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

by leave—In respect of the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017, I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8261 together:

(1) Schedule 3, item 1, page 10 (line 34), omit "360", substitute "600".

(2) Schedule 3, item 1, page 11 (line 1), omit "45", substitute "100".

These amendments relate very simply to minimum local content programming requirements in those areas that haven't had the same requirements in the past. This has been the subject of legislation I've previously moved to ensure that there is more local content for areas, such as the Riverland and the south-east of South Australia, that weren't protected by legislation that mandated minimum local content requirements. In the event of any ownership changes or any mergers, amendment (1) would omit '360' and substitute '600' and amendment (2) would omit '45' and substitute '100'.

The effect of these local programming requirements would be that there must a much higher requirement for local programming. It would translate to something like 50 minutes of local content per week—a significant increase; a doubling of the requirements. This is something I've long campaigned for. I note that Senator Ruston, from the Riverland, has been concerned about these issues. This is a significant improvement. For instance, this could mean more local stories and more local news in the Riverland and in the south-east markets. It would give the people of the south-east and the people of the Riverland an opportunity to have local news and local content to a much greater degree. It's not perfect; it's not the same as a nightly half-hour bulletin, but it would mean much more local content. I commend these amendments.

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

Can I just indicate that the government supports these amendments. This is a variation on the proposition that the government has put forward, and we will be supporting it.

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

Given that Senator Xenophon had the opportunity last night to speak for 20 minutes on the details of the deal that's been done in the dark, outside this chamber, but failed to bring in any scrutiny to it, I think these amendments are quite outrageous. There are two numbers that Senator Xenophon is proposing to change. This is a fig leaf on a fig leaf. These amendments have been moved so that it looks like Senator Xenophon has done something in this chamber and so people have something to look at.

If we actually go to page 10 of the bill, as it stands, it comes at a section of the bill that talks about trigger events and then local programming requirements. This is important; but if this is all we are getting from Senator Xenophon in terms of an amendment, while he's out crowing about how fantastic the deal is that he's done, then this is simply an embarrassment. If we go to 61CX in the bill, we see here a comment:

… 360 points in each timing period that begins after the end of the period of 6 months beginning on that day—

And there's a change to the number of 600.

It says this is:

… a trigger event for a regional non-aggregated commercial television broadcasting licence occurs on a particular day …

And it says:

… the licensee must broadcast, to each local area, material of local significance in order to accumulate at least—

That 600 points. That's it; that's his first big amendment. It's one minor change. I noticed in the comments that the senator put on the record today that this may lead to—this is what I heard—an increase in local coverage. That is it. That is what we get. We get 600. Then we go onto point (d) under 61CX in the legislation, where it says there are:

… 45 points in each week that is included in a timing period covered by paragraph (c).

It's an increase from 45 points to 100 points. Now, seriously, when you look at this as the entirety of the Xenophon amendments you have to wonder why he even bothered to bring it in.

Last night we saw an amazing event here in the parliament, where the One Nation amendments that were dispatched of last night were actually documented in this place by another senator from another party and, when they came for a vote, the One Nation party didn't even show up to support what was a declaration of the known bits of the deal that they're supposed to have done with the government. After Senator Xenophon has given us chapter and verse on how fantastic the deal is that he's delivered—which, by the way, I notice is being characterised in the papers today as a 'trinkets and baubles' concession from the government, and I have to agree with that characterisation—we are now faced with this amendment.

I have to say that I thought Senator Xenophon might have a whole host of other amendments that he would suddenly spring on us this morning, which might have locked down some of the supposed deal that he has constructed with the government, seeing as he has started to talk about a very significant change in the ACMA responsibility for looking after some of the changes that he mooted in his conversation last night. I wish I could be more specific, but I have got nothing to look at. I have no papers; there's nothing that has come in here for me to give the scrutiny that it deserves.

What we have got is a change of the role for ACMA that is really quite significant, and that is not made clear in any way in any documentation. Instead, we have this amendment suggesting a change, under 61CX, from 360 points to 600 points to increase the coverage. The senator has told us this morning that 'may occur'—so, 100 points instead of 45—in a timing period, with regard to the capacity to keep a licence. This is an embarrassment. This is such a tiny amendment to a piece of legislation that is quite significant.

This is a package that the government has been putting forward for 18 months, which it could have put through a long, long time ago if it had only had the courage to stand up for the Australian people and pull the two-out-of-three rule out. If it had, we wouldn't be in this position where we are looking at this embarrassing amendment. The reality is this amendment, at this stage, simply doesn't cut it. It simply doesn't deliver anything significant for the Australian people. It doesn't provide protection for people in the regions to actually have a view of the world around them. It doesn't increase anything. It simply provides a cover for Senator Xenophon to say that he's moved some small amendment in this place.

What really concerns me is that, last night, in order to construct this deal—where we have got 600 points in each timing period and 100 points in each week as the major piece of legislative change that's going on with this bill that's before us—what got sacrificed was protection for the ABC and the SBS. Senator Xenophon, with the show that he was putting on, sought to distract us all from the fact that he's letting this ABC SBS special deal, cooked up with the minister, go ahead outside of this chamber.

One of the committees that I get to participate in is the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. We have done some very good work there. Indeed, this morning I was standing up with Senator Xenophon giving a press conference on delivering a unity report around changes to whistleblower protection. Whistleblower protection is all about putting things that are going on in the dark into the light. It is about cultural practices that make the hidden transparent. This is the hypocrisy of what we've seen on offer from Senator Xenophon today—doing all of his dealing outside of this chamber, in the unlit market, if you want. There is no transparency about what's been done. He thought it was good enough to come into the chamber and deliver 20 minutes last night, with some sort of a shopping list of things that has been concocted with the government in the course of this week—one can only assume—offering up this tiny, tiny change. Two numbers—that's all that Senator Xenophon has achieved in terms of the changes in this bill. That's it in its entirety.

Labor cannot support this amendment because of the construction of the whole deal and the way in which the senator has brought this to the chamber. It simply isn't substantive enough to provide adequate protection for all the things the senator says that he has achieved for the Australian people. The broadcasting reform bills and the many backdoor deals that are associated with them represent a direct assault on media diversity in Australia. They hand unprecedented media power to a very privileged few commercial operators, and, at the same time, these deals that are part of what's going on here provide for an incredible attack on Australia's national broadcasters, the ABC and the SBS.

Senators in this place get around the country, and we know there is one thing that Australians have great faith in, and that is our national broadcaster. What we see in this amendment is nothing that's going to deal with the threat and the challenge presented by the other deal that has gone on here, between Pauline Hanson's One Nation and the government, also a deal done in the dark—unobservable, reported in some quarters but inadequately presented for the scrutiny of the Senate. This amendment that Senator Xenophon has moved comes in the context of one of the most concentrated media markets in the world, and yet we have seen the Turnbull government hell-bent on making it worse by repealing the two-out-of-three cross-media control rule.

The Turnbull government have been trying to repeal this two-out-of-three rule for 18 months. They haven't been able to do it on merit, and that is why we're at this point, where we've got this fig leaf of an amendment coming forward from Senator Xenophon. They couldn't do it on merit, so they've gone to the back room to do a deal outside of this chamber. The One Nation party and the NXT party look like they're going to get this through. It will include a grant of $30 million to Fox Sports, plus embed an attack on the ABC and SBS.

The proposal to repeal the two-out-of-three rule is contrary to the public interest, and Labor want to make that very clear today. Despite the speeches that have been made, despite the assurances that have been given, despite the shopping lists of deals that have been done with the government, we are very concerned about the loss of the two-out-of-three rule. It's a vital safeguard that continues to do the heavy lifting in our market and it maintains diversity in Australia. Those opposite argue that diversity will continue regardless. But, once this bill goes through—and it looks like they have stitched up the numbers to make it happen—we can't go back from what this government is about to give away, giving away two out of three.

We know, earlier in this process, Senator Hanson was very clear that she was going to stand up for the bush and make sure they were looked after. Well, the deal got done—is it the bush or the ABC? Does she want to attack the ABC more than she wants to look after the people in the bush? Clearly, she wants to attack the ABC, and she's done her deal around that. Senator Xenophon, not to be left out of the deal-making, because that would be an upsetting experience, has dealt himself in. And he's delivered $60.4 million, and how many cadetships was that—40 or 50?

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

Two hundred.

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

Two hundred cadetships for local newspapers, supposedly in regional areas, where papers are dying. There are 4,000 journalism students in Australia already. We don't need more cadetships; we need more jobs. Once we cut diversity, one owner can say, 'Well, you can put your message out on radio and TV and print, and you can just spread it a little bit further.' It doesn't mean it will grow any jobs, and it doesn't mean we will get an increase in diversity.

We know that letting the two-out-of-three rule go is a big deal. This government has had plenty of opportunities. Months and months ago, they could have had this legislation through—all of it, except for the two-out-of-three rule—but they wouldn't give. You have to wonder who has been in their ear to get them to a point where they are absolutely ready to sell the diversity of our media in this country down the river.

It is not just the government; it's also the One Nation party and the NXT party. They're in cahoots with this. Once this is gone, we won't be able to get it back, and that is the reality. When people vote for a government, they set a direction, and once they set the direction and undertake legislation like that, there are things we lose. And today we have to be clear: we are losing something. Two little numerical changes in the legislation from Senator Xenophon with his amendment is not going to do anything to protect us from that.

We keep hearing the Turnbull government say that this rule is out of date. But let's just look to a very recent event that just shows how vital it continues to be. We were told just before we broke, prior to the last session, that Channel Ten was in all sorts of problems and that there was no way it was going to survive. Receivership was being considered, and the pressure was on here. People were walking the corridors telling us we had to pass the legislation then. But there were enough people with enough integrity to hold out and protect this two-out-of-three rule, and instead they have caved now. Recently, we have seen that the CBS effort to acquire the Ten Network is proof that the two-out-of-three rule is a vital safeguard that continues to do the heavy lifting in maintaining diversity of the media in Australia.

For the government to argue that it's out of date, even in the context of this absolutely prominent recent event, continues to show that this is an ideological commitment to just getting rid of diversity. CBS are in the midst of wanting to purchase Channel Ten, and that provides diversity. We needed to keep this rule. So, my question is: how does this amendment in any way protect the Australian people in the way the two-out-of-three rule does?

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

I just want to indicate, for the record, that the Australian Labor Party have indicated that they will be voting against additional local content in the disaggregated areas. The government, in its legislation, will for first time have a minimum requirement for local content in the disaggregated areas, following a trigger event. And Senator Xenophon's amendment will see that increase even further. That is important. In terms of diversity measures, I canvassed in my second reading speech the range of diversity measures which will remain in place.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I'm interested in why The Guardian was excluded from this deal with Senator Xenophon.

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

The arrangements that we have in terms of the Innovation Fund were aimed fairly and squarely at Australian media organisations.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So where did the rationale for excluding foreign ownership come from? It is not a restriction that applies across any other media formats. I'm just interested in knowing why it was specifically applied in this area.

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

The government wanted the focus of these arrangements to be on Australian media organisations.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But The Guardian, as I understand it, are based here. All of their journalists are based here. They research and write specifically on Australian issues. They've got independent editorial control from London, which is more than I can say for some other news outlets. It's hard to escape the fact that this was structured in a way to do anything other than deliberately exclude The Guardian and other Australian based international outfits that are, indeed, holding the government to account. These are outfits with independent editorial control. They are based here and their journalists are here and yet we have a rationale that doesn't apply across any other media format. These are organisations that hold governments to account. So it's hard to escape the conclusion that this was done for anything other than political reasons.

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

The government thought that it was important that there be a control test here. Senator Di Natale has cited one organisation. I could also cite that News Ltd is excluded.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The idea of tax offsets and incentives to try to get more journalists employed, particularly journalists with a focus on public interest journalism, was taken off the table. I'm interested in knowing whether it was taken off the table because specifically the organisations that it would have applied to would have been organisations that practise independent journalism. We can look at specific outlets. There is The Guardian, as we have already mentioned, but there is also BuzzFeed and the Huff Post. They've all set up here in Australia. They are new voices in the media landscape. They've been welcome additional contributors to the national debate. What other rationale could there be for excluding those voices—The Guardian, BuzzFeed, Huff Post and so on—from having access to a range of tax offsets, a range of incentives, that would have allowed them, along with other players, to employ more journalists? We know it wasn't cost, because the cost of something like this is minimal. What is your rationale for taking those off the table?

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

Senator Di Natale is referring to speculation in terms of what may have been the subject of discussions with crossbench colleagues. I have always made it a point not to comment on discussions that may have occurred, regardless of the grouping.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I just go back to The Guardian. Do you make a distinction for an organisation that is funded here in Australia? It might be a subsidiary of a foreign organisation, but I don't know that The Guardian describe themselves as being a foreign-owned publication. They're funded here through a range of donations. So I'm just interested in how you make that distinction.

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

There will be a primary purpose test, an Australian residents test, an independent test, a control test and a number of other requirements for eligibility.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In terms of the operation of the fund, who picks the recipients of these funds? Is that something that the minister does? Does the minister effectively decide how that money is spent?

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

This will be at arm's length from government, under the auspices of the ACMA with input from an advisory committee with appropriate industry representation.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just on that, what role does the minister have in that? Do you have the final sign-off? Are those decisions ultimately something that you have any discretion over? Can you override any decisions that are made by the ACMA? Further, in terms of the appointment of the advisory board, can you please outline how that process occurs?

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

The minister won't have a role in the decision-making. In terms of the advisory board, appropriate industry representatives will be invited. I'm thinking of organisations such as the Walkley Foundation, the Press Council and the Country Press Australia, for instance.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ultimately, is that something the minister approves and endorses? Are you the final arbiter in the appointment of those positions?

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

Well, the government would invite organisations to provide representatives, and then it is a matter for the ACMA and that body and its recommendations.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You haven't really answered the question around the appointment process. Ultimately, are the appointments made by the minister?

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

Yes.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do they report to the minister?

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

No.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With my final question, I'm just interested in where the funds are going to be spent. There's a question around whether some of this money is going to be spent on, for example, marketing, capital funds, training programs and so on, as opposed to sustaining continuous jobs in journalism. So I'm interested in what areas the funds can be spent on.

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

Grants could be allocated, for example, to programs and initiatives, such as for the purchasing or upgrading of equipment of software, the development of apps or business activities to drive revenue, readership and training, all of which will assist in extending civic and regional journalism.

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

How many last questions have you got, Senator Di Natale?

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is absolutely the last. Just finally, is it possible under this fund that all money could be expended on the areas that you outlined—maybe new technologies, equipment and so on—and that no money goes towards sustaining jobs in journalism specifically?

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

There will be no expenditure on salaries. The measures are designed to support and create an environment conducive to employing people—there are the scholarships and the cadetships. But in terms of the innovation fund, anything that supports a media organisation being a good business can only be good for and is intended to assist that organisation in being viable, and viable organisations are in a much better position to employ people.

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

Can I just comment on the process that's going on here, as it concerns me. Senator Di Natale is having to ask these questions here with no papers and with no documentation. The minister is looking over his shoulder to his adviser, as if saying: 'Well, am I appointing them? Am I not appointing them? Who do they report to?' We didn't even get an answer to that question. Well, they don't report to the minister, apparently. Well, maybe they do or maybe they don't. Maybe we'll go back to look at this and find out that was wrong.

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

I answered as clearly as I can in one word.

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

We did get an answer to the fact that no journalists are going to be employed.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Order, Senator O'Neill has the call.

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

There is still a question on the board there from Senator Di Natale, which is: who do they report to? If they don't report to the minister, who do they report to? That's one question, for starters, that deserves an answer in the absence of papers. I will ask another couple of questions. In connection with media organisations eligible for funding, following on from Senator Di Natale's questions, can the minister confirm whether or not InDailywhich I understand to be an independent news website, based in Adelaide in Senator Xenophon's home state of South Australia—will be eligible for grants or other funding?

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

I don't know because I don't have an encyclopaedic knowledge of every single media organisation in Australia, so I can't advise what their particular circumstances are and how they might be assessed according to the criteria.

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

Can I answer that, if it could be helpful to Senator O'Neill. The InDaily would clearly qualify under the criteria set here. It belongs to a media organisation with a turnover of over $300,000 and less than $30 million. It clearly is an independent publication. It will be able to spend on business activities, promotion, equipment, development of software and business activities to drive revenue and readership and training. It would also be eligible for the cadetship program.

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

That's a little breathtaking, what just happened there. Because the minister couldn't answer the question, he has outsourced it. The government is now Senator Xenophon. Thank you for the actual correct answer, Senator Xenophon, but how is it that you know the answer to the question that the government is going to be responsible for enacting, and the minister doesn't know it? With all the resources that he has, he can't answer that question. But you know that there is a paper or a newsagency called InDaily down in South Australia that is going to be getting in on the good luck that you've delivered for a certain number—$60.4 million, or $50 million, of it is going to this capacity for agencies to get it. So this is another expression of what is so concerning about what's going on here.

I could ask a global question: Minister, do you actually know what's happening here? Are you going to provide any details about the criteria so that you can answer the questions rather than Senator Xenophon with regard to the detail of matters like this?

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

I just think it's extraordinary that we've heard from the minister this afternoon that none of this money is going to go towards journalists' salaries. What is the money going to be spent on, Minister? Also, I would like to ask Senator Xenophon: did you know that none of this money was going to go towards employing journalists?

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

I outlined the range of things which will be within the scope of the innovation fund. Salaries will not be in the scope. Commonwealth grants are not provided for salaries. That's not something that Commonwealth grant programs do.

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

I'm very happy to answer Senator Hanson-Young's question. The purpose of the fund is to assist small publishers in metropolitan areas and regional independent publishers to transition, compete and innovate more successfully in a changing media environment. Grants could be allocated, for example, to programs and issues such as the purchasing of or upgrading of equipment and software, development of apps, business activities to drive revenue and readership and training—all of which will assist the bottom line of those organisations and, in turn, assist them to maintain and expand the employment of journalists. Eligibility for the grant funding will be broad and flexible. It won't extend to salaries. But you can imagine that, in terms of capital equipment, software, training and those capital costs that form an important part of the organisation, it will help.

InDaily is a very good publication based in Adelaide that is online. It breaks stories and covers a lot of local politics and news. It's an independent publication. I believe it and many others will be supported by this.

I will just make two other points very briefly. What is before the committee at the moment is the amendment I moved on local content. I direct this to my colleagues in the Greens and, indeed, other crossbench colleagues and One Nation. This is about increasing local content in those non-aggregated markets in the event that there is any change in the ownership structures that would be triggered by the legislation. In the Riverland and in the south-east, it would mean that it would double the existing requirements for local content in the legislation. I believe that is a good thing. That is something that I push for in legislation. I note that the government and the opposition back then did not support that, but here is an opportunity for those not in aggregated regional markets to have more, not less, local content. In relation to the matters raised by Senator Di Natale in respect of The Guardiana very good and important line of questioning—I can say that the negotiations were protracted. It has been my preference and the preference of my colleagues that The Guardian be included. In terms of the overall package of measures, it is an argument that I lost.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You didn't lose it. You didn't lose the argument; you are the argument.

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

Well, I did. There is a package of other measures for small—

Honourable senators interjecting—

It was the best deal, and in negotiation—

Senator Di Natale interjecting—

Senator Chisholm interjecting—

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

Order! Senator Di Natale! Senator Chisholm!

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

This was the best negotiation we could come up with in relation to small independent publishers, including metropolitan publishers. I believe it's something that ought to be reconsidered, but, at the end of the day, The Guardian does have a parent company in the UK. The government drew the line at that, but it means that small independent metropolitan and regional publications will be able to get access to this very significant fund.

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

There has been a great deal of speculation about this deal and a lack of information about what has gone on. But what we do know from that answer is that we can't just blame the government for throwing The Guardian under the bus; Senator Xenophon has facilitated it. That's what has happened. There's so much about this deal that we don't know. Senator Bernardi was actually able to stitch together some of the declared deal that was done some time ago with Senator Hanson with regard to the ABC and the SBS. It would seem that the minister—by media release on that occasion, 16 August, for the Pauline Hanson's One Nation deal—did put some information out about what was agreed. Senator Lambie had some comments to make last night about how dangerous it is to take the government at its word, even if it puts a media release out. I think her comments were that she is still waiting on two years worth of promises of a catch-up, and she hasn't forgotten.

Senator Hanson, who I note has come into the chamber, has gotten something from you, in terms of a media release about what was constructed—at least up to 16 August. But here we are, debating a suite of bills that the government says is the biggest media reform in decades, and we've got nothing—zero. Actually, we've got a change to two numbers—we can't forget that—from Senator Xenophon's amendments. We've got no detail. The minister, who can't answer the questions, is seconding Senator Xenophon to provide the details. My question is: when will the government publish information about the Nick Xenophon Team? Even in as fragile a form as a media release—as disrespectful to the Senate as that is—when is it that going to be put up? What has his department actually done to clarify this situation and record it?

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

The elements of this have been shared with the chamber. That was done at the earliest opportunity—last night—and the government will, in the usual ways, make this and further information available in the usual formats.

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

Considering that Senator O'Neill has raised One Nation's input into the media reform bill, let me answer some of those questions. No grubby deals were done; that's what the Labor Party would actually love everyone in this country to think. It is as if they had never been in government and actually negotiated deals on legislation with the Greens, the crossbenchers or anyone else—and they're still trying to do their deals. As I've said, they still try to talk to us to get us to change our opinions and minds when I come into this chamber. When we look at legislation put up by the government, we look at it on its merits—will it be good for the Australian people—and that's the way it still stands. I don't do the so-called grubby deals. That's what the Labor Party is used to and that's what you've done for years and years with your union mates, with the unionists and all the rest of them. Let's put it in the right perspective of how your grubby deals have been done.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's simple: why didn’t you vote for Senator Bernardi's amendment?

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

To the chair: you see, they can't handle it. They can't handle seeing someone on the floor of parliament, with integrity and with honesty, who actually says it the way they see it and not through the grubby deals that they do with their union mates who are actually doing this. You know that this is a good deal for the media reform that's needed in this country. You know that Channel 7, Channel 10 and Channel 9 are actually struggling. You know that media outlets and also publishers—small publishers—and newspapers are shutting down. They can't compete with the internet and they can't compete with Google, and that is why they're closing down. You don't care about that. You don't care about the jobs that are going to be lost with this. Through the chair: have you taken any notice? I can tell you, a lot of journalists aren't my friends, but the whole fact is that they are Australians in employment; they have their jobs and they are losing their jobs.

Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—

Here we have the Labor Party, who are supposed to be so job orientated—

Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—

batting for the workers and wanting to see jobs for Australians. I have never seen a political party such as the Labor Party in all my life. They are not interested—

Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—

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

You're so shrill. You're like a cockatoo.

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

You are corrupt!

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

Order! Senator Hanson, would you resume your seat, please. Senator Hanson-Young, I heard that. I ask you to withdraw it.

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

Senator Bernardi, for the sake of debate, I will withdraw suggesting that Senator O'Sullivan is corrupt.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: No, withdraw it unconditionally, please, Senator Hanson-Young.

I withdraw.

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

With an apology from you. You are a weird piece of gear.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Order! I ask the committee to respect the right of other senators to have their say without interruption and without rancour. Senator Hanson, you have the call.

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

If it was any reference to me, it just went over the top of my head. I have thicker skin than that. It's irrelevant what some of the other people in this chamber have to say. They're so thin-skinned. It's all right to dish it out, but they don't like to take it.

As I was saying, what I have seen here is that you're going to save a lot of businesses, publishers and jobs in this country with media diversity. I've spoken to organisations. They want this. They can see that they need the change in Australia if we are going to compete and if we are going to have our own media diversity in this country. All I've heard from the other side of this chamber, from Labor and the Greens, is that it's not going to improve media diversity and all the rest of it. Where's your argument? I have never heard the reasons why. They are not putting up their case. They're not putting up their case enough to convince me why it won't. I've listened to the businesses out there and they are the ones that are hurting. I've spoken to some journalists who have lost their jobs. They are concerned. The deals that Senator Xenophon—

Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—

has done with the government, with regard to passing this bill, are very credible. I think it's very good because he's looking at traineeships for cadets and the people coming through. Senator Hanson-Young made the comment: 'Where are the wages coming from for the journalists?' It is not the government's position to pay the wages of any private business. They don't do it. It is the government's position to make it feasible for people to get jobs. It is not up to them to pay the wages for private business. If those private businesses aren't successful, no-one at all will have a job. It's not up to the government to pay for the wages of journalists out there.

They talk about grubby deals but, let me say: there were no grubby deals done. If you actually have a look at what my agreement has been with the government, you will see that I'm asking for 'fair and balanced' to be in the charter of the ABC. It's part of what they are supposed to be doing anyway. So what's the problem with it? Don't we all want fair and balanced? Where's the argument there? Why would you oppose that?

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We saw your fair and balanced contribution yesterday. It was unhinged.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Order!

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

Isn't that what Australians want, fair and balanced? What I'm calling for and what I'm asking for is for those who are on $200,000 to be made public. Where's the problem there? Why don't you want accountability for the Australian people? Why do you have a big problem with that? Why do the ABC have a problem about showing what they get paid? It is Australian taxpayers' money. Our wages are out there—what we get. What is wrong with the ABC? Why do you want to be so quiet about it? Why do they fight tooth and nail against having that exposed? Is it because some their journalists are on nearly $400,000 a year for one night a week on TV? Do you think that's accountable? I don't, and neither do most of the Australian people.

The other apparent grubby deal was a deal for community radio to get some assistance and help so that they can actually—

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you know who is Australia's most trusted news organisation, Senator Hanson? I'll give you a clue. It starts with 'A'.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Order!

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

As I said, people in community radio are the leaders of their small towns. They're struggling. They are the glue that keeps their communities together, because they give up their time to go into the community radio stations. I know; I've been to a lot of them. But here we are assisting them with a few areas: with news outlets and an extension of time—the government already has an extension from two years to four years—and they're streamlined as well, which will assist them. There are a few areas. There's $12 million. That's what we are going to give to assist community radio. I think that's fair.

There was a comment that we don't care about the bush. That's not the case. What we have actually said is that it's about time the ABC got out of the city areas and started looking after the bush because people out in the bush are being ignored. Only 17 per cent of ABC funding is going to rural and regional areas when they've got 35 per cent of the people there. So the ABC have lacked in their duties to people in rural and regional areas. We are saying that they have to have someone who is connected to rural and regional Australia to go onto an advisory committee and be on the directors' board. What's wrong with that? How on earth can you actually complain about that? We're actually looking after rural and regional areas.

Will I accept your attitude towards grubby deals—no. Why do you make these comments? Labor and the Greens comment and say 'grubby deals' because they are trying to denigrate One Nation, or even the Xenophon Team, for these arrangements and agreements that we've come to with the government to improve a bill, because a lot of Australians have been forgotten. It's not about grubby deals; it's about really caring. If they got their heads out of the sand and stopped their playing politics in this place and started representing the people of Australia, who really want true representation, they might get a lot further. But they are so pig-headed over this whole issue. It's about making the right decisions for the people of Australia.

Senator O'Neill said that I was against the two-out-of-three, and that was correct. But why I have changed my opinion is I've spoken at length with my colleagues, I've spoken to the organisations and I have listened to public opinion, and I can't be that bloody-minded not to change and say, 'I didn't get it right the first time around.' I've actually taken time to consider this. I've listened to public opinion and I've listened to the businesses, and I've come up with this decision. I wish some other people would actually listen to the facts and stop ridiculing, just purely for the basis of ridiculing. If you've got an argument, then put your facts forward and try to tell me why I shouldn't vote with the government on this bill. You haven't convinced me and I'm damn sure you're not convincing the Australian people.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was going to make a comment on the previous Chair and his actions last night in this chamber. He made it very clear what he was proposing to do, which was—as I understand it—to introduce into this legislation those aspects of the agreement that the government has made with the One Nation party. I fundamentally disagree with what Senator Bernardi proposed in his legislation, but you've got to give him credit for raising those issues and giving the parliament the opportunity to vote on them. We were disappointed, Senator Hanson, that you did not come in and support the agreement that you had reached with the government. I think that was a surprise to everybody.

You just indicated that you have changed your view—that your original position had been that you supported the two-out-of-three rule but that you have now changed your mind. The reality is, Senator, that you do have the opportunity to change your mind again, and I would ask you to reconsider your support. You can see from the vote last night—even though you and your team were not in the chamber—that your agreement with the government will not pass this parliament. My recollection of the vote was that something like 55 senators voted against what would in due course become–

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Farrell, sorry to interrupt you, but you should make your remarks through the Chair.

Thank you for that observation; I will make sure that all of my observations are through the Chair henceforth. We can see from last night that there is no support for those aspects of your agreement with the government that require legislative implementation. As that's the case, Chair—through you to Senator Hanson—as it's clear that this parliament will not support those aspects of your agreement with the government, why do it? Why vote with the government? Why support a proposition that is not going to get through this parliament? Why have an agreement with the government, when, plainly, as you saw last night—I assume you were watching it in your room, since you weren't in the chamber—this parliament is not going to pass that legislation? If you have an agreement with the government about this matter, that requires you and the government to agree to the matter and bring it to the parliament to be passed. Well, it isn't going to pass. That's now very clear.

That's the first point I'd make, Senator Hanson—you can now reconsider your position in light of what happened last night. If you think this government intends to honour that part of the agreement that you've reached with it to support this legislation, the reality was very clear last night that the Senate will not pass that legislation. Whatever you thought you were going to get out of this deal, it's now very transparent that you're not going to get it. So I would ask you, Senator Hanson, to reconsider your position. If you do, you can stop this legislation passing. As you've said, you've done that once before.

Maybe in light of last night's events, it's time to do it again. You were right the first time that you considered this legislation. You were right the first time because the purpose of the two-out-of-three rule in this country is to protect media diversity. As you say, there are lots of media that organisations that, from time to time, have a go at you. But you also get support from a variety. If you remove the two-out-of-three rule, that diversity goes out the window—we don't get the diversity. Of course, what we have seen is that Senator Xenophon from South Australia has also gone along with this. We saw what happened to your agreement with the government; it cannot be implemented, but I think we need to look at what Senator Xenophon has done as part of his agreement with the government to support this legislation.

As far as we can see, there is an innovation fund of $50 million over three years for regional and small publishers. I'm a big supporter of regional and local newspapers and other media, but what is a $50 million deal worth? Well, if it is split evenly across the states and territories, it works out to about $2 million a year. Of course, when you share that out over the totality of media in the region, frankly, Senator, it's not very much money. Some of those media organisations that you might have thought would benefit by this have, of course, come out in the last 24 hours and made it very clear—but I will refer to them in a moment.

It would seem that part of this $2 million that goes to the states will go to scholarships to support students who are studying journalism, with an emphasis on the regions. But, if you take away media diversity in this country by the removal of the two-out-of-three rule, they might get a scholarship to study, but the reality is there will be fewer jobs. So you are giving people a scholarship to study journalism, only to find that by taking away the two-out-of-three rule there are fewer jobs. So what's the point, Senator Xenophon? What's the point of the agreement to give young students scholarships if—

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who'll employ them?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take Senator McAllister's intervention, because her question is perfectly right. If there is less media diversity in this country, what's the point of giving scholarships to students who can't find a job? That's cruel for them because you're leading them up the garden path. You're making them think that you have passed some legislation which is going to benefit them and give them a job. The reality is that you have reduced media diversity in the country. This benefits not just some of the wealthiest people in this country but some of the wealthiest people on this planet. They'll do very well out of this deal, Senator Xenophon. But with the $50 million that you've got spread out over three years, spread out over all of the states and territories, I think it's misleading to the students who might take up these scholarships. The reality is they're not going to get any benefit out of it by way of employment.

So I have some questions of Senator Xenophon, through you, Chair. Has the government provided you with any details of how the innovation fund and those scholarships will be shared between the states and territories? Has the government guaranteed to set a minimum share of either of those funds that will go to your home state of South Australia?

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

I thank Senator Farrell for his question. Details of this were given in the chamber last night. They were published last night. Details of how the fund would work were set out. It is $50 million for regional and small metro media that wasn't on the table 24 hours ago. It will make a significant difference. The criteria have been set out. There will be a transparent process. The additional 200 cadetships will make a big difference to many regional publications across the country. That will be broadly proportional, based on the states and territories. The regional scholarships, which are also on a proportional basis, will also make a big difference for more media opportunities.

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

I want to respond to some of the comments that Senator Farrell made in relation to other issues. Firstly, the agreement with Pauline Hanson's One Nation absolutely stands and it will continue to stand. I also make the point that there have been many predictions made in this place about the fate of legislation, about what may or may not pass through this place. I will be applying myself, as I do with every piece of legislation, to what we introduce to give effect to those matters in relation to the ABC. Many times we have heard predictions made about how something will not pass the Senate only to see those predictions proven to be untrue.

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

Senator Xenophon, you just said that the deal that you did with the government was published. I can't find a copy of it anywhere. Is there any way you could furnish it now? I have gone to Hansard. The Hansard record goes to only 9 pm. There is nothing written for any of us to interrogate at this point in time. That's hardly what I call transparency. I ask you sincerely: can you table what you say has been published or could you advise where it is published so that I can access it and investigate it?

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

I think at about 11.30 last night a media release went out setting out all the criteria that was agreed with the government. I'm happy to provide Senator O'Neill a copy of that.

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

Is it your media release, Senator Xenophon?

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

Yes, and it faithfully reflects the agreement reached.

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

If that is the case, Senator Fifield, why have you not released a media release verifying what Senator Xenophon claims?

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

I've already verified the agreement in this place.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No-one could accuse Minister Fifield of being a fast mover, and I think this is another example of that. One thing I've had the benefit of since coming to the Senate is being on the Senate environment and communications committees and I had the opportunity to ask questions of Senator Fifield. He very generously takes it easy on new senators, which I'm very appreciative of. I've also taken a bit of an interest in what Senator Fifield and the shadow minister, Michelle Rowland, from the other place, do. One thing that has particularly caught my attention is what the shadow minister, Michelle Rowland, has labelled the 'Fifield triangle'. This is basically where issues relating to the minister's portfolio go to die. There have been plenty of examples of this. The current legislation that we're debating is a prime example. It was first introduced 18 months ago. I think it's come before the House or the Senate, or been listed, something like 10 times without actually coming to a vote. Indeed, we've seen the debacle this week, where he's combined both jobs. We had a debate earlier in the week, then it went away and then it's come back. We sat late last night and here we are again today.

I want to flesh out the Fifield triangle a bit further because I think it's interesting in the current debate. We know that the Australian Communications and Media Authority review took two years, and then sat on the minister's desk for another eight months. We also know that the Game on report, which was about the future of Australian video game development, spent 500 days in the Fifield triangle and still hasn't been released. This is something that the minister is responsible for. We also know that the Australian Communications and Media Authority have gone 18 months with an acting chair, and there is still no permanent appointment to that spot. As I said, we know that the minister has had this legislation on the table for 18 months without actually getting anywhere—such is the incompetence.

But there is one issue that the minister moved really quickly on and that was to give $30 million to Foxtel. When you look at the record of this you see that there is no documentation and very few facts that he has put on the table in this regard. He made a very, very quick decision on that. He announced it as part of this package a couple of months ago. As I mentioned, I had the opportunity to ask questions of the minister at Senate estimates, and basically the best he could come up with was that this was a government decision. On 6 May, he announced that they would provide $30 million to Foxtel to increase coverage of women's and niche sports. It all goes to Foxtel; it all goes to a pay TV operator. People have to pay to actually see this when it goes on TV. When I had the opportunity to ask questions, the best he could come back with, in a lacklustre effort, was that it was a government decision. So $30 million of taxpayer money to 'so call' increase the reach and coverage of women's and niche sports all goes to Foxtel. Subsequently, following an FOI by the ABC, no documents exist. So, basically, it was a decision made by the minister on a whim—no business case, no modelling and no consideration of who this is going to reach.

How are more people going to be able to see this coverage? Foxtel's own figures show that their subscriptions have dropped in the last 12 months, yet the minister stands here with a straight face and says that this is to increase the reach and coverage of women's sport. What an absolute farce! What about the kids in my home state of Queensland? What about the parents who can't afford Foxtel? How are their kids going to be able to see this? They're not going to be inspired by these sports; they won't be able to see this sport. What about a little girl growing up in Frankston, the minister's home state, whose parents can't afford Foxtel? They're going to miss out on this opportunity. The saddest part about this is that they are doing this at a time when women's sport is riding the crest of a wave. We've seen that with the launch of the women's AFL. Senator Farrell might interject here, because his team, the Adelaide Crows, won that first premiership; unfortunately—

Senator Farrell interjecting—

I disagree with that. Unfortunately, they defeated the Brisbane Lions team. We've also seen the women's Big Bash League gain popularity at the same time. We also saw, this year, the domestic netball competition also rise in popularity. So, at a time when there's so much happening in women's sport, in what could have been such a really positive thing—by giving this money to free to air so that every child in Australia could see it—he gives the money to Foxtel so that fewer people can see it. This isn't going to increase the reach or the coverage of women's sport. It's going to mean there will be kids in plenty of parts of Australia who aren't going to have the opportunity to see this. This is a terrible decision by this minister, and it's at a time when women's sport is riding a wave.

We know, from talking to any national sporting organisation in Australia, that sponsorship is so important. What's the key to getting good sponsorship? Free-to-air coverage. If you talk to the AFL and the NRL, they all say that the key to getting sponsors in the door to sponsor your league or your club is free-to-air coverage. Yet, no, he doesn't help them in that regard. He gives it to Foxtel—with no business case, no modelling, no documents. He gives $30 million to Foxtel, a subscription television service that you've got to pay for. This is what this minister has been responsible for. Minister, can you confirm that there was no business case, that there were no documents, that there was no modelling, that Foxtel is a subscription service whose numbers are dropping and that, when it comes to this deal, this had nothing to do with women's sport; it was just a secondary consideration to you pleasing Foxtel by giving them $30 million with no strings attached?

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

As we have traversed before on this issue, of course there was documentation in the context of the budget process. There were a range of inputs to what was a decision of government. The media reform package was considered and prepared in that budget context. The FOI applications to which I think the senator is adverting sought a very specific range of documents. Obviously there are other documents, but they are part of the cabinet process.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That really failed to answer the key question here. Very simply, this money was to increase the coverage of women's sports and niche sports, yet Foxtel's own figures show that subscriptions are dropping. How can your decision to give $30 million to Foxtel possibly increase the coverage of women's sports and niche sports across the population of Australia? It is very easy, very simple.

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

I think it's known that Fox Sports have four dedicated sports channels. They have a good track record of access to sports that might have a lower number of participants and that receive little or no free-to-air coverage.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What an absolute farce! It goes to show he can't answer that question, because he knows that this isn't actually going to do anything to increase the number of eyeballs that are able to watch these sports. This is the deal you've done, Senator Burston, Senator Xenophon. This is what you've done. You've facilitated $30 million going to Foxtel, basically just as money that they can do whatever they want with—no strings attached. There is nothing that's actually going to do what the minister said, at a time when women's sport is riding the crest of a wave. This is going to do nothing for that. This is a tragedy for women's sports, when they're crying out to get on free-to-air television because that will bring in the sponsorship dollars, that will lead to crowds getting involved and that will lead to higher pay for women's sports, which deserve so much more than they have had historically. This minister does nothing for them. It is a shameful deal and one that he should hang his head in shame over.

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

We understand that the package that's been delivered for the so-called innovation fund is going be administered by the communications regulator, the ACMA. Will the government be circulating an amendment to amend the ACMA Act? What advice has the government taken with regard to the ACMA, and does this deal that's been done require an amendment to the ACMA Act?

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

Any necessary amendments will subsequently be introduced into the parliament.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I heard Senator Xenophon's answer to my question, but I don't believe he has fully answered it. I should make the observation, Senator Xenophon, that this could be your last chance to make observations in the Senate. What I mean is that your matter is going to the High Court before we come back again—

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

Senator Farrell, once more you need to be reminded to direct your communications through the chair.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm sorry; I should have recalled that, and I will do it through the chair. What we're asking for is answers from Senator Xenophon. He indicated that late last night, apparently, the specifics of the agreement he reached with the government to end media diversity in this country were released. We've tried to find that information and haven't been able to track it down, so our only way of getting that information at the moment is either through the government or through Senator Xenophon.

I recall—through you, Chair—that when Senator Xenophon first came to this chamber nine years ago his role model was Brian Harradine from Tasmania. You can look back at Brian Harradine's history, and just one of the many deals he did was over the sale of Telstra with the Howard government. He got $350 million for his state as a result of that deal. The question I'd like an answer to—a straight answer!—from Senator Xenophon is: how much of the $50 million or $60 million deal he's done with the government has been secured for his home state of South Australia? It's a simple question. I've not been able to find anywhere on the record, so far, that we've got an answer to that question. Senator Xenophon wanted to model himself on Senator Harradine; I think it's pretty clear now that Senator Xenophon is no Brian Harradine. He hasn't secured the sort of money that Brian Harradine secured when he reached agreements with the government. Tell us: if you've done this agreement with the government, how much have you got for your home state of South Australia?

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

I'll ignore the baiting and the ungracious remarks by Senator Farrell. If the High Court did manage to hand down a decision between 12 and 16 October, I'd be delighted. Somehow I think that might be a little unlikely, so you may have to see me again, Senator Farrell—I'm very sorry about that! I seek leave to table a document which I've provided a copy of to Senator O'Neill. It's headed 'Summary of Media Reform Negotiated by NXT'. It's a three-page document, and I seek leave of the chamber to table that document.

Leave granted.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wanted to reflect on the contribution we saw from Senator Xenophon last night. We know Senator Xenophon can be a bit of a chameleon, and until I got into this chamber I certainly had admired it from afar. Having been able to observe it over the last 12 months, the way that he performs in this place is very admirable. From what I can work out, there are basically three versions of Nick Xenophon. There's the South Australian battler, sticking up for his home state. There's the fighter against the system, sticking it to the mainstream parties. And then what we saw last night was the sincere and heavy-hearted Senator Xenophon, passing this more out of sorrow than anger, I think, in the way he spoke about this—that they were the toughest negotiations he'd ever had. I thought that was some very good theatre from Senator Xenophon.

If these are the toughest negotiations he's ever had, he didn't deliver up much of a deal, did he? And that's been exposed on the floor here today. Now that we've had an opportunity to look into the detail, what Senator Xenophon has done has really been stripped bare, yet we are going to be living with the long-term consequences for a long time. I think the most significant of those is that, now and forever, this government and Senator Xenophon will be responsible for aiding and abetting the attacks on the ABC. They have legitimatised it and given it an opportunity. That is what they are responsible for, given their actions.

We saw yesterday the efforts of the One Nation senators—and I don't think you could call that a fair and balanced contribution. But the one thing that I have really loved is the contribution in this debate from Senator Fifield and the way that he says 'fair and balanced'. He says it in, actually, such a fair and balanced way. It's very admirable the way he does it. But the problem for the government and the problem for Senator Xenophon is they have let the arbiter on fair and balanced be One Nation. That is what they have done by the way they have conducted this debate, let it happen and agreed to pass the One Nation legislation on this. That is something that the government and Senator Xenophon are going to be responsible for. Everyone else in this place will constantly hold them to account.

When we say 'fair and balanced', I think you only have to look at the contribution that we saw from the One Nation senators yesterday. There was nothing fair and balanced about it. All it actually was was a series of grievances that they had against the ABC. Well, if you don't like the ABC covering stupid comments or stupid things you've done, stop doing stupid things! It's pretty simple. Yet, they came in here, one after one, complaining about the stories that the ABC have done on One Nation. Then we had Senator Roberts come in. I thought that this was really interesting, given his own difficulties with the High Court. I think he's making a case to be the 'fair and balanced commissioner' if Senator Fifield wanted to appoint him. He went through all the empirical evidence that he is building. And we know he loves empirical evidence; he's always talking about it. But it seems like he's been doing his own homework on what he thinks is fair and balanced. We have seen some of the things that they talk about—some of the crazy stuff that they actually want to see the ABC cover more: the anti-vaxxers, the climate change denialists. This is what the government and Senator Xenophon are going to own. You're going to own it. That is what this government has done.

So, Minister, when are you going to stand up for the Australian people and defend the public broadcasters, the ABC and SBS, from the attacks that we are seeing from One Nation and others that you have legitimised through this deal that you have done on media reforms?

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

Can I go back to the matter that I was asking questions about—the ACMA. I thank Senator Xenophon for making it clear that, despite doing the deal in the dark, he put this up on his website so that we could see what was going on. Thank you very much. I don't know if the government have responded yet. They have had the opportunity, I suppose, in the time we've been having this debate to put something up. Can I go to the comment in there on the advisory committee, which we did have some questions about—who they would be and where they were coming from—that the minister couldn't answer.

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

I did.

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

Do you want to put it on the record, Minister, who the advisory committee will be?

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

I have.

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

So the minister is not responding. The comment reads:

The advisory committee's recommendations will be made public. Further transparency measures will include details of the administration of the fund being included in the ACMA's Annual Report and scrutiny through Senate Estimates.

This change of the role for ACMA is described in Senator Xenophon's statement as the fund being:

… administered independently of government by the Australian Communications and Media Authority …

I've asked what changes are required for ACMA to be able to do that. In your response, Minister, you indicated that if there were amendments that were required you would do that at some later point in time. Why is it not prepared for consideration now, as this is part of the deal that you're doing? We've got no guarantee that what you have promised Senator Xenophon, in terms of ACMA administering this, is actually going to be possible. When do you propose to put these amendments?

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

The question is—

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

Does the minister not want to answer that question?

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

I've answered it already.

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

So, let me understand: the deal that you have done with Senator Xenophon requires—possibly, but you're not quite sure—changes to the capacity for ACMA to undertake the role that you've promised. And you have indicated that there may well be amendments that are required, but you don't know what they are and you can't put them before us today—is that correct?

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheets 8261—

Senator O'Neill interjecting—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Just a moment. Senator O'Neill, are you seeking the call again? Standing orders prevent me from giving you the call. You've spoken twice already.

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

As a senator for Queensland, I have some concerns about the level of funding that might be flowing through to my home state. Minister: can you tell us and the voters of Queensland what level of funding is expected to come through for Queensland?

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

That's already been addressed here.

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

Thank you very much. It seems the minister has decided that he's not going to answer any questions, and I certainly have quite a lot that I want to put on the record. So, I will continue with some comments and a few questions, and I invite the minister to respond at any point in time. What we have seen with this deal with regard to ABC and SBS is really outrageous. And this government has proven it is utterly desperate and bereft of integrity by bowing to the One Nation party's demands to attack our national broadcaster in order to scrape their flawed media ownership changes through this parliament.

As I said earlier, the Turnbull government has been trying to repeal this two-out-of-three rule for 18 months, but they haven't been able to do it on merit. So, this is why we are where we are. The pact between the Turnbull government and One Nation is regarded by many, in the commentary since 16 August, as a direct assault on the independence of our public broadcaster, the ABC and the SBS. I'm going to quote from Andrew Tillett and Max Mason in TheAustralian Financial Review from 15 August 2017. And I do want to put on the record my respect for the great work that our journalists do and their significant contribution to our community. I want to reflect on Andrew Tillett, who I recall as a junior cadet in a regional area where I live, outside of Sydney, many, many years ago. He is a person who really takes the standards of journalism very much to heart. He writes very carefully and asks very incisive questions. This is what Andrew Tillett and Max Mason had to say in the AFR on 15 August:

One Nation clinched a deal for the biggest assault on the ABC's independence in decades.

That's how it's being characterised. As part of the deal, the government has agreed to the insidious call for this competitive neutrality inquiry into the ABC and SBS. There is no way you can dress that up as anything other than a direct vehicle to attack the ABC and SBS and to diminish its role. And in response, Bernard Keane, from Crikey, said:

… the problem is that the inquiry isn't limited to … the ABC's online operations generally. It's focused on all the practices of the national broadcasters. And the problem is, the entire rationale for the national broadcasters violates competitive neutrality. Competitive neutrality principles require that government bodies are not subsidised to compete with commercial entities. But that's the entire raison d'etre of the ABC and SBS. If they were required to only engage in activities where there was market failure, what would they provide?

This goes to the heart of the attack we are seeing on the SBS and the ABC—a determination to clip its wings, to cut it back, to shut it down.

Indeed, in my notes I took yesterday, as Senator Hanson was making her comments, she protested and said, 'No-one should see this as an attack on the ABC.' But she also said in her speech that they should give up their slush fund. That is how she characterised the funding of the ABC, as a 'slush fund'. I think it is clear, after her contributions in the course of this debate, that Senator Hanson is going after ABC funding.

If you need any further proof that the Turnbull government are absolutely hypocritical in this context, with no clear vision for the Australian media, then you need look no further than this competitive neutrality inquiry. This inquiry is aimed at ensuring the SBS doesn't compete with the commercial broadcasting sector, yet twice now the coalition government have attempted to amend the SBS Act to permit the SBS to increase its advertising and enable product placement, in direct competition with the commercial broadcasters.

Labor believe that the ABC and SBS should have a presence in the digital media space as part of promoting diversity in our media. Labor believe that the content they produce should be readily accessible online. And Labor congratulate the ABC and SBS on their achievements with iView, SBS On Demand and online news. We affirm the recent speech by the ABC chair, Justin Milne, which was delivered at Parliament House quite recently at the ABC parliamentary showcase, where everybody, as I recall from the many years I've attended, shows up to get their photos with B1 and B2, those iconic images of the ABC for entire generations of Australians. If Senator Hanson goes ahead with this and doesn't reconsider pulling the two-out of-three rule out and her attack on the ABC, we might end up with only B1, and what a loss that would be! We are talking about serious cuts here. I wish to put the comments that Justin Milne made on the 16 August on the record here because they are very pertinent to the debate we are undertaking. He said:

Now, I may be an ABC ingenue but I’ve been around media for a while and can tell you that the advent of the internet, smart phones, instant global connectivity, Google, Facebook, Netflix and machine learning all mean that the changes we are experiencing today will be the biggest media has ever experienced.

In the past, we have accepted the "Mass Media" model—newspapers and TV stations publish when it suits them. If the audience misses the show, bad luck and if the audience wants to provide feedback, they can write a letter. In the future, we will demand that our media uses information about us and the world to provide an intelligent, personalised service, unique to each of us, available exactly when and where we want it—anywhere on the planet.

Today the ABC is one of Australia’s greatest cultural treasures, its most trusted broadcaster and a fundamental part of our thriving democracy. It will be tomorrow too.

And while we might receive some attention in the press from certain quarters—allegedly venturing into territory where we have no business, I assure you that this couldn’t be further from the truth.

The ABC has a clear mandate to serve all Australians …

And that is without the tinkering the government has promised to undertake. He said very clearly:

The ABC has a clear mandate to serve all Australians; to provide broadcast and digital media programs of broad appeal, and to reflect the diversity and multicultural character of the Australian community.

We are proud to live up to our Charter obligations. Our people come to work every day knowing they are doing a job which the public values. The Corporation is not reticent about exercising its legislative remit.

He went on to talk about the noise of recent weeks and applauded Australia as a democracy that has benefited from a dual-media system for 85 years—having the public broadcaster alongside commercial media. He claimed:

This media environment has ensured vibrancy and diversity, for the good of all Australians.

The level of criticism that the ABC has been subject to in the course of this debate is nothing like we've ever seen before. I think the remarks that were delivered by Justin Milne really give voice to the attack that that very important institution is experiencing right now.

Senator McAllister sent me an article that came out with some figures. It's the Essential Report. It's a survey that asked about trust in media. It says:

Overall, trust in media has fallen a little since this question was asked last year – however rankings remain much the same.

And this continues to today. It also says:

The most trusted media were ABC TV news and current affairs—

Sixty-three per cent said that they trust it a lot—

… SBS TV news and current affairs (61%) and ABC radio news and current affairs (58%).

Why we are at a point where we have a government that is willing to trade off diversity with One Nation for an attack on the ABC simply doesn't make sense to me.

Senator Fifield, I've got a couple of questions that I would like you to answer. The first one is: now that the government has decided to subsidise for-profit commercial media to the tune of $60 million as part of the deal with Senator Nick Xenophon and to the tune of $30 million for Foxtel, will the government promise to refund SBS all the funds that it cut from it, which is less than the $90 million that it's given to commercial media? The second question I have for you, Minister, is: will the grant of funds to commercial media be transparent and open to public scrutiny? If so, how will that process take place? The third question is: is it now government policy to subsidise for-profit commercial media while removing funding from public broadcasters? Those are three very direct questions. I'd appreciate some answers, Minister.

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

The SBS will be funded in the usual way through a combination of its own revenue and funding provided in the budget. Yes, there will be transparency in relation to those measures to which you have referred. The government outlined the funding for the ABC in the budget before last, which establishes the training and funding base.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to acknowledge that Senator Bernardi, who's currently in the chair, really belled the cat last night on what these reforms are actually about, because a dirty deal has been done to secure the passage of this legislation. Senator Bernardi and, I understand, Senator Lambie—more in token nature than in whole-hearted support—highlighted what this is really about, and that is an attack on public broadcasting and an attack on the ABC.

We heard from One Nation senators who came into this chamber and—credit where credit's due—were honest about what it's about. Senator Burston has been incredibly honest about his views when it comes to public broadcasting. I commend him for that. I pay tribute and credit to someone who was prepared to say: 'This is my view. I will vote according to my view, and I will negotiate and strategise on how I can get legislation through that supports that view.' That's what One Nation has done. This isn't a victory for the government; this isn't a victory for media diversity. This is becoming a victory and has become a victory for One Nation. This is a victory for One Nation when it comes to media reforms here today.

I have to say that, when it comes to the issue of public interest journalism, a whole lot of crocodile tears have been poured in this place but the big ideas have actually been run away from. Through our Senate inquiry, we heard witness after witness and big idea after big idea. We were able to hear big ideas—again, some of which have the merit to actually be properly explored. Do you create a proper fund to allow investment in journalism to be treated in the same way as we treat research and development grants?

Do you end up levying a big company like Google to pay for that? These are the big ideas, if you're serious about the future of journalism, that should have been explored and needed to be explored.

I have to say—I said it last night, and I will say it again—Senator Xenophon, your position on this and what you settled for is so much weaker than what you were saying to the witnesses and others as we were going through our public inquiry. This is not a good deal. This is a $60 million slush fund that we find out is to buy iPads. It's to buy iPhones. Everyone's going to get a new iPhone X under this proposal! This is the slushiest fund imaginable. This isn't about the future of journalism. This is about a government throwing money at a problem to try to get the passage of legislation.

The worst bit about it is when you actually look at institutions like The Guardian, BuzzFeed and others. Again, the question I will specifically be posing to the minister in a moment will be about why he is creating this. I mean, we know what's being said in this chamber is different than what's being said outside it. We know that the minister has been telling people privately that the issue with including The Guardian is that he could not possibly—they had to exclude them—get it through his own backbench and couldn't get it through his own party. Senator Leyonhjelm belled that cat yesterday morning when he said that as long as there's nothing going to The Guardian, it's something he could support.

So what do you do? You create a slush fund to buy iPads and iPhones and, in doing so, you exclude different organisations when you may not like what they have to say. That is not media reform. That is not where we should be heading in this modern era when it comes to how we deal with media and how media needs to be dealt with. There are big challenges, but that's not what this legislation has addressed. What we have here is a government that has done its deals and has done a deal with One Nation, and then has gone and done a deal with the Xenophon group. They have tried to find a way of marrying the two together.

The only real honest brokers in all of this—I have to say again that it amazes me—has been One Nation, because at least they have held a consistent position to do in the public broadcasters. That has been their position from the start. Senator Hanson came into this chamber yesterday and, in her second reading contribution, made it very clear that there are journalists at the ABC who she dislikes, who she feels haven't given her a fair deal, and part of her reason for this is that. We heard from Senator Malcolm Roberts—again, consistency is a beautiful thing—who was able to somehow turn this entire debate into a conspiracy with the CSIRO as it relates to climate change and ABC coverage. Respect where it is due: sometimes it's tough to make the links that he keeps making, but he believes in it.

Then last night Senator Bernardi—I think it was at about five minutes to 11—actually exposed what this is all going to be about in the end. Senator Xenophon, we all see through this. We know what's gone on. You have gone to the government and said, 'Look, I'll cut you a deal. Cut me a favour here, and make sure the One Nation stuff is separated out so that I don't have my fingerprints on it.' That's what's gone on here. We all know that. We all know what's really happened here. This is a dirty deal that's been done at the last minute. This is not how big issues, big reforms and big changes should actually be dealt with and actually be tackled. That isn't what we've had here at all. What we've had is a cheap deal that was done at the last minute to keep One Nation happy and to buy off the NXT party.

There is the opportunity here to actually make big reforms and to actually reshape Australia's media landscape. What we have here is a fix to a problem, but, frankly, the inclusion of the potential CBS takeover of Network Ten changes it all anyway. What's the rush? The rush is because we were told it has to be done immediately, because Channel 10's about to go under. That is what we were all told. That is what the minister was saying in the media and that is what was being said privately. There was an urgency. Then, all of a sudden, you end up with this.

The specifics of the deal will get looked at by FIRB and others. I understand there is an ongoing legal case on what will happen with the future of Channel 10. I will let others far more experienced than me settle those legal matters. But the idea that we need to do this urgently wasn't there before. So, why this dirty deal at this hour in this way? That is a question that no-one has been able to properly answer in the Senate. To have this kind of a deal—frankly, we are all getting a bit tired of it, Senator Xenophon, we really are—through the chair. We all sit around like lemmings while you make this eleventh-hour deal that is going to throw huge issues up into the air—like what the future of the Australian media landscape is going to look like—and it all depends on whether or not they are buying you off well enough. You are a senator who made it so clear what your views were on horsetrading. Your views were so consistent for so long, and you have spoken so passionately and funnily and charmingly about it, but you then go and do these types of deals week after week after week.

And it is always the same: it's a last-minute deal; there will be an hour's motion, it will have support, we will be stuck here dealing with it, and there will be a pot of money that appears to look good on the surface. Then, when we get to the point of actual examination, we see how pathetically weak and small that pot ends up being. What we found out today is that this is a $60 million iPad-iPhone fund. That is what this is. This is for the new iPhone, everybody. This is what the Senate is spending its time and another $60 million on. I note what Senator Bernardi and Senator Leyonhjelm—who, again, have been quite honest in this debate—have said about it in the past 24 hours: they are not fans of this type of spending, but it is probably not bad enough for them to change their votes. I don't want to misquote other senators, but that was the gist of my understanding. They are both big enough and bad enough to speak for themselves.

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are your words, not mine.

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

Order! Ignore those specific interjections, Senator Dastyari.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we have is a last-minute deal that was done by the Nick Xenophon Team in the dead of night under dirty circumstances to keep One Nation happy. Every time we do these deals the same thing happens: on the surface they look fantastic, but when we start getting to the bottom of them we see that there's nothing there. These are dirty deals that have been done dirt cheap, and they are done at the 11th hour. We as a Senate are better than this. We as nation are better than this. Senator Xenophon, who has consistently got up in this chamber and spoken against horsetrading and against doing these kinds of deals, has spent the 11th hour doing this. It is an attack on the ABC and an attack on media diversity. This is a fix to a problem that it appears no longer even really exists.

There are going to be winners out of this legislation when it passes today, and the winners are going to be One Nation, because, once again, this government has kowtowed to them—has kowtowed to their coalition partner One Nation. Senator Xenophon has facilitated what will no doubt be a long-term attack on public broadcasting—a long-term attack on the ABC—and has broken a solemn principle that we don't horsetrade like this on this type of legislation. We have seen this time and time again. When proper daylight hits, and there is nothing more than a $60 million slush fund for iPads, we will see it for the farce that it is.

Progress reported.