|
senate vote 2017-10-18#5
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2017-10-27 13:10:15
|
Title
Motions — Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Special Broadcasting Service- Motions - Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Special Broadcasting Service - Support
Description
<p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 539 standing in my name for today, relating to the ABC and SBS.</p><p>Leave granted.</p>- The majority supported this [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2017-10-18.313.1), which was introduced by SA Greens Senator [Sarah Hanson-Young](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/sarah_hanson-young). Although motions like this have no legal force, they do represent the will of the Senate and so can have some political influence.
- ### Motion text
- > *The Senate notes:*
- > *a) The overwhelming public support for the ABC and SBS in providing news services, quality programming including for children, and online catch up services iView and SBS On Demand.*
- > *b) The vital role of the national broadcasters in promoting a diversity of services in the Australian media environment.*
- > *c) The Liberal-National Government is waging an ideological war on public broadcasting, as evidenced by successive budget cuts, reviews and inquiries, and its recent deal with the One Nation Party in the context of the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017 which includes:*
- >> *a. a competitive neutrality inquiry into the ABC and SBS*
- >> *b. amendments to the ABC Charter to undermine its independence*
- >> *c. amendments to legislation to force the disclosure of the salaries of staff at the ABC and SBS.*
- > *The Senate agrees it will not support legislation that forces the ABC or SBS to publicise the salaries of its staff, breaching their right to privacy.*
<p>I have had the amendments circulated in the chamber. I've also spoken to both the Labor and the government members running the show here. Substantially, it's not much different. There is slightly different wording, but also I have added Senator Deb O'Neill as a co-sponsor of the motion. I, and also on behalf of Senator O'Neill, move the motion as amended:</p><p class="italic">The Senate notes:</p><p class="italic">a) The overwhelming public support for the ABC and SBS in providing news services, quality programming including for children, and online catch up services iView and SBS On Demand.</p><p class="italic">b) The vital role of the national broadcasters in promoting a diversity of services in the Australian media environment.</p><p class="italic">c) The Liberal-National Government is waging an ideological war on public broadcasting, as evidenced by successive budget cuts, reviews and inquiries, and its recent deal with the One Nation Party in the context of the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017 which includes:</p><p class="italic">a. a competitive neutrality inquiry into the ABC and SBS</p><p class="italic">b. amendments to the ABC Charter to undermine its independence</p><p class="italic">c. amendments to legislation to force the disclosure of the salaries of staff at the ABC and SBS.</p><p class="italic">The Senate agrees it will not support legislation that forces the ABC or SBS to publicise the salaries of its staff, breaching their right to privacy.</p> <p class="speaker">James McGrath</p><p>I seek leave to make a short statement.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>Leave is granted for one minute.</p> <p class="speaker">James McGrath</p><p>The government does not support this motion. The government supports the ABC and SBS with over $1.3 billion in taxpayer funding every year. The Australian public deserves transparency over how this money is spent, and the government's policy to require additional transparency in relation to staff salaries is an appropriate requirement and follows the example of the British Broadcasting Corporation. The government has asked the ABC and SBS to implement this policy voluntarily. Should they refuse to do so, the Senate will have an opportunity to determine this matter through debate on legislation.</p> <p class="speaker">Pauline Hanson</p><p>I seek leave to make a short statement.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>Leave is granted for one minute.</p> <p class="speaker">Pauline Hanson</p><p>One Nation does not support this motion. We believe, because they are taxpayer funded organisations, that taxpayers have a right to know what wages are paid at the ABC and SBS—because they are accountable to the public. If the Greens are concerned about women and men getting paid the same and the inequality in wages, this would clearly show what inequality there is. It is known that ABC female presenters are well and truly underpaid compared to what their male counterparts are paid. Apart from that, taxpayers have the right to know what they are paying out in wages to these organisations.</p> <p class="speaker">Derryn Hinch</p><p>I seek leave to make a short statement.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>Leave is granted for one minute.</p> <p class="speaker">Derryn Hinch</p><p>I had planned to oppose this motion, but, since talking to a lot of people in the industry, not at the ABC, and executives of TV stations, I think it will be enough for the ABC to publish the total money paid to their staff, otherwise it will inhibit ABC staff members who might want to move into the commercial area. If they are going to be paid half a million dollars, I don't know, but, if the commercial sector knows that they are only being paid $200,000 at the ABC, the commercial people will know they would only have to pay $250,000. I support some of where you're coming from, but I will go along with the Greens on this one. As long as we're told the total money spent on journalism and staff, that is enough for us to know. I think individually those contracts should be protected.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>The question is that the motion moved by Senator Hanson-Young, as amended, be agreed to.</p>
|