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

The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017 is an important bill relating to broadcasting and communication reform. As other speakers have mentioned, the key elements of this package are the abolition of broadcasting licence fees, introduction of a price for use of spectrum, protecting children by banning gambling advertising during sports broadcasts, amendments to anti-siphoning, and a broad-ranging, comprehensive review of Australian and children's content. But the element of the reform that I want to initially concentrate on, before getting back to the broader parts of the bill, is the part of the bill which provides a $30 million funding package for subscription television to support the broadcasting of women's and niche sports.

As Australians, we have a wide range of views on what sports we want to watch on television; however, many of the sports that occupy a central place in the Australian sporting landscape and enjoy high levels of participation across the community struggle to secure any consistent broadcast coverage. Coverage is increasingly important for sporting organisations, and the absence of broadcast and other media revenue constrains the ability of these organisations to develop and grow their sport. That is why the government, as part of this package, is providing some $30 million over four years to go to Fox Sports to broadcast sports that don't usually attract the free-to-air channels, or other interests at times, to help promote the sport and provide coverage for people particularly interested in those sports.

I am particularly interested in this part of the package to ensure that women's sports, in all of its glory and in all of its breadth, is able to get proper coverage on the television channels. I particularly mention the Townsville Fire, which is the only Woman's National Basketball League team outside of the southern capitals and the near-Melbourne area. I will repeat that. The Women's National Basketball League comprises seven or eight teams. Several of them are around Melbourne, others are in the major capital cities, and there is only one team in the competition in Queensland. That is a team based in Townsville, and it's called Townsville Fire. It's the only team in the whole of northern Australia that is part of the Women's National Basketball League. But it seems that television broadcast arrangements have been made between Basketball Australia and Fox Sports that do not reflect Fire's position in the competition. For those in this chamber who follow women's basketball, they'll know that Townsville Fire have been the most successful team in the Women's National Basketball League.

Apparently, the agreement between Basketball Australia and Fox Sports has each of the other seven teams in the competition having two home games televised live during the season. So there are eight teams and seven of them in the southern capitals have their two home games broadcast on television by arrangement between Basketball Australia and Fox Sports. But the most successful team—the one that is best supported and has the best audience participation in the whole competition—Townsville Fire, has no home games broadcast on Fox Sports. I will repeat that for those who might be listening: eight teams in the competition, seven in the southern capitals, and each of the seven in the southern capitals have two home games broadcast during a season, but the most successful team—the one that's won the competition more often than not; the one that has magnificent community support and great audience participation—gets not two home games broadcast but zero home games broadcast. How could that be fair? It is an indictment of Basketball Australia and Fox TV that this has happened today. I am told by the management of Townsville Fire that the reason given by Fox Sports is that the cost of broadcasting a professional event in Townsville would be something in the order of $50,000 more than doing it in the southern capitals. As a commercial operation, I guess Fox Sports are not prepared to spend that money. I understand $50,000 is not the total cost, but it would cost $50,000 more to broadcast it in Townsville, according to Fox Sports, than the production of such a broadcast in the southern capitals.

It seems to me that the money being provided for niche and women's and unrepresented sports in this package of measures is what this is all about—for example, the $50,000 extra that Fox Sports say is needed to produce coverage of the two home games in Townsville. They are not prepared to do it, but this $30 million seems to me ideal for that purpose, and that seems to me to be what this package is all about. I have written to the minister on behalf of Townsville Fire to make these arguments not all that long ago; I have to say I haven't heard back from the minister yet. But this would be a great way to spend that $30 million. It is what it is all about in principle, and it is very important for women's sports generally, and for the code, to have the best team, the most popular team, the best community-supported team receive this sort of coverage on national TV through Fox Sports.

Fox Sports do a great job, but they are a commercial organisation, they are there to make money, and if they don't see the production costs as helping their overall bottom-line budget, I can understand why they have not proceeded with these broadcasts up until now. But this new package of measures is one that I would certainly hope that Fox Sports can avail themselves of, and I hope that there will then be fair and appropriate coverage for the Women's National Basketball League.

Providing funding to Fox Sports to televise two Townsville Fire home games would meet the government's underlying commitment to promote women in sport, and it would also promote another part of the government's program—that is, its vision for northern Australia. To me as a person representing some of the more remote parts of Australia and particularly northern Australia, it seems that this is typical of what happens across the board. The southern capitals, Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and I think Perth, have these basketball teams—not very good teams, by the standard of the Townsville Fire—and they get this coverage on Fox Sports. But the best team—the one that has won, I think, seven out of the last eight games—is not broadcast. That just doesn't seem to me to be sensible in promoting women's basketball.

Can you imagine what would happen, Madam Acting Deputy President, if television stations around Australia didn't publish the grand final of the National Rugby League because the winning team happened to come from Townsville, as it may well do again this year? Of course, there would be outrage. But, because women's basketball doesn't have quite the same pull or influence as the National Rugby League, it seems that the best team—the team that wins more often than not—is not getting appropriate support from the television stations. As I say, that is what this package of reforms is all about. I think it's important for women's sport generally, and for women's basketball in particular, that all of the teams in the competition be treated equally. That is one of the reasons I'm particularly pleased to support this overall package of media reforms.

Moving onto the wider issues involved, the Turnbull government has proposed this landmark reform to protect children from gambling advertising, to modernise and assist the broadcasting sector and to recognise changing consumer viewing patterns for high-quality Australian content. These reforms, put forward by the Turnbull government and the communications minister Senator Fifield, demonstrate that the government is listening to community concerns on things like gambling advertising and that the government is determined to act to protect children, whilst at the same time fostering a vibrant, competitive and sustainable media industry. The reforms that the government is proposing enjoy fairly unanimous support from the Australian media industry itself.

We all know that free-to-air broadcasters play an important role in providing access to high-quality Australian content such as sporting events, current affairs, drama and children's programs, and they provide them to all Australians. However, they are operating in an increasingly competitive and challenging environment due to the entry of online service providers. Audiences now have viewing opportunities across more platforms than ever before. Audiences are increasingly fragmented, and advertising revenue for commercial broadcasting is falling as competition in the sector increases. That's a good thing. Competition is good. It's what our government is built upon; it's in our DNA. But it's important that, where there is competition, it's competition on an even playing field. Our broadcast and content reform package will modernise regulation and help position the sector to deal with these existing and future challenges more effectively.

This particular program of media reforms is just another part of the very significant work that the Turnbull government is doing. As I often say, I've been around this parliament for a long time now. I've seen a lot of governments come and go. Can I say that the Turnbull government—and this package is an example of it—is doing a wonderful job. It is a very good government. I say that perhaps in a partisan way, but I say it also in a very non-partisan way. This is a government that is actually doing things. Unfortunately, the Australian public doesn't get to hear about that. All the Australian public hears about at the moment is same-sex marriage, climate change, migrants who illegally enter the country, claiming they're being badly done by, or all of the many left-wing commentators simply criticising the Turnbull government. But, if you were to look beyond the commentators and what some of the popular press are dealing with, you would find that this is a government that is doing many good things right across the board.

One of the areas in this media package reform where I don't think the government has gone far enough is in doing something about the ABC, or, as I now call it, the Ultimo Broadcasting Corporation. It used to be called the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, but clearly it's no longer a corporation that deals with facts. It deals mainly with the opinions of those who are running the show in Ultimo. I have to make a qualification here. I find regional radio and regional ABC very balanced. They don't always agree with me—they rarely do—but they are balanced. Similarly, in this building, the ABC in the parliamentary press gallery is reasonably balanced. But if you go down to Ultimo in Sydney, where all the power and money congregate, where all of the decisions are made and where all of the current affairs programs happen, you find that it's not the ABC anymore; it's the UBC. You can read that either as the Ultimo Broadcasting Corporation or the Union Broadcasting Corporation.

On rare occasions I listen to the 'UBC'. I do that in the mornings when I ride my bike, because my earphones are locked onto the ABC and I don't know how to change them. So I do hear the ABC every now and again. I heard the ABC the other morning when I was riding about. In a half-hour program we had three items favourable to the ABC, with ABC spokesmen on it, and then we had an eight-minute address by Mr Bill Shorten telling everyone about his new tax proposal on trusts. In that half hour and the half hour that followed there was not one balancing comment to any of that. Just as recently as this morning, when I was again riding my bike around, in the half hour I was on my bike we had a story from migrants saying they weren't getting enough money out of the Australian government. These were people who had illegally entered Australia. We had the normal same-sex marriage argument, which was not even balanced; it's always just one side. We had the usual climate change report by the ABC, and then we had a so-called independent commentator making some commentary on the political situation. The independent commentators are always either an ABC commentator or one from the Fairfax group; there is never any serious political commentator. So, by any standards, the UBC—that is, the Ultimo Broadcasting Corporation—is unbalanced.

When the ABC was set up it was an organisation that was there to report facts. It was there not to report the opinions of individual journalists but to report facts. That way, the facts having been reported, the people of Australia could then make up their minds on what life was about, what the issues were, how things should happen. But you will find these days that the ABC is continually about the promotion of individual views of single people. I just get very envious. I'm elected by a couple of million Queenslanders. I would love to have the opportunity of giving my views on every subject, as some of these ABC reporters do out of Ultimo every day of the week. They are elected by no-one. But they do try and succeed—credit where it's due; they have been very successful on a number of major issues—in the way that they can mould Australian opinion, because, very often, in many parts of the country, they are the only ones that have sway in the national footprint. So, while this is a great package of measures, I do think it needs to go further in relation to our national broadcaster. The ABC needs to be brought back to its charter. That's not going to happen with this bill, but I do commend the bill and congratulate the minister on the great work he's doing on media reform.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australian Conservatives broadly support the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017 and Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017 and will support their second reading. The caveat is we don't know how they are going to be modified by the crossbench during the committee phase. Ultimately we want to make sure that these bills act as a mechanism to enhance our broadcasting mediums and to ensure they are sustainable and viable going into the future, rather than subsidised basket cases, as some would seek them to be.

But, of course, Senator Macdonald has talked about the elephant in the room. The great disruptor in the space of broadcasting in this country is the government funded broadcasters, the ABC and SBS. They are the gorilla and the elephant in the room, if I can say that. They get well over $1 billion. There is no financial accountability for it. There is no ratings ability for it. They are a law, effectively, unto themselves. That's why the Australian Conservatives believe they need significant reform. They are not only disrupting the viability of commercial operations. We see it in the case in point that Fairfax is laying off journalists, yet, principally, the same editorial line that has been taken by the ABC is being run, and ABC continues to receive more and more money. The ABC does fulfil a very important role in sections of Australia. I'm a supporter of the ABC. I recognise it has some very talented and capable people. It is just too big. But it is important to many, particularly in regional and rural areas of Australia, where there is sometimes a breakdown in the market economy and market forces. But, if you are serious about reform in this space, in broadcasting reform, you have to address the ABC and SBS.

The Australian Conservatives have some very clear and considered policies in this space. Firstly, we would merge the ABC and SBS into a single consolidated broadcaster. We would reduce the joint budget to save the taxpayers around $1 billion every year, which should be directed to the intergenerational debt that has been accrued by successive governments. We would give the consolidated broadcaster a greater rural and regional focus, which is where the market breakdown is happening. It is where people don't often have access to very fast broadband internet to access online services or streaming services and where they, sometimes, don't have all of the commercial networks available to them. We would ensure that the consolidated broadcaster is truly impartial and unbiased, and presents a diversity of views. I think there is little challenge to the fact that the ABC and SBS are cheerleaders in a space. Most notably, Managing Director Michelle Guthrie had to send out a memo warning her journalists and editorial staff not to be cheerleaders in the marriage debate. I understand they may feel strongly about that, but, as a taxpayer funded entity, they shouldn't be cheerleaders. They should present the facts impartially.

We also believe that, because of the sheer size of it, if you want to save some money, does ABC and SBS need eight television stations between them? I think the simple answer to that is 'no'. I think they could easily provide two television stations that would adequately serve the Australian community. There should be an additional focus on local content, and that should cover news and current affairs, and drama and entertainment. There seem to be some sacred cows in this space. We saw the ABC and SBS both bidding for the World Cup soccer rights. It cost an additional $700,000 or $800,000 because two taxpayer funded entities were bidding against each other. That's just foolish. It has squandered hundreds of thousands of dollars, and you wonder why. I could say the same about ABC Radio stations. There are myriad stations around the country. They have a national reach, but let's just say there are five stations that have a national presence. My question is: why? What's the purpose of that? I was asked on ABC Radio whether I supported K-pop being on the radio. That's Korean pop music. I don't think we need a Korean pop show on the ABC broadcaster. You could easily cut that and people could watch it on Channel Ten on a Sunday morning, which I have done on occasion.

We want to also see the ABC limited in its provision in the online services as there is a migration out of print onto the online services. The ABC has never been in the print media, except for its commercial operations. It's never been in the commercial printing industry, so why should it be encroaching into what are the newspapers of 21st century? If it wants to compete in that space, it shouldn't cannibalise the existing markets. Let it compete on commercial terms and let it charge for the content that it's generating in that space. But I don't advocate that necessarily. I'm saying it should be limited. A merged broadcaster should have two television stations and two national radio networks. That is adequate. It will support diversity in our media landscape and the profitability and viability of existing operators.

Sitting suspended from 18 : 30 to 19 : 30

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

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

The question is that the debate be now adjourned.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That resumption of the debate be made an order of the day the next sitting day.

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

The question is that the motion moved by the minister be agreed to. Senator Wong, if you wish to speak to this motion, you can.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do wish to speak to this debatable motion. I wish to make this point: generally, an opposition does accept the government's right to rearrange its business, but, seriously, look at the mess. At 6.32, two minutes after the dinner break, we find out that the debate on the media laws has been deferred yet again, side-lined yet again. This is a bill that has been debated in one form or another for some 18 months, and it has never in this place been put to a vote—not once. This is Monday, so the government should know what it can do. This was fifth, behind four pieces of non-controversial legislation, yet the government has got to it and wants to filibuster. Before Senator Xenophon leaves the chamber, I would say this to the crossbench: if you need more time to do a deal, we understand that, but could you be up-front, rather than having the government filibuster and rearranging business again? If you're going to agree to another all-night sitting to get a deal done in the last minutes of this session, perhaps you could let us all know that. This bill has been pushed off, with a short period of notice, so that we can bring something else on and the minister, who's been unable to get the numbers on this debate, can have a few more hours to cut a deal that he's been trying to cut since March last year.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Come and join us! Come and support the bill!

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let's remember: this minister brought this bill, or a substantially similar bill, in in March 2016. Guess how many times that bill has been listed for debate? That bill has been listed for debate on no less than 10 occasions—and there's still no vote. They couldn't get the numbers on it and couldn't get a deal. So he then went away and put substantially the same content into a new bill, called the broadcasting reform bill—the core of which, in terms of media ownership, is substantially the same—and added a couple of new measures. On how many occasions has that bill been listed for debate in the House or the Senate? On no less than 10 occasions also. This is the Manager of Government Business in the Senate. That is how he's running his legislative agenda.

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

I could give a speech, and I'm sure we could all have a discussion about media reform, but Labor has made its position very clear. What I am saying is that this government is unable to manage its program. At 6.32 pm we had another change in the program for a bill that, as I said, has been before the House or the Senate and debated 10 times—and, before that, the preceding bill, with substantially the same content, was also debated some 10 times. So what happens? We get a filibuster. When they send Senator Macdonald in, you can always tell that the filibuster is on. He gets rolled out and there's a big neon sign: 'Senator Ian Macdonald is on his feet, so therefore the filibuster is on.' But now they've decided that even that is too embarrassing. They didn't want to get further into the second reading debate and decided that, after the dinner break, they'd rock up and rearrange the order of business, because they haven't got the numbers.

This is no way to run the Senate. I say to the Manager of Government Business in the Senate that, if he comes in here tomorrow or Wednesday—

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Senator Macdonald, you're not in your seat, so I'm raising a point of order about you maybe wanting to get into your seat before you want to interrupt me again.

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

Order on my right and left! Direct your comments through me, Senator Wong. Continue, Senator Wong.

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Order, Senator Macdonald! Continue, Senator Wong.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, you are required to get him to sit in his seat if he is going to interject. I know you don't want to do it, Mr Acting Deputy President, but you are required to do that if he is going to interject.

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

Continue, Senator Wong. He's in his seat.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I'm glad he's now in his seat, so that we can at least—

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

'What've you got against women's basketball?'

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are so many things that I could respond with. It is so tempting, but I'm really not going to respond to Senator Macdonald, other than to say that, when Senator Fifield, the minister, has to resort to sending this backbencher out to filibuster, we all know there's a problem. The problem here is twofold. The first problem is that this minister seems to be unable to negotiate an agreement, and the second problem is that this is no way to run this chamber. If you come in here tomorrow or the day after demanding that we continue to sit until you've finally got a deal, it will really demonstrate the contempt with which the government and some other senators hold other senators in this place.

I would also make the point—and this is a substantive point—and place on record again that, if this government does a dirty deal with One Nation to attack the ABC, as the price of its media reform, this government will demonstrate that it has no shame. To use the public broadcaster that Australians all over this nation rely on, including in regional Australia, as a political football to cover up this minister's inability to negotiate a deal is not only incompetent; it is shameful. When the minister gets to his feet to respond to me, he should say: 'We rule out doing anything negative to the ABC and SBS. We rule out cutting their funding because we need Senator Hanson's vote on this media bill'—a media bill that he's clearly so attached to.

So, as I said at the outset, this is a fine mess—and it is a mess of the government's making. Ordinarily, the opposition would simply accede to the government's right to rearrange its business. But, given the number of times that this bill has been on and off and on and off and given the lack of notice on this occasion, we are not going to do so.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It doesn't look as though there are any other colleagues who wish to contribute to this debate, so I might close it with the will of my colleagues around this place, and I'm very pleased to do so. Usually, when it comes to procedural motions, I'm a stickler for focusing on the fact that it is purely a procedural motion, but, given the latitude of Senator Wong, I might speak a little more broadly than I usually do on procedural debates.

The first point to make is that Senator Wong spoke to the history of media reform legislation. She's quite right that we did introduce into the last parliament a package of legislation that sought to remove the two-out-of-three rule and the 75 per cent audience reach rule. There is an extremely good reason why we did not get to vote on that, and it's twofold. Let me tell you the first element of it: the Australian Labor Party referred that legislation to a Senate committee of many, many months duration. As all colleagues know, when something is before a committee of the Senate, this chamber is unable to touch it. What happened shortly thereafter was an election was called. We all know what happens to legislation that is on the books during a double-dissolution election.

Not surprisingly, because getting rid of 75 per cent audience reach and two-out-of-three was our policy, when we won the election we reintroduced the legislation. There are no prizes for guessing what happened next. The Australian Labor Party referred that legislation to a committee for many, many months. During the time that that legislation was before a committee of the Senate, talking to the media industry, I thought, 'Let's come forward with a proposal that not only has those two elements—getting rid of the 75 per cent audience reach and the two-out-of-three rule—but also has industry consensus on media reform.' And so the government set about coming up with a media reform package that benefited the entire media industry: print, radio and TV.

As you know, Mr Acting Deputy President Williams—particularly from your role representing people in regional New South Wales—regional media, like metropolitan media, is under great pressure because there is massive competition from online platforms and over-the-top platforms, which wasn't previously conceived at the time when radio, print and TV were essentially the only forms of media.

I'm very pleased, as colleagues on this side know, that we were able to reach agreement on a media reform package which is supported by Seven, Nine, Ten, WIN, Prime, Southern Cross Austereo, Fairfax, News Ltd, Free TV, Commercial Radio Australia, Foxtel and ASTRA, which is the subscription TV representative body. Now, for one, I thought it was a good thing that we had the entire Australian media industry on the one page. That is something that historically has not happened. I commend the leaders of Australia's media organisations who were able to look beyond their own legitimate organisational interests to the wider interests of Australian media.

We, on this side of the chamber and a number of crossbenchers, want to see strong Australian media voices. That is what our package is all about—strong Australian media voices. We have a number of elements to the package. Regional TV, in particular, is calling for the abolition of the 75 per cent audience reach rule. Commercial radio stations, which are small, medium and large, want to see licence fee reductions. Commercial TV, both metropolitan and regional, want to see licence fee reductions. We also want to free up some of the media ownership laws which were created in the 1980s before the internet existed. Australian media companies want the opportunity to configure themselves in ways that best support their viability. So that is what we're seeking to do, and Senator Wong is quite right: we are endeavouring to get in this place 50 per cent plus one. That's the way this place works and that's the way every political forum works. It's 50 per cent plus one. So that is our objective, which will secure the passage of this legislation. I want to pay credit to the crossbenchers, who have been very positive in their engagement. It is not for me to speak for individual Senate crossbenchers. They declare their own positions, and a number have done so, but I want to acknowledge that they have been prepared to positively engage.

The one group in this place which hasn't been prepared to positively engage is the Australian Labor Party. Ms Rowland from the other place, when interviewed by Kieran Gilbert on Sky News, answered a question of his. Kieran said to Ms Rowland, 'Why aren't you prepared to support this package? This is a package which has the support of Seven, Nine, Ten, WIN, Prime, Southern Cross Austereo, Fairfax, News Limited, Commercial Radio Australia, Free TV, Foxtel and Astra. Surely that says to you that this must be something that's in the interests of Australian news organisations.' Ms Rowland's response to Kieran Gilbert was, 'Australia's media organisations are only supporting this package because there's something in it for all of them.' Precisely. There is something in this for all of them. But, for the Australian Labor Party, that's a reason not to support something. Labor doesn't want to support a package that has the universal support of the industry, that will be to the benefit of strong Australian media voices and that will see journalists continue to be employed. None of us in this chamber necessarily likes what our friends in the media gallery will print, broadcast, write, blog or post. But, putting that aside, we all recognise that they, and their scrutiny, are one of the important underpinnings of a democracy, and we want to see good, strong Australian media organisations.

I can't help but touch briefly on Senator Wong's raising of the issue of the ABC. I can give all colleagues a guarantee that the government won't support anything that is to the detriment of the ABC. In fact, those things that we have reached agreement on with some crossbench colleagues are all intended to support and enhance the work that the ABC does. In particular, I want to point out some of the measures proposed by Senator McKenzie, which include a guarantee that there will always be two members of the ABC board from regional and rural Australia. Through the appointments that we have made to the ABC board, we've already done that without legislation, but we're very happy for that to be legislated. We're also very happy to put before this chamber that rural and regional matters be specifically recognised in the charter of the ABC. We think that's a good thing. We also think it's a good thing that there be constituted an ABC regional advisory committee, which would have to be consulted on any decisions that the ABC took that had a material effect on rural and regional Australia. We think that's a good thing.

We also think that it's a good and positive thing to include in the ABC Act the words 'fair' and 'balanced'. I know there were some who got quite excited by that, but let me provide reassurance to you. Chapter 4 of the ABC's own editorial guidelines, which talks about the existing legislative requirement to be impartial and accurate, state words to the effect that the ABC should be fair and balanced in its news and current affairs. It talks about balance in terms of the weight of evidence. So, if we don't have an issue with the current ABC editorial guidelines talking about being fair and balanced, we shouldn't have any issue with that being legislated.

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

How can you enforce it?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald says, 'How can you enforce it?' If it's in legislation, then it must be followed. If it's good enough to have it in the editorial guidelines of the ABC, it should be good enough to have it in legislation.

I still see a raised eyebrow, Mr Acting Deputy President, so let me try and provide further reassurance to you and colleagues. The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance Journalist Code of Ethics mentions fairness on no less than six occasions. So, if it's good enough for the MEAA and the Journalist Code of Ethics and good enough for the ABC's current editorial guidelines, it's good enough for me. I wanted to provide that reassurance that we are only endeavouring to do things to support the ABC.

Senator Wong also spoke of the management of the chamber. Yes, we do have a different approach to those opposite—and Senator Macdonald will correct me—it might have been something like 65 bills guillotined without any debate.

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

Actually, I've got it here.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's true. That's not something that you see here. I hope that contribution is helpful to colleagues' understanding. I look forward to the rest of the evening.

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

The question is that the motion moved by the Manager of Government Business to rearrange the order of business be agreed to.