw on those advertising figures to argue a case for public funding equal to half that generated by advertising, if legislation is passed to prohibit advertising during programs. But it will need to justify the figures and explain their methodology substantially better than that outlined in the Corporate Plan.

Given the evidence that SaveOurSBS.org had presented to SBS in March as to why in-program advertising should be aborted and the 15,427 emails sent by the electorate before the federal election opposing in-program interruptions, many had hoped to find a sentence in the SBS Corporate Plan that expressed a clear desire on the part of SBS to abolish ads and promos from interrupting programs. By failing to make such statement, SBS may have done itself a disservice to attain the full support needs for the (other) priorities outlined in the Plan.

The Corporate Plan states that the Strategic Plan will be reviewed annually (page 11). The decision to “look for commercial opportunities consistent with the SBS Act” (page 8) falls under the Strategic Direction of the Plan. The Goals of the Plan are outlined on page 9. It contains two contradictory points: – “15. Grow commercial revenue in a fragmenting market”. [versus] “16. Deliver on stakeholder expectations to justify support and proper funding”. But it is well established that the stakeholders (ethnic communities and viewers of all demographics) favour public funding over commercial revenue (A, B, C, D, E,). Many believe that SBS is acting in a dishonourable manner by taking advantage of poorly worded legislation. SBS were present at a Senate Estimates Committee when Senator Conroy explained that the legislators and those that drafted the SBS Act in 1991, never intended that programs be interrupted in the way that SBS now do.

SaveOurSBS.org will continue to present the case that SBS-TV ought to be funded adequately and should do so without interrupting programs for advertisements. We favour legislation to achieve that. Currently there is nothing in the SBS Act that obliges SBS to interrupt programs.

The SBS Corporate Plan 2010-2013 deals with many other matters aside from advertising.

It outlines the overall direction that SBS is headed for the next few years.

Aside from the lack of courage to publicly express a desire to aim in the direction of abandoning in-program advertising (and seek government funding to do so), the broad direction of the Plan has much merit. It contains many desires on the part of SBS that will never be achieved unless government decides to fund the multicultural broadcaster adequately. In the new paradigm of the hung parliament, funding to offset lost revenue resulting from prohibiting in-program advertising may become a priority over some of the things that SBS has outlined in their Corporate Plan.

The Plan states that SBS would like to attract younger audiences and it recognises the importance of social inclusiveness as fundamental to SBS. It seeks to make a greater commitment to multilingual content across all platforms:- television, radio and internet. SBS would like everyone to be able access their material no matter when or how they wish. Not many people are aware that SBS has never received funding for their internet services. In December 2009, SaveOurSBS.org made a submission to government to urge funding to assist SBS with its internet operations. That was on the back of our August 2008 submission for a massive injection of funding for SBS for the current triennium and to free it from advertising.

The SBS Corporate Plan 2010-2013 says that SBS will explore the possibility of establishing further SBS-TV channels and it recognises the changes in the make up of Australian society (in particular the increase in the number of Australians from Asia, the Middle East and Africa). The Plan says that SBS would like to respond to that.

Rightly, SBS also have emphasised their role in telling original Australian stories that explored the multicultural nature of our society. In discussing their past achievements SBS highlighted First Australians. That was the landmark documentary series. Landmark because it covered Indigenous Australian history which had not been done before. Other programs were mentioned too including the many awards that SBS productions have won.

The Plan also discusses SBS Radio which broadcasts in 68 1anguages. It explains the role of the SBS pay channels:- STVDIO and World Movies.

The SBS Corporate Plan 2010-2013 was signed off by the Board and forwarded to the Minister last month. It is expected to be presented to the October Senate Estimates, Communications Committee. It can be read in full here.

The SBS website has a PDF of the SBS Corporate Plan 2010-2013 at
http://media.sbs.com.au/home/upload_media/site_20_rand_1685307411_sbs_corporate_plan7.pdf

SBS has acted to increase awareness of the contribution of Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander communities to Australian society and building capacity to learn from and serve Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander peoples.

Recently, SBS launched the Second Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP). It builds on the unique content that SBS has demonstrated in its commitment to telling Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander stories. Through a series of objectives and action plans, the Second Reconciliation Plan will foster stronger relationships for all Australians.

SBS already airs the only Indigenous current affairs program, Living Black, on Australian television. Other SBS programs featuring Indigenous peoples include First Australians. That was a documentary series that covered Indigenous history for the first time.

The actions in SBS’s first RAP were implemented by members of SBS’s first Reconciliation Action Plan Committee. That Committee consisted of 27 members, including Aboriginal & Torres Strait employees, which enabled the development of wording for SBS staff to deliver Acknowledgement of Country and the acknowledgement of the traditional custodians. This also helped SBS staff to engage in Indigenous culture through the National Aboriginal and Islander Day Observance Committee (NAIDOC) week celebrations. That is held in July each year.

The Committee determined that SBS could better realise its potential by taking a long-term approach that encapsulates what SBS is uniquely positioned to offer in the reconciliation process. Reconciliation Australia’s principles of respect, relationships and opportunities were used to formulate these ideas and actions.

The actions are set out under each set of objectives, with each action signposted with Reconciliation Australia’s key elements to indicate its contribution to the principles of relationships, respect and opportunities. SBS outlines that establishing and maintaining relationships and partnerships with Indigenous peoples are crucial to being a reconciliation leader. SBS is encouraging recognition and respect for Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander communities, by creating opportunities to broadcast stories of Indigenous communities, through encouraging business systems that are more inclusive.

In order to track progress and reporting of this plan, the Committee will make annual progress reports as well as a final report.

Further details can be found as a PDF document on the SBS website at Second Reconciliation Action Plan.

All the Parties and Independent’s agreement to the way parliament is to conduct itself could result in SBS getting a better deal. Private bills must now be debated and voted on. Labor’s Agreement with the Greens gives the Greens direct access to the Prime Minister on a weekly or fortnightly basis. This could ensure an opportunity for both to act on their common ground of how SBS should be. Neither really like programs being interrupted for ads. But it is only the Greens who have a stated policy for a legislative prohibition of interrupting programs for advertisements coupled with more funding for SBS.

The real test for the Greens will be to draw on their common ground with Labor and gather support in the parliament for the next triennial funding for SBS to include the passing into law of the private bill of Greens Senator, Scott Ludlam, his Special Broadcasting Service Amendment (Prohibition of Disruptive Advertising) Bill – and – that SBS is funded for any loss resulting due to the provision that advertisements would then only be allowable between programs and not in them. Philosophically that’s not dissimilar to Senator Conroy view that, “Labor opposes and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising” which became part of Labor’s SBS Policy when it took power in 2007. Here is the opportunity for Labor and the Greens to build on their joint dislike of in-program advertising and agree to amend the Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991 accordingly.

The battle to save SBS, to see it better funded by government so SBS could concentrate on its core reason for existence, without reliance on advertising began in 2007. Then 7,541 people signed a petition that SaveOurSBS.org conducted. Australians believed that SBS had been abandoned under the Howard Liberal-National Coalition government. But the recent evidence from the 15,427 emails that visitors to SaveOurSBS.org sent to politicians immediately before the recent federal election, is that people believed Labor had also abandoned SBS, in their first term. In government, Labor did not fund SBS as expected and failed to act on their own policy objections to SBS interrupting programs for advertisements. The recent campaign we ran shows the electorate want ads banned from programs by legislation.

Labor paid dearly for many reasons in the recent elections. Somewhere in the mix is their failure to fully carry out their own SBS policies and Labor’s misreading of what the electorate were seeking; a promise to fix the SBS issues in the future. That was seen as neglect of SBS, a failure to support multicultural broadcasting and an abandonment of multiculturalism. According to former NSW Labor Premier, Maurice Iemma, the abandonment of multiculturalism cost Labor seats, at least in parts of Sydney, NSW and beyond. Our analysis of the 15,427 emails sent to various politicians immediately before the election, reveals they were sent from all over Australia. The emails sought more funding for SBS and a banning of ads within programs. Senders saw this as Labor abandoning multiculturalism. Maurice Iemma may be correct.

During the campaign Labor stated that “in the current economic climate” they would not require SBS to change their approach to advertising. This could imply that in a different economic setting, Labor might ban ads on SBS. A portion of voters could have been retained by Labor if it had committed to increasing funds for SBS and promised that sometime during the next triennial funding period (2012-2014), when the country will no longer be in debt, a Labor government would legislate to prohibit in-program advertising on SBS-TV. Looking forward, the Greens policies for SBS became far more attractive for many voters. It’s now up to the Greens to pursue the banning of ads within programs and gather support for increasing SBS funding, with the Labor minority government, Opposition and Independents.

There was some excitement in the air when the Rudd Labor government was elected in its landslide victory in 2007 that the days of disrupting programs on SBS-TV were over. Everyone thought SBS would be better funded and all would be rosy.

Despite three years of meetings, public submissions and much lobbying, not much changed.

But in those three years, Australians had not forgotten Labor’s broken policy promise and its failure to act as expected. So in the month before the 21 August 2010 federal election, visitors to the SaveOurSBS.org website sent 15,427 emails to selected politicians asking for a promise to increase public funding for SBS to free it from advertising. Replies were received by some campaign participants from the Labor, Liberal, and, Greens parties.

Tony Abbott’s Office responded early but he did not address any of the points that the campaign participant had raised, nor even mention SBS. His generic reply stated “it is vital that the Coalition knows what people are thinking so that we can represent the interests of all Australians”. A link was provided to the Liberal party website but also no mention of the SBS issues were addressed there. Many campaign supporters have told us that they regarded Tony Abbott’s email as either “laughable” – “out of touch” or “hopelessly inappropriate”.

Five days before the election, the Labor party sent a reply to the later campaign participants only. Their bulk email was virtually identical to their answers (20/7/10) that they gave to SaveOurSBS.org that we had published almost a month before and summarised in our article Election promises for SBS (10/8/10). Upon receiving the ALP bulk email, campaign participants were sparked into letting us know. They were furious. “Labor has provided too little too late”. The ALP bulk mail was viewed as “contemptuous and antagonistic” - “it endeavoured to confuse people with volumes of irrelevant data” – “it quoted a heap of facts and figures and blamed SBS management” – “the simple, unrefutable point is if government had continued full funding, SBS would not need to advertise” – “Labor has seriously abandoned multicultural broadcasting” and so on. However the biggest single point repeatedly expressed to us was along these lines: “I have not forgotten nor forgiven Labor for doing nothing to stop those ads in the programs”.

Amongst the feedback we received there was not a single phone call or email of support for the ALP. None for the Liberal or National parties either. Support expressed to us for the Greens SBS Policies became apparent. This was the first time that we got a real sense that campaign participants had felt so betrayed by Labor’s broken SBS policies, while fearing SBS funding would be slashed under a Coalition government, that voters were now going to vote Green; specifically so the SBS issues could be fixed.

Over the course of the campaign period, the Greens had replied to campaign participants on three separate occasions. Their final email was sent a few days before the election. It re-stated their published answers (30/7/10) of a few weeks prior. They were also summarised in our article Election promises for SBS (10/8/10).

In particular, the attraction for supporters of SBS to vote Greens was their Special Broadcasting Service Amendment (Prohibition of Disruptive Advertising) Bill that would legislate to prohibit SBS from interrupting programs for commercials and promos. Overwhelmingly viewers of SBS want this to become law. Public funding from lost advertising revenue for SBS is part of that equation too.

Mr Aujard accused the Labor and Liberal parties of showing little regard towards SBS.

“Despite more than 12,000 emails sent to leaders of all parties from visitors to the SaveOurSBS.org website in the past few weeks, pleading for a promise to increase funding for SBS to free it from advertising, neither Labor nor Liberal are interested”, Mr Aujard said.

“Beyond a few nice words of support and a warm fuzzy glow, Labor is offering little for SBS. Its only forward policy is to enshrine into legislation a transparent system of appointments to the SBS Board – something the Opposition had objected to. However in government, Labor failed to act on their existing policy of opposing the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising. The electorate have not forgotten.

“By comparison the Liberals and Nationals don’t even have an SBS policy but unconfirmed reports are that the Liberals may slash SBS funding in favour of the further commercialisation of SBS followed by a sell-off. That would be a tragedy for public broadcasting in general and multicultural broadcasting in particular”, Mr Aujard said.

“If the Charter were watered down and advertising restrictions de-regulated, a partial or total sale would generate billions. It would be the end of multicultural broadcasting.

“We would like the Liberal party to state their position but so far they have refused to do so despite our written invitation. Aside from prior contact we are somewhat surprised at their refusal to engage now. They are fully aware of us, our submissions to government and that SaveOurSBS.org has been mentioned a number of times in the parliament.

Mr Aujard said that although SBS was already budgeted until mid 2012, voters wanted to be told now that government would increase base funding for SBS after that date. “SBS needs a massive injection of funds so it can expand its television and Internet services in particular and be free of advertising. It’s ironical that although Labor has committed $43 billion for broadband rollout, it can’t commit a single cent to help SBS develop its Internet service. A tiny fraction of the $43 billion would more than cover all the things SBS so desperately needs to expand and be free of advertising.

“To date, it is only the Greens that have issued a promise that would increase funding for SBS so it could expand and be free of advertising backed up with legislation as per a Bill they already have in the Senate”.

Speaking about the Election promises for SBS Mr Aujard said, “It’s a national disgrace that although Australia produced the world’s first multicultural broadcaster, our political leaders are now no longer proud to fund the organisation adequately, leaving SBS to run off the smell of an oily rag”.

For more information see Election promises for SBS at http://saveoursbs.org/archives/1396

SaveOurSBS.org approached the four major parties for their SBS policies. The Greens and Labor parties responded whereas the Liberals and Nationals did not. An overview is provided in the table below – for the SBS policies of the Greens and Labor parties only.

Our analysis and opinion is below the summary table followed by the full text of each party’s SBS policies.

Summary of party policies at a glance

Analysis and opinion

If Labor is elected on 21 August SBS might be left behind – for a time. The Liberals and Nationals are offering less than nothing. They don’t even pretend to have a policy for SBS and their past record when in government was devastating for SBS. It probably would be again. SaveOurSBS.org understands that privately some in the Liberal party would prefer to fully commercialise and sell SBS.

The Greens are the only party who have come up with a carefully considered, well thought out broadcast policy that is truly supportive for SBS that will provide our multicultural broadcaster with the resources it needs and deserves, with opportunities to expand and free of advertising.

There is no doubt that Labor lifted funding to SBS in their May 2009 Budget and that it had declined markedly under the Howard Liberal-National Coalition government. The current triennial funding increase of Labor was not enough though. SaveOurSBS.org had recommended SBS be funded at half that of the ABC which would have been more than double that received by SBS.

While Senator Conroy was happy to highlight Labor’s SBS policy ‘achievements’ to SaveOurSBS.org not much was mentioned of the future. Nothing was said about the failure to implement Labor’s 2007 SBS election policy into action, “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising“.

The Greens said they support funding to SBS similar to that for public broadcasting in the UK without disruptions into programs backed with legislation and “free of advertising”.

Unlike the 2007 election, there is nothing that SaveOurSBS.org can find in the 2010 Labor policy that speaks to the need for expansion of SBS let alone without reliance on advertising. No forward plans for the much needed SBS Internet funding that we proposed, nor expansion of SBS-TWO or ONE, nothing for SBS-Radio nor community development. Labor might not be against these things and may even fund them. They are just not raising them now. Not publicly.

How ironical that Labor has committed $43 billion for broadband rollout, yet can’t commit a single cent to help SBS develop its Internet service.  A tiny fraction of the $43 billion would more than cover all the things SBS so desperately needs to expand and be free of advertising.

Supportive statements were expressed to SaveOurSBS.org by both Labor and Greens (1) for SBS to be a strong public broadcaster. Labor did not elaborate further other than that stated in the table above but the Greens said that their communications spokesperson, Senator Scott Ludlam, has maintained a keen interest in the welfare of SBS throughout the current Parliament. “For example, he has moved to legislate to remove advertising from SBS, investigated rumours of pending cuts to news and current affairs staffing levels (2), and moved a motion (in cooperation with Senator Bob Brown) in the Senate calling for the Government to adequately fund SBS (3)“.

The Greens said they would be accommodating of SBS in the event that SBS desired to not interrupt programs for advertisements and added “Senator Ludlam has asked a series of Senate Estimates questions to quantify the additional funding required to offset lost revenue due to stopping in-program advertising, and the Greens favour substituting this funding with public revenue (4)“. However Labor would not be drawn on if they might commit to any increase in funds for SBS, to cover any loss of advertising revenue should SBS want to cease interrupting programs for ads. Labor’s official response: “in 2008–09, SBS earned gross revenue of $52.5 million from television advertising sales”. That factual statement is somewhat meaningless in the context of the question, as it avoids answering the issue at the centre of the question – one of supportive funding. But the current non-position of Labor leaves the funding issue open so that Labor could fund SBS in such circumstances if it wanted to in the future.

Meanwhile, a departmental communication not addressed to the Minister but written by a senior person in the Department and given to SaveOurSBS.org just before this publication referred to matters of SBS advertising and funding and the document stated these would be raised with the Minister “following the election”. This appears to have been prompted by the more than 12,000 emails that the SaveOurSBS.org campaign (A,B,C) participants had sent (copied to us) in a very short period, to the Minister and other government and opposition politicians about funding and advertising disruptions on SBS. To be fair, Senator Conroy’s Office responded to our questions when those campaigns were in their infancy so he may not then have known the extent of the continuing passion that the community still has towards funding SBS for expansion and without reliance on advertising. Labor’s official line is that ads help provide SBS with “high quality and diverse programming”.

However Labor also maintains that “the SBS Board and management, were responsible for the change in advertising policy on SBS Television in 2006”. That’s true.

In 2007 Senator Conroy described the described the in-program advertising policy of SBS as serving “to erode the fundamental tenets of public broadcasting- that is, that it should be free from commercial…influence” (D). He has again reaffirmed that stance for these 2010 elections by telling SaveOurSBS.org of Labor’s SBS policies and referring to the Howard appointed SBS Board “[it] showed little interest in or knowledge of the tenets of public broadcasting…and [that] forced SBS to increase its reliance on commercial income”- in-program advertising. Now with the same advertising policy it would seem that Labor continues to politely ‘blame’ SBS itself as well as the previous government but ‘compensation’ for SBS, is not a word that rolls off Labor party tongues easily. SaveOurSBS.org believes that there has been some suggestion within government circles that Labor wants the SBS Australian made television programs to be substantially produced in languages other than English (LOTE) and for SBS to cease interrupting programs for ad breaks before meaningful discussions about increasing SBS base funding might occur. Then Senator Conroy will have the ammunition he needs to push for increased funding if Labor is re-elected.

As for future policy, it remains unclear as to when or if, Labor might boost base funding for SBS and to what extent. The Greens have a clear supportive financial policy for SBS.

For now it seems Labor won’t amend the SBS Act 1991 to prohibit SBS from disrupting programs for advertisements. The Greens will, and will also replace lost revenue resulting from that for SBS with public funding. In discussing this SaveOurSBS.org notes that the Rudd-Labor government ignored a prominent point of the submissions that were solely about SBS, that submitted government ought to prohibit advertising disruptions on SBS and fund it adequately. The submissions were for the 2008 government initiative, the ABC & SBS Review.

Essentially neither the Greens nor Labor parties support the merger of the SBS and ABC however with a qualification of the Labor party as explained in the table above.

When we asked each party about their other major policies for SBS, we were quite surprised that Labor did not use this opportunity to outline any future Labor policies (do they have any?) other than rightfully wanting to legislate for SBS Board appointments to occur in a more transparent manner than was the case under the previous Howard government.

Labor wants their Bill about the appointments process to the SBS Board in favour of a merit based system, to become law. The Greens appear broadly supportive of that but the Liberals and Nationals are not. The merit based system Labor wants is not currently law but has been practised by Labor for the three appointments made since Labor was elected in 2007, namely, the “new Chair of SBS, Mr Joseph Skrzynski, and board members Elleni Bereded-Samuel and Hass Dellal. All appointments made by the Government through this process have been from the short list recommended by a Nomination Panel which is not subject to direction by or on behalf of the Government“.

Labor and Greens agree the SBS Board should be independent but there is a notable difference between the two on the make-up of the Board. The Greens say the SBS Board is to include “staff representation”. Labor did not include staff representation on its Board policy for SBS (as was the case for the ABC Board).

Each party was invited to provide references for their answers. No URL links were provided by Labor while the Greens gave the references below
(1) http://greens.org.au/policies/media-arts-science/media-and-communications
(2) http://scott-ludlam.greensmps.org.au/content/media-release/please-explain-does-sbs-plan-slash-newsroom-staff
(3) http://scott-ludlam.greensmps.org.au/content/motion-support-sbs
(4) http://scott-ludlam.greensmps.org.au/content/question/advertising-during-sbs-programs

As at 10 August 2010 here is the full text of the questions asked and answers given about the policies of the Greens and Labor parties for the 21 August 2010 Australian federal election. The Liberal and National Parties did not provide anything.

Save Our SBS Inc is not a member of or aligned with any political party.

This post and the party policy links on the SaveOurSBS.org server may be reproduced in full or part by any person, organisation or other media without payment to Save Our SBS Inc provided a credit is given to SaveOurSBS.org

The gloom that pervades the unit could not be further from the excited mood that prevailed over 25 years ago when it was established. Subtitlers at SBS TV have been part of a team which has produced arguably the world’s finest subtitles in a unit built from scratch starting in the early 80s. Over the years, their work has allowed viewers to enjoy programming from around the world through their provision of English language subtitles. Drama – ranging from Lebanese sitcoms to Garcia Lorca – documentaries, children’s programming, even opera. Programs which could be quirky or weird or wonderful, but above all, distinctive – you didn’t need a watermark on the screen to know you were watching SBS.

The standards developed over the years at the SBS subtitling unit mean there is a lot more to creating subtitles than simply translating, a challenging enough task in itself.

The subtitles are prepared using a purpose-built computer program. Each subtitle must contain no more than a certain number of characters, and must remain on screen for a determined length of time to ensure that viewers can easily read it. The timing of the subtitle must correspond to the spoken word on screen, but it must also allow for contingencies such as camera angle changes. Where songs or poems are subtitled, the translation must replicate the rhythm of the original as well as the meaning. The process is much more laborious than a simple translation, and creating subtitles for a feature film may take up to a fortnight.

Once the subtitles are completed (usually by a native speaker of the language in question), they are checked by an editor (usually a native speaker of English). There may be discussions to be had about ambiguities and cultural sensitivities, as well as punctuation and grammar. Employment in the unit was gained only after exhaustive tests to assess candidates’ knowledge of the culture associated with their language as well as their translation skills.

In addition to their subtitling responsibilities, subtitlers were called on by newsreaders, journalists and others to check pronunciation of foreign names, and they also previewed and assessed overseas programs being considered for purchase. SBS subtitlers took their expertise around the world; Aboriginal broadcasters in Central Australia and European linguistic conferences alike benefited from the unit’s prowess.

In an era when SBS prided itself on being the world’s only multicultural, multilingual broadcaster, the quality of SBS subtitles set a benchmark worldwide. It was work for lovers of words and film, and the subtitling unit provided a home for aspiring novelists, poets and filmmakers, as well as people who simply delighted in making the products of other cultures accessible to a wider audience. In the days when SBS saw its role as providing an alternative to the programming seen on other channels, a majority of SBS’s programs were in languages other than English, with subtitles.  Providing services to News & Current Affairs, Local Production and even Sport, the subtitling unit lay at the heart of SBS TV.

But the heyday of the Subtitling Unit was shortlived, as programming of foreign language material, once the broadcaster’s raison d’etre, was downgraded.

The advent of advertising, initially only between programs, was quickly followed by a policy of excluding non-English language programs from prime time. Leaving aside the morning worldwatch broadcasts, which are not subtitled, it’s now not unusual for the SBS-ONE schedule to feature only one or two non-English language programs a day. There have even been days when there is no subtitled foreign language content at all (on SBS ONE). Don Quixote and Mozart and Lebanese soap operas have made way for Top Gear, Mythbusters and Big Love. When the pursuit of ratings rules, Inspector Rex alone finds a home in a prime-time slot.

The announcement about the most recent cutbacks was unwelcome but not unexpected. Subtitlers had been apprehensive about a recent review of the unit conducted without consultation with staff. The audit found that the unit was inefficient, and Brown stated that in future more films would be bought complete with subtitles done overseas to avoid the cost of doing them in-house (in times past, most overseas-created subtitles have been regarded as failing to meet SBS subtitling standards).

Some of the staff slated for redundancy are happy enough to go; as foreign-language programming has dwindled, people originally employed because of their language skills spend much of their time writing the teletext subtitles (Closed Captions) for the hearing-impaired for English-language programmes. Sub-editors’ duties now include identifying “natural breaks” in programs for insertion of commercials. (Not an easy task – just where are those breaks in, say, Tosca?)

Those of us who had the good fortune to work in SBS’s subtitling unit over the last 20 or so years must now acknowledge that those exciting days are over, and they will not return. SBS has moved on, and so must we. But we can be proud to have contributed to a thrilling period in Australian television, which was as remarkable as it was short-lived.

Cathy Carey has worked in various capacities at SBS TV including stints as a  subtitler.

The article above is the full text by Cathy Carey. Abbreviated versions have appeared on other sites. It was first published under the title “Lost in translation, subtitlers get the chop” in the Melbourne Age – Green Guide on 9 June 2010.

SBS World News Australia has fallen victim to the ill effects of the chronic under funding that has plagued the broadcaster for more than a decade. Already operating with strained resources, the news department can take the strain no more.

In an email sent last week by the SBS Director of News & Current Affairs, staff were told the redundancies “will not be a hands-up exercise”. However the email went on to say that an effort would be made to give preferences to staff who expressed an interest – in taking redundancy. Precise numbers were not revealed although the email did state that the numbers “affected will be small”.

This week the SBS Director of Strategy and Communications, speaking on behalf of SBS, confirmed to SaveOurSBS.org that “there will be some redundancies in the news room”.

Asked if World News Australia would run shorter bulletins and SBS planned to sack half the news staff the spokesperson for SBS said “There is no truth to the story that we plan to cut news staff by half or that there is any plan to reduce the length of the news bulletin.”

SaveOurSBS.org was also told that part of the budgetary strain now effecting the news room, was because no specific funding had been made from government for the operation of SBS TWO.

Meanwhile SaveOurSBS.org continues to lobby government for greater funding and in a submission to the SBS Board in March this year, again raised the concern that pursing the commercial path has and will lead to a gradual downturn in government funding. The Board was strongly urged to abandon the disruption in programs for advertising as a first step towards regaining increased public support for greater funding and so that the broadcaster would appeal more favourably to those in government who are deeply offended by that practice – believing that SBS was never intended to operate along commercial lines to the current extent. Dependency on advertising is now taking its toll.

SBS ventured into this with NINE. What is the relationship between SBS and NINE?

In order to facilitate SBS and NINE broadcasting what are effectively test transmissions in 3D the ACMA, which regulates and allocates broadcast spectrum, has made some spectrum available on a temporary basis. NINE and SBS have agreed to share the spectrum, with SBS becoming the “licensee” of the spectrum in some places and NINE in others.

SBS and NINE have devised a broadcast schedule that accommodates the needs of both broadcasters for the World Cup and State of Origin series. When matches are not being played a promotional reel showcasing 3D content from both broadcasters will be played. Replays of 3D matches will also be scheduled.

Is there a commercial arrangement between NINE and SBS in terms of splitting the income and sharing the overall costs?

There is no commercial arrangement between NINE and SBS. No payments or other consideration (other than practical assistance) will pass between the two.

How is SBS funding the 3D broadcast?

SBS has brokered a commercial partnership with Sony and Harvey Norman that covers the costs of broadcasting the World Cup in 3D. SBS has also received technical and transmission support from a number of partners including Broadcast Australia and satellite provider Optus.

Will there be advertising, including 3D advertising?

It is unlikely for technical reasons that it will be possible to insert ads in the 3D broadcast. Very few 3D ads currently exist.

What will be needed to watch the SBS 3D broadcasts?

Viewers will need to have or have access to a high definition 3D set and appropriate glasses to view the broadcast.

What will happen to the 3D digital channels after the World Cup?

After the World Cup and State of Origin series the spectrum will revert to the Government and its future use will be considered as part of the digital television switch over process.

At a future time would SBS like to have access to the 3D digital channel spectrum?

SBS does not have spectrum available to it to broadcast further 3D content at this stage. In any event there is little 3D content in existence [but we] will continue to monitor developments in 3D television and look at options for future broadcasts as and when they become feasible. 3D is still a technology in development. There are not yet agreed standards and at present there is not enough spectrum available to broadcasters for the wide spread provision of 3D programming.

Which cities and what digital channels will the 3D test broadcasts be available?

Frequencies in the UHF band in Sydney (35), Melbourne (35), Brisbane (50), Adelaide (29), Perth (35), Newcastle (35) and Wollongong (50).

Will SBS 3D be available in regional centres and remote parts of Australia?

Unfortunately, the service will not be available in regional areas. However, Austar MyStar customers who can receive a signal from one of the transmitter sites [mentioned] and who have appropriate reception equipment will be able to receive the signal.

The 3D test broadcasts on SBS of the FIFA World Cup will broadcast on the following dates and times: -

South Africa v Mexico LIVE 11 June at 23:45 hours AEST; Germany v Australia LIVE 14 June at 04:15 AEST; Netherlands v Denmark LIVE 14 June at 23:30 AEST; Argentina v Korea LIVE 17 June at 23:30 AEST; Netherlands v Japan LIVE 19 June at 23:30 AEST; Ghana v Germany 23 June LIVE at 04:15 AEST; Portugal v Brazil LIVE 25 June at 23:45 AEST; 1B v 2A (2) LIVE 28 June at 04:15 AEST; 1E v 2F (5) LIVE 28 June at 23:45 AEST; Quarter Final 1 v 3 (A) LIVE 3 July at 04:15 AEST; Quarter Final 2 v 4  (B) LIVE 3 July at 23:43 AEST; Quarter Final 6 v 8 (D) LIVE 4 July at 04:15 AEST; Semi Final A v C (1) LIVE 7 July at 04:15 AEST; Semi Final B v D (1) LIVE 8 July at 04:15 AEST; Final W1 v W2 LIVE 12 July at 04:15 AEST

Further Reading

SBS to broadcast World Cup in 3D SBS press release about 3D TV.

3D TV trials The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) is the industry regulator and has issued the licence for the 3D test transmissions.

3D television – the technology explained The Wikipedia technical explanation of how 3D works.

3D TV FAQ The CNEWS technical explanation of how 3D TV works.

3D TV SBS Broadcasts – Technical Only How technical buffs are watching 3D on a computer – the hardware and software needed.

Ready or not, the latest 3D technology is coming home What equipment is required to make and view 3D TV.

The History of Australian Television – the eighties 3D was first broadcast in Australia in 1983.

In his opening presentation to last week’s Senate Estimates hearing, Brown told the Senate Committee that SBS needed to find a way to offset the hits to the broadcaster’s commercial revenue that have occurred.

Brown said that the hits to SBS’s advertising revenue had come about: “firstly as a consequence of the global financial crisis and secondly because of the explosion of multichannels from commercial broadcasters which has doubled the amount of commercial inventory in the market”. Brown added this was “having an impact on the revenue that SBS can derive”.

Brown was alluding that the value of the SBS advertising dollar has been diluted with the introduction of ONE, SEVEN-TWO and GO. Previously SBS only had to contend with 7, 9 and 10. And now that community television has begun transmissions on digital 32 and the ABC will soon have four television networks, the spread of viewers across 13 metropolitan free-to-air channels will mean that SBS will have far fewer viewers than a year ago. That’s not overly attractive to advertisers who want numbers. It throws into doubt the emphasis that SBS gave to depending on income from in-program advertising breaks, as a reliable source of income. It no longer is.

In what could be called a justified but subtle plea for further funding, Brown told Senate Estimates that a way needed to be found “to resource new and emerging platforms so that SBS remains a vital part of that expanded landscape”. Later Brown discussed some of those platforms, including the Internet and SBS-TWO.

However there has been no particular funding granted to SBS for these platforms and SBS has been habitually under funded by all governments. Taking these factors into account, SaveOurSBS.org wrote to the Treasurer in December 2009 urging that specific funding be made available to SBS for its online services before the next triennial funding period commences in 2012. That specific request was on the back of earlier submissions to government that SBS deserves greater funding to free the broadcaster from any need to rely on advertising.

In August 2008, SaveOurSBS.org made a submission to the Minister for a massive injection of public funding for the current triennial period (2009 to 2012) so that SBS would not need to rely on advertising.

Since 2007 in other submissions to government, SaveOurSBS.org has repeatedly predicted that SBS would ultimately suffer, and the current model that has caused SBS to turn to advertising as a source of income, is flawed. Brown’s revelation to the 24 May 2010 Senate Estimates that SBS needs to “find a way to offset the hits to [SBS] commercial revenue” is spot on. A way is needed.

Considering the disruptions to regular programs for advertisements remains grossly unpopular with viewers and that many in government have deep philosophical objections to those disruptions, SaveOurSBS.org (again) submitted in March this year that the interruptions of programs for commercial breaks will need to end as a first step in SBS rebuilding support from its viewers and obtaining greater public funding. Adequate funding for SBS remains years overdue.

SaveOurSBS.org understands that the restructure has come about because many people who were originally employed to subtitle foreign language programs have found their duties were later extended to create closed captions. Closed captions are the teletext subtitles for the hard-of-hearing on English language programs – not the superimposed subtitles used on foreign language programs.

In a statement to SaveOurSBS.org, SBS management said: “At present we have an over supply of capacity in some languages relative to need. As a result many staff are spending considerable amounts of time doing closed captioning of English language programming rather than subtitling. This is not what they are trained for, or prefer to do”.

Sources close to those affected have said that SBS intends to outsource subtitling of foreign language programs or import programs that are already subtitled, even if the standard of subtitling is inferior, as that is cheaper. But SBS has assured SaveOurSBS.org that “there is no plan to out source the unit nor to reduce the amount of subtitled programming (in fact increased investment in SBS TWO will result in more subtitled product).”

SaveOurSBS.org has argued for a fully funded commercial free SBS with an increase in foreign language programs.

The Charter is very clear: “The principle function of the SBS is to provide multilingual and multicultural radio and television services . . .”

Section 45 of the Act states that SBS may broadcast advertisements “before programs commence, after programs end or during natural program breaks” but no definition is given of a “natural program break” or when that might occur. The history of advertising on SBS dates back to 1991. There is nothing in the SBS Act that exempts advertisements from needing to comply with the SBS Charter. Mostly they don’t.

In late 2006, SBS reinterpreted their previous definition of a “natural program break”, and SBS-TV began to look and feel like that of a commercial broadcaster what with every program being interrupted for commercial breaks. SBS was no longer ‘special’.

Multilingual and multicultural programming took second place.

Tens of thousands of people protested about the commercialisation of SBS.

Three years on, the interruptions of programs for advertisements remains the biggest single annoyance to SBS viewers. Traditional supporters abandoned ship.

The legislators and those that drafted the Act say that in 1991, when SBS was granted permission to carry advertising, they never intended that a “natural program break” be interpreted in the broad way that SBS now do.

At the Senate Estimates on 30 October 2006, Senator Conroy said: “I have spoken to some of the people who were involved in drafting it [the SBS Act]”. He criticised the reinterpretation that SBS had just announced that would allow for the interruption of programs for advertisements into virtually any program. Conroy said the SBS self-penned definition of a “natural program break” was: “inconsistent with the intent of the limits that the legislation attempted to set”. The Senator was referring to the (SBS) Guidelines For The Placement of Breaks in Television Programs September 2006 which fall under the SBS Codes of Practice 2006. The Act requires the Board to determine an advertising policy. But it must be consistent with the Charter and the intent of the Act, not just the wording of the Act.

At the same Senate Estimates Senator Conroy quoted from the previous SBS Codes that defined a “natural program break” as “any pause during coverage of an event where audiences miss none of the proceedings that relate directly to the event (for example, rest periods in sports events)” for SBS-TV. That definition does not clash with the Charter or just common sense.

Legislators intended that “natural program breaks” would at least be genuine natural breaks, e.g., a ‘gap’ between acts in a live opera when there might otherwise have been a long pause, or, in similarly in live sport at half time. No one could honestly believe that the current reinterpretation of 2006, for example, the end of a scene (any scene) in a drama is a genuine natural break. It is obvious such breaks are not natural. They are forced.

The current SBS advertising Guidelines policy has pre-determined that a certain number of natural breaks per hour do exist. Even if a program has no genuine, natural breaks, they must be found. The policy says so. In daily practice, almost no room is left for the discretion of the poor bod whose task it is to force a break knowing that common sense would say: this is not a genuine natural break. The viewer suffers as does the reputation of SBS.

And since late 2006, the intent of the Act remains ignored.

All eyes are now on the new Chair of SBS, Joseph Skrzynski to lead the Board in a different direction and adopt a new model where advertisements are placed between programs and not in them. Only time will tell if the SBS Board will act as the responsible custodian of these public airwaves, respect the Charter, the SBS audience and the intent of the legislation.

FURTHER READING

The Zampatti Makeover by David Ingram.  Former SBS National Training Manager (1994 to 2007) expresses his opinion that the retirement on 16 December 2009 of Carla Zampatti as the then Chair of the SBS marks “the end of perhaps the most destructive era in the multicultural broadcaster’s 34-year history”.

Bill bans ad interruptions on SBS-TV A legislative solution that would prohibit SBS from interrupting programs for commercial breaks but allow SBS to advertise between programs only.

The SBS Must Be Special Former Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, whose government established the Special Broadcasting Service, building on the creation of the publicly funded multi-lingual radio stations 2EA and 3EA of the Whitlam government, joined with ethnic community leaders and key figures from public life, literature and the arts calling for SBS to focus on the needs of viewers rather than on selling consumers to advertisers.

A chronology of advertising on SBS The history of advertising on SBS from subtle sponsorship in 1992 to soft sell ‘arty’ commercials of the late 1990’s right through to full blown, hard sell ‘in your face’ type advertising in 2007 and 2008. The detrimental impact to multilingual and LOTE programming caused by advertising is documented.

SBS URL BROKEN

The SBS Codes URL for the SBS Codes of Practice 2006 may have been removed from http://www20.sbs.com.au/sbscorporate/media/documents/8487sbs_codes_of_practice_2006.pdf but now can be found at http://saveoursbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/8487sbs_codes_of_practice_2006.pdf

The SBS Advertising Guidelines URL for the (SBS) Guidelines For The Placement of Breaks in Television Programs September 2006 may have been removed from   http://www20.sbs.com.au/sbscorporate/media/documents/3913advertising_guidelines_2006.pdf but now can be found at http://saveoursbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/3913advertising_guidelines_2006.pdf

Commenting on the appointment Save Our SBS spokesperson Darce Cassidy said:

“Mr Skrzynski is well qualified to lead Australia’s multicultural broadcaster. He arrived in Australia as a refugee from Poland after the Second World War. He has held Board positions with the Australian, Film Television and Radio School and the Australian Film Commission and is a former Chairman of the Sydney Opera House Trust. He has been recognised for mentoring Australian film makers and his support for Indigenous scholarships”

Mr Skrzynski is already a member of the SBS Board and was appointed on 27 March this year. A vacancy on the SBS Board has now been created as a result of his newer appointment to the position of Chair. Persons interested in filling that Board vacancy should visit www.dbcde.gov.au/abcsbsboards

Commenting further the Save Our SBS spokesperson added:

“Despite his qualifications and experience Mr Skrzynski faces a daunting task in getting the SBS, and particularly its television services, back on course. The pursuit of advertising income has lead to a decline in programs in languages other than English (LOTE) during the most popular viewing times. Moreover the decision to interrupt programs for advertisements, while it may have generated more income has upset both audiences and the government.”

“Mr Skrzynski and the Board will need to build bridges with ethnic communities, with audiences and with the government. For our part Save Our SBS will continue to lobby the government over advertising on SBS and to replace lost advertising with federal funds.”

Joseph Skrzynski will take up the position of SBS Chair on 17 December 2009 until his term expires on 26 March 2014.

In a media statement Senator Ludlam said: “The Bill will not prevent SBS from generating advertising revenue, nor from running advertisements and station promotions between programs”. He added the “character [of SBS] is under threat from the shortfall in public funding”. Previously the Greens had called for more funding for the broadcaster.

The Bill, the Special Broadcasting Service Amendment (Prohibition of Disruptive Advertising) Bill 2009 (Bill Number 165/2009) was first introduced by the Australian Democrats in 2008. The parliament did not vote on it then. If it became law, the Bill would prohibit the interruption of programs by advertisements and station promotions on SBS television by amending Section 45 (2) (a) of the Special Broadcasting Service Act (1991) to omit the phrase ‘or during natural program breaks’.

Senator Ludlam said: “It has been taken up by the Greens due to the ongoing and widespread concern about the dangers associated with expanding advertising on a public broadcaster and aims to protect SBS from the creeping commercialisation that is now evident”. A former Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, whose government established the Special Broadcasting Service, and other distinguished persons had previously expressed similar sentiments in a public statement The SBS Must Be Special.

SaveOurSBS.org believes the re-introduction of the Bill may be timely but hopes that the government stimulus packages might now be extended to include SBS.

Prior to the May 2009 Budget, Save Our SBS  made a submission to the government for a massive injection of public funding for the 2009-2012 SBS Budget coupled with legislation to ban commercial breaks on SBS.

In 2008 Save Our SBS  presented a petition signed by more than seven and a half thousand people urging a ban on advertising on SBS with more funding from the public purse. Other campaigns have repeatedly called on the government to live up to its 2007 election policy statement that “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising”. (ALP email; Senator Conroy email; and, Kevin Rudd email).

As yet there is no date set down for the parliament to debate or vote on the Bill.

In the May 2009 Senate Estimates the Greens spokesperson for Communications, Senator Ludlam questioned Minister Conroy about Labor’s pre-election policies in regard to SBS interrupting programs for commercial breaks. Part of the proceedings are cited below:-

Senator LUDLAM- You might require a slightly better citation than this. SaveOurSBS.org, the website, which I am sure you are familiar with, is running a quote by you when you were opposition spokesperson for communications: “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising.” I will find the date of that for you.
Senator Conroy- No, I am not disagreeing that I said that-
Senator LUDLAM- Okay. That was-
Senator Conroy- I am disagreeing with your interpretation of what that meant.
Senator LUDLAM- Can you bring us up to date on what that actually meant?
Senator Conroy- It meant exactly what it said. It just did not mean what you are saying it said.
Senator LUDLAM- I am pretty happy with the context of the quote, that you opposed when you were in opposition-
Senator Conroy- I am pretty happy with it too; I made it.
Senator LUDLAM- But it was not government policy at the time; it was just an opinion?
Senator Conroy- It was an opinion. It was never stated-you will not find any election document or any public statement that says we would reverse it.
Senator LUDLAM- But it does not say-
Senator Conroy- There is a reason that you do not have a quote there saying we would reverse it, and the reason is that we never said it.
Senator LUDLAM- Sorry to belabour the point, but you also have not said, ‘I, Mr Conroy, oppose’; you have said, ‘Labor has opposed and continues to oppose’. But at the time you did not say, ‘But we will do nothing about it once we are in government’; you just opposed it on principle at the time?
Senator Conroy- Yes.

The Minister Conroy went onto tell Estimates that he was not happy with the situation.

The SaveOurSBS.org quote referred to above in Senate Estimates “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising” was first published on the SaveOurSBS.org website on 11 October 2007 under the heading “What Each Party Will Do With SBS: Election 2007″ – The SBS policies of each party explained.

But there are other documents that contain the quote. And it was far more than just an opinion expressed by Senator Conroy.

The quote was repeated multiple times by Senator Conroy then in the month of the election it was re-issued in  emails from Kevin Rudd and the ALP Campaign Information headquarters. By November 2007 the quote (above) had become official Labor party policy appearing on authorised ALP material under Labor’s chosen heading: Labor’s SBS Policy. Save Our SBS has obtained documents that prove that.

The policy “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising” was consistent with Senator Conroy’s earlier comments.

On 11 October 2007 Senator Conroy had sent an email to the then newly founded Save Our SBS. Senator Conroy, then opposition spokesperson for Communications, was responding to a SaveOurSBS.org email of 22 August 2007. We sent a similar email to other politicians and parties. We told each politician that we would publish their answer on the SaveOurSBS.org website. In our email of 22 August 2007 to Senator Conroy we began: “We seek information as to ALP policy regarding SBS. In particular we would like to know what is the ALP policy regarding the interruptions to programs for advertisements on SBS-TV?” In the public interest of fairness we disclose the full email from Save Our SBS of 22 August 2007 to Senator Conroy and his email reply of 11 October 2007. Both can be read here. (For privacy reasons a personal phone number has been blacked out).

We published Senator Conroy’s reply containing his quote (above) on 11 October 2007 (here). Then in November 2007 SaveOurSBS.org published the famous quote again “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising” in a different story (here). We were reporting on the outcome of a joint Save Our SBS and Friends of the ABC campaign. Again the quote appeared under Labor’s named heading: Labor’s SBS Policy. The same heading and quote was issued in multiple emails with identical content about the SBS and the ABC. Some emails placed Labor’s SBS Policy at the top of the email while other emails placed it towards the middle of the email. Nevertheless the quote always appeared under the same heading: Labor’s SBS Policy.

The emails were sent from Kevin Rudd, Senator Conroy and the ALP Campaign Information Services. All three had sent their email to the participants of the joint Save Our SBS and Friends of the ABC campaign that ran in the lead up to the 2007 Federal election. Save Our SBS tracked 1119 email campaign participants. We have copies of all those emails. There may have been more.

No one was left wondering what Labor’s policy was regarding SBS and “in-program advertising”. Certainly not the 1119 people who received who the email a week or so before the election from Kevin Rudd, Senator Conroy and the ALP Campaign Information Services. Each email clearly stated:-

Labor’s SBS Policy
Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising

If it looks like a policy, reads like a policy, is emailed under the heading Labor’s SBS Policy and sent in multiple emails from Labor party headquarters, Senator Conroy and Kevin Rudd, to 1119 people right up to one day before the election, we reckon it is a policy.

The question remains: when will the government now live up to its pre-election promise? Will Senator Conroy amend section 45 of the SBS Act to prohibit SBS from interrupting programs for advertisements or will another Senator or MP have do that? Who will make the first move?

Labor’s SBS policy email below From Kevin Rudd, Sent 23 Nov 2007 (PDF here)
BELOW email page 1 of 4

BELOW email page 2 of 4

BELOW email page 3 of 4

BELOW email page 4 of 4

Labor’s SBS policy email below From Senator Conroy, Sent 21 Nov 2007 (PDF here)
BELOW email page 1 of 2

BELOW email page 2 of 2

Labor’s SBS policy email below From ALP Campaign Information Services, Sent 14 Nov 2007 (PDF here)
BELOW email page 1 of 3

BELOW email page 2 of 3

BELOW email page 3 of 3

For a quick overview click to read:
No ad breaks on SBS part 1: When is a policy not a policy?

Responding to Senator Scott Ludlum (Greens) in a recent Senate Committee hearing, Senator Conroy suggested that statements he made before the 2007 election, which had severely criticized SBS management for interrupting programs for commercial breaks, “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising” were not official Labor policy, but simply his “opinion”.  According to the Hansard transcript:

Senator LUDLAM- But it was not government policy at the time; it was just an opinion?
Senator Conroy- It was an opinion . . .
[and later]
Senator LUDLAM- . . . you just opposed it on principle at the time?
Senator Conroy- Yes.

However separate emails from Kevin Rudd, the ALP campaign office and Senator Conroy himself all make it clear that this was the considered policy of the Labor Party as a whole.

Labor’s campaign office took the view that this was Labor policy. In an email dated 14 November 2007, under the heading Labor’s SBS Policy, campaign headquarters wrote “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising.” See ALP email here.

A week later Senator Conroy, also under the heading Labor’s SBS Policy, wrote “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising.” See Conroy email here.

A few days later Kevin Rudd, also under the heading Labor’s SBS Policy repeated exactly the same words.  Mr Rudd did not suggest that this was simply Senator Conroy’s opinion.  In his email Mr Rudd also made it clear that it was Labor Party policy. This was one day before the election. See Rudd email here.

This is not simply an issue of Senator Conroy’s credibility.  It is also reflects on Kevin Rudd and the government as a whole.

For a detailed a background report click to read:
No ad breaks on SBS part 2: Minister denies policy

Brown took exception to the expression that SBS had forced breaks into these or any programs. However he did admit that SBS interrupted programs that were never produced for commercial breaks. Brown insisted that SBS only had natural breaks which is permissible under the SBS Act. However the Act does not define natural breaks, so under their Codes SBS invented their own Guidelines. The SBS definition has never been tested in the Courts.

At Senate Estimates Brown said that the SBS definition of a natural break was a “global” definition.

Brown’s statement is not globally true.

It is true that some similarity can be found with the UK as to where it is acceptable to place a break but there is no reference to such break being described as a natural break.

Back home, commercial television in Australia was de-regulated in the mid 1980’s. Commercial television licenses were originally granted under the old Broadcasting & Television Act. There was never a legislated definition of a natural break. Commercial broadcasters may now place breaks of any length, where ever they desire but SBS does not hold a commercial licence. It is a public, tax payer funded broadcaster.

In 2007 SBS forced 6000 breaks into programs that were never intended to be interrupted, as such we maintain they were not natural. Certainly they annoyed viewers.

Brown also told Senate Estimates “We now place only one 30-second spot on the top of the hour.”

But anyone who watches SBS-TV regularly knows the break between programs are longer than 30 seconds.

Breaks in programs on SBS run 2 mins and breaks between programs vary in length but are usually also about 2 minutes. Was Brown telling a fib to Senate Estimates when he said they now have “only one 30-second spot on the top of the hour”? A “spot” is industry jargon for a commercial but you could be forgiven for not knowing that because the total length of the break, including promos and advertisements is usually closer to 2 minutes and sometime longer. It is rarely just 30 seconds.

In defending SBS interrupting programs for commercial breaks, Brown has always maintained the line that the breaks were around 8 to 10 minutes between programs under the previous model where programs were not interrupted. In a media release on 1 June 2006, when SBS had been preparing to move to the now current model, Brown said: “These lengthy breaks – sometimes up to 10 minutes – are clearly unpopular with viewers. The new structure will reduce the lengthy, between-program breaks currently in the SBS schedule” and in discussing the then future model of interrupting programs, in the same media release, Brown said: “For half hour programs, there could be two short advertising breaks of 60 seconds duration and for one hour programs, there may be three short breaks, each no longer than 90 seconds duration”.

Regular viewers of SBS-TV would know that under the previous model the break between programs were rarely 8 to 10 minutes, except very late at night, for example at close of transmission. Although under the old model, SBS-TV often ran 4 to 6 minute breaks between programs, it is now obvious that viewers preferred that approach instead of the current model of interrupting programs.  Under the present model half hour programs have two, 2 minute breaks (not 60 seconds as foreshadowed) while one hour programs now contain three, 2 minute breaks (not 90 seconds as stated).

Is Brown a master at manipulating statistics?

Transcript of Senate Estimates

The questions and answers asked by Senator Scott Ludlam in the May 2009 Senate Estimates may be read in detail at:  http://wotnews.com.au/like/estimates_sbs_funding_and_advertising/3471896 however if you would prefer to read the full Hansard transcript of the May 2009 Senate Estimates visit:  http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=;db=;group=;holdingType=;id=;orderBy=;page=0;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Festimate%2F12031%2F0003%22;querytype=;rec=;resCount=

Senator Scott Ludlam, the W.A. Greens spokesperson for Communications had been questioning Brown about the SBS advertising policies and operations.

Surprisingly Brown also told Senate Estimates that SBS had not sought “revenue to offset the commercial revenue” when SBS recently made its submission to government for funding for the next three years. Brown also said he was aware of the public objections to SBS interrupting programs.

Senator LUDLAM- Are you concerned or are you surprised by the degree to which these opinions were raised in the process of public submissions late last year, the degree of disquiet amongst the audience about the amount of advertising?
Mr Brown- No, I am not really.

This revelation by Brown at Senate Estimates only confirms public perception that Brown and the SBS Board are not listening to their viewers. Such arrogance, that SBS made a deliberate decision not to seek any funding from government in the May Budget to abandon its failed advertising policy in the light of SBS knowing that viewers expected such funding request be made, only serves to further annoy and anger viewers.

Brown has previously taken credit for the decision by the SBS Board to interrupt programs. That commenced in late 2006. Before that, SBS-TV only placed advertisements between programs, not in them.

For the past 2 and a half years since SBS began these interruptions, Brown has publicly claimed that the sole reason for such interruptions was to fund Australian program production and that all the money (minus agency commissions) raised from commercial breaks in programs was only used to make Australian programs.

But now that in the May 2009 Budget the federal government maintained SBS funding in real terms for the next three years and added an additional amount specifically to produce Australian programs, there is no reason for SBS to continue to interrupt programs.

In the Save Our SBS: Triennial Funding for SBS Submission submitted to Senator Conroy on 5 August 2008 we asked for more money for SBS than did the broadcaster itself. But we now know the Managing Director was not interested in requesting more money to wind back advertising because he favoured revue from advertisements interrupting programs. This he articulated to the National Press Club in 2007 and has repeated since.

Save Our SBS says it is high time the Managing Director of SBS and the Board listened to their viewers and reversed their failed commercialisation policy.

Stop interrupting programs for commercial breaks.

Self regulation of the SBS Board to take note of public opposition to advertisements interrupting programs has failed.

Now that the government has granted SBS funding for Australian program production, thereby removing the only stated need ever given by SBS to interrupt programs, will Labor take the bold step to introduce a Bill to prohibit SBS from interrupting programs on SBS-TV. Or will they leave that up to another politician to sort out? Who? How? When?

More Information

The questions and answers asked by Senator Scott Ludlam in the May 2009 Senate Estimates may be read in detail at:  http://wotnews.com.au/like/estimates_sbs_funding_and_advertising/3471896 however if you would prefer to read the full Hansard transcript of the May 2009 Senate Estimates visit:  http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=;db=;group=;holdingType=;id=;orderBy=;page=0;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Festimate%2F12031%2F0003%22;querytype=;rec=;resCount=

The reference made in the May Senate Estimates to “public submissions” refers to some 2400 submissions made about the ABC & SBS to the Minister in December 2008. The Department has published most of these at: http://www.dbcde.gov.au/consultation_and_submissions/abc_sbs_review/_submissions

This may be a once in a lifetime opportunity to make your thoughts about SBS known directly to the Minister via the Departments online submission form.

We will make a submission and we strongly encourage you to make one too before 12 December 2008 at the Department’s online form. See URL under the box of our suggested questions below.

You may use any or none of the below to help you write a submission.

Make your submission on the form at the government web site at this link: http://www.dbcde.gov.au/media_broadcasting/consultation_and_submissions/abc_sbs_review/make_a_submission/online_submission_form

Submissions close 4pm EADT on 12 December 2008.

Other Info

A discussion paper has been prepared by the Minister’s department for comment or you can make your own comments on any topic you like.

If you would like to refer to the longer discussion paper visit http://www.dbcde.gov.au/media_broadcasting/consultation_and_submissions/abc_sbs_review

SBS Board Appointments

Senator Conroy also recently announced a new process for making appointments to the SBS and ABC boards which will make the selection process more transparent. Details at http://www.dbcde.gov.au/media_broadcasting/abc_and_sbs/abc_and_sbs_board_appointments

A PDF of the statement below may be viewed at: http://saveoursbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/the-sbs-must-be-special-signed.pdf

A media release about the above statement may be viewed at: http://saveoursbs.org/archives/319

The petition that was handed to the Minister had called for

• an immediate end to SBS interrupting programs for advertisements
• full funding for our tax payer funded multicultural public broadcaster
• an amendment to the SBS Act to prohibit ads on SBS
• a  new system of SBS Board appointments so that the Board would be appointed on the basis of merit with a strong commitment to multiculturalism and SBS independence, with assurance that the Board would be independent from the government of the day and without commercial influence.

Despite the petition and very strong public sentiment that SBS-TV ought not interrupt programs for commercial breaks, the practise has not stopped.

References:

NO ADVERTISEMENTS OR SPONSORSHIP ON SBS PETITION Save Our SBS Inc

Pre-election promises for SBS: 2007 Promises made before the November 2008 federal election.

A chronology of advertising on SBS by Darce Cassidy.

Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991 Portable Document File

SBS Codes of Practice 2006 Portable Document File

(SBS) Guidelines For The Placement of Breaks in Television Programs September 2006 Portable Document File

Special Broadcasting Service Amendment (Prohibition of Disruptive Advertising) Bill 2008 (Bill Number 08050) presented by the Australian Democrats to prohibit SBS-TV from interrupting programs for advertisements is a bill not law.

The regulator of broadcasting is The Australian Communications & Media Authority (ACMA).

A log of the full list of programs that SBS-TV forced commercial break interruptions into, is available at the conclusion of this story. See below.

The SBS Act allows for SBS to broadcast advertisements in natural program breaks however the Act does not define a natural program break. Until late 2006, SBS-TV only broadcast ads between programs. The break between programs was considered to be a safe definition of a natural break. But in 2007, SBS-TV interrupted almost every program for advertisements making SBS appear more like a commercial broadcaster instead of the public multicultural broadcaster that it was intended to be.

In September 2006 SBS re-wrote their Codes of Practice and created a document titled the (SBS) Guidelines For The Placement of Breaks in Television Programs September 2006 in which the SBS Board created their own definition of a natural break. The SBS definition has never been tested in the courts.

Although many complained when the broadcaster began interrupting program for commercial breaks, people were dissatisfied on discovery that SBS is only required to consider a complaint that falls within the Codes of Practise. The placement of ads is outside the Codes and, the regulator, ACMA, has no power to deal with a complaint that is outside the Codes. There remains no proper process to resolve a complaint about SBS interrupting a program for advertisement breaks.

But in August 2007, thousands of loyal SBS viewers protested in support of Mary Kostakidis when the long time news presenter, walked from the station as the broadcaster pursued the commercial approach.

Save Our SBS quickly put together a petition calling for a ban on advertising on SBS and adherence to the SBS Charter. 5000 signatures were sought. More than 7000 people signed before the petition was closed. The petition was handed to the Minister’s office in April 2008. 

When in opposition, Senator Stephen Conroy was very vocal both in and out of parliament about the interruptions for advertisements on SBS-TV.

Prior to the November 2007 federal election Senator Conroy told Save Our SBS: “The introduction of in program advertising to the SBS in effect makes the SBS a de facto fourth free-to-air commercial television station and serves to erode the fundamental tenets of public broadcasting- that is, that it should be free from commercial and political influence“.

In the week before the election, Stephen Conroy and Kevin Rudd announced Labor’s SBS policy saying: “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising“.

But SBS continues to broadcast ads. Typically, SBS broadcasts a 2 minute commercial break twice, in a half hour program and three, 2 minute commercial break interruptions, in a one hour program. Breaks are also seen between programs. Generally SBS-TV has about 8 to 10 minutes of non-program-content per hour of which not more than 5 minutes is considered to be advertising. 

Disgruntled electors have contacted Save Our SBS to express their disappointment of expectations that Labor has not prohibited SBS from interrupting programs for advertisements some nine months after being elected to form government.

On being appointed as the Minister responsible for SBS, Senator Conroy reviewed a summary of the legal opinion that had been supplied to SBS (before his Ministerial appointment) as to the legality of SBS interrupting program for advertisements. Then at the May 2008 Senate Estimates, the Minister was questioned extensively and said “the SBS Board have always argued that they believed that what they were doing was consistent with their legal advice“.

Opposition Senator Birmingham questioned Minister Conroy further and asked if he was “considering any amendments to the governing legislation to tighten up this matter [to prohibit advertisements interrupting program on SBS]?” The Minister replied: “That is not something that I have considered at this stage but I appreciate your contribution and I will get some advice on that“.

But two months earlier, in March 2008, a private members Bill was read by outgoing Democrats leader, Lyn Allison, in the Senate, to prohibit SBS from interrupting programs for advertisements. The Bill, the Special Broadcasting Service Amendment (Prohibition of Disruptive Advertising) Bill 2008 – Bill number: 08050 remains dormant.

Save Our SBS has always been of the opinion that, regardless of any internal government review that might examine if SBS was in breach of the Act, the SBS Act ought to be amended to prohibit SBS-TV from interrupting program for advertisements. Even if SBS choose voluntarily to cease interrupting program for ads, Save Our SBS wants legislative protection to prevent any future Board from the practise of interrupting program for ad breaks. It is our aim that eventually SBS should be ad free.

Since being elected, the Minister has had no luck in prohibiting SBS from interrupting programs for advertisements and return to the multicultural broadcaster it once was. However, any legislative amendment would require support of the Senate. But the balance of power in the Senate is held in the hands of non-government Senators. A review of SBS and public broadcasting generally, by the Minister’s department is now likely, in preparation for the next SBS-triennial-funding due in the May 2009 Budget.

In discussing the prohibition of advertising at the May 2008 Senate Estimates, the Minister said: “The issue of triennial funding is coming up so the first opportunity for us to address these issues is within the context of the review of SBS’s triennial funding“.

Many remain annoyed by the ad interruptions but aside from the annoyance factor, one of the problems of allowing a public broadcaster to carry advertising is that the broadcaster’s relationship to their audiences changes. The client of a non-commercial public broadcaster, is the audience and the product is the program. However the entire relationship changes once advertisements are introduced. The client of a commercial broadcaster becomes the advertiser and the audience become a product to be sold to the advertiser. The role of the broadcaster is no longer to serve the audience, but rather to sell their product, that is the audience, to the broadcaster’s client, that is the advertiser. Hence the need to chase ratings and pay lip service to any Charter.

Save Our SBS understands that the Minister, Cabinet and government still hold the same philosophical belief that they voiced prior to the election and remain unhappy about SBS continuing to interrupt programs for advertisements and the general commercialisation that the public broadcaster is pursuing. 

Meanwhile SBS has said it would want an extra “$29.39m to $35.72m, or approximately between 30- 35% of base government funding, to maintain SBS operations [per year]. . . if SBS was to stop interrupting programs for advertisements and run advertisements between programs only, as used to be the case until late 2006.” SBS provided the information in answer to a question at Senate Estimates in February this year.

The Managing Director of SBS, Shaun Brown who, along with the Board, took SBS down the commercial path was reluctant to confirm that in 2007 SBS generated an extra $10m gross (or less than five percent of total revenue) from advertisements that interrupted programs. 20 percent of that income was diverted by way of commissions to a private advertising agency. Meanwhile SBS spent all the money and more, on their Australian version of a British motoring program, “Top Gear”. SBS has been criticised as wasting money on a program that is more suited to a commercial network. Many believe that “Top Gear” is outside the SBS Charter.

A long list of programs was supplied in answer to a question at the February 2008 Senate Estimates. SBS was asked: “In 2007, which programs were televised with breaks inserted by SBS in the circumstances where, those programs when supplied to SBS in their original format had not been produced, assembled or compiled with provision for any commercial breaks, such as British Broadcasting Corporation programs or cinema-release movies etc.”

The answer, later supplied by SBS, headed Programs delivered to SBS without breaks (2007), suggests that SBS must have forced some 5627 commercial breaks into 2046 program broadcasts that were never produced with natural breaks. The producers of 6 programs from the list below, had made suggestions as to the positioning of breaks.

To view the full list of programs broadcast on SBS-TV in 2007 that were delivered to SBS without breaks, click here or programs-delivered-to-sbs-without-breaks-2007.pdf

Save Our SBS is opposed to advertising on SBS. For more information about Save Our SBS please read the About Us page on the web site www.SaveOurSBS.org 

This is the second time SBS has re-branded in a little over 12 months. Just over a year ago SBS World News Australia changed the set and adopted a more tabloid and commercial style of news presentation. Long time news presenter Mary Kostakidis ended up departing the broadcaster.

The idea of a multicultural, non commercial public broadcaster is now but a memory of the past. Will there be nothing special remaining?

The re-branding this time is more than just a change of logo. There has been an partial attempt to make the program play offs leading in the commercial breaks and the return to program appear somewhat smoother than before however this does nothing to lessen the very obvious intrusions into program for advertisements. The advertisement interruptions still show no regard for the viewer. The ‘look’ of each promo within the ad break is different from before with pretty coloured little sparkles on screen which are superimposed again lower frame on return to program.

There has been an overall softening of the ‘look’ but the advertisements interruptions remain ‘unnatural’. SBS is still creating ‘forced breaks’ in program.

There is nothing unusual about changing the look and the feel of a TV station however it’s an expensive exercise and done cautiously.

It’s almost unheard of to re-brand any broadcaster in May. The re-branding of SBS comes only weeks after the reappointment by the SBS Board of the Managing Director, Shaun Brown, the man responsible for the commercialisation of SBS.  Normally January would be the preferred month to re-brand.

Re-branding is done as part of a marketing tool, when an organisation is failing or had failed.

SBS is an associate member of Free TV Australia (formerly the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations, FACTS). This is somewhat ironic considering that SBS does not hold a commercial licence and is a publicly funded tax payer broadcaster that was originally never intended to have ads. Due to a perceived discovered loop hole in the law, although never tested in a court, in late 2006 SBS-TV began interrupting television program for advertisements. So what’s all this got to do with a change of brand?

Simple. Now that SBS has made the decision that it wants to become even more reliant on income from advertisements, and considering that there was a massive public objection to their move of late 2006 to interrupt program for ads, they now needed to re-brand. The fact is that SBS-TV has been loosing audiences since their decision to interrupt ads and therefore their entire experiment with advertisements has been complete flop.

SBS may be hoping that a new look will win back lost viewers. However SBS-TV has failed to address the underlaying issue that viewers, especially of public TV, do not like ad break interruptions in program.

The SBS budget is about $190M per annum from the federal government. We understand that SBS may have generated about $8M net ($10M gross) in extra revenue per annum after they changed their advertisements acceptance policy in 2006. Previously SBS-TV would only accept a particular type of ad. Artistic, non-hard sell type ads were okay but now they will accept virtually any type of ad. At the same time SBS changed their policy to accept any type of ad, they also began interrupting programs for advertisements.

The decision to re-brand is a desperate move on the part of SBS to attract even more advertisers.

A month ago (on 8 April 2008) Save Our SBS handed to the Minister’s staff a petition signed by more than 7000 people who wanted an end to the ads on SBS. Only 5000 signatures were sought. People heard of the petition by word of mouth and email. Save Our SBS has been assured that the Minister has read the petition and will issue a statement shortly. Follow up meetings have been promised.

Subsequently a number of petitioners have emailed Save Our SBS since the petition was handed to the Minister’s office wanting to know the outcome and if something will be done via legislation to prohibit SBS-TV from interrupting programs for ad breaks. Some people have also emailed the Minister and sent a copy of their email by CC to Save Our SBS.

One such email came from a John Tate who we have never met. A separate email was sent with permission to publish.

The author addresses the Minister somewhat informally as “Steven” and makes reference to an email he received from Senator Conroy “prior to the federal election” (November 2007). The email that the author refers to was in response to a joint campaign run by the two separate organisations: Save Our SBS and Friends of the ABC under the banner ‘The Coalition to Restore Public Broadcasting’. In the final week before the election, Senator Conroy’s office, Kevin Rudd’s office, and, ALP Campaign Information Services sent more than 1119 identical emails to those who participated in objecting to ads on SBS and other matters. A copy of that email, being the one that the author below refers to, can be read at this link http://saveoursbs.org/archives/165

The email below sums up the sentiment in the community conveyed to Save Our SBS.

From: John Tate
Sent: Monday, 28 April 2008 1:16 PM
To: ‘minister@dbcde.gov.au’
Cc: ‘Save Our SBS’
Subject: Advertising on SBS

Hi Steven,

Prior to the federal election you told me in an email that:

“Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising. SBS maintains that they can put advertisements into their programs without there needing to be a change to legislation. Section 45 of the SBS Act 1991 provides for advertising only during periods before programs commence, after programs end, or during natural program breaks. Accordingly, Labor is concerned that the SBS’s action may place it in breach of the Act.”

Fortunately, your party won the federal election on many promises including your promise to reverse the advertising decision on SBS.

Unfortunately I have not seen or heard any word from your Department on this issue.

Last year when SBS was asking for public comment on their new advertising proposal, I submitted this email to SBS:

“Shame on you.

Not only are you destroying the very nature of a public broadcaster, you are destroying the natural flow of many good programs on SBS.

When the government allowed SBS to advertise, I believe they never intended that programs be interrupted as you are currently doing.  You are also using the same annoying pop-up advertising technique that the commercial stations use.

Enough is enough for me.

Until the current or next federal government changes the rules governing SBS, my family will no longer be watching SBS programs with adds.  Add appears, station gets changed.

Please go back to basics.”

My viewing of SBS has declined over the last 12 months and when I do view a program, whenever an add appears I change the channel.  Often I do not return to SBS.

Also, SBS claimed that the new funding stream would increase the variety of programs.  I have not seen any evidence of this (although I don’t watch as much SBS).  Some programs, such as Dateline, thankfully are still being produced however for how long who knows.

I would like you to make an undertaking to honour your election promise and getting rid of the in-program add breaks, and hopefully fully fund SBS to eliminate advertising completely (even though Labor instigated advertising in the first place).

Always hopeful.

John Tate

From: John Tate
Sent: Tuesday, 29 April 2008 5:33 PM
To: ‘Senator.Conroy@aph.gov.au’
Cc: ‘Save Our SBS’
Subject: FW: Advertising on SBS

Copy forwarded in case email not received.

Please send a written reply (either email or post to ██ ███ ███, █████, ███ , ████).

Regards

John Tate

Now that SBS has re-branded itself, yet again viewers have been sold off to their advertisers. There is no sign that SBS will voluntarily cease the ad break interruptions in program. Our once great, special public broadcaster has ended up just like another commercial network. What’s special about that?

The petition (full title: NO ADVERTISEMENTS OR SPONSORSHIP ON SBS) attracted more than 7000 signatures which was much more than the target of 5000.

Many people felt outraged when the world’s first multicultural broadcaster began interrupting programs for advertisements in late 2006. Prior to that ads were only shown between programs, not in them. SBS-TV does not hold a commercial broadcast license. It is a public broadcaster funded from taxes.

In opposition, when he was then Shadow Minister for Communications, Senator Conroy emailed Save Our SBS and said that “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce advertising into its programming”. The email, dated 11 October 2007 stated that this was Labor party policy and had resulted from the Labor Party National Conference in April 2007. One week before the November 2007 federal elections, an almost identical email was sent to more than 1119 persons who had emailed many political leaders expressing their concerns over SBS funding and wanting an end to the ads on SBS. Each of the 1119 people received the same email sent from Kevin Rudd’s office, Senator Conroy’s office and the ALP Campaign Information Services office that included virtually the same sentence: “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce in-program advertising” .

Has the new government’s widely publicised pre-election policy now been broken?

More than three months since coming to government SBS-TV still continues to interrupt programs for advertisements. Senator Conroy has asked for the legal opinion that SBS stated they received more than two years ago that SBS Managing Director, Shaun Brown has been reported as saying suggests that is it not a breach of the SBS Act for SBS to interrupt programs for “natural breaks”. Many in the community have argued that the breaks are “forced” and “not natural” and in any case they disrupt the viewing experience which would appear to breach the GUIDELINES FOR THE PLACEMENT OF BREAKS IN TELEVISION PROGRAMS September 2006 if not the SBS Act itself.

In the final weeks before the petition closed, Senator Lyn Allison the leader of the Australian Democrats, presented a private members bill that, if it became law, would mean an end to the practice of SBS-TV interrupting programs for advertisements. Her bill, the Special Broadcasting Service (Prohibition of Disruptive Advertising) Amendment Bill 2008, would overcome any ‘loop-holes’ in the current Act that SBS may have exploited, while forcing the newly elected Rudd Labor government to implement their pre-election policy that would prohibit the interruption of programming on SBS television by restricting advertising to the period between the completion of one program and the commencement of another program.

Most private members bills go nowhere are not debated and never become law unless the government of the day wants that. Support of both houses is needed.

More background reading is provided on this web site at the links below.

Private Members Bill Bans Ads Interrupting SBS-TV

Backlash against advertising on SBS by Darce Cassidy

A chronology of advertising on SBS by Darce Cassidy

We Don’t Believe You Shaun: SBS BOSS ADDRESSES THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB

Page Archive: A Petition To Save SBS

The Object of the bill states:

“The object of this Act is to prohibit the interruption of programming on SBS television by restricting advertising to the period between the completion of one program and the commencement of another program“.

The bill achieves the above by removing from section 45(2)(a) of the current Act the controversial phrase: “or during natural program breaks” which, SBS has argued, allows them to interrupt programs or force breaks, according to a set of criteria created by the SBS Board in their (SBS) GUIDELINES FOR THE PLACEMENT OF BREAKS IN TELEVISION PROGRAMS September 2006 http://www20.sbs.com.au/sbscorporate/media/documents/3913advertising_guidelines_2006.pdf.

The bill adds a new section, section 45A Non-Program-Content(NPC) which bans SBS from interrupting television programs. It reads:

“The SBS must not interrupt a televised program for non- program-content (NPC) and for the purposes of this section NPC shall be taken to mean any material that is separate from the program being broadcast such as but not limited to advertisements, sponsorship announcements, community service announcements, station promotional material, promos and program promotional material and the like.”

SBS indicated in Senate Estimates in February 2008 that the revenue that could be attributed directly to interrupting programs for advertisements was about $10 to $20 million gross in the first year of the practice. The Managing Director of SBS, Shaun Brown refused to give a precise figure on the amount of revenue raised as a result of interrupting programs for ads, however it is believed the real figure might be closer to $10 million.

Senator Allison said, “It is argued by critics that SBS Management’s recent decision to use most of this $10 million to produce a local version of the cult British motoring program ‘Top Gear’ would not appear to be consistent with SBS’s charter obligations of providing multilingual and multicultural services.”

The Australian Democrats yesterday called on the Government to immediately fund SBS for the extra $10 to $20 million that comes from in-program ads and properly resource the broadcaster to deliver on its charter.

It is not clear if the government would increase the SBS annual budget, currently around $188 million, by an extra $10 million to make up for any shortfall.

Prior to the November 2007 federal elections, the ALP stated that, consistent with their SBS policy of April that year, it was Labor party policy that: “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce advertising into its programming” http://saveoursbs.org/archives/127.

More than 7000 people have signed a petition at www.SaveOurSBS.org calling for an end to ads on SBS.

Senator Allison said that “Minister Conroy criticised these ads while in opposition. Now he has the chance to rectify the problem.”

Normally nothing happens when a private members bill is introduced into the Senate. Typically private members bills sit idle, in a long cue of months or even years, awaiting further action, if ever. If the government had the will to adhere to its election promise of no ads interrupting programs on SBS-TV, the Minister could, conceivably use Senator Allison’s bill now so that it soon became law soon. Now is the time for Senator Conroy to act.

The private bill will not become law unless approved by both houses of parliament.

Background information on SBS carrying advertisements can be read in “A chronology of advertising on SBS” by Darce Cassidy at: http://saveoursbs.org/archives/194.

The Australian Democrats Press Release: http://www.democrats.org.au/news/index.htm?press_id=6509&display=1

It is understood that the intention of her private members bill is to prohibit the interruption of programming on SBS television by restricting advertising to the period between the completion of one program and the commencement of another program.

Prior to the November 2007 federal elections, the ALP stated that, consistent with their SBS policy of April that year, it was Labor party policy that: “Labor has opposed and continues to oppose the decision by SBS to introduce advertising into its programming” (http://saveoursbs.org/archives/127) however since being elected to government, the new Minister, Senator Stephen Conroy has kept quiet as to when the APL intends to put into practice its pre-election promise.

More than 7000 people have signed a petition at www.SaveOurSBS.org calling for an end to ads on SBS.

Read the Press Release today from the Australian Democrats here: (http://www.democrats.org.au/news/index.htm?press_id=6509&display=1)

In Australia more than 7,000 people have signed a petition at www.SaveOurSBS.org calling for a ban on interrupting programs with advertisements. In Canada a Senate inquiry has recommended a ban on advertising on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and a significant increase in the national broadcaster’s budget.

Senator Lyn Allison has indicated that she plans to introduce a private members Bill in the Senate to ban programs from being interrupted for advertisements on the SBS. A Liberal backbencher also plans to raise the issue in the House of Representative shortly.

It is believed that the Bill contains a provision that would prohibit SBS-TV from interrupting programs for non-program-content. Ads would only be allowed between programs only. Read the Press Release from the Australian Democrats here: (http://www.democrats.org.au/news/index.htm?press_id=6509&display=1)

This backlash has surprised many people. SBS TV has been running advertisements since 1992 while the CBC has carried advertising for even longer.

What has caused this change in public attitude? I think it is because broadcasters find advertising revenue addictive. You start with a little, but over time crave more and more.

That was pretty much how it happened in the United States. Advertising was not the main support for radio in its early days in the US. Erik Barnouw, author of the definitive history of broadcasting in the U.S, says that initially advertising was very discreet. Prices were never mentioned. Mention of personal items, like toothpaste, mouth wash or underclothes was taboo.

Companies attached their names to entertainers, like the Ipana Troubadours, the Browning-King Orchestra and the Goodrich Silvertown Orchestra. There was no mention that Ipana made toothpaste, or that Goodrich made tires, let alone any suggestion that listeners should buy these products.

A strict ban on the mention of prices and store locations remained. The broadcasting lobby group, The National Association of Broadcasters, proposed that sponsorship announcements be banned from prime time listening, on the basis that it was family listening time.

All this changed with the 1929 crash. CBS, one of the major networks was in trouble. George Washington Hill, President of American Tobacco, came to the rescue. Cremo cigars were suffering from rumours that they were made with spit. He needed to counter the rumours, and was prepared to pay. CBS capitulated, and in between tunes from the Cremo Military Band an announcer shouted: “There is no spit in Cremo.” NBC soon followed suit, sponsorship became advertising, and aggressive.

Initially the SBS was free of advertising. However once advertising was introduced, programs started to change. As in the United States advertising on the SBS was discreet to start with. Today, the SBS goes well beyond “no spit in Cremo” and interrupts serious documentaries with advertisements for erectile dysfunction medication. Director of Commercial Affairs Richard Finlayson confirmed this change in policy when he told the Financial Review that the broadcaster had reviewed “the type of ads it will and will not accept. In the past SBS has been reluctant to carry some ads, such as hard-hitting, in-your-face retails ads. That’s changing”

SBS still describes itself as “the voice and vision of multicultural Australia” but programs in languages other than English (LOTE) have almost disappeared from prime time.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority defines prime time as the hours between 6 pm and 10.30 pm. A check of the program schedule for SBS TV for the 14 days between 22 February and 6 March 2008 reveals that just under 80% of programs were in English.

Moreover those programs which are broadcast in LOTE during prime time bear practically no relationship to how the languages in question were spoken in the community. For example Chinese languages (Mandarin and Cantonese) together accounted for just 0.8% of prime time broadcasts. However Mandarin and Cantonese, taken together, account for 27.09% of all LOTE spoken in Australia.

Advertising has not only affected the language issue. It has also led to a sameness in programming. According to Dr Glenn Withers this is part of a broader economic phenomenon known the Principle of Minimum Differentiation:

The reason for this is that stations based on advertising revenue will seek to maximize their audience (and thereby their revenue). Stations will therefore duplicate program types as long as the audience share obtained is greater than that from other programs. Hence a number of stations may compete by sharing a market for one type of program (such as crime dramas) and still do better in audience numbers than by providing programs of other types (such as arts and culture). In economics this point is an application of the Principle of Minimum Differentiation, a principle also capable of explaining such associated phenomenon as why bank branches may cluster together, why airline schedules may be parallel, and why political parties may have convergent policy platforms.

Ethnic communities have been quick to notice the changes.

In December 2003 Federation of Ethnic Communities Council (FECCA) Chair Abd Malik said:

The only people who like SBS TV now are the cappuccino crowd… it’s mostly sex and soccer I think. He added that FECCA was “very close to giving up on SBS TV… they have separated themselves from ethnic communities. They don’t come to our functions or religious festivals.

The dismissive, not to say insulting, response from then SBS Managing Director Nigel Milan was “We’re not going to cover the clog dancing from the Brisbane Town Hall.”

In June 2005 George Zangalis, President of the National Ethnic and Multicultural Broadcasters Council, and a former member of the SBS board, issued a media release criticizing the direction of SBS TV.

Programming in community languages has shrunk, while English programming has grown. Advertising has increased and become increasingly strident. Rather than focusing on different cultures, the SBS seems to be moving towards mainstream sports like cricket and now AFL. There is plenty of this type of programming on the ABC and the three commercial channels.

In June 2006, interviewed on ABC radio the new Chair of FECCA, Voula Messimeri responded:

… the intention of having the special broadcaster is so that they can be a multicultural provider, a special broadcaster in terms of being different from commercial enterprise, and I think that this will make it, increasingly, look very much like mainstream, commercial enterprise.

While advertisements have brought in extra money, much of that money seems to be going to the kind of programs that can be found on commercial stations. For example some $10 million is to be spent on a locally produced motoring program, in English.

Darce Cassidy is Secretary and Spokesperson of Save Our SBS Inc (www.SaveOurSBS.org). His background is in broadcasting and journalism. He has worked for the ABC (Four Corners, AM & PM, and, various radio management roles); the SBS (Training); and, the National Ethnic and Multicultural Broadcasters Council.