|
senate vote 2017-09-11#12
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2018-02-15 10:24:46
|
Title
Bills — Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017, Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017; Second Reading- Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017, Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017 - Second Reading - Resume debate next sitting day
Description
<p class="speaker">Mitch Fifield</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">That resumption of the debate be made an order of the day the next sitting day.</p>- The majority supported continuing their discussion of the bill [on the next sitting day](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-09-11.219.1). In other words, they agreed to resume debate the next time they were sitting in the Senate.
- ### What do the bills do?
- The two bills are the:
- * [Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r5907); and the
- * [Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r5908).
- Most significantly, the bills were introduced to get rid of certain media ownership, control and diversity laws, like the ‘75% audience reach rule’, which stops commercial television broadcasting licensees from controlling licences if the combined licence area has a population over 75% of Australia' population. It would also get rid of the ‘2 out of 3 cross-media control rule’, which stops a company from having control over more than two out of three regulated media platforms in any one commercial radio licence area.
- Read more in the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1718a/18bd08).
<p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>The question is that the motion moved by the minister be agreed to. Senator Wong, if you wish to speak to this motion, you can.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>I do wish to speak to this debatable motion. I wish to make this point: generally, an opposition does accept the government's right to rearrange its business, but, seriously, look at the mess. At 6.32, two minutes after the dinner break, we find out that the debate on the media laws has been deferred yet again, side-lined yet again. This is a bill that has been debated in one form or another for some 18 months, and it has never in this place been put to a vote—not once. This is Monday, so the government should know what it can do. This was fifth, behind four pieces of non-controversial legislation, yet the government has got to it and wants to filibuster. Before Senator Xenophon leaves the chamber, I would say this to the crossbench: if you need more time to do a deal, we understand that, but could you be up-front, rather than having the government filibuster and rearranging business again? If you're going to agree to another all-night sitting to get a deal done in the last minutes of this session, perhaps you could let us all know that. This bill has been pushed off, with a short period of notice, so that we can bring something else on and the minister, who's been unable to get the numbers on this debate, can have a few more hours to cut a deal that he's been trying to cut since March last year.</p> <p class="speaker">Mitch Fifield</p><p>Come and join us! Come and support the bill!</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>Let's remember: this minister brought this bill, or a substantially similar bill, in in March 2016. Guess how many times that bill has been listed for debate? That bill has been listed for debate on no less than 10 occasions—and there's still no vote. They couldn't get the numbers on it and couldn't get a deal. So he then went away and put substantially the same content into a new bill, called the broadcasting reform bill—the core of which, in terms of media ownership, is substantially the same—and added a couple of new measures. On how many occasions has that bill been listed for debate in the House or the Senate? On no less than 10 occasions also. This is the Manager of Government Business in the Senate. That is how he's running his legislative agenda.</p><p class="italic">Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—</p><p>I could give a speech, and I'm sure we could all have a discussion about media reform, but Labor has made its position very clear. What I am saying is that this government is unable to manage its program. At 6.32 pm we had another change in the program for a bill that, as I said, has been before the House or the Senate and debated 10 times—and, before that, the preceding bill, with substantially the same content, was also debated some 10 times. So what happens? We get a filibuster. When they send Senator Macdonald in, you can always tell that the filibuster is on. He gets rolled out and there's a big neon sign: 'Senator Ian Macdonald is on his feet, so therefore the filibuster is on.' But now they've decided that even that is too embarrassing. They didn't want to get further into the second reading debate and decided that, after the dinner break, they'd rock up and rearrange the order of business, because they haven't got the numbers.</p><p>This is no way to run the Senate. I say to the Manager of Government Business in the Senate that, if he comes in here tomorrow or Wednesday—</p><p class="italic">Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—</p><p>Senator Macdonald, you're not in your seat, so I'm raising a point of order about you maybe wanting to get into your seat before you want to interrupt me again.</p> <p class="speaker">John Williams</p><p>Order on my right and left! Direct your comments through me, Senator Wong. Continue, Senator Wong.</p><p class="italic">Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—</p><p>Order, Senator Macdonald! Continue, Senator Wong.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>Mr Acting Deputy President, you are required to get him to sit in his seat if he is going to interject. I know you don't want to do it, Mr Acting Deputy President, but you are required to do that if he is going to interject.</p> <p class="speaker">John Williams</p><p>Continue, Senator Wong. He's in his seat.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>Thank you. I'm glad he's now in his seat, so that we can at least—</p> <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p><p>'What've you got against women's basketball?'</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>There are so many things that I could respond with. It is so tempting, but I'm really not going to respond to Senator Macdonald, other than to say that, when Senator Fifield, the minister, has to resort to sending this backbencher out to filibuster, we all know there's a problem. The problem here is twofold. The first problem is that this minister seems to be unable to negotiate an agreement, and the second problem is that this is no way to run this chamber. If you come in here tomorrow or the day after demanding that we continue to sit until you've finally got a deal, it will really demonstrate the contempt with which the government and some other senators hold other senators in this place.</p><p>I would also make the point—and this is a substantive point—and place on record again that, if this government does a dirty deal with One Nation to attack the ABC, as the price of its media reform, this government will demonstrate that it has no shame. To use the public broadcaster that Australians all over this nation rely on, including in regional Australia, as a political football to cover up this minister's inability to negotiate a deal is not only incompetent; it is shameful. When the minister gets to his feet to respond to me, he should say: 'We rule out doing anything negative to the ABC and SBS. We rule out cutting their funding because we need Senator Hanson's vote on this media bill'—a media bill that he's clearly so attached to.</p><p>So, as I said at the outset, this is a fine mess—and it is a mess of the government's making. Ordinarily, the opposition would simply accede to the government's right to rearrange its business. But, given the number of times that this bill has been on and off and on and off and given the lack of notice on this occasion, we are not going to do so.</p> <p class="speaker">Mitch Fifield</p><p>It doesn't look as though there are any other colleagues who wish to contribute to this debate, so I might close it with the will of my colleagues around this place, and I'm very pleased to do so. Usually, when it comes to procedural motions, I'm a stickler for focusing on the fact that it is purely a procedural motion, but, given the latitude of Senator Wong, I might speak a little more broadly than I usually do on procedural debates.</p><p>The first point to make is that Senator Wong spoke to the history of media reform legislation. She's quite right that we did introduce into the last parliament a package of legislation that sought to remove the two-out-of-three rule and the 75 per cent audience reach rule. There is an extremely good reason why we did not get to vote on that, and it's twofold. Let me tell you the first element of it: the Australian Labor Party referred that legislation to a Senate committee of many, many months duration. As all colleagues know, when something is before a committee of the Senate, this chamber is unable to touch it. What happened shortly thereafter was an election was called. We all know what happens to legislation that is on the books during a double-dissolution election.</p><p>Not surprisingly, because getting rid of 75 per cent audience reach and two-out-of-three was our policy, when we won the election we reintroduced the legislation. There are no prizes for guessing what happened next. The Australian Labor Party referred that legislation to a committee for many, many months. During the time that that legislation was before a committee of the Senate, talking to the media industry, I thought, 'Let's come forward with a proposal that not only has those two elements—getting rid of the 75 per cent audience reach and the two-out-of-three rule—but also has industry consensus on media reform.' And so the government set about coming up with a media reform package that benefited the entire media industry: print, radio and TV.</p><p>As you know, Mr Acting Deputy President Williams—particularly from your role representing people in regional New South Wales—regional media, like metropolitan media, is under great pressure because there is massive competition from online platforms and over-the-top platforms, which wasn't previously conceived at the time when radio, print and TV were essentially the only forms of media.</p><p>I'm very pleased, as colleagues on this side know, that we were able to reach agreement on a media reform package which is supported by Seven, Nine, Ten, WIN, Prime, Southern Cross Austereo, Fairfax, News Ltd, Free TV, Commercial Radio Australia, Foxtel and ASTRA, which is the subscription TV representative body. Now, for one, I thought it was a good thing that we had the entire Australian media industry on the one page. That is something that historically has not happened. I commend the leaders of Australia's media organisations who were able to look beyond their own legitimate organisational interests to the wider interests of Australian media.</p><p>We, on this side of the chamber and a number of crossbenchers, want to see strong Australian media voices. That is what our package is all about—strong Australian media voices. We have a number of elements to the package. Regional TV, in particular, is calling for the abolition of the 75 per cent audience reach rule. Commercial radio stations, which are small, medium and large, want to see licence fee reductions. Commercial TV, both metropolitan and regional, want to see licence fee reductions. We also want to free up some of the media ownership laws which were created in the 1980s before the internet existed. Australian media companies want the opportunity to configure themselves in ways that best support their viability. So that is what we're seeking to do, and Senator Wong is quite right: we are endeavouring to get in this place 50 per cent plus one. That's the way this place works and that's the way every political forum works. It's 50 per cent plus one. So that is our objective, which will secure the passage of this legislation. I want to pay credit to the crossbenchers, who have been very positive in their engagement. It is not for me to speak for individual Senate crossbenchers. They declare their own positions, and a number have done so, but I want to acknowledge that they have been prepared to positively engage.</p><p>The one group in this place which hasn't been prepared to positively engage is the Australian Labor Party. Ms Rowland from the other place, when interviewed by Kieran Gilbert on Sky News, answered a question of his. Kieran said to Ms Rowland, 'Why aren't you prepared to support this package? This is a package which has the support of Seven, Nine, Ten, WIN, Prime, Southern Cross Austereo, Fairfax, News Limited, Commercial Radio Australia, Free TV, Foxtel and Astra. Surely that says to you that this must be something that's in the interests of Australian news organisations.' Ms Rowland's response to Kieran Gilbert was, 'Australia's media organisations are only supporting this package because there's something in it for all of them.' Precisely. There is something in this for all of them. But, for the Australian Labor Party, that's a reason not to support something. Labor doesn't want to support a package that has the universal support of the industry, that will be to the benefit of strong Australian media voices and that will see journalists continue to be employed. None of us in this chamber necessarily likes what our friends in the media gallery will print, broadcast, write, blog or post. But, putting that aside, we all recognise that they, and their scrutiny, are one of the important underpinnings of a democracy, and we want to see good, strong Australian media organisations.</p><p>I can't help but touch briefly on Senator Wong's raising of the issue of the ABC. I can give all colleagues a guarantee that the government won't support anything that is to the detriment of the ABC. In fact, those things that we have reached agreement on with some crossbench colleagues are all intended to support and enhance the work that the ABC does. In particular, I want to point out some of the measures proposed by Senator McKenzie, which include a guarantee that there will always be two members of the ABC board from regional and rural Australia. Through the appointments that we have made to the ABC board, we've already done that without legislation, but we're very happy for that to be legislated. We're also very happy to put before this chamber that rural and regional matters be specifically recognised in the charter of the ABC. We think that's a good thing. We also think it's a good thing that there be constituted an ABC regional advisory committee, which would have to be consulted on any decisions that the ABC took that had a material effect on rural and regional Australia. We think that's a good thing.</p><p>We also think that it's a good and positive thing to include in the ABC Act the words 'fair' and 'balanced'. I know there were some who got quite excited by that, but let me provide reassurance to you. Chapter 4 of the ABC's own editorial guidelines, which talks about the existing legislative requirement to be impartial and accurate, state words to the effect that the ABC should be fair and balanced in its news and current affairs. It talks about balance in terms of the weight of evidence. So, if we don't have an issue with the current ABC editorial guidelines talking about being fair and balanced, we shouldn't have any issue with that being legislated.</p> <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p><p>How can you enforce it?</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|