|
senate vote 2017-09-14#5
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2018-02-16 09:01:38
|
Title
Bills — Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017, Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017; in Committee- Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017, Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017 - in Committee - 2-out-of-3 cross media rule
Description
<p class="speaker">Peter Whish-Wilson</p><p>The committee is considering the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017 and the Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017. The question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8261, moved by Senator Xenophon in respect of the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017, be agreed to.</p><p>Question agreed to.</p>- The majority voted against an [amendment](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-09-14.229.1) introduced by NSW Senator [Deborah O'Neill](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nsw/deborah_o'neill) (Labor), which means it failed.
- ### What did the amendment do?
- This [bill](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r5907) proposes to repeal the ‘2 out of 3 cross-media control rule’, which is that:
- > *A person can only control two of the regulated media platforms (commercial television, commercial radio and associated newspapers) in a commercial radio licence area.*
- (Read more about this rule in the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1718a/18bd08).)
- This amendment supported removing that part of the bill so that the 2 out of 3 cross-media control rule remains unchanged.
- ### 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">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>I would firstly like to clarify that the Greens' amendments on sheet 8171 are being withdrawn. We have circulated amendments on sheets 8266 and 8265. I just wanted to make sure that people are aware of that.</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Yes.</p><p>I would like to go to our first amendment, which is on sheet 8266. This amendment is about the most controversial aspect of this legislation—the two-out-of-three rule. We've heard much debate already today about this issue and whether it will indeed lead to a further concentration of media. On the other hand, there is the argument that this is perhaps needed in order to save those institutions that already exist from having to shed further staff and to give them more of an ability to underpin their business models.</p><p>I am particularly concerned about the scrapping of the two-out-of-three rule—and we know that, with the Nick Xenophon Team and One Nation, the government has support to remove this from the current statute books. The concern that I have is in relation to the newly acquired Channel 10. We know that there is currently a successful bid from CBS to buy Channel 10, but there is also a question mark over whether CBS will be allowed to follow through with that acquisition, because it is a foreign-owned company. We know from the tabling of documents in the New South Wales court over the last couple of days that this bid would do a lot more for securing jobs for journalists and local production staff at Channel 10 than the Murdoch-Gordon bid would ever have been able to achieve. I am concerned that, without some kind of commitment from the government that they will back the CBS acquisition, we are leaving Channel 10 staff in a state of limbo, unaware of what the future holds for them. I want to make sure that scrapping the two-out-of-three rule isn't going to be used as a fast-tracking for the government to override the purchase of Channel 10 by CBS through the Foreign Investment Review Board.</p><p>This Greens amendment would effectively say that the two-out-of-three rule cannot be scrapped until the government confirms that CBS can take over Channel 10, through the approval of the Treasurer and the Foreign Investment Review Board—that the removal of the two-out-of-three wouldn't be able to happen until confirmation of acquisition occurred. That is the effect of this amendment. However, I do have some questions for the minister on this. Minister, I'd like to know what the government's intention is in relation to CBS's acquisition of Channel 10. Will you confirm that you will allow it to go ahead?</p> <p class="speaker">Mitch Fifield</p><p>FIRB matters are ones for the Treasurer. Can I indicate while I'm on my feet that the government will be opposing this amendment. The amendment would be ineffective as there is no approval action undertaken by the Treasurer under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act. To require the Treasurer to publish details of a decision taken under the act would result in him breaching the act's confidentiality provisions. As this is the purchase of a media business, it is a significant and notifiable action under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Regulation. When a foreign person undertakes a significant and notifiable action, the Treasurer has the ability to prohibit the action or to issue a no-objection notification imposing conditions on the acquisition or the Treasurer may decide the Commonwealth has no objection to the acquisition, in which case a no-objection notification is given. There is no approval under the act for a significant and notifiable action.</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>Could the minister please clarify whether there will be a no-objection notification given?</p> <p class="speaker">Mitch Fifield</p><p>That is a matter solely for the Treasurer.</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>I'm asking the minister as a member of the government: does the minister understand that the government will not be moving for a notification that would effectively stop CBS from purchasing Channel 10? It's a pretty simple question. Does the government intend on stopping this or not?</p> <p class="speaker">Mitch Fifield</p><p>This is not a government decision. This is a statutory decision for the Treasurer.</p> <p class="speaker">Deborah O'Neill</p><p>Labor understand the sentiment behind these Greens amendments, but we do not support it or the precedent it may set. We do agree it's a matter for the Treasurer. The situation with the Ten Network is complex and is currently before the Foreign Investment Review Board and the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Labor have been on the record as clearly supporting the CBS acquisition of Ten, subject to approval. We think it's a positive thing. In her comments, the shadow minister, Michelle Rowland, the member for Greenway, pointed out, I think very poignantly, that the transaction is a positive result for the staff of Ten and a vote of confidence in the network, which is indeed regarded as a prime broadcaster asset by many Australians and certainly by Leslie Moonves, the chairman and CEO of the CBS Corporation. We think that acquisition in this form is good news for the provision of news and current affairs. We think it actually demonstrates that diversification of news is possible and can be maintained in the current environment, contrary to the alarmist commentary of the government which has underpinned much of the contentious debate in the Senate.</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>I'm wondering whether the minister would be able to pick up the phone and call the Treasurer and ask whether he intends on issuing an objection notice or not? I don't understand what the problem is. You're asking us today to amend legislation to scrap the two-out-of-three rule. It is in direct relation to the purchase of Channel 10. Whether you want to admit that or not, everybody knows it. Pick up the phone and call the Treasurer and get us a response.</p> <p class="speaker">Mitch Fifield</p><p>The answer to Senator Hanson-Young's request is no. It is a matter for the Treasurer to independently consider the facts.</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>by leave—In respect of the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017, I move Australian Greens amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 8266 together:</p><p class="italic">(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit "Schedules 1 and 2", insert "Schedule 1".</p><p class="italic">(2) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 2), insert:</p><p class="italic">(3) Schedule 2, page 6 (line 14), at the end of the Schedule, add:</p><p class="italic"> <i>Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975</i></p><p class="italic">15A After section 77</p><p class="italic">Insert:</p><p class="italic">77A Approval of acquisition of Ten Network Holdings Limited</p><p class="italic">An approval by the Treasurer of the acquisition of Ten Network Holdings Limited is a notifiable instrument.</p><p class="italic">Note: A notified instrument must be registered on the Federal Register of Legislation.</p><p>These amendments will effectively ensure that the two-out-of-three rule cannot be scrapped until the government have confirmed that they will not interfere with CBS purchasing Channel 10.</p><p>Question negatived.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|