Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the night before the last election, Tony Abbott stared down the barrel of a camera and uttered this earnest vow:

No cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no change to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or SBS.

It was Mr Abbott's final offer to the Australian people, a solemn promise—a promise he made on SBS World News. He asked the Australian people to trust him, to take him at his word. They did. But he lied. And we all know what has happened since. Mr Abbott promised there would be no cuts to SBS, yet last year he cut the budget of SBS by $53.7 million. The Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising Flexibility and Other Measures) Bill 2015 is intended to allow SBS to put more ads on TV to try to make up for some of Prime Minister Abbott's cuts that he promised not to make to SBS's budget. It is designed to cover up and paper over another broken promise.

There may be good reasons to support some of the measures in this bill, but, if the parliament passes it, it will be complicit in Prime Minister Abbott's broken promise. That is why the opposition will not support this bill. SBS viewers should not have to watch more ads during their favourite shows to make up for the Prime Minister's and the Liberal Party's lies. Yet this legislation will allow a doubling of the advertising—

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy, I remind you and all senators about using words such as 'lies' and 'lied' and such imputations in this chamber. It is the same in the other chamber: they are unparliamentary. Continue, Senator Conroy.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, I am not quite sure what you are ruling. You have not asked me to withdraw. I would be shocked if you did, because the 'carbon tax lie' is a standard mantra. which you yourself have uttered more times than I can count. Every member opposite has used the word 'lie' in direct relation to policies and former Prime Minister Gillard.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy, there is no point of order. I have not made a ruling. I am just reminding senators, including you, about language that is unparliamentary. We have discussed this at length, and I just bring that to your attention.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President, but I would reiterate the point I made while taking that point of order that the Liberal Party constantly described the 'carbon tax lie' every single day in this chamber. They called the former Prime Minister a liar every single day in this chamber. So I accept the point you make and I accept the consistency with which you have just not ruled, as in you have not made a ruling.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is right.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But let's be clear about this: what the Prime Minister did when he looked down the barrel of that TV camera on the night before the election was lie. It is as simple and clear-cut as that. He promised no cuts. He made cuts.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy, I take offence at what is unparliamentary. We have just been through this and now you are trying to promote that very language again. We have moved on from what has happened in the past. It has been discussed around here, and I find it unacceptable. I ask you not to use such language. Next time I will ask you to withdraw it.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, you yourself and every member opposite has used the 'carbon tax lie' every day in the chamber, and you still do it now. It is not a forgotten thing that ended in 2013. Every single time the carbon tax is referred to, there is the word 'lie'.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy, do you have a point of order?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am actually speaking. I am not on the point of order at the moment. I am actually speaking. I am disagreeing with—

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Resume your seat, Senator Conroy! You are accusing others, along with me, of using that language every day in this chamber. That is untrue. Continue your speech, Senator Conroy, and let's move on.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A Hansard search will quickly expose the truth, Mr Acting Deputy President, and I am not afraid of it. If you would like me to organise a Hansard search on every single one of your colleagues on that side of the chamber about the words 'carbon tax lie', I am happy to do it.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Resume your chair, Senator Conroy. Senator O'Sullivan on a point of order.

Senator Conroy interjecting—

Order, Senator Conroy!

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That last passage was a complete and direct reflection on the Chair and the Acting Deputy President, and Senator Conroy should be asked to withdraw the remarks.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What! A search of Hansard?

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Conroy, the debate would be better served if you started debating the topic and continued your speech.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate that. I appreciate your indulgence, genuinely. However, the whole debate revolves around a promise the Prime Minister made and has broken.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There will be no carbon tax under our government. That promise—

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Order on my right! Continue Senator Conroy.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Come in Spinner! I will ignore the interjections.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a very good move, continue.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Last year, the Prime Minister cut the budget of SBS by $53.7 million. So this piece of legislation is designed to cover up and paper over another broken promise—said down the barrel of the camera. If only you had gagged him that night—down the barrel of a camera. That is why the opposition will not support this bill. SBS viewers should not have to watch more ads because those opposite have broken their promise—a solemn undertaking. I remember the cant and the hypocrisy from the current Prime Minister. He said politics is about trust—we have to be able to trust.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Killing Fields8.30 pm, compulsory viewing.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He said that trust is what this election is about. Then he looked down the camera and he lied. He looked down the camera and he told a bare faced lie—no cuts to education; no cuts to health; no cuts to the ABC; no cuts—

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, on a point of order. Senator Conroy just made a direct allegation that the Prime Minister lied. That language is unparliamentary.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He did! It is a fact.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me finish. Do not yell over the top. Standing orders are quite clear on this particular issue in making such a reflection.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you Senator O'Sullivan. Senator Conroy will continue debate, remembering what I mentioned earlier about being unparliamentary.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will move it along. This legislation will allow a doubling of the advertising that SBS can broadcast between 6 pm and midnight every night. This will mean more ads during the shows that most people watch on SBS. This will mean more ads during the SBS World News, more ads during Insight, more ads during Dateline, more ads during the football and more ads during the cycling. There is a risk that it will lead to more programs being designed to fit around ads rather than the other way around.

As FreeTV said in their submission to the inquiry into this legislation by the Senate Environment and Communications Committee:

… the proposal to increase prime time advertising on the SBS equates to the introduction of a fourth commercial television broadcasting network by stealth.

When Mr Shorten asked the Prime Minister about this broken promise in question time, in November last year, Mr Abbott claimed it was not a broken promise. He claimed that it was not a cut. He said it was an 'efficiency dividend'. What weasel words. What mealy-mouthed weasel words from the Prime Minister. Mr Abbott took the Australian people for fools before the election, and he is continuing to take the Australian people for fools.

One person was not fooled—the Prime Minister's close and dear friend, Mr Turnbull! When the Minister for Communications went on Sky News and was asked if this was an efficiency dividend, this was his answer—and I ask everyone in this chamber, particularly our representative from Queensland to listen to what Mr Turnbull said. He told the truth. He said it was is not an efficiency dividend. So let's get this right—the Prime Minister of Australia, on the floor of parliament says it is an efficiency dividend, but the Minister for Communications goes on Sky News and says it is not an efficiency dividend. What do you call that? Somebody has to be telling a lie. I do not know—you can pick! Somebody is not telling the truth. Mr Turnbull did not finish there. He said:

This is not an efficiency dividend … certainly there are cuts.

So the Prime Minister says on the floor of parliament that there no cuts, and Mr Turnbull says there are cuts. Mr Acting Deputy President, you are very touchy today on the issue around whether someone tells a lie, and I can understand that you have to uphold the parliamentary processes, but those opposite have got nowhere to go on this, as you well acknowledge—nowhere to go. Mr Turnbull went on to say:

Certainly there are cuts. He said no cuts to the ABC or SBS—there are cuts to the ABC or SBS.

So the Prime Minister says there are no cuts, and Malcolm Turnbull says that the Prime Minister said there would no cuts to the ABC or SBS. Well, there are cuts to the ABC and SBS. There are the facts. No wonder the good Queensland senator from the coalition wants to stand up and try to interject, because he is trying to cover for the fact that—

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There will be no carbon tax under this government. The biggest political lie in decades.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, he is going for the carbon tax!

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Come in spinner! Did he just say 'lie'? Did I just hear him accuse someone of lying in the chamber? Come in Spinner!

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Goose and gander!

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Continue.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In February this year, the Prime Minister finally told the truth. He finally told the truth—he admitted it. He even boasted that this was a broken promise. So even the Prime Minister gave it up in February, but you still keep batting on over there, Senator O'Sullivan. This is what the Prime Minister said:

… we have broken that. And frankly, it is just as well we did …

So he switched from saying there would be no cuts to the ABC and SBS to saying:

… we've broken that. And frankly, it's just as well we did …

This is talking about cuts to the SBS which he claimed would not happen. He then boasts that he is glad that he did it and that he is glad that he broke the promise. Not only did the Prime Minister break his promise not to cut SBS's budget but he was proud of it, and now SBS viewers are being asked to pay the price for another broken promise by Mr Abbott.

SBS has an important role to play in Australian society. It provides an outlet for multicultural programming, news and content that showcases Australia's ethnic diversity. If this bill is passed, the scales will be tipped too far in favour of profit over the public benefit. This place should not become complicit in allowing SBS to be turned into another commercial broadcaster. The solution is simple. The Prime Minister promised on the election eve that there would be no cuts to the SBS. Everybody in this chamber on that side was elected on the promise. You should keep that promise. You should not break trust. You should vote against this legislation, and I urge you to do so.

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

The Greens will be opposing the Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising Flexibility and Other Measures) Bill 2015, and I will briefly spell out why. Before I do, I want to ask the government to clarify one simple issue. I hope that Senator Fifield—or any of the other coalition senators who file in here this afternoon to explain themselves on this bill—will just be a bit clear about where this is all going.

The question is this: when will you actually be happy? Will you be happy if this bill is passed and SBS starts broadcasting the same amount of advertising during prime time as commercial TV stations? Is that what this is about? Will you be happy when SBS is allowed to have as much product placement in its programs as an episode of, say, MasterChefor The Block? Is that what this is about? Will you be happy if the creeping commercialisation of the SBS spreads to the ABC and we start seeing advertising breaks on 7.30? Is that where this is going? Will you be happy if SBS is eventually rolled into the ABC under the cover of meeting more of your efficiency targets? Will you be happy if both get privatised or broken up to create a fourth commercial free-to-air TV network? Is that what this is about?

What we want to know, in the course of the debate that is going to be undertaken this afternoon, is where is this all going and where will it end. I ask this because all indications are that this legislation is just one step along a path which Prime Minister Abbott and Minister Turnbull cooked up, presumably before the election. The Prime Minister wandered a bit off message in guaranteeing that this would not happen, but nonetheless that has not stopped them. It was a plan to deal with what they see as the problem of Australia's public broadcasters. They probably had a bit of help from the Institute of Public Affairs, which have openly called for the ABC to be broken up and put out to tender and for SBS simply to be privatised—just get rid of it. They probably also had a bit of help from Mr Murdoch, who wants public broadcasting done away with entirely in Australia because he does not like the idea of a taxpayer funded competitor. That is fine. Those are his business interests, and he is pretty good at prosecuting those.

Step 1 in this genius plan was to assure the Australian public on the eve of the federal election that there would be no cuts to ABC or SBS. Senator Conroy has canvassed that at reasonable length. You look people in the eye, you tell them that there will be no cuts and then right after the election you cut their budget. People loathe being lied to; they loathe it. People remember. You might think that people forget, but no, it is all being stored up; people remember what you said and then what you did. Step 2 was to implement the cuts anyway, under the cover of an efficiency dividend, and smash up the Australia Network. So that has gone now.

Step 3 is to significantly enhance the amount of advertising on SBS and formally allow the kind of really objectionable and intrusive in-program advertising which has already driven Australia's other free to air TV programs towards endless reality TV dramas in order to sell more cans of whatever is on special at Woolworths and Coles this week and more of everything at Bunnings—the kind of fusion and merging between content and advertising that is so far advanced on the commercial TV stations. No-one except the IPA says it out loud, but it is pretty clear what the next steps are going to be: rolling SBS, its back office structures and its advertising rules into the ABC and then flogging both off to the highest bidder. I dare any one of you to come out and just let us know that that is where this is heading. It is pretty obvious that that is what some of you want; it is just that you do not have the courage to front up and say so. The staggering thing is that actually—

Senator O'Sullivan interjecting—

We finally hit a bit of a nerve. It is all right; you will get your opportunity, Senator O'Sullivan.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ludlam, pass your remarks through the chair please.

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

Through the chair, Senator O'Sullivan will get the opportunity. He is not on the speaking list; he is happy to sit on the back row sniping, as he does so well. Through you, Mr Chair, I am happy to hear Senator O'Sullivan's actual views.

The extraordinary thing is that nobody, apart from these ideologues, actually wants this to happen. There are no interest groups demanding that SBS carry more advertising. Nobody is marching in the streets demanding that the public broadcasters be privatised. Nobody wants what is occurring here—the creeping commercialisation of a really treasured public institution. In fact, it is quite the opposite. We have a petition with 62,000 signatures on it opposing more advertising on SBS. I dare you to find five people who think it is a good idea to increase prime time advertising on SBS.

We have all of Australia's major free-to-air broadcasters—Seven, Nine and Ten—all opposing the changes. They might seem like slightly unlikely allies, but I think that they have a really valid point. The commercial broadcasters are struggling, as it is, with declining ad revenues and declining forecasts for the kind of ad revenues that they rely on solely—ad revenues, in-program advertising, sponsorship agreements and various other commercial arrangements. The last thing that they want is a fourth commercial competitor, juiced up with taxpayers' dollars and bidding into a pool that is the same size of advertising content on prime time. So I think that they do have a point.

We have poll after poll showing that Australians regard SBS and the ABC as two of the nation's most trusted institutions. Australians trust the ABC and SBS a damn sight more than they trust your government. That is just a fact. That is not a Greens opinion. That is just weight of numbers. Sorry, colleagues, but it is true. The truth is the government is only pursuing this course to satisfy the demands of a rather extreme ideology. Let us get that to the end, but the tactics are that of blackmail. It is nothing more complicated than that. It is as cheap as hell blackmail: 'Pass our broadcasting bill or SBS gets it. We're just going to cut the budget unless you allow us to increase the amount of advertising that they run in prime time.' I respond really poorly to blackmail. There is only one way to deal with people of that character: refuse to play the game. We will be opposing the bill.

It is bad legislation and it will deliver poor outcomes for SBS. The audience hates it. There will be negative outcomes for the rest of the television industry, because you are bidding in an advertising pool that is not growing; in fact, there are arguments that it is shrinking. As senators we should be listening to the basic common sense and commercial reality that the broadcast environment has got to and send the bill back to the drawing board.

There has been a lot of debate about how much money the legislation will allow SBS to raise, and the estimates diverge wildly. The bill's regulatory impact statement estimated $8 million to $9 million per year. This is not a total of more advertising money for SBS. Let us be really clear about that. It allows SBS to run double the amount of advertising on prime time plus four minutes of its own sponsorship materials and its own promo material. It is 14 minutes an hour, in prime time, of non-content.

The Lewis review into the ABC and SBS—when they were investigating 'efficiencies', as you chose to call it—put estimates a lot higher. They said: $20 million on the table. The industry group Free TV estimated a lot higher: around $148 million per year. We do not know where SBS's figures come from, because they have been deemed commercial-in-confidence. That is not that helpful when you are trying to form a view. All of these outcomes are negative, both for the viewers of SBS, the station itself, and the broadcasting industry, more generally.

If the government's estimates are correct, the bill substantially increases advertising on SBS and degrades people's viewing experience for a mere $8 million a year, which the government could afford to pay. If we held the Prime Minister to his word—and we have all learnt, through bitter experience, that we cannot do that—this would not be happening, certainly not for $8 million a year. If the higher estimates are correct, we should pay more attention to the views of the free-to-air industry and the commercial broadcasters. That is ripping ad revenues out of the pool of commercial broadcasters who have local-content obligations that SBS does not have. We should take their arguments more seriously. There is simply no room in a market the size of Australia for a fourth commercial network.

The iceberg hidden under the water, as a number of commentators have pointed out, is formally allowing SBS to pursue more product placement in its programs. It is likely to influence its programming choices towards content that is more likely to make it more money, putting in place a direct conflict with the charter. Chasing the Masterchef stuff or The Block is just long-form advertising and may be very entertaining. It does nothing for me but it is out there and people love it. It is really easy for SBS to say that it will not happen. They have been protesting. We have had a number of Senate committee inquiries where SBS has had a gun to its head, in the background, so I am not really blaming SBS management. They have been put in this position by the executive, by this government, who said, 'We won't cut your budget,' and then 'Now we're cutting your budget.' They have sent SBS forward to argue. We have not been able to get to the bottom of whose idea this was. That was one of the disappointments of the committee process—that it has not been possible to pinpoint whose brilliant idea this was.

Anyone who has spent any time in a large media organisation will know that the sales and editorial departments continually clash over issues of independence and that sales has a history of winning—not within SBS, necessarily, because their charter obligations are so strong and the audiences demand it. That is what this government is sabotaging with a bill of this kind. The other iceberg we should be mindful of is the likelihood of further cuts. As SBS's advertising restrictions are lightened and it makes more money, there will be nothing to stop a future government from using that situation as an argument to lighten its restrictions further. This is scope creep. This is a step along the way. We know this is not the last time this issue will be visited. The communications minister of the day will be back in this place arguing for further measures to push SBS towards full commercialisation. That long-run trend has been evident for many years. It is a slippery slope.

The first step down that slope was taken 25 years ago when SBS opened up to advertising, to seek sponsorship to help it broadcast the World Cup, and it has been sliding faster ever since. I guess both sides are somewhat guilty of this, but this government has elevated it to something of an art form. You are responsible, when you come into government, for the maintenance and protection of these public institutions. The most fundamental principles that we should hold, when debating measures like this, are to not try to fix something that is not broken. SBS is not broken. It is a treasured institution. It does a wonderful job of broadcasting content that reflects Australia's multicultural society. So stop messing with the formula.

Here is some advice to Liberal and National MPs on that side of the chamber, with their instinctive loathing of all things public. Whether it is public housing, public health, public education, public transport for public broadcasting, the coalition are desperate to hollow out these treasured public institutions and convert them to for-profit commercial operators. Why don't you quit your well-paid public-sector jobs and go work for the private sector? Knock yourselves out. Quit your public-sector jobs and go work in the private sector. Maybe you are just not cut out for government. Maybe it is just not for you. We will be standing up for SBS and its charter obligations and will not submit to this shallow blackmail. We oppose the bill.

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

Senator Ludlam may well want us to get jobs in the privatised SBS that he so wrongly predicts. What would we do? Would we get a salary of $700,000 or $800,000 or $900,000 like some of the bosses at SBS? At the ABC, one of the presenters—who is the guy who does Q&A? What is his annual salary? It makes yours look infinitesimal, Senator Ludlam, so don't take up that argument.

I can understand your feigned expertise on commercialisation and advertising. After all, the Greens political party is practically the plaything of Graeme Wood—one of the great advertisers, on all mediums, in days gone by—who gave to the Greens the biggest-ever single donation to a political party in the history of this country. Something like $1.6 million was donated to the Greens political party by a guy who makes his money out of advertising. You might recall, Mr Acting Deputy President, it was the same Mr Graeme Wood—

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, resume your seat, please. Do you have a point of order, Senator Ludlam?

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

Yes, I do have a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. I ask you to draw the senator's attention to his remarks and the question that is before the chair. We are debating a bill about SBS. I ask you to inform Senator Macdonald of what is actually happening today and what this debate is about.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will remind you, Senator Macdonald, to debate the bill. Continue on, please.

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

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. It is pretty typical of the Greens, isn't it? They can give it but they cannot take it. Senator Ludlam spent the whole of his speech attacking the government and yet, when one points out a few home truths about the Greens political party and the record donation they got from a private individual, he takes a point of order. Here is the party that is all in favour of free speech, except when it impacts upon the Greens political party. It shows that, for the Greens political party, there was not really free speech. You will remember it was the same Mr Graeme Wood, the big donor to the Greens political party, who wanted the Greens political party, after this donation, to actually get a tax-free break for him in his new online newspaper.

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

Mr Acting Deputy President Seselja, I rise on a point of order: right before you took over the chair, the former chair brought Senator Macdonald to order. He is now in direct violation of what the chair had asked him to do. I am not sure if you are aware of what occurred just before you arrived.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not. You will have to draw that to my attention, Senator Ludlam.

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

I am just asking you to draw Senator Macdonald's attention to the matter that is before the chair, because I am not really sure where this rant is going. It is certainly not relevant to commercialisation of SBS.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. On the point of order, Senator Macdonald.

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

What I am doing in this debate—and this is a debate—is responding directly to the issues which were specifically raised by the previous speaker, which was Senator Ludlam, and in a debate that is what you do in this chamber. If someone like Senator Ludlam protrudes falsehoods and misinformation, then it is my duty as the next speaker to point it out and to point out the motive behind the Greens' tirade.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, on the point of order: I would call on Senator Macdonald to withdraw the slur that he made a moment ago with regard to Mr Graeme Wood. All of the imputations of the kind that he is suggesting were actually ruled out by the Privileges Committee.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a debating point, but of course I would ask Senator Macdonald if he would like to withdraw. On the substantive point of order, I was not here earlier and did not hear the elements that Senator Macdonald is responding to. It is a broad-ranging debate. People are entitled to respond. I would simply remind Senator Macdonald to be cognisant of the bill before the Senate, the Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising Flexibility and Other Measures) Bill 2015.

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

Just finishing that, before I move on to the bill, in response to Senator Ludlam's speech and the arguments he was making, I point out that Mr Graeme Wood tried to get a tax deduction, per kind favour of the Greens, for an online newspaper he was going to set up. That is after he made the largest ever single donation to a political party in the history of this country.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I would ask that Senator Macdonald withdraw what is effectively an accusation—

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

It's not an accusation; it's a matter of fact.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is an appalling accusation that is wrong and reprehensible and I would ask him to withdraw it.

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

On the point of order, everything I have said is a matter of fact and is recorded in the Hansard of this chamber. A matter of fact cannot be defamatory.

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

Mr Acting Deputy President, on the point of order: it is extremely unparliamentary to question the motives, as you have done, of senators in this place or of others. Those matters were dealt with exhaustively on the Privileges Committee, and I know that because I am a member of that committee. I ask Senator Macdonald to withdraw those accusations of improper motive. It is very straightforward.

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

So that I can finish my speech, I will withdraw imputations against sitting Greens senators but maintain my comments about Mr Graeme Wood, the biggest single donor to any political party in the history of this country and this parliament. Senator Ludlam is well versed to understand advertising and commercial activity. This is a debate and the first speaker who led off the debate was Senator Conroy. It is clear, for those who might have heard Senator Conroy's speech, why he has been sacked as the opposition spokesman on communications. You will recall that it was Senator Conroy who gave to Australia the greatest mishmash of communications activity with the NBN. It was not a bad idea, but leaving a guy who has had no experience in business whatsoever—a guy whose history involves student politics, working for a union, working for a politician and then being a politician—to try to implement Australia's largest ever business undertaking was just doomed to failure, as it did. Mr Turnbull, all credit to him, has picked up the pieces and has tried to get the NBN back on track. Mr Acting Deputy President, you might remember that Senator Conroy and most of the Greens political party were part of a government that, on the eve of the 2010 election, looked the television cameras and the Australian public directly in the eye and the then leader, Ms Gillard, said: 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' And of course it took the then Labor government no more than a few weeks to break that promise and bring in the carbon tax, which they had solemnly promised they never would and which, in fact, as a promise, won them the 2010 election. So with Senator Conroy drawing attention to that dark period in the Labor Party's history it is understandable that even the current Labor leader does not want Senator Conroy involved in the communications portfolio at all.

Senator Ludlam wanted an assurance from the government. I am sure the minister will deal with this more fully in his concluding remarks, but you asked the question, Senator Ludlam, and here is the answer: no, there is no intention to sell off the ABC or to privatise it. If I might quote an interjection from my colleague Senator O'Sullivan—'More's the pity,' but that will not happen.

But the ABC and the SBS, like everybody else, have to play their part in a bit of belt tightening. You remember it was the Labor-Greens government that, from a $60 billion credit at the end of the Howard era, went on to run up a debt that, if unchecked, would have reached $600 billion. This is a debt that is costing every Australian $3 million per day in interest. That is why the ABC and the SBS have to tighten their belts, just the same as everyone else. Senator Ludlam made a useful comment about senators taking jobs in an industry like communications. If we did that, Senator Ludlam, I repeat: we would be earning $500,000, $600,000 or $700,000, like the presenter of Q&A does. Do you ever criticise him, Senator Ludlam? Of course not. Why not? Because Q&A and many other programs like that are really mouthpieces for the Greens and for the Labor Party. I am not anti-ABC. In fact, I am a great supporter of rural ABC. Some of their programs are reasonable, but I never torture myself by watching Q&A or the Sunday morning program, whatever it is called. It is just one commentator after another constantly running the Labor Party's lines and the Green's lines. But they continue to receive funding and they will always receive funding from the coalition government.

Senator Ludlam tried to use his star status as a Twitter user. He needs another one of those viral things that saved his bacon at the last election—only, I might say, after we had to have another election. Senator Ludlam is looking for that. He is trying to find something that might attract the Twittersphere, so he makes up any lie that might get him a run on the Twittersphere. But you wanted to know about advertising—

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order: again, I ask Senator Macdonald to withdraw the imputation that my colleague Senator Ludlam will tell any lie to get a run in the media. That is unparliamentary and I ask that it be withdrawn.

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

I withdraw that and—

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, before you proceed, I agree it is unparliamentary and thank you for withdrawing. Please proceed.

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

I will just reword it. Senator Ludlam knows that what he says is not factual. It is just something he made up to try to get the attention of the Twittersphere. Many will sit by and allow that misinformation and that abomination of facts to go unchallenged. I have to say that I am one of those senators who will not. That is why I draw attention to it.

Senator Ludlam was saying that SBS will now have constant advertisements. If he read the bill, or listened to the minister's speech, he would understand that SBS has a strict limit of five minutes per advertising hour, which equates to a maximum of 120 minutes of advertising shown per day. However, SBS earns the majority of its advertising revenue during peak viewing times, between 6 pm and 10 pm, when it broadcasts special events such as the FIFA World Cup. The bill will amend the Special Broadcasting Service Act to allow for a more flexible approach, allowing the SBS to show up to 10 minutes of advertising per hour, but with a daily overall limit of 120 minutes. This will allow SBS to schedule up to 10 minutes of advertising during higher-rating programs, to increase its overall advertising revenue, while scheduling less advertising during other hours so that the 120-minute daily cap is not exceeded.

I do not know what Senator Ludlam could not understand about that. He was alleging that there will be wall-to-wall advertising on the SBS should this bill pass. Clearly, if he had bothered to read the bill, rather than try to get a run in the Twittersphere, he would have understood these issues without deliberately inventing arguments that he knows are simply not factual. The bill will enable SBS to earn $28.5 million of its funding via advertising flexibility. The proposed amendment will enable SBS to average its current advertising allocation of five minutes per hour across the schedule.

This is somewhat interesting: I understand that TheAustralian Financial Review reported at the end of 2014 that Mr Gyngell is the highest paid CEO in Australia, making around $19.6 million a year. It would be curious if the large free-to-air networks were to claim that this legislative amendment could lead to job losses, including in regional areas, when the CEO of a commercial network is being paid close to the total amount SBS is seeking to generate. Some of the arguments that have been put forward about the bill simply do not warrant further consideration.

I point out that this bill was investigated by the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, which took evidence from a range of people. After consideration, the bill was recommended by the committee, and it is my submission to this chamber that the bill should be passed.

SBS's primary concern about this legislative change, according to its evidence, is the impact on its audience. SBS understands that any change to its advertising arrangements will impact audiences. But SBS conducted research which showed that the overwhelming proportion of respondents, some 73 per cent, would prefer that SBS offer the same amount of its unique programming and services funded by slightly more advertising rather than risk losing those programs and services altogether.

I reiterate that ABC and SBS have to tighten their belts the same as everyone else does to help pay off Labor's debt of $700 billion, which is costing the average Australian hundreds of dollars a second in the interest that we pay to lenders. SBS, the same as everyone else, has to tighten its belt. That means that, for SBS to continue with the same programming, it needed to get revenue from somewhere else—and it can get that revenue through increased flexibility in the way it advertises. It seems to me that it is a win-win situation for all concerned. The bill provides the flexibility that SBS needs, and that will enable SBS to continue to promote the things that make SBS unique.

I recognise and give credit to the Liberal government and Liberal prime minister who actually set up SBS, who recognised the need for a multicultural broadcasting entity. As with so many innovations in Australia's way of life and governance, this was an initiative of a Liberal government and a Liberal prime minister—something, of course, that the Greens would never recognise. With those comments, I urge the Senate to pass this bill in its entirety.

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising Flexibility and Other Measures) Bill 2015. These government ministers really are the masters of euphemisms when it comes to naming their bills, aren't they? It is such an innocuous name for what is essentially a $28 million cut to Australia's multicultural broadcaster. In the interests of accuracy, I suggest that the bill should be renamed 'the communications legislation amendment (breaking pre-election promises and creating a fourth commercial broadcaster) bill'—but of course those opposite are not interested in accuracy.

Just to set the record straight: in his presentation, Senator Macdonald talked about the committee report, and I want to make sure that the record shows that Labor senators did not support the passage of this bill. We actually opposed it in our dissenting report and we proposed that the bill not be passed. I just wanted to correct the record.

What the government are interested in is ripping out the heart of public services. This is yet another example of the hatred of those opposite for all things public. We have seen it in the attacks on our national broadcaster. We have seen it in the government's decimation of the Public Service. We have seen it in cuts to health and education. We are seeing it again here today. This bill is simply a cut by another name.

Before the last election, as we have already heard today from previous speakers on this side, the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Tony Abbott, went to the Australian people and told them with a straight face that there would be:

… no cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no change to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or SBS.

That is exactly what our Prime Minister said on SBS News the night before the election. Less than two years later, the government have broken each and every one of those promises bar one. We have seen $50 billion slashed from health. A further $30 billion has been ripped out of education. They have tried their hardest to cut the pension, but Labor managed to stop that one, in this place. Of course, we have seen half a billion dollars in cuts to the ABC and SBS. As far as the GST goes, the government's inability to break it so far is certainly not for want of trying.

The reality is that this is a fundamentally sneaky government that cannot be trusted. They cannot be trusted with health, they cannot be trusted with education, they cannot be trusted with the GST, they cannot be trusted with pensions, they cannot be trusted to look after the ABC and now we know they cannot be trusted with our multicultural broadcaster.

The bill before us is one part of the legislative means to break the promise that the Prime Minister made to Australians about SBS. We know that the 2014-15 budget papers included cuts to SBS of $53.7 million. What the bill before us today does is to seek to make up $28½ million of these cuts. Whether the bill passes or not, there can be no dispute that the government has broken its promise of no cuts to SBS. No matter what happens in this place today, almost $54 million has been ripped out of SBS. No matter what the outcome of the bill, it will not change the fact that this government has broken yet another promise.

As Deputy Chair of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, I participated in the recent inquiry into this bill. SBS's own submission to this inquiry recognised the fact that this bill is cuts by another name when it said:

As a result of the Lewis Efficiency Study, Minister Turnbull announced further cuts to SBS’s funding in November 2014. Of the cuts, $25.2 million was based on back office efficiencies that SBS was already working towards. A further $28.5 million was predicated on successful legislative amendment to the SBS Act, which would provide SBS with additional advertising and sponsorship flexibility and allow SBS to deliver this portion of the funding cut via a modest annual revenue increase. The total funding cut of $53.7 million over five years from 2014-15 has already been reflected in SBS’s forward estimates.

So it is clear that the bill is nothing but an attempt by the government to make the parliament complicit in the breaking of a clear promise. I can tell you right now that Labor senators will have no part in this.

So what exactly is in this bill, and what will it mean for our multicultural broadcaster, its audience and other stakeholders? The bill allows SBS to screen double the amount of advertising currently allowed between the hours of 6 pm and midnight. This will mean that in prime time viewers are likely to see 10 minutes of ads in comparison to the current limit of five minutes. Not only that, but SBS will still be able to screen four minutes of promos in addition to the commercial advertising. Both Free TV and Save Our SBS contended that the passage of this bill would equate to the creation of a fourth commercial television network by stealth, as outlined earlier by Senator Conroy. This month Save Our SBS delivered a petition signed by 62,000 Australians who are thoroughly opposed to the measures within this bill. Many are concerned that the important social role that SBS plays will be subjugated to the need to meet budgetary targets. SBS is not just about entertainment and information. It has a role that extends far beyond the remit of most television stations. It reflects and encourages diversity. It recognises the stories of those who might be invisible in the mainstream media and it plays a vital role as a driver and participant in the national conversation about many important cultural issues. In difficult geopolitical times like this it can play a crucial role in fostering understanding between different cultural communities.

In the hearings the committee consistently heard concerns that the search for advertiser dollars will undoubtedly not coincide with SBS's legislative charter. As the imperative to secure revenue becomes a much more pressing demand for the network, there will inevitably be times when charter obligations will come into direct conflict with commercial realities. Witnesses voiced concerns that an effective doubling of the amount of advertising permitted on SBS during prime time hours could lead SBS to neglect its charter and commission programming of a more commercial nature in order to attract ratings and advertising dollars. Programming considered contentious or niche could very well be sidelined in favour of more mainstream content. Commercial realities will unavoidably become a very real consideration in the broadcaster's decision-making processes. Even the government's own Lewis review accepted that this is the case, when it said:

…there will be greater pressure on SBS management to consider the trade-off of delivering on commercial expectations, against delivering those functions described in the SBS Charter.

In creating a fourth commercial network, this bill will also have impacts on existing broadcasters. Free TV argued at the inquiry that the bill represents a significant threat to existing commercial broadcasters' revenues. At the hearing in Melbourne the CEO of Free TV, Julie Flynn, said on this matter:

Free TV is strongly opposed to the bill because it enables SBS to make up cuts in government funding by competing with commercial free-to-air broadcasters for revenues from a finite advertising pie. It is wrong in principle for privately funded broadcasters to have to subsidise a government funded broadcaster.

Free TV also recognised that if commercial broadcast revenues are hit the Australian screen industry could pay the price. On this issue, CEO Julie Flynn said:

In practice, it will potentially have a serious impact on our broadcasters' ability to continue to fund expensive Australian content.

The committee received 27 submissions to this inquiry. Only two of those 27 supported the bill before us here today. SBS was one of the two, but, given that the government was holding almost $29 million of their operating budget to ransom, it is hard to see that they were left with any other choice. The other exception was the Federation of Ethnic Communities Council of Australia, but their reluctance was very clear. In the hearing FECCA representatives outlined the conflict that the bill presented when FECCA's Senior Deputy Chair, Athena Karanastasis, said:

We have found ourselves between a rock and a hard place given the current situation. On principle FECCA would not wish to see increased advertising on SBS; however, we are concerned that if this bill does not pass it could mean cuts to programs, to services and to opportunities to invest in additional initiatives that we believe could benefit our multicultural and multilingual Australian community.

This is hardly what you would call a glowing endorsement.

Labor will never support a bill that allows the government to break its promise that there will be no cuts to the SBS. For that reason we will not be supporting this bill.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I comment on the Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising Flexibility and Other Measures) Bill 2015, can I draw to the attention of the chamber the fact that, despite what has been said by those opposite and by those at the other end of the chamber, the changes this bill proposes are very small. They have come about not because the government have thought that this is a fabulous idea which is going to be the most wonderful thing for the Australian public, for viewers of SBS and for the media but because we inherited the most extraordinary budget position and we were forced into a situation where we had to find savings across the board. Mr Deputy President Seselja, you would know that nobody, no agency, no program, nothing was left unscrutinised for opportunities to find additional funding to fix up what was the most extraordinary budget disaster, a disaster we inherited in September 2013. Getting that onto the record puts into context the fact that we even need to be here today discussing this bill.

You would think from listening to those opposite and to those at the other end of the chamber that somehow we had made some extraordinarily huge change which is going to end up seeing a massive amount of additional advertising on SBS. The simple facts are that in a 24-hour period there is no capacity whatsoever for SBS to increase the total amount of advertising they put to air. At the moment they are required to have only five minutes per hour. Should this legislation pass the chamber today, SBS will still be able to advertise for only 120 minutes in any 24-hour period, which adds up to five minutes per hour. So the scenario been painted on the other side that somehow we are going to end up with a completely and utterly bogged down and over-advertised SBS is just a load of baloney and it should be called out for exactly what it is. The bill is simply seeking to give some level of flexibility to SBS to be able to make advertising placements at a time when they have more capacity to generate revenue.

The other thing we also need to remember is that SBS is already a hybrid model, by which I mean a model which includes both taxpayer or state-supported funding and a level of commercial advertising. It is not a pure model like the ABC, which has no advertising, and, on the other hand, it is not purely a commercial model like the commercial stations, which have to generate their entire revenue through commercial means. You may think the SBS hybrid model sounds interesting and unique. It is not interesting or unique in any way, shape or form. The majority of multicultural broadcasters, particularly government-funded broadcasters, around the world have some level of commercialisation. The ABC is probably the more unique of them because it does not have any commercial aspect to its funding model. If you look around the world at some of the countries to which we consider ourselves aligned—for instance, Canada is a very good example of where they use hybrid models for their national broadcaster—we can see that the information being spun by those who oppose this bill is factually inaccurate. And as I said, the fact that we have to be here in the first place because of the budget situation makes it even more hypocritical that they will not allow us to pass this minor amendment to give the SBS the flexibility they seek to generate a little additional income, so that they can take some pressure off what is already very much a budget under pressure.

Also discussed, the efficiency studies undertaken by Lewis when we came to government were to establish how we could ensure that both of our national broadcasters are as efficient as possible. The review undertaken by Mr Lewis was very clear that there are a number of things the ABC could do back of house to enable them to achieve some savings to go to the bottom line of the government's budget without any need to attack programming or content. A similar undertaking occurred with SBS. It must be stated that the findings of the Lewis report acknowledged that the SBS is quite an efficient organisation. Certainly some areas identified where efficiencies could be made, but it was very clear that the SBS would have more difficulty in achieving the kinds of savings that we were hoping for simply by addressing back-of-house inefficiencies in the way Mr Lewis, the independent assessor, believed the ABC could. The Lewis review made an independent recommendation that by allowing the SBS to change the placement of a very much capped amount of advertising in a 24-hour period they may be able to generate a small amount of additional income to assist in making their contribution to the bottom line of the budget problem we inherited when we came into government

The placement opportunity comes about because, for those of you who are watchers of the SBS—I certainly am at occasions and there is nothing we enjoy more than watching the Tour de France or the World Cup—there is an opportunity for SBS to maximise revenue when they broadcast programs on their station which will attract a very large audience, ones which advertisers would seek to be promoting during those programs.

We have to remember that, because of the SBS charter, they have to do quite a lot of programming which would not necessarily be attractive to an advertiser. A lot of the content is culturally very specific and, while it appeals to a very important part of our Australian community, it probably is not a community that is necessarily going to attract high-paying advertisers. We need to recognise that we often make SBS, by virtue of their charter, run programs to which they cannot attract advertising. If you are suggesting that there absolutely must only be five minutes of advertising per hour for every hour instead of only an average of five minutes over a 24-hour period, you are being very, very restrictive of the capacity of the SBS to be flexible in generating the maximum amount of revenue it can within the constraints of its charter.

There are a couple of things that I think everybody would immediately associate with SBS, such as the Tour de France and the World Cup. During these broadcasts, obviously a lot of advertisers would be keen to participate in that space. Similarly, with multicultural cooking shows there may be opportunities for the SBS to target a little more advertising in a particular hour simply because they have advertisers that will be happy to spend the money. However, the comments by those opposite, about the capacity for this minor amendment bill to somehow prevent the SBS from being able to deliver their charter because they will have such extraordinary commercial imperatives put on them, also need some further discussion because that simply is not true. The SBS, since they were first allowed to have some commercialisation through advertising a number of years ago, seem to have managed the balance of achieving some sort of commercial outcome through advertising without ever jeopardising or compromising their charter. I sat through the debate during the committee hearings into the bill and I listened to the witnesses, and nobody—but nobody—was able to provide us with any clear evidence as to how or why the charter would be compromised by a change from a situation where only five minutes of advertising an hour, and only 120 minutes a day, was permitted to a situation where only 120 minutes a day was permitted but up to 10 minutes in any hour, where, in the process, advertising time in another hour was forgone. To suggest that that kind of minor change will cause this extraordinary situation for SBS where they will not be able to meet their charter strikes me as possibly some scaremongering for the sake of politics rather than any clear or defined reason or evidence to suggest that that will happen.

During the inquiry, there was a huge amount of discussion of the figures that were put forward by the SBS concerning the additional revenues that they believe they would be able to achieve over the forthcoming years through a change of this nature in comparison to the numbers put forward by the free-to-air television network agency, Free TV. Whenever anybody puts forward a proposal, an argument or an advocacy document in support of their argument, of course they are going to skew it as much as they possibly can in the direction that most supports their argument, but the disparity between the SBS and Free TV was so massive that it really warrants some comment. The first thing I would say is that SBS are obviously going to be in the best possible position to understand the impact that a change will have on the bottom line of their commercial advertising revenue. As we quite rightly accept, the SBS have a charter that requires them to achieve an amazingly different set of outcomes than a commercial television network would be required to achieve. Obviously, SBS are in possession of the facts that will tell them what additional hours and numbers they are able to achieve. They will know what their fill rates are at certain times of the day and night. They will know what their fill rates are when it comes to particular types of programming. So one would suggest that there is no reason why the SBS would not be in the best position to provide information that is as close to accurate as possible. It was difficult for us to get to the very bottom of exactly what the figures were because this kind of commercial information is something that neither the free-to-air television networks nor the SBS are likely to put on the public record—because, of course, that would be detrimental to them in the longer term. But, even if we accepted that the figure was somewhere in the middle between what Free TV was saying and what SBS were saying, we are still talking about something of the magnitude of 0.1, 0.2 or 0.3 per cent of overall television advertising revenue.

We seem to be arguing in this chamber today about something that will have a major impact for SBS and will allow them to make a contribution to the bottom line of the budget dilemma that we face but, in the process, probably have very, very little impact on broader advertising revenue. If we suggested that additional commercial advertising revenue of $28.5 million over the forward estimates, which SBS project that they are likely to be able to earn, will somehow be of such significance that it will have a huge effect on the free-to-air commercial advertising market, I think we would be kidding ourselves. There are a lot of things that are changing in the television space at the moment, as you would be well aware, Mr Acting Deputy President. The change in the digital marketplace at the moment is putting such extraordinary pressure on free-to-air television. In only the last few weeks, Netflix has come into Australia, and we have Foxtel and the like and online streaming. There are such a myriad of things challenging this space and the advertising dollar that commercial television networks are able to access that it would seem a little like crying poor and crying foul to suggest that not allowing a possible 0.1, 0.2 or 0.3 per cent change would be a silver bullet or panacea to deal with the issues currently facing the free-to-air networks. I think that is probably stretching the issue a little too far.

In summary, the committee acknowledged that SBS play an extraordinarily important and pivotal role in building social cohesion in Australia. There is no doubt that they serve a very diverse group of communities which all of us, as members of this place, have a responsibility to make sure that we also serve. They provide information, education and entertainment across a myriad of platforms, a myriad of cultures and a myriad of requirements.

The committee also considered the evidence, and it was quite clear that there was no evidence whatsoever to suggest that a move of the sort that has been proposed by this piece of legislation would in any way representative a move to establish SBS as a fourth fully commercial television channel. There was no evidence to that effect, and anybody who comes into this place and tries to convince this place and those listening that that is the case has not read the evidence that has been put before us. It is clear that the bill proposes to introduce flexibility to the SBS; there is no question about that. But it is not in any way suggesting that we are changing the status of the SBS or doing anything that would be considered internationally as an unusual model for this type of broadcaster.

Similarly, the committee does not consider that the proposed amendments are in any way a threat to the SBS's charter. As I have said in my contribution up to this point, the SBS has been providing a charter obligation within a hybrid model for a number of years. I do not think anybody in this place has ever questioned up until now their capacity to deliver on that charter without compromise. So I do not think there is any evidence to suggest that this minor amendment is going to make any difference to that. None of the evidence that I was listening to was such, and I sat through the entire inquiry listening to every word that every witness said and I read every submission. So I do not think there was any such evidence. There were plenty who were prepared to suggest that it was going to happen, but I did not see any evidence to support the allegations that were being made.

In addition, the committee notes the SBS board will also be required to come up with a set of reporting and governance requirements regarding the placement of advertising. So, once again, there is a requirement for the SBS to be transparent in the delivery of any changes that may transpire if this legislation should be passed in this place, and there are safeguards that have been put in place to ensure that nothing is going to occur that would be able to be swept under the carpet and not be seen. The legislation requires transparency, and transparency invariably gives the opportunity for somebody who see something that is untoward to say something. So I think the safeguards have been very well thought through and they are very evident.

The fact that this is such a small component of the overall television advertising budget that we are suggesting may be changed I think is something that needs to be considered. We have an obligation in this place to ensure that we return this budget to surplus and, hopefully, one day in the future, start addressing some of the extraordinary level of debt that we have inherited. To suggest that any organisation within the control, the power or the budgets of this particular government should not have to share in some of the contribution to fixing up the budget deficit and bottom line is just an outrage. This is made all the more disappointing because it was not us, as a coalition government, that caused the problem in the first place. We are merely seeking to remedy the problems that we inherited from those opposite, who sit here today and refuse to allow us to make the changes that we need in our budget so that we can get this country back onto a trajectory of profitability and so that we do not make our children—your children, Mr Acting Deputy President and my children—inherit a debt because of the largesse and overspending of our generation. I do not think I want that on my conscience. I find it very hard to believe that those on the other side would want it on their consciences either.

Another comment that was very clear in this debate was about fill rates. There is a lack of acknowledgement within this space that the SBS has a lot of difficulty with its fill rates for many of the programs that it is required to put to air. I am wholeheartedly in support of recommending that the Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising Flexibility and Other Measures) Bill 2015 be passed. I am supportive of that because I believe that we have an obligation in this place to make sure that we have the most efficient and effective organisations that we possibly can. I acknowledge the work that the SBS has done to make sure that their back-of-house operations are as efficient as possible. But, in doing so, I also acknowledge that the capacity for SBS to make the changes and the budget savings was more difficult and, therefore, this bill is essential.

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

We will not forget the night before the election. Tony Abbott stared down the barrel of the SBS camera and he said there would be no cuts to the ABC and SBS. We know now that that was a complete lie because this bill, the Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising Flexibility and Other Measures) Bill 2015, would not be before us today if it were not for the fact of Tony Abbott breaking his promise. It is a cut, plain and simple. He promised not to cut the funding of our public broadcasters, both ABC and SBS, and he lied. Now he is trying to make SBS viewers pay that price.

This bill is really about creating a fourth commercial channel by stealth. The 2014 budget included cuts to SBS of some $53.7 million. This bill seeks to make up for $28.5 million of those cuts. That is around at least half of the cuts that this government has made to SBS. It was a $53.7 million cut from a Prime Minister who, at the election, said there would be no cuts.

So that is where we find ourselves now in this place: having to debate a bill which should never have come to this parliament in the first place. Whether this bill passes or not, there can be no dispute that the government has broken its promise of no cuts to SBS. During the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee inquiry into the provisions of the Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising Flexibility and Other Measures) Bill 2015 that we are now debating, the evidence presented raised several critical issues in the provisions of this bill. In its own submission to the inquiry, SBS itself admitted that the subject of this bill equates to a budget cut at the hands of the Abbott government. I want to show exactly where that is clearly on display, so I will quote from SBS's submission:

As a result of the Lewis Efficiency Study, Minister Turnbull announced further cuts to SBS’s funding in November 2014. Of the cuts, $25.2 million was based on back office efficiencies that SBS was already working towards. A further $28.5 million was predicated on successful legislative amendment to the SBS Act, which would provide SBS with additional advertising and sponsorship flexibility and allow SBS to deliver this portion of the funding cut via a modest annual revenue increase.

So, SBS's own submission into this particular bill through that Senate inquiry shows very clearly how they have articulated what has been hoisted upon them, and that is a huge cut to their budget.

This bill is very much an attempt by the government to make the parliament complicit in breaking a clear promise by the Prime Minister to the Australian people that there would be no cuts to SBS. Those of us on this side of the chamber, the opposition, will not be complicit in the Prime Minister's breaking his election promise. If those government senators want to be complicit in that then I am sure you will vote for this bill. But you need to remind yourselves, as much as you do your leader, Prime Minister Tony Abbott, what this will actually mean to you, to your electorates and to you as a government as you go back to the people if this bill is passed and tell them: 'Sorry; we broke yet another election commitment. No, it wasn't ABC this time; this time it was SBS.' In doing so, all you have done is create a fourth commercial channel by stealth.

There is significant disagreement between unreleased government SBS modelling that predicts a return to SBS of $28.5 million should this bill pass and free-TV modelling that predicts a return of $148 million over four years. But the bottom line with all this is that SBS viewers should not have to watch more ads during their favourite shows to make up for Tony Abbott's lies. Why should the viewers, the electorate, suffer because the Prime Minister could not keep his word, could not keep his promise to the Australian people? SBS has an important role in our multicultural Australian society. It provides an outlet for multicultural programming, news and content that showcases Australia's ethnic diversity. So we need to be careful not to turn our SBS into just another commercial broadcaster. SBS needs to be driven by a purpose much more important than profit.

I understand that the committee also heard that the bill would mean that advertising on SBS during prime time could equal or exceed that allowed on commercial networks. So, not only is this creating a fourth commercial channel by stealth but it means that advertising could actually exceed the amount that is currently on our current commercial channels—all to make up this shortfall of $53.7 million that has been slapped on SBS by a government, by a Prime Minister who broke his promise after the election. I understand that on top of that free TV throughout that committee process testified that the passage of the bill represented a threat to commercial broadcasters themselves. So, even they are worried about their revenues and their bottom lines. Not only is this a threat to SBS, to its viewers, to the electorate, but it is actually also a threat to existing commercial channels.

If the Prime Minister had kept his word, if he had kept his promise of no cuts to the ABC and no cuts to the SBS—which he said as he looked down the barrel of that SBS camera—then we would not be in this position of having to now see SBS being turned into just another commercial channel. It is a cut, plain and simple. Tony Abbott broke his promise to cut the funding of our public broadcasters, ABC and SBS. In doing so he lied, and now he is trying to make SBS viewers pay the price.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, a point of order: that is the second or third time Senator Singh has imputed that the Prime Minister has lied. I believe that that language is unparliamentary. I think Senator Singh should realise that, given her experience and my relative inexperience.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for the point of order. I will just advise all senators to be cautious in their remarks about members from the other place.

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

It is plain and simple. However you want to gild the lily, Senator Canavan, it is a lie, it is a broken promise. That is what your leader has done. You have the opportunity, though, to not support it. So, why don't you do the right thing and actually not support this broken promise? Maybe then you will be able to go back to your electorates and hold your heads up high. At this point in time, all you can do is go back to your electorates and say that it has been a broken promise by this government—no cuts to the ABC and SBS. That is exactly all you have done: cut our public broadcasters to a very deep degree, to the point that SBS is turning into a commercial broadcaster. Those of us on this side of the chamber will always stand by our public broadcasters for the greater good of this country, for the telling of Australian stories, including multicultural stories. And that means that these cuts should not happen. We will not turn SBS into a commercial channel by stealth.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the Labor Party have a lot of difficulty with the English language. They are calling this 'cuts'—it is actually an increase in revenue. It is no surprise because, in their budgets, they used to call tax increases 'saves'. Do you remember that? Tax increases were savings according to them. They have a problem with the English language. (Time expired)