Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

In conclusion, I recognise that it is not part of this package, but the point is that it was part of the government’s package. It was part of the whole package that was announced back in May, and it should have stayed in the package. And it is completely appropriate for the Senate, as a legislative body, to put it back in the package.

The minister says that six months is not that long to consult with stakeholders. That was what the whole discussion paper was about. I recall being at Waterfront Place in Brisbane when Minister Ruddock gave the speech when he launched the discussion paper—along with, I think, one or two other discussion papers—back around, I think, the start of 2005. It is something that has been going for a lot longer than six months. In fact, for quite a period prior to that discussion paper being launched, nearly two years ago, it was a matter for debate. So the statement, ‘It has only recently been decided and we’ve still got to work through some of the detail,’ is pretty flimsy, quite frankly. There has been plenty of time to work through the detail. And, as I said, it is far less complex and much more clear in its consequences than a lot of what we have been dealing with and will continue to deal with with other aspects of the legislation.

Be that as it may, I am obviously not going to get satisfaction this evening. I simply put on the record that the Democrats certainly will not let the matter rest. I note the minister’s comment that the government’s decision has not changed. We will continue to use the Senate’s role as a law-making body to keep this issue on the record, whether through a private senator’s bill or something else. It is simply a matter of a fair go. Nobody else in the community would accept having their income constrained with some sort of salary cap on what they are allowed to earn.

Particularly when it is about earnings through an industry that is clearly profitable, like the commercial radio industry is, one has to wonder what other deals, agreements or swaps might be going on around in the backroom somewhere, given the inability to have any more clarity from the government about what is going on. As to whether this was part of some other agreement that has been sacrificed to allow the broader media reforms through, I guess people can always speculate about those things. But the problem is that, unless the government can be more clear and open about what on earth is going on, people obviously will speculate about what the real agendas and motivations are and why the heels are dragging on this. Frankly, that is a less than ideal situation.

Question put:

That the amendments (Senator Bartlett’s) be agreed to.