Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to speak to the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017, a bill that's been hanging around on the Notice Paper for quite some time. It deals with issues that have been debated in this place for much, much longer. We know that we are faced with a very different media landscape than we had five or 10 years ago. We know that things are changing rapidly. Many Australians these days access their news and their content when they want it, on whatever device they want it and from whatever part of the world they want it. But, in all of this, Australian audiences have a desire to be able to access in real time local news and local content that upholds the notion of genuine, quality, public interest journalism.

Effectively, what we're confronted with tonight as we look at the details of this piece of legislation is a bill that has been put together to satisfy the current and more traditional players in the media space. In particular, they are the free-to-air broadcasters, who are struggling with revenue options. Their advertising revenue has dropped off significantly, and audiences are switching off from the television and on to their phones, their tablets or their other streaming services. But, despite all of this, the free-to-air broadcasters are getting a number of concessions throughout this piece of legislation. Scrapping of the licence fees is a huge concession from the Australian taxpayer to our free-to-air broadcasters. Hundreds of millions of dollars are simply being freed up for broadcasters because they won't be paying money to the taxpayer in order to broadcast their content on the free-to-air spectrums.

Then there are the deals that have gone on in exchange for the restrictions on gambling advertising in this bill. Of course the Greens support the restrictions on gambling advertising; we've been one of the leading voices in this space for quite some time. The leader of our party, Senator Di Natale, has led the charge when it comes to having a more responsible approach from government and institutions in relation to dealing with gambling and, in particular, the advertising of gambling during sport.

The broadcasters weren't happy when these advertising restrictions were announced. One very annoyed broadcaster was Fox Sports and Foxtel. What did they get in exchange for these restrictions on gambling advertising? They got a nice sum of $30 million for the pleasure of not being able to broadcast ads for gambling during sport—$30 million to a station that the public has to pay for in order to watch sport. It does beggar belief that the Australian taxpayer is funding a subscription television channel in exchange for what the government calls women's sport and niche sport. I might point out that I don't think women's sport is a niche sport. I've questioned the minister about this; he says they are different things. That's good to know. But I point out that taxpayers are going to fork out $30 million so that Fox Sports can play and show women's and niche sport when, in fact, that money could have gone to a free-to-air channel where every Australian would be able to watch it as they are paying for it as taxpayers.

The sticking point in all of this is the scrapping of the two-out-of-three rule. We have the broadcasters and other media organisations arguing that, in order to be able to restructure their revenue options and their business models, we need to scrap the two-out-of-three rule so that there can be a concentration of media and we can keep media organisations afloat. The question here is: in exchange for what? There was a promise that, if we were to scrap the two-out-of-three rule, we'd see journalists' jobs and content production jobs saved in this country, the protection of media organisations and the protection of diversity. Of course, the exact opposite is being borne out to be true.

What we do know, thanks to the tabling of documents in the New South Wales court only yesterday, is that even if Lachlan Murdoch and Bruce Gordon were able to win the bid to take over Network Ten, there wasn't going to be a guarantee that Australian jobs would be saved at all. In fact, the exact opposite was the case: jobs would be lost and offices and bureaus would be closed. We wouldn't see a protection of media diversity; we would see less and less.

In all of this conversation, we've heard the government say that they need to rush these media reforms through in order to ensure that we protect our media organisations. What we are seeing instead is a contraction of diversity, not an expansion—or, indeed, at the very least, a protection of diversity. That is of huge concern to the Australian Greens and a huge concern to many, many Australians right across the country. People want to know that, when they open up a newspaper, turn on the radio, watch the news on the television or pull out their iPhone or iPad to look at the news online, there is a genuine commitment to Australian news and public interest journalism. Australians want to know what their government is up to and they want to know what's going on in their local communities. They don't want to just be dictated to by a few select voices.

The other outstanding issue now confronting us in relation to these bills is the deal that has been done between the government and One Nation in order to secure One Nation's support for the passage of this legislation. That is deeply rooted in One Nation's irrational and crazy view about our public broadcasters: the ABC and the SBS. We heard Pauline Hanson, the leader of One Nation, earlier today outlining all of the different stories that the ABC has run on her that she hated. She went right back to the 1990s. That's how long she's been holding a grudge against the ABC. Since day one of her return to Canberra and the Senate, Pauline Hanson, the leader of One Nation, has had the ABC in her sights. She's using this legislation and the negotiation with the government to ramp up the attacks on our public broadcasters.

We know that they've been able to get support from the government to open up the charter and change a number of things. They want the words 'fair and balanced' inserted into the charter. Heaven knows what that actually means. Of course, it did come from Fox News in the United States—because that's very fair and balanced coverage over there! We also know that they want to be able to publicise the salaries of those working in our public broadcasters who earn over $200,000. It seems a bit ridiculous that ABC staff and SBS staff have to have their salaries publicised, yet media executives of companies that are now getting free licences and handouts from the government of $30 million aren't going to have to publicise their salaries. There's one set of rules for the ABC and the SBS and another set of rules for the private sector. That's not very fair when the private sector keep putting their hand out for government leg-ups and support from the Australian taxpayer.

There is also the review that One Nation has managed to secure in a deal with the government—a review into the competitive neutrality of media. Of course, we know what that's all about. It is the Trojan horse to crack down on the ability of our public broadcasters to do their job, to provide content and news to Australians in the new media landscape, and that of course is online and through streaming services. It is incredible to see that One Nation has managed to convince the Turnbull government to set up a review that would effectively put ABC iView's work on the chopping block. That's what is going to come out of this review. That is what this is designed to do. This is designed so that Australians will not be able to enjoy watching their favourite shows or using the catch-up services to see what happened in the news that day; here in Australia, in their local community or, indeed, around the rest of the world. Australians will not be able to access a quality service like the one that exists today. If they do, do you know what's coming next? They want to start putting a paywall on ABC iview and SBS On Demand. That is where this is going.

This review that has been signed off by the government and was begged for by One Nation is all designed to kick and hobble our public broadcasters. Of course, let's not forget the real objective of One Nation in all of this and the secret deal that has been done with the government for massive budget cuts to our public broadcasters. The night that this arrangement was announced, Pauline Hanson was on Sky News on the Andrew Bolt show crowing: 'It's all right, Andrew, come the next budget we're going to get the government to whack hundreds of millions of dollars out of the ABC.' She was crowing about it. That is what is coming down the line here—and it is all being done in order to secure the support of the crossbench for this media reform package.

The government had a choice. They could have worked with people who wanted to protect and enhance diversity in this country to inject support into the creation of local and Australian content—Australian shows made in Australia for Australian audiences—to perhaps even sell more content made here in Australia overseas, and to protect and support the ABC and SBS, our public broadcasters, that we know the Australian public have such regard for. Or they could do a deal with the devil. They did a deal with Pauline Hanson to fulfil her personal vendetta against the ABC, because she doesn't like the stories they write and run about her. We're in a situation where this Senate is having to debate a bill where the details are not within this package of amendments put forward by the government and where a deal has been done with One Nation because of a personal vendetta that Pauline Hanson has against our public broadcasters because she doesn't like what people say and write about her. Well, bad luck—most of us don't. She's using the Senate's time and the powers in this place to fulfil a personal grudge.

What happened to independence in journalism? What happened to the ability to support our public broadcaster to do its job? The Australian people hold very dear the ABC and SBS. In fact, when you look at how highly regarded the ABC is by the Australian public, over and over again the ABC comes up as the most trusted news source in the country. Yet Pauline Hanson doesn't like what it says and doesn't like the stories that are run, so she's going to 'whack hundreds of millions of dollars out of them'. The government won't admit that this is going on because they're just so desperate to get this bill through and they had to do everything they could to get Pauline Hanson and One Nation into the basket, but we know about it because Pauline Hanson can't bloody help herself. She went out and told everyone that there would be hundreds of millions of dollars whacked out of the ABC come the next budget. That is what is going on here, folks.