Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I table a statement of reasons justifying the need for these bills to be considered during these sittings and move:

That these bills be now read a second time and I seek leave to have the second reading speeches and statement of reasons incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows—

STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2013 AUTUMN SITTINGS

BROADCASTING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (CONVERGENCE REVIEW AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2013

Purpose of the bills

The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Convergence Review and Other Measures) Bill 2013 amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 and the Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991 to implement initial measures arising from the government's consideration of the Convergence Review.

Recognition of the current online and digital activities of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and Special Broadcasting Service, increased Australian content requirements, and a requirement for the appointment of an Indigenous non-executive director to the SBS Board.

Reasons for Urgency

Passage of the bill in the Autumn 2013 sittings will ensure that the communications and media policy framework continues to provide appropriate and important community safeguards in relation to the availability of quality Australian content on free-to-air television.

The Convergence Review received significant interest from industry groups, businesses, academics, community groups and members of the public. The government publicly committed to implementing its initial reforms by early 2013.

STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2013 AUTUMN SITTINGS

TELEVISION LICENCE FEES AMENDMENT BILL

Purpose of the bills

The Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 2013 amends the Television Licence Fees Act 1964 to reduce the licence fees payable by commercial television broadcasters by 50 per cent.

Reasons for Urgency

Passage of the bill in the Autumn 2013 sittings will ensure that the media industry has certainty in relation to buying licence fees arrangements.

The speeches read as follows—

BROADCASTING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (CONVERGENCE REVIEW AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2013

The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Convergence Review and Other Measures) Bill 2013 is part of a package of six Bills representing the Australian Government's initial response to issues identified by the 2011 Independent Inquiry into the Media and Media Regulation and the 2012 Convergence Review.

This Bill responds to matters raised in the Convergence Review, primarily in relation to Australian content and public broadcasting.

New Australian content requirements

Despite the growth of new digital services and channels, Australians still want to see Australian content.

The Bill addresses the need for ongoing support for the broadcast of Australian content by legislating the 55 per cent Australian content quota on core or primary channels of free-to-air commercial television broadcasters.

The Bill also imposes a new Australian content transmission quota on these broadcasters that applies otherwise than on core or primary channels.

This new quota will increase incrementally for the next three years.

It will create an incentive for new Australian drama programs to be shown on those channels by allowing one hour of such drama to count as two hours for the purposes of the new quota.

The Bill also provides commercial broadcasters with the flexibility to meet their Australian content sub-quotas for drama, documentary and children's programming otherwise than on the core or primary channel.

Providing increased flexibility to broadcasters in meeting Australian content obligations allows innovative programming choices, and assists broadcasters to respond to competitive market pressures.

Limitations on the number of commercial television licences

The Bill implements the Government's decision announced on 30 November last year, that no new licences or spectrum will be made available to enable a fourth commercial television network.

This is achieved by capping the number of commercial television broadcasting licences that use broadcasting services bands spectrum, at three for each licence area.

The Bill repeals existing provisions that prohibited the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) from allocating additional commercial television licences unless directed to do so by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, as these are now redundant.

The Government's decision to 'cap' the number of licences at existing levels was guided by the increasing commercial pressures faced by television broadcasters as a result of structural changes caused by convergence.

The cap will also ensure that the remaining capacity in the television broadcasting services bands, known as the 'sixth channel', remains available for other types of broadcasting services.

This includes, but is not limited to, community broadcasting services, narrowcasting services, datacasting services, or other communications services.

In light of these decisions, the Bill repeals a now redundant obligation to undertake statutory reviews into the use of the broadcasting services bands spectrum to provide additional television broadcasting services or other broadcasting services.

Repeal of the captioning and content review requirements

The Bill will also repeal a separate obligation to undertake a statutory review of the Australian content and captioning rules applicable to digital multichannels.

The review is now unnecessary given the new and modified Australian content requirements introduced by the measures outlined above, and the extensive reforms to captioning arrangements implemented through the Improved Access to Television Services Act 2012.

Updating ABC and SBS Charters

The Bill proposes amendments to the Charters of the ABC and SBS to recognise their roles as providers of digital media content.

This is not an expansion of their present roles, but merely recognises what the national broadcasters are already delivering.

And it reflects the value and importance of digital engagement to the work of the ABC and SBS.

International broadcasting services provided by the ABC

The proposed Bill also implements the Government's decision that the ABC should have the sole responsibility, and be funded by Government, to provide international broadcasting services on an ongoing basis.

The amendments recognise that Australia's international broadcasting service is an important public diplomacy platform, which should be provided by Australia's national broadcaster.

Indigenous non-executive director for the SBS

With the establishment of the free-to-air National Indigenous Television service on the SBS, amendments are proposed to require the Minister have regard to the need to ensure the SBS Board includes at least one Indigenous director.

This strengthens the SBS contribution to the communications needs of Indigenous communities.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on these bills, the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Convergence Review and Other Measures) Bill 2013 and the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 2013. These bills are not unreasonable bills, but they are bills being dealt with in an unreasonable manner. These bills are subject to, as it has demonstrated time and time again, this government's poor management of this Senate, to its approach of downgrading proper debate in this chamber. These two will be Nos. 160 and 161 in the long, long list of bills guillotined by this government. Like the previous bill, the NDIS legislation, this is completely and utterly unnecessary because these bills command broadly bipartisan support. They have been roped in together with a media package that is incredibly controversial and which the opposition vehemently opposes. But these two bills we do support.

These two bills deal with a number of matters that flow from the convergence review, a review that the government received 12 months ago. For 12 months the government has had the convergence review and the associated Finkelstein report. Minister Conroy has had them on his desk. He has had all the time in the world to deal with these two reports, and now—at the eleventh hour of this parliament, the eleventh hour of this session of the parliament, the eleventh hour of this sitting week—suddenly, finally, some degree of response to the convergence review is presented and is rammed through the parliament with guillotines applied here and limited debate in the other place and less than one week of consideration for the legislation.

That is right, these bills were first introduced into the parliament last Thursday. Last Thursday is the first time the parliament saw them. Nonetheless, the coalition are willing to support the passage of these two bills. We are willing to support the passage of these two bills because, unlike the other reforms proposed, these bills do not provide an unfair or undue new level of regulation on the Australian media. Unlike the other bills that are tangled up in the House of Representatives at present, these bills do not restrict the operation of a free press, of journalists and of a free media in Australia.

Unlike the other bills, the content of these bills have at least been subject to some reasonable consideration and negotiation and discussion with key industry sectors. It was like chalk and cheese going through the Senate inquiry—which Senator Cameron only just tabled the report for—when you asked media industry companies about negotiation on these bills and negotiation on the four bills currently before the House of Representatives. On these bills, television companies in particular indicated that there was ample discussion with the government and the terms of these bills were largely settled in November last year.

And while I know there are organisations that would have preferred to have had a greater period of time to have some input into these bills—in particular, I know the Screen Producers Association of Australia have genuine concerns about some elements of these bills and yet were not given the time or opportunity to put a submission to or give evidence in the Senate inquiry due to the rushed nature of the consideration of these bills—the coalition at least acknowledges there was some level of industry consultation that went into these two bills we are debating tonight. Should the House, sadly and foolishly, pass the other four bills under consideration, well then it will be a different matter. Nobody had any forewarning about the material contained in those bills, or their details, until last Thursday when they were first published.

The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Convergence Review and Other Measures) Bill 2013 amends the Broadcasting Services Act, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act and the Special Broadcasting Service Act. In doing so it achieves a number of outcomes which, generally speaking, flow from recommendations of the Convergence Review. In particular, it changes rules prescribing the amount of Australian content that is shown on commercial television to enhance the availability of such content according to the intentions and objects of these changes. The current requirement for 55 per cent local content during prime time viewing hours on main or primary channels will be elevated to a legislative arrangement rather than a regulated arrangement. An Australian content quota will also be introduced for the first time to multichannels. Those being the second and third digital channels operated by the three major commercial free-to-air networks. Networks will have therefore more scope to meet their content obligations regarding drama, documentaries and children's programming across all of their channels.

These reforms also restrict the number of commercial television networks in Australia to three by preventing the Australian Communications and Media Authority from issuing more than three broadcasting licences. I am sure everyone in this place would know that it has long been a topic of debate in Australia as to whether a fourth licence should or should not be issued. Obviously, the dynamics of that debate have changed in the era of multichannels and because of the fact that most Australians now enjoy access to many more free-to-air channels than was the case just a few years ago. This bill will restrict the number of commercial networks to three, as I say, and in doing so reflects those changes.

It also amends the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act and the Special Broadcasting Services Act as recommended in the Convergence Review to expressly reflect their online activities. Once again we have seen a change in dynamic, as has occurred right across the media landscape, where the ABC and SBS have responded to that changing dynamic and nowadays undertake far more activity online than was ever foreseen in the drafting of their legislation. So to ensure that without any doubt the ABC and SBS are able to continue to provide that digital content the legislation will be amended to facilitate that and specifically allow for it.

Reflecting the fact that SBS has merged or undertaken the operations of the NITV, the legislation also amends the SBS Act to require the minister to have regard to the need to ensure that at least one of SBS's non-executive directors is an Indigenous Australian. That, again, is a sensible reform and a reform that the coalition is very happy to support, as we have supported the elevation in standard, availability and access to NITV around Australia.

The legislation also repeals a statutory review provision relating to Australian content and captioning of television programs. The legislation also deals with a restriction on the Commonwealth funding international broadcasters, ensuring the ABC can be the only international broadcaster; and, in handling SBS online digital arrangements, the legislation makes some changes relating to SBS advertising. I will have a little more to say about both of those issues.

As indicated, the commercial broadcasters support most of the measures in this legislation, particularly the flexibility on Australian content and making the 50 per cent rebate on licence fees ongoing. That, of course, relates to the other bill that is before us—the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 2013. That bill provides a permanent reduction to the annual licence fees payable by commercial television broadcasters by 50 per cent, which will see their licence fees, on an ongoing basis, being 4½ per cent of their gross earning.

It is important in these debates to emphasise that those licence fees are based on gross earnings. That of course means it is not their profits but, in fact, their total revenue stream. This amounts to a reduction in fees for broadcasters nowadays of about $140 million per annum, which has already been factored into the 2012-13 forward estimates as updated in MYEFO and is, of course, reflective of rebates provided over recent years. The reduction in those fees will bring broadcasters into close alignment with their international counterparts, who generally pay lower fees, and also recognises that TV broadcasters will be using half as much spectrum as previously as a result of the shift to digital broadcasting and the freeing up of spectrum through that process.

The free spectrum will be auctioned as part of the digital dividend in April, although, I do note news reports today that indicate that the government has reallocated the year in which those funds will be received, which is a curious little budgetary measure by the government. They are shuffling, it appears, the funds from being recognised this year, where they were once seeking to achieve a budget surplus, into the next financial year—no doubt so as to make the next budget look as attractive as it possibly can in the lead-up to an election.

Generally speaking, on all of those substantial and detailed issues, the opposition has no concern. We equally have no concern with the matter of allowing advertising on the SBS and allowing advertising on SBS digital content. Indeed, that is something that the coalition, when in government, did allow and facilitated amendments to the SBS Act to allow for advertising. We are supportive of measures that allow SBS to generate revenue in an appropriate manner, including through advertising and sponsorship arrangements on their digital media services. But I do, and not for the first time today, note the hypocrisy of the communications minister and the leader of the government in this place, Senator Conroy, in making these changes, given his past very strident opposition to advertising measures properly implemented by SBS in accordance with the SBS Act.

Back in 2006 the SBS board approved a new structure allowing for in-program advertising, having program breaks. The then shadow minister for communications and information technology, Senator Conroy, railed against those measures. At Senate estimates he argued that such advertising was not in accordance with the SBS Act or the intent of parliament. Senator Conroy said:

Do you seriously believe that the SBS’s interpretation is consistent with the intent of parliament?

…   …   …

It just seems to me that with the way the act was written—and I have spoken to some of the people who were involved in drafting it—it was not open slather. Clearly, it does not say: ‘Just have ads wherever you want;’ it says: ‘You can have ads in only a couple of places,’ and yet, as you have testified, there is now open slather in every single program. That just seems to me to be inconsistent with the intent of the limits that the legislation attempted to set. You have now defined those limits as being unlimited.

Senator Conroy has now been Australia's communications minister, sadly, for around five years—five very long years for anybody who has looked at his track record. In that time he has not once sought to address this issue of SBS advertising that he was so concerned about back in 2006. In this legislation he actually opens up the SBS Act and makes amendments not to do what he claimed he would do or restrict advertising on SBS that he claimed he was concerned about but to enshrine further in the legislation the capacity of SBS to have advertising on its digital content.

The coalition support those changes. We supported in an open and transparent way when we were in government the right of SBS to have in-program advertising and we support here in opposition the right of SBS to have advertising on its digital platforms. Unlike the minister for communications, we are not guilty of hypocrisy when it comes to matters like this. That is what we stood for in government, stand for in opposition and will stand for when we are in government again, I hope. Senator Conroy, however, is caught out by these reforms. No doubt he was hoping that five, six or seven years down the track people would have forgotten. Well, we have not forgotten what he used to stand for and we have not forgotten the fact that he crab walked away from those complaints the moment he became the minister for communications.

There is one area where the coalition has concern with these bills—clause 27 of the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Convergence Review and Other Measures) Bill, which proposes to insert new section 31AA that legislates for the Australia Network to remain with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the ABC, in perpetuity with no possibility of the service ever again being put out to tender. I know there is a fair degree of sensitivity on the other side, especially with Senator Conroy, in this regard. There should be deep embarrassment about the handling of the last Australia Network contract, a contract that was acknowledged as being corrupted—and that was the word that was used—in its context and in its handling. The minister twice sought to get an outcome and, when he did not like the recommendation of the tender review panel, he twice subverted the process so that he eventually got his own way, not of course in the end through an open tender process but by abandoning the tender process and instead simply allocating the tender back to the ABC.

The coalition is not opposed to the ABC operating the Australia Network and it may be that the ABC will forever be the best party to operate the Australia Network, but the coalition does not believe that there should be a legislative prohibition on governments exploring other alternatives as this legislation proposes. The coalition believes it would be helpful to at least maintain an element of competitive tension in this regard. What happens when the current contract expires in a little under 10 years time? What happens then when the minister goes back to the ABC and says we need to renegotiate a contract for you to provide the Australia Network? I will tell you what will happen: the ABC board and managing director will look at the minister of the day and say: 'We don't need to negotiate. The law of the land says we are the only ones who get to do it. The law of the land says you must use us.' That is what this bill will see happen.

We do not think that is good public policy. We think it is foolish to let this slip through. So the one amendment to these reforms that the coalition will be proposing and that I will be moving in the committee stage is to remove clause 27 of the convergence review and other measures bill to ensure that proposed new section 31AA is not incorporated into the ABC Act so that all future governments will have a degree of flexibility in their handling of these matters.

The coalition are happy overall to facilitate the passage of these two bills. We have grave concerns that I have outlined about the rushed process behind this but we are not concerned overwhelmingly with any of the content in these bills, save the one clause that I mentioned. I am concerned, however, that in this media debate Senator Conroy seriously appears to have gone missing in action. Mr Wilkie confirmed this afternoon that all of his discussions about the media reform legislation before the other place were with Ms Gillard and Mr Swan. Senator Conroy was nowhere to be seen. I have not seen him in the chamber since question time, and I have been here a lot of the time and we have debated a lot of procedural motions relating to his legislation. I do not know whether the government has put him in hiding—that could well be the case for their best interests—or whether he is hiding under a rock of embarrassment somewhere because of the deep strife his legislation seems to have gotten his government into.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Be relevant to the debate. Come back to the debate.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is very noble of Senator Ludwig to try to defend the Leader of the Government in the Senate, but the Leader of the Government in the Senate's handling of these reforms has been appalling and has been an embarrassment for the government. It has put this Senate and this parliament in an awkward position of having to deal with legislation—

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order on relevance. I was prepared to allow the usual slurring and misstatements that go on, but at this point, Senator Birmingham, I think you have gone a little bit longer than needed. Quite frankly, we should get back to the debate. You have a limited time. You do not want me to burden your time by taking points of order to bring you back to relevance. You might note that you yourself went missing on carbon. It is a shame that you did, but at that point on the whole debate—

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, please address the chair. There is no point of order, and I ask Senator Birmingham to resume.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is to the shame of Senator Conroy and the government that they have allowed him to get away with the mishandling of such important reforms.

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

The Greens are firmly on the record condemning the decision made by the government to impose such an arbitrary time frame for examining these bills, so it will not surprise the chamber to know that I disagree with much of the contribution just read in by Senator Birmingham, apart from his comments on the process that this chamber, and indeed this parliament, has been subjected to over these bills. There is no reason that I am aware of why these bills could not have been introduced last June, last November or, indeed, this February. It is not at all good enough to say that the comprehensive debate and examination undertaken during the course of the Convergence Review and the Finkelstein review into media reforms can be applied to this package.

What we have here are some elements from those much more comprehensive reports and much more detailed and considered recommendations. What we have here is a diminished and partial set of proposals—some of them derived from the Convergence Review, some of them grabbed from remnants of the Finkelstein report and some of them plucked from somewhere else and bundled into this overarching but nonetheless diminished package. We have been working around the clock since the announcement was made that these bills would be tabled to understand how they would operate in the real world, quite practically, and how they can be improved. It has put enormous pressure on staff—not just ours but the coalition's and the crossbenchers' both here and in the other place—committee secretaries and, most important to acknowledge, witnesses and people who gave evidence to these inquiries on the basis of a phone call and, in some instances, less than a day's notice.

The Greens are on the record as supporting a much broader approach, and we should indeed go back to the rationale for the Convergence Review, which was to investigate proposals for a converged regulator. The whole reason—or one of the greater reasons—that we are having this debate at all is that the media landscape is changing before our eyes in this so-called phenomenon of convergence whereby people are consuming news, current affairs, entertainment and content on a variety of platforms and some of the old ways are breaking down. In that context it makes very little sense to have one regulator looking after what is left of the print sector, one regulator looking after the broadcast sector and nobody really looking after what happens online. That appears to have been left by the side of the road some time ago.

Neither the Finkelstein review nor the Convergence Review was perfect. They were in their own way partial, but nonetheless these are important bodies of work that have been put into the public domain, and I do not accept it when the minister says, 'Look, these matters have been under discussion for two years, so you have to cop less than a fortnight's debate on what the government ultimately decided to bring forward as their media package.' It is not true.

However, the fact that the opposition communications spokesperson and the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Abbott, rejected the package before they had seen it, and were clearly not interested in debating the merits of the package or the bills days before they had even seen them, effectively leaves the crossbenchers in a situation where, as the minister said last week, we have to take it or leave it. We are then forced into the position of having to decide whether the proposals put before the parliament are an improvement to the status quo as far as media regulation is concerned or whether they take us backwards. That is the simple proposition.

One of the things that I believe are driving this rapid and arbitrary timetable that the minister and the government have placed on the entire parliament is that the government are not sure that these proposals would even survive the Easter recess. Perhaps on this we have common cause with the coalition. That is potentially one entirely plausible reason why the government have decided that this deadline needs to be imposed: that they are simply not confident that they can hold onto themselves and hold themselves together for long enough to pass it otherwise. What a remarkable position to put the crossbench and the parliament in that that is the deadline that has been imposed. Nonetheless, we are sent here to do a job, and in this instance it means analysing these proposals to determine whether it is in the public interest that the proposals or a subset of them be passed, rejected or amended.

I will confine my comments largely to the bills that are before us tonight, recognising that there is a larger package: there are another four bills relating to media reforms. There is an amendment still floating around the building relating to the lifting of the reach rule, which obviously interests broadcasters. However, tonight I will confine my comments largely to discussion of the two bills that have in fact reached us from the other place, the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Convergence Review and Other Measures) Bill 2013 and the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 2013.

The Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill provides a full 50 per cent reduction in licence fees for the commercial TV broadcasters, to a maximum of 4.5 per cent of gross earnings. That is an enormous cut to Commonwealth revenue and to licensing fees, and the Greens believe that a reduction of somewhat less than 50 per cent would still have been a very significant recognition of the commercial pressures that are faced by Australia's TV industry. We do not deny that. We have seen Australian TV networks on life support in recent months. We know that they are facing pressures. We know that audiences are shifting, as the new head of Channel 10 admitted in an interview the week before last. Young people are not watching scheduled television in the same way as earlier generations did, because there are so many more options. That is one of the things that are placing commercial pressure on free-to-air television.

However, broadcasting spectrum is not a free gift; it is a public good, and the commercial TV broadcasters should be required to put a minimum of Australian content on their stations. Senators may note that the Greens have circulated an amendment which is identical in form to one which we proposed in the other place when the bill was debated last night. This would meet some of the concerns of the Australian screen production sector, who have said it is entirely possible that the TV networks will be gaming the amendments that the government proposes to make to local content rules. This is a complex quota system that involves points for certain kinds of content, hours for certain kinds of content and different quotas attached to main channels as opposed to multichannels, and I think it is very difficult to ascertain whether it will be possible for the TV networks to effectively bid down the price of Australian content.

So we are seeking an undertaking from the government—and I understand that the government supports this view and believe it is a view that may be held by Senator Xenophon as well—that an annual review be undertaken to ascertain whether we are getting more or less local content on TV stations, on which of the main or multichannels it is running and how the broadcasters are allocating the points that they need to achieve to meet their licence conditions. I suspect that the amendment will be lost on the votes of the major parties, but I did want to point out now that we have put that amendment into play again tonight as we did last night in the hope that there can be some recognition that the Australian screen sector is an enormously important part of Australian culture and that we should support it not because their product is any poorer but because it is so much cheaper simply to dump endless repeats of content produced at lower cost principally in the United States but elsewhere as well.

The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Convergence Review and Other Measures) Bill 2013 stipulates that in return for spectrum Australian content will be shown on the commercial TV stations across all of their channels as it happens. There will be 730 hours in 2013, 1,095 hours in 2014 and 1,460 hours from 2015. And yet the proposed regulation for Australian content on the multichannels is comparatively very low and will in fact, if my reading of the bills is correct, require the networks only to screen local content for 12 per cent of the total broadcast hours across their multichannels. The government might come back and say: 'Who cares? People can channel hop. They can find the stuff that they're looking for.' The fact is that audience share on the multichannels is vastly lower than on the main channels, and we are very concerned that the broadcasters will in fact be bidding down the price of content and effectively gouging Australian content producers.

A review will not prevent it from happening but will identify whether it is happening, so we are looking to the minister representing the government or to a government senator to speak during the course of the debate tonight and make clear exactly what it is the government is committed to in that regard. I acknowledge that Senator Ludwig has pricked up his ears and is making a note. The Greens are concerned that, for example, sport and repeats count for full points of Australian content. While of course that is content that many people enjoy, it should not be allowed to simply soak up what should be going into points for creation of quality original Australian drama and Australian stories.

We believe that there needs to be a safety net that adequately protects the Australian public from cheap foreign imports. These imports, according to Screen Australia, typically cost around 75 per cent less per hour than the Australian equivalent content. We are seeking an undertaking from the government acknowledging that it is likely that the Australian Greens amendment to protect local screen producers will be lost.

I turn now to what the Greens support, why we will be supporting these bills and an acknowledgement of the coalition's support for these bills which I thought might have been at risk. Senator Birmingham's comments have allayed some of those concerns. As senators know, last year I introduced a private senator's bill that would keep the Australia Network in public hands by requiring the ABC to be the sole provider of Commonwealth funded international broadcasting services. Senator Birmingham has indicated that he has circulated an amendment to carve that out. Depending on the course of the debate tonight, I will notify the coalition that the Greens will not be supporting the amendment that they proposed to retender the Australia Network out. We know from the chaotic process that ensued the last time this was put out to tender that there were no substantive justifications put forward for tendering that service out in the first place any more than we tender out any of the other highly valuable functions that the ABC provides to Australian broadcasting. We believe that having the Australia Network in public hands is in the national interest, as are the rest of the services that the ABC provides.

The Australia Network informs Australia's relationship with nations in our region and also globally. Other countries provide international broadcasting services. The BBC has the World Service, Germany has Deutsche Welle and Australia has the ABC—recognising that the budget is proportionally much lower than those stations. But can you imagine if in the United States the Voice of America were tendered out to a private entity or, here, News Limited, perhaps, provided the voice of Australia in our region?

The ABC has a charter that obliges it to reflect Australian cultural diversity and the arts with public editorial policies, independent review mechanisms and, I might say, very high standards of production. Commercial broadcasters do not share many of these qualities, responsibilities or statutory obligations; and, as private broadcasters, nor should they be required to. But they are driven by different motivations, and that is why the Greens support the ABC being our international broadcaster. So I congratulate the government for bringing that reform forward, because it means I can stand down my private senator's bill, which would have gone to the same effect. That is one less thing for us to worry about.

I also want to address the issue of ABC online. The ABC provides an extraordinary range of services online like catch-up TV with iview and news services provided on mobile devices. The ABC's online presence is, in fact, an excellent example of what we mean by convergence. This bill—with, I am pleased to note, support from across the parliament—will protect the ABC's capacity to provide these digital online services, which are certainly part of the broadcaster's future. A 2010 Newspoll survey found that 88 per cent of Australians believe the ABC provides a valuable service to the community no matter what platform they receive the service on, so enshrining the ABC's online presence in the charter is timely and appropriate. I note that during the committee's inquiry I was able to clarify that the prohibition on advertising remains.

That, of course, brings us to SBS. NITV becoming a part of the SBS was a move that the Greens strongly supported and means that it makes sense that at least one Aboriginal non-executive director be appointed, and this bill provides for that. I should note, however, that there appear to be no restrictions whatsoever as to SBS's advertising presence on its website, unlike that of the ABC, and that in fact what this bill provides for is essentially unregulated advertising. At least on SBS's channels—although we disagree with it, and Senator Birmingham was quite correct to point this out—the government when in opposition had a policy of opposing in-program advertising, for example. No such restrictions will apply online. I understand that the government is proposing this and that the coalition appear to have no problem at all with an unlimited and unregulated amount of advertising on SBS, so a Greens amendment on this matter would also be lost.

I also want to draw the attention of the chamber to an area that is frequently neglected, and that is our enormously important and valuable community broadcasting sector—not just neglected in this bill but, I would say, neglected during the entire course of debate on these issues. It is not specifically noted in the bills that television spectrum has been set aside for community broadcasters. The minister has, I acknowledge, publicly stated that a portion of this spectrum will indeed be reserved for community television as well as datacasting, narrowcasting and other services. So may I say to Senator Ludwig: if you are keeping a list, we are seeking an acknowledgement from the government—and I understand that will be forthcoming—that that spectrum be reserved for community television broadcasting. I understand that that commitment has been made. I would not mind an explanation as to why that did not make it into the bill, but if that is the government's intention then they should be happy to put that on the record tonight.

The community broadcasters deserve this spectrum. The community broadcasting sector provides a lot through up to 80 community TV licences reaching more than 3½ million Australians. The sector overall engages 23,000 volunteers, with more than 70 per cent of television and radio broadcasting stations located in rural, regional and remote areas providing a highly diverse range of services, including cultural and specialist talks programming, alternative news and current affairs, music of all genres, Aboriginal language content, print handicapped, religious, ethnic and multicultural services and so on. It is time that the community broadcasting sector was given its place in the sun.

During the course of an election year it may be that two metropolitan community radio broadcasters fall over, go dead, because the Australian government cannot find less than $1½ million to maintain the digital radio program. While we are handing back hundreds of millions of dollars in licence fees to the commercial broadcasters, acknowledging the pressure that they face, somehow the government has been unable to find $1½ million to prevent community radio broadcasters from going off the air. There is nothing on that in this bill and there is very little for the community broadcasting sector in this package.

The Greens are disappointed that the government has chosen to bring these important reforms through the parliament in such an unbelievably shambolic fashion. I have been here for nearly five years. There are senators in this place who have been here for much longer than that, but in my brief time here I have not seen a package handled in this way. We deserve and the Australian public deserve a much better process. That is why we have the parliament; it is why we have the committee system; it is why we submit matters like this to debate; it is why we take evidence; it is why we hear expert views. To have, on matters as important as this, those processes short-circuited is extraordinary. Senator Macdonald is to follow my contribution. I expect him to give the government and the cross-benches both barrels for permitting what the government has proposed.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are right!

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

Yes, quite right. I am looking forward to it, Senator Macdonald—not. However, I will concur with you that this is not the process that the government should have followed and nowhere have we seen a rational justification for why it has been done. Unlike the coalition, however, we did not reject this package out of hand. We think it is our obligation to protect media diversity in Australia. We have proposed some sensible amendments to the other package of bills, which the government this afternoon has accepted, and we believe that that is the way forward.

This is a diminished set of reforms. The story of convergence is not done yet. In fact, every day that we delay, some of the reforms that were proposed and reviewed in depth by the two reports become more urgent. We could in fact emerge from this process not simply with a regulator for print and a regulator for broadcasters but more than one regulator for print. Multiple press councils was in the government's original drafting. I am pleased that we have been able to at least close that loophole. We now believe that the remaining bills are in fact in the public interest, will help protect media diversity and should be passed by this parliament.

For tonight, however, the package that is before us involves only the two broadcasting bills, acknowledging that the government has undertaken to make some commitments on reviews for local content and a commitment for spectrum for community broadcasters. Nonetheless, and understanding that Greens amendments in these matters would otherwise be lost, we believe that these bills are at least a step forward and that they enshrine the important place of our national public broadcasters as they continue to break new ground and provide an essential service to Australians online here in Australia and now in the region.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ludlam has the advantage of being able to comment on all six bills because he at least seems to know what the other four bills will say. The rest of us in this parliament will just have to wait until Senator Conroy, the minister responsible, and Ms Gillard eventually get around to informing the Australian people what sort of a deal they have done with Mr Katter, what sort of a deal they have done with various of the Independents and what sort of a deal they have done with the Greens political party. I want to refer to all six bills, because the way the Greens political party and the Labor Party will guillotine or curtail this important debate—one of the most important debates on freedom ever had in our country—is reminiscent of the totalitarian regimes of the mid-1900s. I will start with a quote said in a debate:

To trivialise it by saying that it can be cut off at the whim of a majority—maybe the uninterested majority, at that—and to prevent those who find this matter extraordinarily and hugely important and deserving of the greatest consideration is very bad parliamentary process. I think it is unconscionable: the unconscionable is occurring to what we proclaim as the conscionable. It is bad parliamentary process and a total abrogation of the whole idea that, when we get to complex and important ethical mileposts like this in the progress of our society, the matter should be given greater importance and should not be cut down by a guillotine …

Who said that? None other than the then leader of the Greens political party. That was just one of the flourishes that Senator Bob Brown and current members of the Greens political party would use on the rare occasions that the coalition in government did, after much debate, cut off the bill.

I remember, dealing with Senator Brown for 26 hours on the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 2002. We would not cut it down; we wanted everyone to have their say—the only person saying anything against it was Senator Brown. After 26 hours, we allowed the debate to go and that was on something as innocuous as saving the Tasmanian forests with the Regional Forest Agreements Bill 2002. Yet here we are with a bill dealing with freedom of speech in this country and it is going to be guillotined by Senator Brown's political party, the Greens, and the Labor Party.

We have heard Senator Ludlam concede that the process is an absolute shamble. We are not dealing with Tasmanian forests here. We are dealing with freedom of speech in this country, and the Greens and the Labor Party will curtail speech to a few hours. I should not be talking about those other four bills, but I know that I am not going to get another chance to talk about this because the Greens and the Labor Party will be savagely curtailing speech on those very important bills. Isn't it ironic that they will be curtailing freedom of speech on these bills that are all about freedom of speech in our country?

The coalition is deeply opposed to those parts of the overall package that have the effect of increasing regulation of the news media and diminishing or restricting freedom of speech. Senator Brown once confessed in a book that had he been around in Germany in the 1930s he would have been a member of the Hitler Youth. Perhaps it is appropriate, that the party that he founded in this parliament is taking the sort of actions that led to the establishment of the Hitler Youth in the 1930s.

This sort of thin edge of the wedge of government control of the media is the sort of thing that, if you look through history, is how totalitarian regimes started. Senator Ludlam, in his contribution, also acknowledged that our side would be attacking the Labor Party on the process. He said he agreed with us. He expected us to attack them. Yet, does it make any difference to the Greens? They still join with the Labor Party in everything the Labor Party wants them to do, even to the extent of curtailing and having government control over the media in this country. I know it was the Greens political party who originated the term 'the hate media', but you can see it coming into play now as the Greens join with Senator Conroy in introducing legislation that will effectively allow politicians and Labor Party puppets to control what goes into the press.

The imposing of these sorts of controls over the freedom of the press will bully and threaten those who would publish in the newspapers, on TV and on radio to toe the government line. Isn't that what this is all about? The Gillard government has, in recent times, been getting an absolute belting from every section of the media. I cannot remember when the Agenewspaper and the Sydney Morning Heraldwere so anti the Labor Party. But even they now understand that this incursion into their right to print and say what they like is too much even for the Fairfax press to understand and to allow it to go through.

This legislation is the first government control over what is being published in newspapers in Australia's peacetime history. There has been some need for censorship in times of war, But in a peaceful country, in a country that was until now as democratic as Australia, to have this control directly and indirectly over what papers and other media can say is something that I think most Australians find abhorrent. If the number of emails and phone calls to my office in the last three days is any guide, most Australians have the same view. The Labor Party will find out to their detriment. Unless they get rid of Ms Gillard and her current communications minister, and get someone who understands the impact on the freedoms that our country enjoys, then the Labor Party will be decimated at the next election. You do not need me to say that. Have a look at any opinion poll, but have a look at the polls in a few weeks after the full impact of this curtailment of the freedom of the press is concerned.

We also have this farce, which shows how the Labor Party has absolutely no interest in truthfulness or freedom or exposing some of the bad elements of these bills. There is a committee set up by this parliament called the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. It is set up in a bipartisan, non-partisan way to look through, without making any opinion comments, on different pieces of legislation.

The terms of reference of that committee are to identify pieces in acts of parliament which:

(i)      trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties;

(ii)      make rights, liberties or obligations unduly dependent upon insufficiently defined administrative powers;

(iii)      make rights, liberties or obligations unduly dependent upon non-reviewable decisions;

(iv)      inappropriately delegate legislative powers; or

(v)      insufficiently subject the exercise of legislative power to parliamentary scrutiny.

That committee met when the first iteration of these bills came to the parliament and identified some particularly nasty elements of these bills now before the parliament. We have not yet had a look at the other bills.

It is very important in the normal course of events that, following the deliberations of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee in identifying these particular provisions that made rights and liberties dependent upon non-reviewable decisions or made rights and liberties subject to ill-defined administrative powers, members of the Senate have the benefit of the identification of those before they debate this bill.

But, again, thanks to the Australian Labor Party and the Greens political party we were even prevented from tabling that bill in time to allow senators to understand it. I would be committing a breach of the Senate standing orders if I were to tell you what is in the Scrutiny of Bills Committee report because it has not yet been tabled and discussed by the Senate, as it would in the normal course of events. But I am going to risk my hand, just to alert my colleagues to the fact that there are particular provisions, even in these first two bills—you would almost call them the two more innocuous bills of the whole package—that do unduly trespass on rights. There are provisions in the bills with retrospective effect. There are provisions in the bills that deny any merits review process—that is, once the decisions are made by these administrative authorities you cannot review them. That is almost unheard of in English jurisprudence. But these bills take away that merits review in certain instances. Very broad discretionary powers are given. The bills as presented give no indication of how you enforce what is said to be public consultation and a direction to consider any submissions received on the public interest media authority. So their decisions will be almost unchallenged.

There are provisions that trespass on personal rights and freedoms, privacy and freedom of expression. These were all identified by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. But the Labor Party and the Greens would not even allow those to be tabled here before debate was to be held on those particular provisions. So not only will Labor and the Greens join together to bring these constraints on the freedom of our press before parliament but, by guillotining the debate, by shortening the debate, they are preventing any other aspect of these bills that would really frighten the general public if they understood them completely from being identified. The alerts of these horrendous provisions of the bills are not even allowed to be tabled in this chamber.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. That amendment did not get up to allow those reports to be tabled, but the government then gave leave and Senator Macdonald said no.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert, that is a debating point; it is not a point of order.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy President. In fact, Senator Siewert—and I always expect better from Senator Siewert—is deliberately misrepresenting the facts. In other circumstances, I would say that you were doing something else. But you will recall that I sought leave and it was refused and Hansard will show that I sought leave to table the document and to speak to it and that leave was refused.

Senator Siewert interjecting—

Who said that? The President?

Senator Siewert interjecting—

The President said that? I am sorry—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Through the chair, Senator Macdonald. Interjections are disorderly.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy President. The President, when he is in the chair, is supposed to be balanced and supposed to not take sides. If the President said something—and I am not quite sure what that had to do with the debate and I would comment outside this chamber otherwise on the President's handling of the whole issue—the facts will speak for themselves, Senator Siewert. You have a look at it in Hansard. Leave was sought and was refused. The amendment was moved and it was opposed by both the Greens and the Australian Labor Party.

The Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Human Rights Subcommittee, like the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, looks into pieces of legislation that impinge upon human rights in our country. It is a joint committee made up of members of both houses, members of all parties, with a preponderance of Labor Party members. This is what the joint committee said in relation to these media bills, and I quote: 'On the basis of the material provided with the bill, it is difficult to assess whether the limitation of freedom of expression is justified.'

So there is no doubt in the mind of the subcommittee on human rights, with a Labor majority, about accepting this bill brings a limitation on freedom of expression. Their comment is: 'There is nothing in the material to say why that limitation on the freedom of expression is justified.' They go on to say, 'Neither the explanatory memorandum nor the statement of compatibility demonstrate why these reforms are necessary.' They said 'reforms'; I would not call them reforms. But that was the joint parliamentary committee, with a Labor majority. Clearly, they are not of Senator Conroy's faction, the Labor members on that. But I would ask those Labor members of this chamber who are on that committee to explain to the Senate why it is they say that they accept there is a limitation on freedom of expression and why they say that there is nothing in the material or in the bills that justifies this curtailment of freedom of expression.

I know, as I started to say before, that this government has been hammered by the media across the country, and that Senator Conroy does not like it. Ms Gillard does not like it. So what do you do? Try and improve your performance on the things the media are rightly criticising—things like Ms Gillard lying to the Australian public prior to the last election—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Macdonald, you will have to withdraw that about the Prime Minister.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

About Ms Gillard lying?

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, and not repeating it.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay, I withdraw that. Sorry, Mr Deputy President.

Things like Ms Gillard deliberately misleading and telling untruths to the Australian public before the last election. And the media criticised her for that, validly. But Senator Conroy and Ms Gillard do not like that, so what do you do? You do not try and run a decent government that is honest and democratic; you shut down the media. You are certainly going to put in a government watchdog over the media which will make sure that the government's view predominates.

No other Prime Minister in Australia's history has ever attempted to muzzle the press as Ms Gillard has done. You might recall that she had a go at this a few years or so ago when she called in the media proprietors. They were running stories about her dodgy dealings as part of Slater & Gordon, with the slush fund for the unions. You will remember when those stories were being accurately reported and that Ms Gillard did not like that, so she called the media proprietors in. She threatened them at the time, and for a moment it did have some use.

Mr Deputy President Ludlam, I wonder if you are going to keep talking all the way through my presentation? Are you going to keep talking to the minister all the way through my presentation?

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

Order! Senator MacDonald, you have the call.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would just like the chair to ensure some order here and stop this minister—

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

Senator Macdonald, I do not need your assistance in chairing the chamber! You have the call.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, that is a question for debate, Mr Acting Deputy President. But this minister—

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

Senator Macdonald, that is a reflection on the chair and I ask you to withdraw it.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

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

You have the call.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, here is the minister, trying to curtail freedom of speech, and here he is distracting you yet again in the rudest, most unparliamentary way. And you, Mr Acting Deputy President, are acquiescing in his conduct that is anything but parliamentary. But what else can you expect—

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

Senator Macdonald, that is a reflection on the chair and I ask you to withdraw it!

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, Mr Acting Deputy President—

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

Senator Macdonald, it is not a debating point. I ask you to withdraw that reflection on the chair.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw it, Mr Acting Deputy President. Can I ask you when you are going to sit this minister down? He does not—in fact, I will take the point of order. I will stop my speech here so I do not—

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

Senator Macdonald, there is no point of order before the chair—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am taking a point of order, I am sorry!

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

You cannot during your contribution, Senator Macdonald. You have the call.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On what ruling is that?

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

Are you seriously proposing that you are taking a point of order during your own contribution?

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. Mr Acting Deputy President, my point of order is that the minister, in breach of parliamentary orders, is wandering around the chamber, chatting with you—

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

Senator Macdonald, that is not a point of order.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is it not a breach of standing orders?

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

Senator Macdonald, it is not a point of order, as you well know. Please continue with your contribution.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President: you have the Greens political party, you have the Labor Party and a minister who has no interest in the freedoms which Australians have enjoyed since time immemorial. This package of bills are bills which must be defeated, and I certainly hope that somewhere during the course of this debate that the Greens political party and some of those in the Labor Party who have been criticising it internally will have the courage to do something about it. (Time expired)