{"id":"BILL-s1174","name":"Broadcasting Services Amendment (Audio Description) Bill 2019","slug":"broadcasting-services-amendment-audio-description-bill-2019","collection":"bill","jurisdiction":"commonwealth","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":null,"makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":445985,"registerId":"commonwealth-BILL-s1174-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-05-05","status":"introduced","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[],"analysis":{"summary":{"status_summary":"The bill was introduced in the Senate on 12 February 2019 and is currently on the notice paper following its restoration on 23 July 2025.","complexity_score":3,"likely_questions":["What minimum number of hours of audio description must be provided each week?","What specific powers does the bill grant to the Australian Communications and Media Authority for enforcement and review?"],"complexity_factors":["applies to national broadcasters, commercial television broadcasting licensees and subscription television licensees","provides the Australian Communications and Media Authority with enforcement and review powers"],"plain_english_summary":"The Bill would amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to require national, commercial and subscription television services to provide a minimum number of hours of audio description each week, imposing new programming obligations on broadcasters so vision-impaired viewers receive more described content.  \n\nThe Australian Communications and Media Authority would enforce and review the requirement. The Bill was first introduced in 2019, has lapsed and been restored multiple times, and is currently on the Senate notice paper."},"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":5,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The Bill adds a targeted accessibility requirement to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 but stays within the Act's existing regulatory remit over broadcasting content and licence conditions. It therefore represents a policy expansion in the subject matter covered (adding a specific accessibility obligation) rather than a fundamental or jurisdictional change to the Act's scope."},"complexity_factors":["Amendment to an existing statute (Broadcasting Services Act 1992) requiring cross‑references to existing definitions (e.g. 'licensee', 'broadcasting service')","Multiple classes of regulated entities (national, commercial free‑to‑air, subscription) with potentially different obligations","Delegation of monitoring, enforcement and review functions to ACMA (introduces administrative discretion and rule‑making/interpretation questions)","Need for technical definitions (what counts as 'audio description', how 'hours' are measured, treatment of repeats and multi‑channel services)","Potential for phased implementation, exemptions or reporting requirements (these create conditional rules and staging)","Compliance and measurement rules will create operational complexity for broadcasters (production, technical distribution, record‑keeping)","Interaction with existing broadcasting standards and content obligations in the Act (requires careful cross‑checking to determine overlaps or conflicts)"],"plain_english_summary":"**What this Bill does (mechanically)\n\n- Amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to impose a new, measurable accessibility obligation on television broadcasters.  Specifically it requires national broadcasters, commercial television licence‑holders and subscription television licence‑holders to provide a minimum number of hours of television audio description per week.\n- Gives the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) responsibility for enforcing the new requirement and for reviewing compliance.\n\nWho is affected\n\n- The main parties who must act are: national broadcasters (for example, public broadcasters), commercial free‑to‑air television licence‑holders, and subscription (pay TV) licence‑holders.\n- The principal beneficiaries are viewers who are blind or have low vision, because audio description provides narrated descriptions of key visual elements during natural pauses in dialogue.\n\nHow it operates in practice\n\n- Broadcasters must schedule and broadcast a set minimum number of hours of programming that include an audio‑described track each week.  The Bill sets the obligation in law; ACMA is the agency that monitors, enforces and conducts any statutory review required by the Bill.\n- Compliance will require broadcasters to produce or procure audio‑described versions of programs (either by adding a secondary audio track or by other technical distribution methods) and to report or otherwise demonstrate to ACMA that they have delivered the required hours.\n\nWhy the change is being made (official rationale, stated)\n\n- The Bill is presented as an accessibility measure intended to increase on‑screen access to television content for people who are blind or have low vision by mandating a baseline level of audio description.\n\nPractical costs, incentives and trade‑offs (analytical lens)\n\n- Who pays: the compliance costs fall on the obliged broadcasters. Costs include production (script-writing, recording and mixing description tracks), scheduling changes, and any systems or reporting needed to demonstrate compliance.\n- Who decides: ACMA enforces the obligation and will have discretion in monitoring, assessing compliance and applying sanctions where provided for in the Act. The Bill therefore shifts some implementation detail to a regulator.\n- Behavioural changes: broadcasters will need to allocate airtime and production resources to audio description. That may mean either commissioning description for existing programming, prioritising certain content for description, or shifting scheduling to accommodate described programs.\n- Effects on private markets: subscription and commercial broadcasters face new ongoing operating costs. Those costs are dispersed across their business models (potentially affecting programming budgets, commissioning choices or subscription prices). The legislation creates a concentrated benefit for visually impaired viewers and a diffuse cost for the broadcasting sector.\n- Compliance and measurement risk: achieving the legal minimum requires clear technical and definitional rules (what counts as audio description, how hours are measured, how repeats are treated). Those rules will materially affect compliance burden and can create loopholes or disputes unless ACMA’s guidance or regulations are specific.\n- Trade‑offs and opportunity costs: time and money devoted to producing audio description are not available for other content or services (for example subtitling in different languages, local commissioning or marketing). Broadcasters may prioritise certain program types (sports, prime‑time drama) for description depending on cost/benefit.\n- Enforcement and administrative burden: ACMA will need resources to monitor and enforce the rule. That creates an administrative cost for government funded by existing appropriation or by industry levies if those are applied.\n\nWhere to look for detail\n\n- The APH summary and the Bill's Explanatory Memorandum (provided on the Parliament website) will contain the detailed definitions, the exact minimum hours, any phasing‑in arrangements, exemptions, reporting requirements and the enforcement and penalty regime. Those detail items determine much of the real‑world compliance cost and complexity.\n"}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/broadcasting-services-amendment-audio-description-bill-2019","history":"/api/acts/broadcasting-services-amendment-audio-description-bill-2019/history","analysis":"/api/acts/broadcasting-services-amendment-audio-description-bill-2019/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/broadcasting-services-amendment-audio-description-bill-2019/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/broadcasting-services-amendment-audio-description-bill-2019/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/broadcasting-services-amendment-audio-description-bill-2019/documents"}}