|
senate vote 2021-02-24#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2022-04-22 13:10:44
|
Title
Bills — Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2021; in Committee- Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2021 - in Committee - Minister’s determination
Description
<p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>I now move to government amendments on sheet PG138.</p>-
- The majority voted in favour of item (1) of [Government amendments](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr6652_amend_49f1e4e9-d99c-4b80-84d4-3225e4f6491a%22;rec=0), which means it will now form part of the bill.
- South Australian Senator [Rex Patrick](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/rex_patrick) (Independent) opposed item (1) and [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2021-02-24.274.1):
- > *It's a small amendment to what is a very significant bill, a very large bill. I would liken it to the two wires on the service module of Apollo 13. They might seem like just small wires, but after launch of this legislation we're going to find that it doesn't accomplish the mission. We're going to find that the Treasurer will simply be able to not designate Facebook and Google in accordance with the act. That would leave all of the small players, all of the regional players, without the ability to bargain properly against these very large digital companies, these foreign companies. We would, in effect, still have the very thing that Mr Rod Sims of the ACCC was most concerned about, which is a huge imbalance in power between Facebook, Google and the small players. So I would urge the chamber, when this is put, to reject item No. (1) of these amendments because it effectively undermines the whole bill.*
- ### Item (1) text
- > *(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 8 (lines 10 to 13), omit subsection 52E(3), substitute:*
- >
- >> *(3) In making the determination, the Minister must consider:*
- >>
- >>> *(a) whether there is a significant bargaining power imbalance between Australian news businesses and the group comprised of the corporation and all of its related bodies corporate; and*
- >>>
- >>> *(b) whether that group has made a significant contribution to the sustainability of the Australian news industry through agreements relating to news content of Australian news businesses (including agreements to remunerate those businesses for their news content).*
<p class="speaker">Rex Patrick</p><p>I ask that item No. (1) on sheet PG138 be put separately and I ask the chamber not to support this part of the government's amendments. Labor raised concerns about this amendment this morning. Whilst the argument used in relation to Senator Hanson-Young's amendment was that you didn't understand the consequences of her amendment, or you suggested there might be unintended consequences, if we were to remove this provision of the government's amendment, we would go back to where we were with the understanding we had yesterday. So Labor should be in a position to reject this amendment.</p><p>It's a small amendment to what is a very significant bill, a very large bill. I would liken it to the two wires on the service module of Apollo 13. They might seem like just small wires, but after launch of this legislation we're going to find that it doesn't accomplish the mission. We're going to find that the Treasurer will simply be able to not designate Facebook and Google in accordance with the act. That would leave all of the small players, all of the regional players, without the ability to bargain properly against these very large digital companies, these foreign companies. We would, in effect, still have the very thing that Mr Rod Sims of the ACCC was most concerned about, which is a huge imbalance in power between Facebook, Google and the small players. So I would urge the chamber, when this is put, to reject item No. (1) of these amendments because it effectively undermines the whole bill.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>If this place wants to go back to before there was a deal—we saw just a few days ago that Facebook was threatening to leave the country. We saw a host of crazy things happen out there, and yet we have—just like Senator Hanson-Young did—coming from Senator Patrick, an amendment that does not mitigate those risks. It does not cure the uncertainty that is here. Putting a number on it does not address in any way the power imbalances that need to be addressed. It could, in fact, further distort them, because we don't yet know who's been at the table in the deals.</p><p>An honourable senator: You're rolling over again!</p><p>This has nothing—</p><p>Honourable senators interjecting—</p><p>We will not be wedged—</p><p>Honourable senators interjecting—</p><p>Be it on your head if we go back to the crazy land that we were in a few days ago!</p><p class="italic">The CHAIR: Order! Senator Pratt, resume your seat. Senator Pratt has the right to be heard in silence. We are in Committee of the Whole. Any senator can stand and put their point of view. I would ask that Senator Pratt be heard in silence.</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>Point of order, Chair: I just want to correct the record. Senator Pratt said that this is an amendment being put forward by Senator Patrick. It's not. All he's requesting is that the government amendment be—</p><p class="italic">The CHAIR: Senator Hanson-Young, that is not a point of order.</p><p>Point of order, Chair: could you please clarify what the question is before the chair?</p><p class="italic">The CHAIR: The question before the chair is the government amendments on sheet PG138. Given that Senator Patrick has asked that the matters be split, the matter we are dealing with at the moment is item (1). Please continue, Senator Pratt.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>In dealing with item (1) on sheet 1197, you cannot split these apart. If Senator Patrick wants to stand up for these players that he's concerned about, why not include all of them? Why not say, 'not just a significant number, but all players'? That is what takes us back to this complete circular logic—when the original version of the bill said, 'You've got to treat everyone the same and you can have no preferential treatment.' You can't just find the balance of that in the middle of these negotiations with the words that Senator Patrick is seeking to put into the legislation. So it is incumbent on this place to consider these issues properly and in the context of the negotiations that are already underway. It is ridiculous to me that inserting words like 'significant' versus 'substantial' will make any assessment of the kinds of difference they should make in the long-term credibility of this regime. It is impossible to make an assessment of what that looks like, particularly in the context of the negotiations that are already underway.</p> <p class="speaker">Rex Patrick</p><p>I just want to clarify that I'm not moving any amendment. What I'm asking is that the chamber does not support part (1) of the amendments by the government, because it introduces an uncertainty that Senator Pratt herself has raised questions about today. Let's just understand what's happening here: Labor are capitulating to Facebook and Google. They want to be an alternative government but they're not prepared to stand up to two big international corporations. I've said many, many times before that I'd love to have a strong opposition because I think it makes government better. But, unfortunately, we simply don't have that. I'm not asking for anything to be added to this legislation; I'm asking about the offending provision that talks about a significant contribution, which creates a real possibility that smaller media entities and, indeed, regional media entities will not be protected or get the benefit of being able to negotiate with these very large behemoths of companies.</p><p>It's disappointing, but I understand, and everyone also needs to understand, how this works. The government has introduced a last-minute amendment and the Labor Party can't actually react in that time frame because they have to take things back to the minister, who is not in this place, and interact, and then they have to take it to caucus. They are a large organisation that is not nimble and is unable to react to what has happened, and the government has just played them. The government has just played the Labor Party, introducing this at the last minute so that Labor has no ability to think this through and come to a decision. That's exactly what's happening here and it's very disappointing.</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>Senator Patrick has asked for item (1) of the government's very rushed amendments that were only circulated this morning in this debate to be put separately. That's absolutely within his right. Let's be honest, the attack on Senator Patrick from the Labor Party really just exposes their uncomfortableness with this whole thing. It must be very difficult coming into this place day after day after day and not knowing where you stand on things. That's the truth of it. That is the problem with the Labor Party. I also accept that the government have not just done a deal here that satisfies Facebook and Google, and that they have blinked in relation to that; they have also, in this amendment, delivered for their mates in the Murdoch press. That is what is going on here. That is why this is in here. And that is why the Labor Party is gutless about taking this on. Mr Albanese, we all know, has no chance in any universe of doing anything if he's having to have a fight with the Murdoch press. That's what is going on, so let's just be honest; we're not debating anyone else's amendment but the government's. Our job in the Senate is to hold this government to account. They're mates with the Murdoch press, and now they're best buddies of the billionaires over in the US who have made this government blink. That's what's going on, and that's why the Greens will also request that this item (1) is put separately.</p><p class="italic">The CHAIR: The question is that item (1) on sheet PG138, as moved by the government, be agreed to.</p> -
-
|