Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and, by leave, I move government amendments (1) to (14) as circulated together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 13), after "Broadcasting Services Act 1992", insert ", the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 orthe Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991".

(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (line 4), after "Broadcasting Services Act 1992", insert ", the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 orthe Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991".

(3) Schedule 2, heading to Part 4, page 25 (lines 1 to 2), omit "the Broadcasting Services Act 1992", substitute "certain other Acts".

(4) Schedule 2, item 8, page 25 (line 10), after "Broadcasting Services Act 1992", insert ", the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 orthe Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991".

(5) Schedule 2, item 10, page 25 (line 23), after "Broadcasting Services Act 1992", insert ", the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 orthe Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991".

(6) Schedule 2, item 11, page 26 (lines 1 to 2), omit "the Broadcasting Services Act 1992", substitute "certain other Acts".

(7) Schedule 2, item 11, page 26 (lines 3 to 4), omit "the Broadcasting Services Act 1992", substitute "certain other Acts".

(8) Schedule 2, item 11, page 26 (line 8), after "Act 1992", insert ", the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 orthe Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991".

(9) Schedule 2, item 11, page 26 (line 12), after "Act 1992,", insert "the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 orthe Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991,".

(10) Schedule 2, item 11, page 26 (line 19), omit "Broadcasting Services Act 1992", substitute "the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 orthe Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991".

(11) Schedule 2, item 11, page 26 (after line 26), after paragraph 6HA(3)(a), insert:

(aa) if the post-classification publisher is the Australian Broadcasting Corporation or the Special Broadcasting Service Corporation—at the time the post-classification publisher proposes to publish the film; or

(12) Schedule 2, item 11, page 26 (line 27), omit "if the post-classification publisher is not such an entity", substitute "otherwise".

(13) Schedule 2, item 11, page 27 (line 4), after "Broadcasting Services Act 1992", insert ", the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 orthe Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991".

(14) Schedule 2, item 13, page 27 (line 28), after "Broadcasting Services Act 1992", insert ", the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 orthe Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991".

The amendments clarify the drafting of the bill as it relates to the ABC and SBS. The bill currently provides that content classified under the relevant provisions in the Broadcasting Services Act will be deemed as also classified under the classification act. The amendments will ensure that the ABC and SBS are also eligible for these deeming provisions. These deeming provisions support a 'classify once' principle where content that has been classified using almost identical criteria based on the guidelines for classification of films under the classification act and has not been modified does not require classification again for distribution in another format. This was one of the key recommendations from the 2020 Stevens review of Australian classification regulation and supports the government's objective of making it easier for industry to comply with regulatory requirements under the classification act.

The government appreciates the productive and constructive engagement from stakeholders and across the chamber.

David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We support this bill, which contains several sensible reforms to the classification system as recommended by the Stevens review, which was commissioned under the coalition government. But this amendment shows an appalling lack of competence on the part of the government. It's very important that people understand what's actually happening here.

One of the key principles out of the Stevens review was 'classify once'. It's a very sensible principle, and it's in the legislation. Basically the principle is that if you classify something for television it should work on other platforms as well. So, rather than having to classify it for TV and then have a separate classification process for digital and so on, you classify it once. It's a very sensible position, recommended by the Stevens review and supported by the government and the opposition. The problem—and it's a material problem, and it's one the government appears to have worked out only this morning, distributing these draft amendments—is that the principle of 'classify once' entirely neglected to include the ABC and the SBS. So, the classify-once principle, which the bill said would cover the field, in fact does not do that.

I will read directly from the minister's second reading speech, because I certainly would not want to misquote in any way. It says:

This approach was advocated by the Stevens review and in the ACCC's 2019 digital platforms inquiry recommendation for a nationally-uniform classification scheme to classify or restrict access to content consistently across different delivery formats as part of a harmonised media regulatory framework.

That's a lot of somewhat bureaucratic language, but the basic point is, classify it once; it doesn't matter who does it, but it should be consistent. But the government forgot about the ABC and the SBS. So now they bring back to the chamber a request of the parliament to say, 'Well, look, sorry; we didn't think about the ABC and the SBS, so can you please agree with us to include them as well.'

Given that it's consistent with the principle, we won't oppose that amendment. But it does raise very serious questions of competence. Normally, when a bill is amended, that occurs because it's been through a process in the Senate perhaps and there's been a whole bunch of deliberation and people have pointed out different points. What's happened here is that the government at some particular point has said, 'Hang on a minute: we forgot to include the ABC and we forgot to include the SBS.' And of course the ABC and SBS have digital platforms, not just broadcast. So, their requirement to benefit from this classify-once principle is exactly the same as for anyone else.

Why on Earth the government would not have picked up this issue in the first place is I think is quite remarkable. It does go to a question of competence, and we're seeing that in this portfolio generally—drafting errors. Looking at the so-called misinformation bill that this minister has put forward, it contains some utterly extraordinary provisions—things like: if the government authorises something it can't be misinformation, but if someone criticises the government it can be misinformation. That is actually in the government's bill.

There are really serious questions here about what is going on in this portfolio and why the minister wouldn't have picked up something as simple as including the ABC and the SBS—who, after all, represent probably a third of the entire sector—in the original draft. So I've got a number of questions that I'd like the minister to respond to about this mistake. Firstly, how on Earth did this happen? How were the ABC and the SBS not included? Did the minister deliberately exclude them, or just forget? When did the minister first become aware of this mistake? And why was this presented to the parliament literally hours before this bill came before it? What action is the minister going to take to ensure that this level of incompetence isn't seen again? Does it reflect the minister's preoccupation with other issues other than this, such as directing mobile black spot funding into Labor electorates and oppressing free speech through the misinformation bill? And is the minister so preoccupied with those other matters that she hasn't had time to get the basic detail right on what really should have been quite a simple matter?

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Banks for his contribution to this debate. But he certainly does have a hide to come in here and talk about competence, as a minister in the former government who completely bungled the immigration portfolio. He left it in the mess that it is today, for this side of the House to mop up after him. He was a minister in the previous government who sat around and did nothing about some of the key challenges facing Australia when it came to immigration.

I would suggest to the shadow minister, if he wants to get smart in here talking about competence, three things. First, he should get a mirror. Second, he should understand the fact that in 2020, when this review was conducted, it actually wasn't released by those opposite. Nothing happened. It gathered dust along with everything else, every other major piece of review, in this portfolio. The Universal Service Obligation, for example, was subjected to how many reviews, and nothing substantive happened. We had an inquiry into banning credit cards for online wagering, and nothing happened. We had a significant review into the Classification Scheme, and nothing happened. Very clearly, this is a member opposite who seeks to come in here and lecture us about competency. Third is the fact that we are choosing to clarify here under the 'classify once' principal to avoid it going to the Senate and being amended in the Senate when we know that there has been stakeholder feedback for years in this area.

For the avoidance of doubt: we are choosing to do this so that classification once applies to all of these players in the sector.

David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why not put it in originally? Why not do it at the start?

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the shadow minister wants to come in here—I can hear him jabbering away—and try to lecture the government on how to conduct itself in this portfolio, I again point out the mess that they left the NBN in and the mess that they left Australia Post in. If he wants to talk about mobile black spots, about how under their priority round 124 out of 125 sites went to Liberal and National party seats, I'm very happy to have that discussion.

We're here to ensure that the first stage of these classification reforms is progressed, something that never happened at all under those opposite. We are very pleased that this sector has been engaged in this area, because—I'll give the member opposite a tip—that is what mature governments do. They engage constructively with stakeholders and act on recommendations where they have meaningful and important changes to be made to portfolios. I would have thought that the member would be slightly embarrassed to come in here and start talking about elements of the Classification Scheme that, when he was a member of a government, sat in the Stevens review for the entire remainder of the term.

Again, I thank all members of the House for their support of this important first stage of classification reform. It is long overdue, as every member of this House has commented. We are getting this job done. It's up to the member opposite, if he chooses, to be part of that reform or not. All we know is that Australians have trust in the Classification Scheme. They want to ensure that their children and those in their care have access to the best guidance that is available. That is what we are doing through this bill, and that is what this government will continue to do through reforming the Classification Scheme.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.