|
senate vote 2018-03-27#6
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-07-07 10:37:37
|
Title
Bills — Communications Legislation Amendment (Online Content Services and Other Measures) Bill 2017; in Committee- Communications Legislation Amendment (Online Content Services and Other Measures) Bill 2017 - in Committee - Parliamentary oversight
Description
<p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 8406 revised, together:</p>-
- The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-03-27.35.1) introduced by South Australian Senator [Sarah Hanson-Young](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/sarah_hanson-young) (Greens), which means it failed.
- Senator Hanson-Young [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2018-03-27.35.1):
- > *All this amendment does is reinstate parliamentary oversight. It doesn't say what quota is right or wrong. It's got nothing to do with that. It simply says that the parliament has a right to act as a check and a balance on the decisions and directions being made by the minister.*
- ### Amendment text
- > *(1) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 11), at the end of the clause, add:*
- >
- >> *Note: The provisions of the Legislation (Exemptions and Other Matters) Regulation 2015 amended or inserted by this Act, and any other provisions of those regulations, may be amended or repealed by regulations made under section 62 of the Legislation Act 2003 (see subsection 13(5) of that Act).*
- >
- > *(2) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 7), after item 12, insert:*
- >
- >> *12A Subsection 122(7) (note)*
- >>
- >> *Repeal the note.*
- >
- > *(3) Page 34 (after line 26), at the end of the bill, add:*
- >
- >> *Schedule 2—Program standards*
- >>
- >> *Legislation (Exemptions and Other Matters) Regulation 2015*
- >>
- >> *1 Section 10 (table item 8)*
- >>
- >> *Repeal the item, substitute:*
- >>
- >>> *8 An amendment made under section 128 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to a standard under Part 9 of that Act*
<p class="italic">(1) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 11), at the end of the clause, add:</p><p class="italic">Note: The provisions of the <i>Legislation (Exemptions and Other Matters) Regulation 2015 </i>amended or</p><p class="italic">inserted by this Act, and any other provisions of those regulations, may be amended or repealed by regulations made</p><p class="italic">under section 62 of the <i>Legislation Act 2003 </i>(see subsection 13(5) of that Act).</p><p class="italic">(2) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 7), after item 12, insert:</p><p class="italic">12A Subsection 122(7) (note)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the note.</p><p class="italic">(3) Page 34 (after line 26), at the end of the Bill, add:</p><p class="italic">Schedule 2—Program standards</p><p class="italic"> <i>Legislation (Exemptions and Other Matters) Regulation 2015</i></p><p class="italic">1 Section 10 (table item 8)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the item, substitute:</p><p class="italic">8 An amendment made under section 128 of the <i>Broadcasting Services Act 1992 </i>to a standard under</p><p class="italic">Part 9 of that Act</p><p>This amendment deals with the issue that I spoke of in my speech in the second reading debate last night. We know that in 2015 the government, without any consultation and with very little attention from the parliament, moved to give themselves the right to change codes and standards in the communications act to allow the minister to make changes without parliamentary oversight. Normally, of course, regulations and other various changes and directions could be disallowed or debated in the parliament. In 2015 this government, without any consultation, changed those rules, to give the minister the power to willy-nilly change or give directions in relation to standards and codes.</p><p>Today we've been debating the standards and codes in relation to gambling advertising. But there is a big fight looming, and it is in relation to the requirements for our broadcasters as to what level of Australian-made content they have to show and what level of Australian-made children's content they must broadcast. We know that the big broadcasters, the commercial free-to-air broadcasters, don't want to have these restrictions upon them. They prefer to buy cheap crap made in the US or elsewhere, and to play it here in Australia, and to not have to invest in our local content, and our local film and screen industry. We also know that the big commercial free-to-air broadcasters don't believe that they should have to invest in Australian-made children's content.</p><p>At a time when broadcasters are diversifying from television screens into online platforms, mobiles, iPads and other streaming services; and our children are, in fact, engaged more than ever in watching and consuming created content, we should be thinking more as policymakers about the quality of that content that's made for children and that is available to our young audiences. And it's important in today's age that Australian kids are able to access good-quality, Australian-made content. They deserve the right to have their stories told. They deserve the right to have the stories of their community and their country reflected back at them. We all have those memories of being kids and watching <i>Skippy</i>, <i>Round</i><i>t</i><i>he Twist</i>, <i>Play School</i> or <i>Bananas in Pyjamas</i>or of our own children accessing good-quality, Australian-made kids' content. All of that is going to become harder and harder unless we protect the requirements for our broadcasters to invest in and show Australian-made kids' content. And, of course, this goes beyond just kids' TV. This is also in relation to Australian-made drama.</p><p>We have an amazing industry of talented creators here in Australia who are very fearful that jobs are about to be shed and they will have to go offshore, because the investment in Australian-made content, in Australian stories, just won't be here if these changes to content requirements are made at the stroke of a pen by the minister. The exemptions—and this is where the rubber hits the road—under the standards and codes section of the act, allow the minister to simply write a direction. There is no parliamentary oversight for this. There is no opportunity for the Senate to debate whether that's a good thing or a bad thing or whether there needs to be a compromise. It will simply be at the will of the minister—of course, being begged by the big broadcasters. Not only do they have free licences, because they don't have to pay fees any more—taxpayers gave them a big free ticket last year at the whim and the request of the minister—but also they don't want to have these requirements to invest in Australian-made stories or for Australian kids to be able to access stories about their communities being reflected back at them.</p><p>All this amendment does is reinstate parliamentary oversight. It doesn't say what quota is right or wrong. It's got nothing to do with that. It simply says that the parliament has a right to act as a check and a balance on the decisions and directions being made by the minister. I think that is absolutely fair. We're all senators in this place and we're passionate about being able to review legislation, to improve legislation and to ensure that the will of the Australian people is being reflected in the laws that pass this place. Let's make sure that, in relation to this issue, the parliament still has a role—because, to date, it doesn't. The minister can simply make these changes, which will fundamentally change the look, the feel and the face of Australian television, the look, the feel and the face of Australian-made stories and the look, the feel and the face of kids' TV, whether that's on the big screens at home or, indeed, the little screens in their hands.</p><p>Australian kids deserve to have Australian stories. They deserve to be able to learn about their communities through storytelling, through questioning and through being able to quiz what are norms and whether something is right or wrong, to help them make sense of the world. If we get rid of these requirements, if we allow the minister to do this without even a check or balance from the parliament, that's all going to go out the window—because we know these peak broadcasters don't care about what our Australian kids are consuming. All they care about is their bottom dollar. All they care about is the bottom line on their budget sheets. They don't care about Australian-made content. They don't care about the industry jobs that are going to be lost offshore, because they'll just buy crap from the US to fill our screens or, worse than that, in between, we'll be bombarded even more with terrible reality television. That's what the broadcasters tell us.</p> <p class="speaker">Marise Payne</p><p>I rise on a point of order. There is a certain level of language expected in the chamber, and I think the senator should observe it.</p> <p class="speaker">Linda Reynolds</p><p>Senator Hanson-Young, I would remind you of parliamentary language.</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>I will withdraw the word 'crap' and replace it with 'rubbish'. All these broadcasters care about is their bottom line. All they care about is getting cheap, rubbish shows from the United States and putting them on our televisions and then pumping whatever change they may have left over into reality television. And they say to Australian families, 'This is good family viewing.' Well, I tell you what, I don't think <i>Married at First Sight</i> is the best show for our kids to have to sit down to watch. I don't think that's particularly educational.</p><p>But this is the type of move and push that is going to happen. The big broadcasters are clamouring for it. All you need to do is read their submissions to the government's content review. They don't want these quotas in place, they don't want requirements, and for every inch you give them they will take a mile. They begged the government for free licence fees only a year ago. The government gave it to them but got nothing. This minister is not a very good negotiator, because he got absolutely nothing in return. He gave them free licence fees, and now they're saying, 'And now we don't want to have to have restrictions on the type of content that we show and broadcast.'</p><p>Australian artists, actors, producers, scriptwriters, sound engineers and camera crew are all important jobs, and it's an important industry. It helps tell an Australian story. It helps us reflect our communities back at ourselves and question what's going on in our part of the world and how we interact with the rest of the globe. But there's obviously an economic dividend for our country. These are people's jobs. These are people's livelihoods. But these big broadcasters don't give two hoots about that. All these big broadcasters care about is reducing the amount of money they have to spend here in Australia, and I put it to you that, unless we put a check and balance back in place and unless we allow the parliament to have some oversight, when parliament's over at the end of this week and we all go off on our Easter break, this minister is going to write and give directions that say that these quotas don't need to exist, because that is what these broadcasters want from him; that is what they are lobbying hard for.</p><p>If that is not the will of the minister, then be prepared to put parliamentary oversight back in place so that we can have a discussion and a debate about how much we should be investing in and protecting Australian jobs and Australian stories. All this amendment does is reinstate parliamentary oversight. The minister is able to do a lot of things on his own. He shouldn't be able to write away Australian-made stories and junk hundreds of thousands of Australian jobs that depend on making sure Australian stories, and kids' stories in particular, are told here in Australia by Australians.</p> <p class="speaker">Mitch Fifield</p><p>I should point out to colleagues that this bill makes no changes to any matters regarding Australian or children's content standards, including quotas. The government, as Senator Hanson-Young made reference to, is indeed undertaking an Australian and children's content review to provide advice to government on the most effective mechanisms for supporting Australian and children's screen content. Many of these mechanisms have not been looked at for more than a decade. We want to make sure that the arrangements are fit for purpose. Specifically, mechanisms to support Australian drama, documentary and children's content, including the Australian screen production incentive, are being examined. The work on the review is ongoing.</p><p>Contrary to Senator Hanson-Young's, I assume, rhetorical flourish, I don't have my pen ready to write to anyone over the parliamentary break to give directions on these matters. The standards, I should point out, that establish quotas are made by ACMA under section 122(1) of the Broadcasting Services Act. These standards are not disallowable instruments, and I'm advised by my department that this has been the case for some time—since at least 2003 and possibly earlier—and that it's not the case that this is something that came into being in 2015. The exemption from disallowance from these standards that you refer to is contained in the Legislation (Exemptions and Other Matters) Regulation 2015, but my advice is that it is having in regulation what was previously in primary legislation. So that exemption had been there well before. That regulation in 2015 is just the latest incarnation of something that has been in place for some time.</p><p>The rationale for this exemption is that section 128 of the Broadcasting Services Act includes the power for parliament to amend standards, which is a more comprehensive power for parliament than media disallowance. In any case, it's not correct to say that I can unilaterally amend or abolish quotas. Let me restate again that the government has made no decisions in relation to the content review, which is ongoing. The quotas are in standards that are made by ACMA, and it is ACMA that would need to make new standards to make any changes. Again, let me reiterate that the government has made no decisions in this regard. No announcements, including regarding quotas, are imminent. So there's not a basis in fact for the commentary around quotas that there has been over recent days.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
-
|