Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor will support the Meteorology Amendment (Online Advertising) Bill, which gives effect to decisions taken under the previous Labor government. The Bureau of Meteorology is an Australian institution, providing valuable information on weather and weather patterns all the year round, as well as vital updates on information during extreme weather events—something we all very much value. It helps us make decisions like whether to take an umbrella as we leave the house, right through to when we plant crops and when to move out of the path of a devastating cyclone. Its services help families and individuals right through to emergency services.

The bureau is also vital to our economy—some 3.4 per cent of Australia's GDP is climate sensitive, covering almost every economic sector. The aviation industry alone is heavily reliant on the bureau's services. There are around 1.7 million passenger movements every single week, and every single service is reliant on accurate weather forecasting services. We do know there is always room for improvement, and the review of the bureau's extreme weather and seasonal forecasting capacity—known as the Munro review—was undertaken in response to extreme weather events in the 2010-11 summer. Senators will recall the events of the 2010-11 summer—there was severe flooding, there were several intense tropical cyclones and there were bushfires in Western Australia. Again in the summer of 2012-13 we had heatwaves and Tropical Cyclone Oswald

The bureau's services also worked on providing potential tsunami warnings as a result of earthquakes across the Pacific.

During these times of intense activity, the bureau's capacity was stretched and tested. These capacity issues are still likely to be tested by climate change as it increases the severity of extreme weather events. The then Labor government's initial response was quick. Funding was provided to retain international meteorologists and recruit and train graduate meteorologists. The Munro review also recommended that advertising be considered as an option for raising revenue, so Labor acted on the recommendation by announcing a 12-month trial in 2012-13 and advertising became a permanent feature of the bureau website in the 2013 budget.

The Bureau of Meteorology had over 500 million visits in 2013. It is one of the most visited websites in Australia. From these half a billion visits, almost three billion pages of information were downloaded. Allowing the bureau to place paid advertising on its website, with the right safeguards, will allow it to cover some of the costs of its operations. I think it is also worth remembering that the bureau would not be the first national forecasting service to carry paid advertising. It is already done in Canada, the UK, New Zealand, France and Denmark. We are not entering uncharted territory at all here. It is already done in other countries and it has been trialled here in Australia. This bill formalises the ability of the Bureau of Meteorology to place paid advertising and ensures that guidelines are in place so that advertising is appropriate. Labor is a strong supporter of the bureau and supports measures that increase its capacity to serve the Australian people and the Australian economy. We believe this bill serves this end and therefore Labor will be supporting this bill.

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

I will speak briefly on the Meteorology Amendment (Online Advertising) Bill 2014. As Senator Singh has acknowledged, the bureau is one of the most widely respected and visited sources in the country, whether you are checking the app on your mobile phone or the website to see if you need an umbrella or not on that day. Indeed, you might not be aware that they are the source for the TV news every night. From that ordinary sense all the way through to the fact that the bureau does critically important research on longer term climate impacts on Australia, I think it is important to note at the outset that this is a widely respected and trusted institution.

I am aware from my work in a slightly different context over the years with SBS of the idea that publicly funded, available, trusted broadcasting services be compelled to take advertising—which is something that, fortunately, has not crossed over to the ABC yet, although we know that that is being discussed behind closed doors. At least in the context of SBS, forcing the Special Broadcasting Service to take advertising was simply an excuse, once it had been worked out roughly how much the agency would be able to raise, to withdraw public funding and to make it more difficult for the SBS to carry out its deeply important role. What I see occurring with the extension and normalisation of advertising that will be carried on the Bureau of Meteorology's site, is creeping commercialisation allowing government to gradually abandon and withdraw responsibility for funding a service that all Australians, whether they know it or not, deeply depend on from the day-to-day mundane all the way through to the critically important enabling research and modelling on what our climate is doing. In forcing an entity like the bureau to run advertising on its web presence—which, as Senator Singh has acknowledged, has a lot of eyeballs, presence and reach—although it obviously boosts the fortunes of the bureau, we will find the Australian government removing a dollar for every dollar that is raised in advertising.

In the meantime, we have commercialised something that should have remained free from those influences. As was noted at SBS—and it would be interesting to consider how the bureau might respond—the SBS changes its programming, ethic and the way it thinks about its role if it is effectively chasing eyeballs. When you begin to advertise, effectively your audience and viewership becomes a commodity that you sell to advertisers. It is a very different way of thinking than when your customer is the people of Australia, who rely on you for reliable weather services and climate research. I do not think the case has been made at all.

This has been listed as non-controversial legislation. I would like to put on record on behalf of the Australian Greens that for us it is procedurally non-controversial in that we do not intend to call a division, because we understand the government and the opposition have called in favour, but I think this prospect is one of controversy. We should not simply let through to the keeper the idea that government can withdraw responsibility for a service like this, pulling funding from the BOM, while encouraging it to become some kind of commercial broadcaster on behalf of advertisers. I know the context of SBS is somewhat different, that SBS is a broadcaster and broadcasters sometimes carry advertising. This is a profoundly important public service.

What happens next? Will we have the health department advertising pharmaceutical products? I do not mean that in a glib or a tongue-in-cheek kind of way. Is that where this is heading? I think it is a very dangerous path for us to be going down. On the one hand is the fact that it means the government can reduce its responsibility for funding something that is very important; on the other hand, is the way that these kinds of commercial imperatives—which are entirely appropriate for private companies as opposed to government essential services—can warp the priorities of the agency itself. That is what I think we should be extremely careful of here.

The Greens are quite disappointed to see the bipartisan cross-party support on behalf of Labor and the coalition for normalising something that I think we should apply some critical thinking to in order to see how much further down this curve the government proposes to go. I guess Senator Mason is going to rise to speak on this bill, on behalf of the government. I would be interested to hear from you, Senator Mason, on your behalf, whether this is something we are likely to see for other government online presences. Are they—

Senator Mason interjecting—

Well, you have some advisers in the box next to you. I understand that you are in a representative capacity here, that this is not your portfolio. But I would be interested to know: today the Bureau of Meteorology, yesterday SBS—who is it going to be tomorrow, and where is this going to take us? I am recording now that the Greens will not be calling a division, but we do oppose this bill and we think some critical thinking should be applied to the whole concept.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do support the Meteorology Amendment (Online Advertising) Bill 2014. As Senator Ludlam mentioned, the Bureau of Meteorology has a very, very valuable product—a product that is much in demand. I have always had the view that some of the great work the bureau does should be converted into a cash return to the taxpayer for the enormous amount of money the taxpayer has put into the bureau over a period of very many years. So, I certainly support the bill. I once had the privilege of being the minister in charge of the bureau, and I remember that even back in those days we were always trying to find ways that we could sell the wonderful product that the bureau produces to save the taxpayer the complete 100 per cent investment in the bureau, which does become more difficult to fund each and every year.

The bureau has a wonderful reputation, and I well recall my happy years interacting very closely with the bureau. I remember some wonderful people there, including Mr Bill Kininmonth. Talking about Mr Bill Kininmonth just reminds me—slightly off the subject, but certainly relating to the bureau—that I saw a letter in one of the papers the other day from Mr Kininmonth about a recent controversy with the bureau. As I said, I have a very high regard for the bureau, but there is a scientist who has recently been doing some work on what is called the harmonisation of temperature readings. Unfortunately, I am not terribly well prepared for this speech, and I do not even have the name of the scientist who raised some concerns about the bureau's harmonisation of temperature. As I always say—and Senator Ludlam will well agree—I am no expert in this field and in fact am just an ordinary member of the public reading reports.

But, as I understand it, there are a couple of places in Australia where the same temperature recording instruments have been used for decades and decades. One of them was Amberley in Queensland. These recordings show that the temperature is actually dropping, not increasing. There is not global warming in these couple of instances. Rather, those instruments—the same ones that have always been there—are showing that the temperature is falling. As I understand it, this scientist has done a lot of research and she has actually worked out that the bureau was not prepared to accept this one reading from Amberley and another place that was mentioned—I have forgotten what it is—but did what they call harmonising, which means that they take that temperature reading and harmonise it with other recordings around the area. And in this case, according to this researcher, it was not even near the area, near Amberley. This scientist raised the question of why the Bureau of Meteorology—someone as respectable and responsible as that—would be engaged in this harmonisation when, as I understand it, they did not need to, because it was the same instrument that was used. I understand from these reports that harmonisation is for where you have one sort of measuring device but then change it. And because there can be changes in devices you sometimes get different readings, which they then harmonise. But why you would harmonise when it was the same recording instrument is the question that has arisen.

I understand that the bureau has refuted that publicly and has given an explanation, but I noticed quite a number of letters to the editor that share my concern about the fact that there needs to be ongoing debate on the cause of climate change—the human induced carbon emissions that so many talk about. As one of the letters—or perhaps even this research—said, it is very clear that with peer reviewed research it is the peer reviewers who, like the initial researcher, are getting grants from governments time in, time out. And dare I say, without defaming them, that they have another interest, in making sure that this global warming debate is there. It always concerns me that if you are like this independent researcher, having a different view, or like Professor Bob Carter, having a different view, then you are pilloried. I am surprised that the Greens have not catcalled as they usually do when I mention any scientist who does not conform with the standard IPCC view on life of man induced global warming.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why would you?

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, there you go; there is Senator Cameron: if you do not like what the scientist says, you pillory them. It is only if the scientist has your view on life that you think they are good. That really does disturb me, and it has been raised a bit here—that there is this view—

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, a point of order: I cannot let that go unchallenged. I made no comments about the scientists. People just cannot make things up as Senator Macdonald is doing through his whole speech. It is an absolute joke. That is why no-one really worries about him anymore—even his own party!

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Cameron. There is no point of order.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I always know I am getting close to the truth, near the mark, when Senator Cameron makes that sort of point of order.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just couldn't help myself!

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron would do well to not embark upon this thing. Just because people do not agree with you, Senator Cameron, it does not mean that they are to be discarded or pilloried, as happens in the climate change debate. That is the concern. I suspect this independent researcher—and I apologise to her for not having her name, but I think it is Dr Marohasy—will be suffering an attack from her own class of scientist for the views she has so courageously published. I am not for a moment suggesting she is right. As I always say in these debates, as an amateur I really cannot get into the debate. But I read with interest that there are qualified scientists and researchers with equally good qualifications and learning who do not follow the IPCC view on man-induced global warming. It always makes me very well aware that in spite of what the Greens and the Labor Party and other politically correct groups say, the debate is far from over. There is no universal understanding of what I call the Greens view or the IPCC view. I raise it in the context of the bureau, and again repeat my highest admiration for the bureau. But I do mention bureau scientists of the past who have different views, but who, when they raised them, were disregarded, as Senator Cameron tries to disregard me. It does not worry me, and I am sure it will not worry this rather courageous researcher who has put her work out to the public in the last seven days, I think it is.

It is good that it is there so the debate can go on. Unfortunately, because I am chairing another committee, these days I do not get the opportunity to go to the Senate environment committee, where I could ask the bureau these questions, which is a shame. But I would like to engage with the bureau as to why they have harmonised data where there did not seem there would be a case for harmonisation. As I said, I have read that the bureau gives a different view, but this very courageous scientist has clearly got support from other scientists and researchers. I say to the bureau: do not get tied up in the political argument that has been promoted by the former government. I can well understand why the bureau was very much in favour of that line under the former government, because I know that if anyone in the bureau had had a different view to the Gillard/Rudd government, they would have been sacked on the spot or pushed out, and I can understand that. But I say to the bureau now that they are under the control of a government that does allow free speech, that does encourage diversity of view. Senator Cameron reminds me that I am one of those who sometimes do have a diverse view on different things than my own party and my own government do—unlike the Labor Party, who are not allowed to do that. But we have a government that does allow a difference of opinion, and I say to the bureau for what it is worth, and out of respect for them from the time when I worked closely with them: do not get drawn into the politics of these things. Be careful with your research and your reputation. I would urge the bureau to seriously consider some of the work that has been put forward by this very courageous independent scientist-researcher that I refer to. Unlike Senator Ludlam, I do think this is a good idea for the bureau that the online advertising be enabled to give the bureau additional resources. I certainly support the bill.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Bureau of Meteorology is, as honourable senators have suggested, one of Australia's most popular websites, with in excess of 471 million visits a year. It is a website trusted by all Australians. This bill amends the Meteorology Act 1955, and will ensure that the bureau can act with surety in the decisions made in relation to advertising on its website, without compromising its standards or compromising its services.

Senator Ludlam made a very interesting contribution this afternoon, and I think it is fair to say that it is impossible to generalise across all of the instrumentalities of government the degree to which advertising will be permitted, or indeed encouraged. It is often the case that what initially seems controversial or perhaps unusual quickly becomes ordinary and uncontroversial—perhaps that is the case with advertising on SBS. I am confident that Senator Ludlam will cast an eagle eye over developments in this space. I thank him, Senator Singh and Senator Macdonald for their eloquent contributions, and I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.