|
senate vote 2017-09-14#7
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2018-02-16 09:34:34
|
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 - Reviews
Description
<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) and (2) on sheet 8265, as revised, together:</p><p class="italic">(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 16), omit "Schedule 7", substitute "Schedules 7 and 8".</p>- The majority voted against [amendments](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-09-14.235.1) introduced by SA Senator [Sarah Hanson-Young](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/sarah_hanson-young) (Greens), which means they were rejected.
- ### What do the amendments do?
- Senator Hanson-Young [explained that](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-09-14.235.38) *"These amendments put in place the power of the parliament to disallow the government's intended review to inquire into the ABC and SBS."* She argued that this was important in light of a [deal made between the Government and One Nation](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-16/labor-and-greens-slam-dirty-media-law-deal-wth-one-nation/8810826), which includes a commitment to hold a *"competitive neutrality review"* into the ABC and SBS - something that [the Australian Greens strongly oppose](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2017-09-14.218.2).
- ### 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="italic">(2) Page 54 (after line 6), at the end of the Bill, add:</p><p class="italic">Schedule 8—Tabling of public broadcasting reviews</p><p class="italic"> <i>Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983</i></p><p class="italic">1 After section 78</p><p class="italic">Insert:</p><p class="italic">78A Terms of reference of proposed reviews of the Corporation to be tabled and subject to disallowance</p><p class="italic">(1) If the Minister prepares terms of reference (however described) for a proposed review of the Corporation (the <i>proposed review</i>), the Minister must arrange for a copy of the terms of reference to be tabled in both Houses of Parliament at least 15 sitting days before the commencement of the proposed review.</p><p class="italic">(2) Sections 42, 47 and 48 of the <i>Legislation Act 2003</i> apply in relation to the terms of reference as if those terms were a legislative instrument.</p><p class="italic">(3) The proposed review must not be conducted if:</p><p class="italic">(a) the terms of reference for the proposed review have not been tabled in accordance with this section; or</p><p class="italic">(b) the terms of reference for the proposed review have been tabled but have been disallowed.</p><p class="italic">78B Reports of reviews of the Corporation to be tabled</p><p class="italic">(1) If the Minister conducts a review of the Corporation, the Minister must arrange for a copy of the review to be tabled in both Houses of Parliament within 15 sitting days of the completion of the review.</p><p class="italic">(2) If the Minister, or another person or body, causes a review of the Corporation to be conducted:</p><p class="italic">(a) the Minister, person or body must arrange for a copy of the review to be provided to the Minister; and</p><p class="italic">(b) the Minister must arrange for a copy of the review to be tabled in both House of Parliament within 15 sitting days of receiving the copy of the review.</p><p class="italic"> <i>Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991</i></p><p class="italic">2 After section 73</p><p class="italic">Insert:</p><p class="italic">73A Terms of reference of proposed review of SBS to be tabled and subject to disallowance</p><p class="italic">(1) If the Minister prepares terms of reference (however described) for a proposed review of the SBS (the <i>proposed review</i>), the Minister must arrange for a copy of the terms of reference to be tabled in both Houses of Parliament at least 15 sitting days before the commencement of the proposed review.</p><p class="italic">(2) Sections 42, 47 and 48 of the <i>Legislation Act 2003</i> apply in relation to the terms of reference as if those terms were a legislative instrument.</p><p class="italic">(3) The proposed review must not be conducted if:</p><p class="italic">(a) the terms of reference for the proposed review have not been tabled in accordance with this section; or</p><p class="italic">(b) the terms of reference for the proposed review have been tabled but have been disallowed.</p><p class="italic">73B Reports of reviews of the SBS to be tabled</p><p class="italic">(1) If the Minister conducts a review of the SBS, the Minister must arrange for a copy of the review to be tabled in both Houses of Parliament within 15 sitting days of the completion of the review.</p><p class="italic">(2) If the Minister, or another person or body, causes a review of the SBS to be conducted:</p><p class="italic">(a) the Minister, person or body must arrange for a copy of the review to be provided to the Minister; and</p><p class="italic">(b) the Minister must arrange for a copy of the review to be tabled in both House of Parliament within 15 sitting days of receiving the copy of the review.</p><p>These amendments relate to the ability of the government to commission inquiries and reviews into the public broadcasters, whether that is the ABC or the SBS. The reason why this is absolutely important is because this parliament should have the power to decide whether or not reviews are something that the parliament supports.</p><p class="italic">Senator O'Sullivan interjecting—</p><p>Chair, perhaps you could call—I don't care if you're listening or not, Senator O'Sullivan, but you could bugger off if you're not interested.</p> <p class="speaker">Chris Ketter</p><p>Senator Hanson-Young, that's not parliamentary.</p><p class="italic">Senator O'Sullivan interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>If you're not interested in the debate, leave the chamber.</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Hanson-Young, please address your comments to the chair.</p><p>These amendments put in place the power of the parliament to disallow the government's intended review to inquire into the ABC and SBS. We know that part of the deal that has been done between the government and One Nation is the competitive neutrality review. This is designed to be a Trojan Horse to undermine the ability of our public broadcasters to do their job—to provide services to the Australian people and to provide quality news and entertainment to the Australian public at the times that they want. We know that this is in the firing of this government and One Nation, because we know that there are bigger commercial players out there who don't like the fact that the ABC and SBS offer such a quality service through things like iview and SBS On Demand.</p><p>We know that as part of the dirty deal that has been done between the government and One Nation, the attack on our public broadcaster is held right here in relation to this competitive neutrality review. We know that One Nation doesn't like the ABC. We heard Senator Hanson wax lyrical for minutes upon minutes last night—it felt like hours—about how terribly mean the ABC has been to Senator Hanson and One Nation. Well, boo-hoo. Sometimes journalists write things and say things that you don't like as a politician. Sometimes they cover stories that you don't like as a political party; but that is part of the job. You don't come in here as an elected member of parliament and start using your power on the crossbench to dictate what our public broadcaster should be able to say or not. Of course, what we have is a personal grudge from Pauline Hanson being carried out in this place.</p> <p class="speaker">Pauline Hanson</p><p>On a point of order, I need to be referred to by my name in the proper way, as Senator Hanson, please.</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Hanson-Young, could you please refer to people by their proper titles.</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>Senator Hanson has a personal grudge against the ABC and she's using her position in this chamber to grind the axe as hard as she can. Of course, it is absolutely appalling to see that being facilitated and allowed by the government and the Nick Xenophon political party in relation to this. This attack on our public broadcaster is shameful. There has been an attack on our public broadcasters' independence, and the ability for the Australian public to access the content—the quality news and quality entertainment services—is all under a cloud because of this dirty deal that has been done between Senator Hanson, One Nation, Nick Xenophon and, indeed, the government.</p><p>We know that the government don't really want to talk about this. They say, 'Oh, well, this is a deal that was done. It doesn't have to come to the parliament, so no-one who feels a bit uncomfortable about it doesn't have to vote for it.' This parliament should have the power to decide what our public broadcaster should and shouldn't be subjected to. All this amendment does is say that this place has the power to disallow or accept or agree to a review commissioned by the government. If those in this chamber decide that's okay, they'll vote for it. If they don't, they won't. It's about giving the power to the Senate to make sure we know that we can protect or inquire into the public broadcasters as the parliament sees fit, not because it's been dictated to by Senator Hanson and One Nation because they don't like the ABC and what the ABC publishes or runs about their political party.</p><p>The competitive-neutrality review that is part of the dirty deal between One Nation and the government will, of course, set a path for cutting back the ability of our public broadcasters to deliver services online and on demand. It will set a path for why some in this place and some outside this place want to exert influence on the chamber and on the government. It will set a path for those people to argue that there should be a pay wall on ABC iView and, indeed, SBS On Demand. It would of no surprise to anyone in this place just how dear the ABC and SBS are held in the minds and hearts of Australians right across this country. It is, of course, the most trusted news source in the nation.</p><p>The Australian people love the fact that they can watch the shows that they want when they want through such a quality service as iView or SBS On Demand. Parents across the country rejoice that they can turn on the television, use iView and ensure that their kids can watch quality kids' shows at a time that is needed—a saving grace for many Australian households, I must say. Just imagine what the Australian people will think when they hear that Senator Hanson and One Nation have put a pay wall on ABC iView. Just imagine what the Australian public will think when they hear that they cannot use the catch-up service of SBS On Demand or on the ABC to see the news of the day—because, perhaps, they have shiftwork or they work long hours or they're pensioners who have to catch up with the news at a different time. Just imagine what the Australian people will think when their public broadcaster cannot deliver the service that is available now unless they pay for it. It is a double tax on the ABC and SBS.</p><p>There are people who are arguing: 'It's not fair that ABC and SBS are able to deliver such good quality services to the Australian people free of charge. How on earth can commercial operators compete?' Well, it's not free of charge. People pay their taxes to get a good, quality, public broadcasting service. The Australian people pay taxes and they are comforted by the fact that their public broadcaster can deliver the service that they rely on and trust. It is no surprise that the ABC has the most trusted news service in the nation. People love their ABC. They love our ABC. And they don't like that Senator Hanson and One Nation have got their grubby little hands on it and are going to demand that the government cut these services through funding cuts and clipping the wings of these services through their online platforms. This chamber and the other place should have the right to decide what type of reviews of our public broadcasters a minister will commission. That is what this amendment is about.</p><p>We heard previously that the deal done between the government, One Nation and the Xenophon political party would all be wrapped up in different legislation and we didn't have to vote for it now, except for that one key element—this crucial review. Well, here is the opportunity to make sure that this parliament, at a further point in time, has the right to say yes or no to the demands that have been put forward by One Nation. I don't think that the Australian people deserve to have their public broadcaster held to ransom by One Nation. I don't believe that the Australian public should have to see their public broadcaster used as a pawn in negotiations between One Nation and the government. And I don't believe that our public broadcaster should be held to ransom because Senator Hanson and One Nation have a personal grudge against stories that have been published about them by our public broadcaster.</p><p>This amendment means that we rise above that and ensure that this parliament can make an independent decision about what our public broadcasters should be subjected to and that it's not left to the grubby backroom deals that have been done to secure any reform that this government or One Nation desires. It is simply about putting the power back into the hands of the parliament and, therefore, back into the hands of the people that we represent—the Australian public—who fund our public broadcasters, who love our public broadcasters and who don't want to see them used as punching bags just because some politicians don't like what they say.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|