Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The committee is considering the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017 and the Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017. The question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8261, moved by Senator Xenophon in respect of the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

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

I would firstly like to clarify that the Greens' amendments on sheet 8171 are being withdrawn. We have circulated amendments on sheets 8266 and 8265. I just wanted to make sure that people are aware of that.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Yes.

I would like to go to our first amendment, which is on sheet 8266. This amendment is about the most controversial aspect of this legislation—the two-out-of-three rule. We've heard much debate already today about this issue and whether it will indeed lead to a further concentration of media. On the other hand, there is the argument that this is perhaps needed in order to save those institutions that already exist from having to shed further staff and to give them more of an ability to underpin their business models.

I am particularly concerned about the scrapping of the two-out-of-three rule—and we know that, with the Nick Xenophon Team and One Nation, the government has support to remove this from the current statute books. The concern that I have is in relation to the newly acquired Channel 10. We know that there is currently a successful bid from CBS to buy Channel 10, but there is also a question mark over whether CBS will be allowed to follow through with that acquisition, because it is a foreign-owned company. We know from the tabling of documents in the New South Wales court over the last couple of days that this bid would do a lot more for securing jobs for journalists and local production staff at Channel 10 than the Murdoch-Gordon bid would ever have been able to achieve. I am concerned that, without some kind of commitment from the government that they will back the CBS acquisition, we are leaving Channel 10 staff in a state of limbo, unaware of what the future holds for them. I want to make sure that scrapping the two-out-of-three rule isn't going to be used as a fast-tracking for the government to override the purchase of Channel 10 by CBS through the Foreign Investment Review Board.

This Greens amendment would effectively say that the two-out-of-three rule cannot be scrapped until the government confirms that CBS can take over Channel 10, through the approval of the Treasurer and the Foreign Investment Review Board—that the removal of the two-out-of-three wouldn't be able to happen until confirmation of acquisition occurred. That is the effect of this amendment. However, I do have some questions for the minister on this. Minister, I'd like to know what the government's intention is in relation to CBS's acquisition of Channel 10. Will you confirm that you will allow it to go ahead?

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

FIRB matters are ones for the Treasurer. Can I indicate while I'm on my feet that the government will be opposing this amendment. The amendment would be ineffective as there is no approval action undertaken by the Treasurer under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act. To require the Treasurer to publish details of a decision taken under the act would result in him breaching the act's confidentiality provisions. As this is the purchase of a media business, it is a significant and notifiable action under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Regulation. When a foreign person undertakes a significant and notifiable action, the Treasurer has the ability to prohibit the action or to issue a no-objection notification imposing conditions on the acquisition or the Treasurer may decide the Commonwealth has no objection to the acquisition, in which case a no-objection notification is given. There is no approval under the act for a significant and notifiable action.

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

Could the minister please clarify whether there will be a no-objection notification given?

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

That is a matter solely for the Treasurer.

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

I'm asking the minister as a member of the government: does the minister understand that the government will not be moving for a notification that would effectively stop CBS from purchasing Channel 10? It's a pretty simple question. Does the government intend on stopping this or not?

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

This is not a government decision. This is a statutory decision for the Treasurer.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor understand the sentiment behind these Greens amendments, but we do not support it or the precedent it may set. We do agree it's a matter for the Treasurer. The situation with the Ten Network is complex and is currently before the Foreign Investment Review Board and the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Labor have been on the record as clearly supporting the CBS acquisition of Ten, subject to approval. We think it's a positive thing. In her comments, the shadow minister, Michelle Rowland, the member for Greenway, pointed out, I think very poignantly, that the transaction is a positive result for the staff of Ten and a vote of confidence in the network, which is indeed regarded as a prime broadcaster asset by many Australians and certainly by Leslie Moonves, the chairman and CEO of the CBS Corporation. We think that acquisition in this form is good news for the provision of news and current affairs. We think it actually demonstrates that diversification of news is possible and can be maintained in the current environment, contrary to the alarmist commentary of the government which has underpinned much of the contentious debate in the Senate.

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

I'm wondering whether the minister would be able to pick up the phone and call the Treasurer and ask whether he intends on issuing an objection notice or not? I don't understand what the problem is. You're asking us today to amend legislation to scrap the two-out-of-three rule. It is in direct relation to the purchase of Channel 10. Whether you want to admit that or not, everybody knows it. Pick up the phone and call the Treasurer and get us a response.

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

The answer to Senator Hanson-Young's request is no. It is a matter for the Treasurer to independently consider the facts.

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

by leave—In respect of the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017, I move Australian Greens amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 8266 together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit "Schedules 1 and 2", insert "Schedule 1".

(2) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 2), insert:

(3) Schedule 2, page 6 (line 14), at the end of the Schedule, add:

Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975

15A After section 77

Insert:

77A Approval of acquisition of Ten Network Holdings Limited

An approval by the Treasurer of the acquisition of Ten Network Holdings Limited is a notifiable instrument.

Note: A notified instrument must be registered on the Federal Register of Legislation.

These amendments will effectively ensure that the two-out-of-three rule cannot be scrapped until the government have confirmed that they will not interfere with CBS purchasing Channel 10.

Question negatived.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In respect of the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017, I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 8174:

  (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2, column headed "Provisions"), omit "Schedules 1 and 2", substitute "Schedule 1".

We also oppose schedule 2 in the following terms:

  (2) Schedule 2, page 5 (line 1) to page 6 (line 14), to be opposed.

I would like to speak on Labor's amendments to the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017. I have made some remarks earlier, but in the context of our amendments I want to put on the record that we believe the Turnbull government's response here is deeply flawed and wholly inadequate as an attempt at media reform. Labor's clear and consistent position has been that Labor supports this bill as long as schedule 2, which is the repeal of the two-out-of-three cross media rule, is omitted. If that had happened, we would have passed this legislation, this reform, months and months ago. But the government has been bloody-minded about this and pushed through with the deals that we saw under construction last night.

Labor absolutely acknowledges the commercial pressures the broadcasting sector is under and we understand that the regulatory framework for media and communications is outdated and in need of reform. That is why we supported most of the package, except for the two-out-of-three rule. But all the Liberal-National government has managed to come up in the name of media reform, after four years in office, are some piecemeal deregulatory measures, one of which is the highly controversial and dangerous repeal of the two-out-of-three rule. The bill barely begins to address the true media reform agenda and does precious little to secure public interest considerations in the contemporary media environment.

Labor is committed to supporting the Australian media industry, as well as the jobs and content it produces, as the sector continues to adapt to the new media environment. Labor acknowledges the competitive pressures the broadcasting industry is under, which is why Labor supports the measures the industry needs most—license fee relief, the repeal of the 75 per cent reach rule, and a relaxation of the antisiphoning scheme and list. Lots of it we've agreed with, except for the two-out-of-three rule. At the same time, Labor is committed to safeguarding the public interest in our democracy, and doesn't regard the internet or the existence of Google or Facebook as a justification for the junking of fundamental public interest safeguards.

Labor also acknowledges the facts around media ownership diversity in this country. To get it on the record at this stage of the debate, a couple of those facts are very important to us. Australia's level of media ownership concentration is already one of the highest in the world. This is an undeniable fact, regardless of what might have been said in the course of this debate. The traditional media—newspapers, commercial television and commercial radio—continue to be the main source of news and current affairs for Australians, particularly in regional areas. The majority of the top 10 news websites accessed by Australians are either directly or jointly owned by traditional media platforms. It's just the same voices on different platforms. The digital divide means that access to new media still remains out of reach for many Australians, given substandard levels of broadband connectivity. It is particularly the case for many Australians in rural and regional areas. We've had many debates about the accessibility of Australians right across this nation to what has been described as the multimedia platforms that can be delivered by the internet. The problem is a lot of people out there in the country can't afford to buy into the dodgy internet that's being provided for them by this government.

Our other serious concern is about issues of diversity of ownership and control. They matter to the Australian public. We get a better democracy if we have a range of voices reflecting on what's going on in this country. Fewer voices is not a sign of a strong and healthy democracy. We have such a concentrated media market as it is. An Essential poll last year showed that the majority of Australian voters, 61 per cent, across every single demographic disapproved of changing the media ownership laws to allow a single company to control a newspaper, TV network and radio network in the same area. It would have been good if the government listened to the people instead of listening to the conversations that they've had in the darkness here in the parliament—out of the light and the scrutiny of the Senate.

Unlike the coalition government, Labor understands that it's the proper role of government to promote media diversity in the public interest. Labor understands that the government does not have the balance between promotion of public interest and support for the industry right in this bill. For these reasons, Labor supports all of the measures in the bill except for the repeal of the two-out-of-three rule, which is ill-conceived, not justified on the evidence, and which risks undermining Australia's democracy.

As I said, the Turnbull government has been trying to get the repeal of the two-out-of-three rule through parliament for up to 18 months now, and they haven't been able to do so on merit. I made comments earlier in the day about the nature of the deals that have gone on here. Senator Dastyari, in the break just before question time, spelt them out in great and dirty detail. The dealings with the Nick Xenophon Team for public interest journalism have been conducted behind closed doors.

Australia already has one of the most concentrated media markets in the world, but we've got a government hell-bent on making it worse by repealing the two-out-of-three media control rule. The recent move by CBS to acquire Network Ten is very important in the context of this bill and the deals that have been agreed. The two-out-of-three rule is indeed a key safeguard that continues to do the heavy lifting in maintaining media diversity in Australia. The Turnbull government's argument, that the rule is out of date, is simply out of touch with the practical reality that's emerging with the CBS purchase of Channel 10.

What's more, the Turnbull government continues to peddle the furphy that existing competition law is actually adequate for the task performed by the very important two-out-of-three rule—that is despite their claims being debunked in previous reviews. The recent ACCC decision on the proposed Birketu-Illyria joint bid to acquire Network Ten confirms that our competition laws have no safeguard for diversity in this very important part of our democratic tradition. ACCC chair Rod Sims was at pains to clarify that, while the transaction would not substantially lessen competition—which is the test that the ACCC is required to use to assess acquisitions against—it would reduce diversity across the Australian media landscape. If this legislation passes this afternoon to repeal the two-out-of-three rule, the ACCC has shown that what will replace it is inadequate.

Unlike its counterpart across the ditch, the ACCC is not required to apply a public benefit test. It's not the job of the ACCC in Australia, an economic regulator, to consider pluralism or to consider democracy in assessing mergers. The New Zealand Commerce Commission recently did use that test in deciding against the proposed NZME-Fairfax merger. That's something that is not available to us as a safeguard against the removal of the two-out-of-three rule.

The reason the Turnbull government has so studiously avoided the convergence review recommendation to introduce a public interest test for media mergers is that they want to allow media mergers that aren't in the public interest. Instead, according to reports, they meddle in the fourth estate, behind closed doors, with the assistance of both the NXT political party and Pauline Hanson's One Nation party. The broadcasting reform bill, and the many backdoor deals associated with it, represents a direct assault on media diversity in Australia. Aside from handing unprecedented media power to a privileged few commercial operators, this cynical bundle of trade-offs is also set to undermine our national broadcaster.

Australians are outraged by the grant of $30 million to Fox Sports and the lack of documentation and accountability in relation to the deal. Under Labor questioning at estimates earlier this year, it was apparent that the government had no clear idea about what outcomes it sought to achieve with this proposal. Further, an FOI application by the ABC established there was no documentation around this empty bribe from the government to industry. You have to wonder what sort of a deal was done and where that might have been undertaken between Foxtel and the government. A freedom of information request filed by ABC Radio Melbourne's Mornings program, seeking correspondence between Foxtel and the Department of Communications and the Arts, was declined on the basis that no such documentation exists. In declining access, the legal director for the department stated the access was refused because: 'I am satisfied that documents falling within the scope of your request do not exist.'

So, while the Turnbull government falls over itself to support commercial subscription broadcasters, it looks to inflict cuts on the national broadcaster, rather than craft its media reforms properly and deal with the one sticky bit of the legislation that we needed to sort out, the two-out-of-three rule. I continue to remind those who might be listening to this or reviewing the Hansard, and those who are in the chamber, there was agreement on everything that we are discussing in this bill except for one part. That part was that no media outlet where you live should control the TV, the radio and the papers, because you deserve a wider range of views than that. That's simply it. That's a rule that's been in for decades, and it has provided that safety net to us as citizens of this country.

Rather than deal with that and acknowledge that, the government have been captive to interests that have led them down a path into doing a deal with Pauline Hanson's One Nation party. Australians right across this country are rightly concerned about this attack on the ABC and the SBS. They are right to be concerned that it has been driven by Pauline Hanson's One Nation party, whose deal, when it was delivered in writing here, ironically by Senator Bernardi yesterday evening, was something that they didn't even come in to support here in the chamber. As Senator Bernardi said, there were bits that we could see and there were bits that we couldn't see about the deal that was done.

Last week, Labor was presented with a petition from the Australia Institute and the ABC Friends signed by over 15,000 Australians that asked the coalition and the Senate crossbench to please reject all moves to trade away the ABC and SBS funding, not to tamper with their charters and independence or hobble their ability to engage in the new media environment. Recently, the Turnbull government welcomed what it called constructive engagement with One Nation, only too happy to support a package of measures that are directed at doing the exact opposite of what those people who enjoy the ABC and the SBS have asked for. The deal between the Turnbull government and Pauline Hanson's One Nation party includes something really insidious that probably won't get much media but is going to have a big impact—that is, the competitive neutrality inquiry. This sort of inquiry absolutely threatens to dramatically curb the activities of the ABC and SBS, as well as to re-write the ABC Act and charter to give One Nation some new hooks with which to meddle with ABC independence. These include a requirement that the ABC be fair and balanced, which Senator Burston confirmed was designed to give an equal platform to anti-vaxxers. The question you have to ask is: if we've got an equal platform for anti-vaxxers, what's next? White supremacists? Holocaust deniers? Climate change sceptics? There are some things that we should just not give a platform to. Furthermore, Senator Hanson herself stated recently in no uncertain terms that she would be talking to the Treasurer to 'whack off' quite a bit of money from the ABC's budget next year.

Labor condemns the Turnbull government for using the ABC and SBS as a political football, a trading tool and a bargaining chip in its backdoor deal with the One Nation party. The deal with Senator Xenophon was exercised in some detail earlier in our questions when his amendments came up. By supporting the repeal of the two-out-of-three rule, Senator Xenophon's NXT party for South Australia— (Time expired)

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

The Greens will be supporting this amendment of the opposition. We are extremely concerned that, given the lack of alternative options put forward by the government to ensure media diversity, to ensure that journalist jobs will continue to grow, to protect the jobs that are there, to ensure that there is proper investment and opportunity for public interest journalism—in the absence of anything of substance coming from the government in relation to that—we simply cannot support scrapping the two-out-of-three rule, because we believe that it will result in a concentration of the media, at a time when we need more diversity and we need more scrutiny on our governments, whether they be state, federal or local, more scrutiny on politicians. We need to be able to protect the role of public interest journalism here in Australia. We know that there are, of course, issues in relation to the changing nature of the media landscape. We know the pressures that are on media organisations to sustain themselves, but the government has come up with nothing to really deal with those issues aside from scrapping the two-out-of-three rule, which really helps the big guys but doesn't really help the little guys at all.

We've already been through some of the details today of what we know of the deal that has been done between Senator Xenophon, One Nation and the government in relation to the $60 million that has been secured to pass this bill. But we have heard that this won't go to jobs for journalists, won't go towards ensuring that independent smaller players across the board will be able to employ journalists so that they can do good public interest journalism. No. We have heard that it's going to go to some computers, iPads and phones, or maybe some junkets. There is no commitment to actually paying journalists to be journalists, no support for media organisations to ensure that they can be sustainable. It doesn't deal with the realities of the changing media landscape and the fact that business models of media organisations are under huge pressure and are going to have to change. It is a pipedream at best and a false hope at worst for media organisations across this country who are looking at what's going on in this place today. There's been a nice big deal handed on a platter to some of the largest media companies in the country, with the scrapping of the two-out-of-three rule, but there is nothing for small and medium players, which will mean less diversity. So, in the absence of proper investment in public interest journalism, in the absence of actual jobs for journalists, the Greens simply cannot support scrapping the two-out-of-three rule, and we support the opposition's amendments.

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

I just indicate that the government won't be supporting this amendment. The abolition of the two-out-of-three rule is an integral part of what is a comprehensive package. It's something that will provide the opportunity for Australian media organisations to reconfigure themselves in ways to best support their viability, and, as I've indicated in my earlier contributions, there remain important diversity protections.

The CHAIR: I will just advise senators that there are two questions, so they'll be put separately. The first one is that the amendment, as moved by Senator O'Neill, be agreed to.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that schedule 2 stand as printed.

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

by leave—In respect of the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017, I move Australian Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8265, as revised, together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 16), omit "Schedule 7", substitute "Schedules 7 and 8".

(2) Page 54 (after line 6), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 8—Tabling of public broadcasting reviews

Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983

1 After section 78

Insert:

78A Terms of reference of proposed reviews of the Corporation to be tabled and subject to disallowance

(1) If the Minister prepares terms of reference (however described) for a proposed review of the Corporation (the proposed review), the Minister must arrange for a copy of the terms of reference to be tabled in both Houses of Parliament at least 15 sitting days before the commencement of the proposed review.

(2) Sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Legislation Act 2003 apply in relation to the terms of reference as if those terms were a legislative instrument.

(3) The proposed review must not be conducted if:

(a) the terms of reference for the proposed review have not been tabled in accordance with this section; or

(b) the terms of reference for the proposed review have been tabled but have been disallowed.

78B Reports of reviews of the Corporation to be tabled

(1) If the Minister conducts a review of the Corporation, the Minister must arrange for a copy of the review to be tabled in both Houses of Parliament within 15 sitting days of the completion of the review.

(2) If the Minister, or another person or body, causes a review of the Corporation to be conducted:

(a) the Minister, person or body must arrange for a copy of the review to be provided to the Minister; and

(b) the Minister must arrange for a copy of the review to be tabled in both House of Parliament within 15 sitting days of receiving the copy of the review.

Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991

2 After section 73

Insert:

73A Terms of reference of proposed review of SBS to be tabled and subject to disallowance

(1) If the Minister prepares terms of reference (however described) for a proposed review of the SBS (the proposed review), the Minister must arrange for a copy of the terms of reference to be tabled in both Houses of Parliament at least 15 sitting days before the commencement of the proposed review.

(2) Sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Legislation Act 2003 apply in relation to the terms of reference as if those terms were a legislative instrument.

(3) The proposed review must not be conducted if:

(a) the terms of reference for the proposed review have not been tabled in accordance with this section; or

(b) the terms of reference for the proposed review have been tabled but have been disallowed.

73B Reports of reviews of the SBS to be tabled

(1) If the Minister conducts a review of the SBS, the Minister must arrange for a copy of the review to be tabled in both Houses of Parliament within 15 sitting days of the completion of the review.

(2) If the Minister, or another person or body, causes a review of the SBS to be conducted:

(a) the Minister, person or body must arrange for a copy of the review to be provided to the Minister; and

(b) the Minister must arrange for a copy of the review to be tabled in both House of Parliament within 15 sitting days of receiving the copy of the review.

These amendments relate to the ability of the government to commission inquiries and reviews into the public broadcasters, whether that is the ABC or the SBS. The reason why this is absolutely important is because this parliament should have the power to decide whether or not reviews are something that the parliament supports.

Senator O'Sullivan interjecting—

Chair, perhaps you could call—I don't care if you're listening or not, Senator O'Sullivan, but you could bugger off if you're not interested.

Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson-Young, that's not parliamentary.

Senator O'Sullivan interjecting—

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

If you're not interested in the debate, leave the chamber.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Hanson-Young, please address your comments to the chair.

These amendments put in place the power of the parliament to disallow the government's intended review to inquire into the ABC and SBS. We know that part of the deal that has been done between the government and One Nation is the competitive neutrality review. This is designed to be a Trojan Horse to undermine the ability of our public broadcasters to do their job—to provide services to the Australian people and to provide quality news and entertainment to the Australian public at the times that they want. We know that this is in the firing of this government and One Nation, because we know that there are bigger commercial players out there who don't like the fact that the ABC and SBS offer such a quality service through things like iview and SBS On Demand.

We know that as part of the dirty deal that has been done between the government and One Nation, the attack on our public broadcaster is held right here in relation to this competitive neutrality review. We know that One Nation doesn't like the ABC. We heard Senator Hanson wax lyrical for minutes upon minutes last night—it felt like hours—about how terribly mean the ABC has been to Senator Hanson and One Nation. Well, boo-hoo. Sometimes journalists write things and say things that you don't like as a politician. Sometimes they cover stories that you don't like as a political party; but that is part of the job. You don't come in here as an elected member of parliament and start using your power on the crossbench to dictate what our public broadcaster should be able to say or not. Of course, what we have is a personal grudge from Pauline Hanson being carried out in this place.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order, I need to be referred to by my name in the proper way, as Senator Hanson, please.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Hanson-Young, could you please refer to people by their proper titles.

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

Senator Hanson has a personal grudge against the ABC and she's using her position in this chamber to grind the axe as hard as she can. Of course, it is absolutely appalling to see that being facilitated and allowed by the government and the Nick Xenophon political party in relation to this. This attack on our public broadcaster is shameful. There has been an attack on our public broadcasters' independence, and the ability for the Australian public to access the content—the quality news and quality entertainment services—is all under a cloud because of this dirty deal that has been done between Senator Hanson, One Nation, Nick Xenophon and, indeed, the government.

We know that the government don't really want to talk about this. They say, 'Oh, well, this is a deal that was done. It doesn't have to come to the parliament, so no-one who feels a bit uncomfortable about it doesn't have to vote for it.' This parliament should have the power to decide what our public broadcaster should and shouldn't be subjected to. All this amendment does is say that this place has the power to disallow or accept or agree to a review commissioned by the government. If those in this chamber decide that's okay, they'll vote for it. If they don't, they won't. It's about giving the power to the Senate to make sure we know that we can protect or inquire into the public broadcasters as the parliament sees fit, not because it's been dictated to by Senator Hanson and One Nation because they don't like the ABC and what the ABC publishes or runs about their political party.

The competitive-neutrality review that is part of the dirty deal between One Nation and the government will, of course, set a path for cutting back the ability of our public broadcasters to deliver services online and on demand. It will set a path for why some in this place and some outside this place want to exert influence on the chamber and on the government. It will set a path for those people to argue that there should be a pay wall on ABC iView and, indeed, SBS On Demand. It would of no surprise to anyone in this place just how dear the ABC and SBS are held in the minds and hearts of Australians right across this country. It is, of course, the most trusted news source in the nation.

The Australian people love the fact that they can watch the shows that they want when they want through such a quality service as iView or SBS On Demand. Parents across the country rejoice that they can turn on the television, use iView and ensure that their kids can watch quality kids' shows at a time that is needed—a saving grace for many Australian households, I must say. Just imagine what the Australian people will think when they hear that Senator Hanson and One Nation have put a pay wall on ABC iView. Just imagine what the Australian public will think when they hear that they cannot use the catch-up service of SBS On Demand or on the ABC to see the news of the day—because, perhaps, they have shiftwork or they work long hours or they're pensioners who have to catch up with the news at a different time. Just imagine what the Australian people will think when their public broadcaster cannot deliver the service that is available now unless they pay for it. It is a double tax on the ABC and SBS.

There are people who are arguing: 'It's not fair that ABC and SBS are able to deliver such good quality services to the Australian people free of charge. How on earth can commercial operators compete?' Well, it's not free of charge. People pay their taxes to get a good, quality, public broadcasting service. The Australian people pay taxes and they are comforted by the fact that their public broadcaster can deliver the service that they rely on and trust. It is no surprise that the ABC has the most trusted news service in the nation. People love their ABC. They love our ABC. And they don't like that Senator Hanson and One Nation have got their grubby little hands on it and are going to demand that the government cut these services through funding cuts and clipping the wings of these services through their online platforms. This chamber and the other place should have the right to decide what type of reviews of our public broadcasters a minister will commission. That is what this amendment is about.

We heard previously that the deal done between the government, One Nation and the Xenophon political party would all be wrapped up in different legislation and we didn't have to vote for it now, except for that one key element—this crucial review. Well, here is the opportunity to make sure that this parliament, at a further point in time, has the right to say yes or no to the demands that have been put forward by One Nation. I don't think that the Australian people deserve to have their public broadcaster held to ransom by One Nation. I don't believe that the Australian public should have to see their public broadcaster used as a pawn in negotiations between One Nation and the government. And I don't believe that our public broadcaster should be held to ransom because Senator Hanson and One Nation have a personal grudge against stories that have been published about them by our public broadcaster.

This amendment means that we rise above that and ensure that this parliament can make an independent decision about what our public broadcasters should be subjected to and that it's not left to the grubby backroom deals that have been done to secure any reform that this government or One Nation desires. It is simply about putting the power back into the hands of the parliament and, therefore, back into the hands of the people that we represent—the Australian public—who fund our public broadcasters, who love our public broadcasters and who don't want to see them used as punching bags just because some politicians don't like what they say.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I need to respond to this because Senator Hanson-Young has misled this chamber and the members of the public who are listening to this broadcast. What she's saying about the grubby deals is not the case. Senator Hanson-Young is alluding to deals having been done for cuts to the ABC, but that is not the case. Let me put it on the record. In my discussions with the minister's office, at no time did we discuss cuts to the ABC budget, which is in excess of $1 billion a year. Let me repeat that—$1 billion a year! You know what I will do? I will talk to the Treasurer or the finance minister about that. That's not the portfolio of the communications minister. I will go to the person I need to talk to about it, at the right time, prior to next year's budget, and state my case as to why I believe that the ABC budget needs to be cut. So let me put it on the record: no cuts to the ABC budget.

Let's make another thing clear. Senator Sarah Hanson-Young made a comment that I was whinging about the treatment of One Nation on the ABC. No—I was talking about an edition of Australian Story that was about me. It was not fair and it was not balanced. That is what happened. I spoke to the minister about the ABC charter and stories needing to come across as fair and balanced. No-one would expect any less. That's common sense—that you need for something to be fair and balanced from anyone. It's pretty much in the ABC's manifesto now, at the moment, but it needs to be put there. They actually tend to agree with it themselves in their own manifesto.

So it is actually about making sure that everyone is aware of the need to be fair and balanced. I'm sure the Greens would feel that way, too, because they've just had a program done on them. It didn't look too good for them. But, anyway, I've copped it a lot longer than Senator Hanson-Young—for many, many years—so I know what it's like. So there's no problem about that. I have no problems. If you go back to my speech, if you were in the chamber, I actually complimented Steve Austin from ABC Radio Brisbane, who has given me a fair go. That's all I've asked of media. It's not my position here. They have their job to do; I have my job to do. So all I ask, no different to any other Australians, is to get a fair and balanced view. That's all that we ask.

Another point here is that we have called for accountability. It's not unrealistic to call for accountability. Why wouldn't you call for accountability? It is the taxpayers' dollars. Let me say again: $1 billion-plus a year. There is no accountability as far as what they are paying some of their commentators. It was on the record a few years ago that one commentator who is actually on television one night a week for one hour is actually getting paid in excess of $355,000 a year. Why shouldn't the wages of these people who are on $200,000-plus a year be exposed? We are. Everyone in this chamber is. The wages of heads of government agencies are recorded. The taxpayer is paying for it; why hide it? Why shouldn't it actually be out there on the record? 'Oh, no, there's nothing. We're not looking after anyone?' Oh, yes, we are. We've actually asked for an advisory council with a local on it that it is actually going to represent rural and regional areas—and not have someone coming from the cities that have no idea. If Sarah Hanson-Young has any idea, she would understand—

Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—

I do apologise, Senator Sarah Hanson-Young. It is a fact that here we have only 17 per cent of ABC funding going to rural and regional areas, and yet 35 per cent of the population is there. So they are not providing the right comparison, and they need to put the funding there. So what we are saying is: 'Hey, we care about you out in rural and regional Australia. You're not getting a fair deal for your dollars. We're trying to make them accountable to you so that they do their job properly.'

I notice that Senator Sarah Hanson-Young spoke about the SBS. The SBS is not even in it; never discussed the SBS—not intending to cut back their funding. Nothing at all with the SBS. So, again, misleading the chamber, telling people out there in the general public what One Nation is wanting to do. The Labor have had their go at it today, as well. So what I find is you actually have—

Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—

Both sides, the Greens and Labor, actually miss a lot. What I find is you don't have integrity. I'm sick of the political politics of this place. You actually have to lie, mislead the parliament and tell people things that aren't true. People want honesty in this place. If you are going to say something, if you are going to attack me or One Nation, do it with true facts. Don't try and win brownie points with the people outside—

Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—

by misleading people about the actual truth in this place. We've seen this many, many times.

Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Resume your seat, Senator Hanson. Senator Hinch, on a point of order.

Derryn Hinch (Victoria, Derryn Hinch's Justice Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, on a point of order. It may be unusual for me to be defending Senator Hanson, but Senator Hanson-Young had her say. She talked for 15 minutes. It has been a continual banter through the whole of Senator Hanson's speech. It's not fair.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Hinch. You are quite right: senators are entitled to be heard in silence. I remind all senators of that.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will wind this up. One Nation is very concerned about the media and what we need to do for media diversity in this country. We have looked at it and we have spoken to people from all sides on it. I have spoken to the Labor Party as well. They don't really have a problem with this. It's playing politics here without looking at the benefits to the country. You're saying there won't be media diversity. That is the complete opposite to what the truth is. What will happen is they will be able to buy up other avenues and expand their businesses and create more employment. If you think that keeping the two-out-of-three rule is going to help, it's not. It's going to shut it down. Then what will happen in this country is you're going to end up with foreign investors coming in and buying up the media in this country as they're buying up everything else. So you need to have an open mind and you have to understand. A lot of people in this place have never run a business and have never employed people. They wouldn't have a clue what they are doing, yet they sit here and make these decisions. So know your facts and know what you're doing.

One last point on grubby deals being done: the Greens actually did the grubby deals when it came to the backpacker tax, and they want their $100 million. So don't talk to me about grubby deals and money being transferred in hands. I know—I'm not stupid. I've only been here for a short period of time, but I'm not stupid. I've seen the antics in this chamber. It disgusts me and it disgusts the people of Australia. Remember, we are here to make the right decisions for the people of this country who are relying on us, so don't play your politics with me. It doesn't work.

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

Can I quickly indicate that the government won't be supporting this amendment. It is unworkable. The government's intention in relation to the foreshadowed inquiry is of course to be transparent and to make that public.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I kind of liked the deal the Greens did on the backpacker tax. I thought it was very ingenious to get through an impasse.

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I shouldn't have opened that up! I shouldn't have mentioned the backpacker tax. I apologise. I did like what the Greens did on that. I thought it was quite ingenious and workable. As a matter of general principle, the executive arm of government should be allowed to initiate reviews on any matters within its constitutional power, however ill-conceived that review may be. As a matter of incontrovertible principle, the parliament has the right to reject any legislative attempt to implement any recommendations from such a review. My colleagues and I strongly support a well-funded, fiercely independent public broadcaster in this nation. For instance, ABC iview and SBS On Demand must remain free for all Australians forever more.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With regard to Senator Hanson-Young's amendment that is before the chair, Labor will not oppose this amendment. This amendment is to amend the BSA to fetter the discretion of a minister to conduct a review of the ABC or SBS, making the terms of reference subject to a disallowance, then requiring the minister to table a report or review 15 days after the completion of the review.

Labor understands the sentiment behind this amendment that's been circulated earlier this afternoon, but in the short time we have had to consider it, we understand there may be some practical implications and issues associated with it. On balance, Labor regards it as a transparency measure which may benefit our national broadcasters, particularly with a government like the Turnbull government, which clearly cannot be trusted with the ABC or the SBS.

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

I want to point out that I'm disappointed that the Nick Xenophon Team will not be supporting this amendment, because this is an opportunity to ensure that the grubby deal that's been done between the government and One Nation is put to parliamentary scrutiny. We all know that this review is the one element that isn't required in legislation and this parliament cannot stop it unless we give ourselves the power to do so. You've said, as a political party, several times in the last few days, that you don't want to be linked to the deal with One Nation. This is the opportunity to prove it. This is the opportunity to ensure that you are not backing in the undermining of our public broadcasters and allowing in the Trojan Horse which is going to rip apart the integrity of the online services run by ABC and SBS, along with their ability to deliver quality news and entertainment to the Australian public free of charge, as a public service. This is the opportunity to stand up, and you're squibbing it. Don't come into this place and tell us that you have nothing to do with the grotty deal between the government and One Nation to attack the ABC, when you're given an opportunity and you don't take it. It is clear as day that the deal done in exchange for the government to get their two-out-of-three rule through includes a package which attacks the ABC and SBS—attacks their integrity, their independence and their ability to continue moving forward to deliver quality services, news and entertainment to the public. You squibbed it. I'm extremely disappointed and I think many Australians will be too.

Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that, in respect of the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017, amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8265 be agreed to.

Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017, as amended, be agreed to and the Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017 be agreed to without request.

Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017, as amended, agreed to; and Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017 agreed to without requests.

Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017 reported with amendments; Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017 reported without requests; report adopted.