Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Mr Chairman, I now seek leave to move amendments (1) through (4), on sheet 7566, which were only circulated about 20 minutes ago.

The CHAIRMAN: Senator Ludlam, it would be more helpful if you could seek leave to move amendments (1) and (3) together, and (2) and (4) together, given that (1) and (3) are consequential on (2) and (4). I am happy for you to speak to them all at one time, though.

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (3) together, and (2) and (4) together, on sheet 7566:

(1) Schedule 2, page 9 (line 2), omit the heading.

(2) Schedule 2, item 5, page 9 (lines 3 to 15), to be opposed.

(3) Schedule 2, page 9 (line 16), omit the heading.

(4) Schedule 2, items 6 to 16, page 9 (line 17) to page 11 (line 6), to be opposed

I will seek Senator Abetz's reading, by way of apology, that the chamber has only had 20 or 25 minutes to consider these amendments. I guess that is one of the consequences of dealing with an ominous bill of this type that deals with 100 issues on a day. This is a small one that nearly slipped through and I will grant the minister the benefit of the doubt that this is a drafting error and it is not intentional. This does not at all fit my conception of red tape removal or streamlining legislation, which I think everybody in here is reasonably comfortable with. This is about a Commonwealth regulator, in this case ACMA, to whom you complain about the behaviour of commercial broadcasters, public broadcasters and some quarters of the internet. You can also make complaints relating to broadcasting and broadcasting services, data-casting services and prohibitive content. It is actually quite an important area of regulation. On my reading of these amendments—and I am taking this from the government's explanatory memorandum, on page 13—ACMA at the moment, as you would expect and hope, is not required to investigate complaints where they are considered to be, according to the government's explanatory memorandum, 'frivolous, vexatious or not made in good faith'.

What you have done there, on the basis of your judgement, is say to the regulator that if a complaint is simply a waste of everyone's time, you will not then be compelled to investigate it, which is reasonable. The next paragraph of the EM says:

The effect of the amendments are to remove the ACMA’s statutory duty to investigate complaints that do not fall in the limited categories for exemption. Instead the ACMA would have discretion to investigate the complaint if the ACMA considered it is desirable to do so.

I am a bit gobsmacked, so I am hoping that Senator Abetz can confirm this is a drafting error—and that we will not need to call a vote because we will all be on the same side of the chamber—and that you do not allow a regulator to regulate on a day when it feels like it and you do not remove the obligation for a regulator to uphold complaints of broadcasting made by the public or other organisations on the basis of what it considers desirable. I might hold it there and we will work out what kind of debate we are about to have. Senator Abetz can clarify exactly what it is that the government is up to and whether this is a conspiracy or a stuff-up.