Christopher Back voted very strongly for decreasing ABC and SBS funding

The majority voted against a motion to reduce the ABC's funding, which means it wasn't successful.

The motion was introduced by Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party Senator Brian Burston "on the basis that the ABC has failed to develop a strategic plan to provide at least 50 per cent local content, and to develop a policy of broadcasting programs that contribute to a sense of national identity".

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) notes the Platform Papers publication entitled, Missing in Action: the ABC and Australian Screen Culture, in which former ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) television director Mr Kim Dalton argues that the primary concern of the ABC is to protect its institutional status and structure;

(b) is of the opinion that the ABC should allocate at least 35 per cent of its annual funding to rural and regional areas of Australia where Australian content can be developed consistent with the ABC Charter; and

(c) calls on the Government to make a reduction to ABC funding of $600 million over the forward estimates of $150 million per year commencing at the end of the 2017-18 financial year on the basis that the ABC has failed to develop a strategic plan to provide at least 50 per cent local content, and to develop a policy of broadcasting programs that contribute to a sense of national identity.

The majority voted in favour of a motion introduced by South Australian Senator Sarah Hanson-Young (Greens), which means it succeeded. Motions like these don't make any legal changes on their own, but they're politically influential because they represent the will of the Senate.

Motion text

That the Senate—

(a) opposes recent cuts to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) that have resulted in:

(i) the loss of almost 500 Australian jobs,

(ii) the closure of all 50 ABC retail outlets around Australia,

(iii) a substantial reduction in Australian made children's content,

(iv) a substantive reduction in local regional content, and

(v) a reduction in government funding totalling 29.2 per cent over 30 years;

(b) opposes the severe cuts to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation outlined in the 2016 Budget paper totalling almost $50 million over the forward estimates; and

(c) supports the ongoing strengthening of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation as a bold, vital and well-funded national broadcaster with strong local and regional content for all Australians.

The majority rejected the bill's main idea, which means that the bill was unsuccessful and won't be discussed any further in Parliament. In parliamentary jargon, they voted against reading it for a second time.

Bill's main idea

The bill would give SBS more flexibility in terms of advertising by, for example, letting SBS air more advertising and sponsorship announcements in prime time viewing periods so long as it reduced advertising at other times in a 24 hour period.

According to the bills digest, the Government says that the changes would mean SBS would be less dependent on government funding. Though some public broadcaster advocates argue that increasing advertising like this may lead to less diversity on SBS as it puts the needs of advertisers before the needs of viewers.

Read more about what the bill does and the arguments for and against it in its bills digest.