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

The committee is considering the Communications Legislation Amendment (Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund) Bill 2017. The question is that the bill stand as printed.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Fifield, to get back to where we were last night before we moved to the adjournment, the Greens amendment was before us, and Senator Hanson-Young was asking you a number of questions about the ABC. It's clear that, in the last 48 hours, the impact of the further cuts to the ABC has become quite a significant part of the public conversation. Certainly, Friends of the ABC are very concerned about this continuing attack on Aunty, our great institution the ABC. I would like to ask you a few questions around the nature of the efficiency studies et cetera that you have indicated will be part of your further action with regard to the ABC. Firstly, Senator Fifield, do you think that the government's 2014 ABC and SBS efficiency study was effective in getting the ABC to become more efficient?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you believe that it was effective, Minister, I'm having a bit of trouble understanding why you need a further efficiency study and review now.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was 2014. This is 2018. All Commonwealth entities should continually strive to make sure that they are the best stewards of taxpayer dollars, and I think it's a matter of good practice to have periodic reviews of efficiency in organisations. I think this will be to the benefit of the public broadcasters.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you aware of the impact of the efficiency measures that were undertaken then, and what part of the ABC's budget is actually purely for operational reasons—what percentage?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did happily respond to questions from Senator Hanson-Young last night in relation to the ABC, although it's not directly related to the bill, and I am doing so with Senator O'Neil—again, although the ABC is not related to this bill. But if Senator O'Neil or other senators are wanting to go into detail about the ABC's operational arrangements, then those are matters that I would suggest are best saved for the ABC when they appear before estimates. As colleagues know, the ABC has operational independence and is best placed to talk about its operations and the components of that.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for reminding us of the upcoming opportunity of estimates. And I have to say, the acquired taste is very much one that I enjoy now, and I'm looking forward to the opportunity to get more information from the ABC about what they think the impact of your $83.7 million efficiency cut in the recent budget will be. My understanding is that the ABC's overheads are only eight per cent of its overall operational budget. How much further would the government like to push that efficiency beyond eight per cent?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the government has indicated, there is an indexation pause for the ABC in the next triennium. The current triennium has a year to go. We have announced that there will be an efficiency review, and we will have more to say in the near future about that efficiency review. But obviously I can't pre-empt what the efficiency review will find before they have undertaken their work, and I'm sure that those who conduct that review will work cooperatively with the ABC and that the ABC will work cooperatively with them.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to be clear, you said that you'll have more to say about the efficiency review. Did you mean after it's undertaken? Or will there be more about the efficiency review before it commences?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What I was referring to was that we will have more to say about the efficiency review—who will conduct it and what the terms of reference will be—in the near future.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Fifield, do you concede that the ABC will not be able to find $83.7 million in efficiencies without staffing or content cuts?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll just put the ABC indexation pause into context. It represents the equivalent of about 2.6 per cent of the ABC's budget. That's 2.6c for each dollar that the ABC receives. It's important to bear in mind that, over the next triennium, the ABC will receive $3.16 billion, and what we are talking about here is $85 million. I have confidence that the ABC, following the work of the efficiency review and their own efforts, will be in a position to be even better stewards of taxpayer dollars.

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

I have a question for the minister on the same type of subject. We're dealing with the Communications Legislation Amendment (Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund) Bill 2017. Is there any prospect of ABC rural and regional—which is mainly radio but some TV—having anything to do with the regional innovation fund? That's one question. The other question is related to that but also related to what my colleague opposite has been asking about. As I often point out, the ABC operates across a range of areas—triple j for the young people, and classical music, which is something I really enjoy; they have a range of different radio stations and television outlets. But a lot of them, of course, are concentrated in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide—the capital cities—where there are an enormous number of other opportunities for the listeners or the viewers to hook into other news, information and entertainment outlets. Where I am, in Townsville and Ayr, we do have some opportunities for commercial operations but, when you get a bit further out into the country, as far as radio is concerned the ABC is the principal source of information, and it does a wonderful job. It does a wonderful job with weather, with market reports, with information about what's happening around particular communities. So it's a very, very valuable service. But often it's the only one. Whilst I approve the efficiency—and, as you say, it's a 2c-in-a-dollar saving, which I think even I could save in my own household, and I'm sure the ABC will be able to do it, particularly under the new management—I am concerned that very often when there are cuts to the ABC, or very often when there aren't cuts to the ABC, you'll find that some of those in Ultimo who really don't know Australia, apart from three blocks from the Ultimo headquarters, don't quite understand the importance of the regional services of the ABC. I'm just after some sort of assurance—and I appreciate the ABC is an independent body—on that. That's my second question.

The third question: has any thought ever been given by the government to setting up, with independent budgets, not just ABC and SBS but ABC, SBS and, for want of a better term, 'ABC Regional', as a separate entity with a separate budget and separate management, which will concentrate on this vital service to many people who live outside the capital cities and ensure that it is always there? That's the third question. Has any thought ever been given to that? Is it something that the minister or his department might sometime have a look at, without diminishing services anywhere and leaving the ABC in its current form to continue doing the work it does—some of it good, most of it, I think, questionable, but let's not get into that; that's a matter of opinion. But the certainty of an ongoing service for regional Australia is something that exercises the minds of many people outside the capital cities.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Macdonald. To your first question, as to whether any of the innovation fund that this legislation will allow ACMA to administer will be available to the ABC, the answer is that it won't be. The innovation fund is targeted essentially at private publishers in regional areas and small publishers. I should point out, though, that the ABC have, over the last year or so, identified further efficiencies, which demonstrates that that can be done, and the ABC have set up a content fund. Different parts of the ABC organisation can pitch innovative ideas to that content fund that the ABC have established. So there is that avenue there.

Through you, Chair: Senator Macdonald raises a very good point about the important role that the ABC plays in rural and regional Australia, which is why the government has legislation before the parliament to put into the ABC's act a specific reference to rural and regional Australia, which is something that people assume is already there. People assume that the ABC charter already has specific reference to an obligation to rural and regional Australia. It doesn't. We will be seeking to legislate that here, and I hope that will enjoy the support of all colleagues.

In the same bill, we also have a measure which would require the ABC to always have at least two board members from rural and regional Australia. That is a measure that we have already met, because I have appointed to the board of the ABC Georgie Somerset, who is a beef producer from Kingaroy, and Vanessa Guthrie—no relation to the MD—who is the chair of the Minerals Council of Australia. It's very important that we have that representation on the board. The board is the ultimate editorial and operational authority. So, to ensure that rural and regional Australia get the resources that they need through the ABC, that representation on the board is extremely important. That bill also contains a measure to establish an ABC rural and regional advisory committee, which the ABC would be required to consult if there were any decisions that they were taking that had a significant effect on rural and regional Australia. They are some of the safeguards that we are putting in place for rural and regional Australia.

Often, as I move around the community—and, I know, as Senator Macdonald moves around the community—while Australians have a wide range of views on the ABC, as they're entitled to do as taxpayers and consumers, I universally hear very positive things about ABC rural and regional radio. I think one of the reasons is that the ABC are close to the community. They live in the community. They get that constant feedback from the community. It's a good and important service that the ABC provide.

Coming to Senator Macdonald's third question on the ABC's structure and whether thought has been given to having a separate ABC rural and regional entity, it's not something that the government has looked at in terms of legislation. Under the current legislative framework, how they structure themselves is a matter for the ABC board. But I think that the measures in the bill that we have before the Senate to establish in the ABC Act a particular obligation for rural and regional Australia are important and will go some way towards those objectives, as will mandating that there be two people from rural and regional Australia on the board and establishing the ABC rural and regional advisory committee. Senator, I know that you will continue to put propositions forward, and I think, as the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Rural and Regional Measures) Bill 2017 demonstrates, we are open to doing whatever we can to further reinforce the ABC's role in rural and regional Australia.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for your answers this morning, Senator Fifield. You indicated that you felt that the efficiency study from 2014 was quite effective at that point in time and, if I heard you correctly, you indicated that it was time for another efficiency review. One of the consequences of the efficiency review that was undertaken was that 800 staff have left the ABC in recent years. Do you concede that jobs will be lost as a result of the government's budget cuts of $83.7 million from the ABC?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said in response to an earlier question, I can't and wouldn't seek to pre-empt the work of the review or the decisions that ABC management might take in the wake of the review and their own efforts. So I can't assist you beyond that.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, it's not too much of a stretch to indicate, on the public record, that the result of your last efficiency cut efforts was very significant loss of jobs and loss of capacity. In your response to Senator Macdonald, you indicated that you were putting people on the board. The fact that people in particular positions make a very big difference to what an organisation can do is well known to you and I and every Australian who's interested in the ABC. We have a situation where the public broadcaster is now 800 jobs short of what it was when you arrived, despite your jobs and growth narrative. How can you possibly stand here in the chamber and pretend that a further cut, a further efficiency dividend—a cut of $83.7 million—will not drive further job losses at the ABC?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think there's a false assumption in your contribution, Senator O'Neill, and that is that every decision by the ABC to change their employment configuration is a result of funding decisions of the government. As I pointed out earlier, the funding in the current triennium is not being altered. The ABC board and management decided six months or a year ago to reduce middle-management positions in the ABC, I think by about 200. That was a decision of the ABC to free up resources for more content—for a content fund. That decision by ABC management had absolutely nothing to do with resourcing decisions by the government. It happened in the middle of a triennium where funding in that triennium had not been altered. That was entirely a decision of ABC management. ABC management have, over decades, made decisions about employment configuration which were not a result of funding decisions by the government. In fact, Mark Scott made very clear, when he made some changes to employment in the ABC around the time of the last efficiency review, that he had decisions already in train in relation to how the ABC would configure itself and the employment consequences of that. So it is not correct to assert that every decision that ABC management makes in relation to employment matters is a function of efficiency reviews or resource decisions of government. The ABC have always changed the way that they operate as technology has evolved. They have always changed the way that they operate in the wake of their own internal decisions, separate to decisions of government in relation to resourcing.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's hard to see how 800 people losing their jobs from the national broadcaster is a model of improving access to great news, great journalism and the sort of community representation of ideas heralded and applauded by Senator Macdonald in his contribution. Whether it's in the city or whether it's in the country—and I see we have a delegation of young people here—getting the correct news, and getting people in the profession who have certainty of employment and an opportunity to grow their skills and to serve the nation through our national broadcaster, is a very, very important part of what this country has thrived on. It's an important part of our democracy. It's not like the ABC's a new thing. It has been around for a very, very long period of time and, over that period of time, it has been able to build its reputation to a point where the Australian people hold it in high regard, whether they're from the city or the country.

But I'm sure that the young people here today would be able to understand, Minister, that the loss of 800 jobs from the national broadcaster is a very, very significant loss. And it has happened on your watch. It happened after your first efficiency push in 2014, and here you are proposing another efficiency push, taking $83.7 million out of the budget of the ABC, and that is absolutely going to cause job losses. The minister may dance around it and try to prevent any blame from attaching to him, but the Australian people are too smart to buy that, Minister. They know that the ABC is under attack from this government. Mr Abbott, the member for Warringah, knew this when he was running to become the Prime Minister of this country in 2013, and stood at that stadium in Western Sydney in Penrith and said that there will be no cuts to the ABC or SBS—yet the whole legislative process of this parliament under the Liberal-National government has been cuts to the ABC and cuts to SBS. That's just the historical reality of it. You can't keep cutting the ABC and continue to argue that you're providing sufficient funding for job security, for quality journalism and for the retention of this significant part of the democratic conversation in our country.

In my contribution yesterday at the second reading stage I talked about another matter more specifically related to this particular bill, which I indicated was the result of a deal stitched together with Senator Xenophon. I recall on the evening as the bill was going through, Minister, asking you a number of detailed questions about how this particular bill was going to operate. As I recall, on many occasions you answered the questions with the support of your team in the advisers box, but there were a few where you just didn't know the answers, because Senator Xenophon was still cooking up the scheme. Indeed, in the estimates period that followed, Senator Xenophon tried to get on the record a number of changes, because, after the consideration of a few nights sleep, despite the deal being done, he figured out that there were a few mistakes and was trying to correct them on the run. That's the nature of the bill we're debating today. That's its origin and how it came to be. According to the Bills Digest:

The Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee considered the Bill and noted that 'none of the substantive requirements and criteria for eligibility [for grants of financial assistance] are set out in statute'. It stated:

It therefore appears that neither the criteria for the award of a grant nor the purposes or conditions for which grants may be awarded are included in the bill. Instead, these matters are to be determined by non-statutory policy or included in individual agreements. The practical effect of this approach is to delegate general criteria and conditions for the award of a grant to ACMA. It is also noted that if general non-statutory rules are not developed, then the legislation confers on ACMA an extremely broad discretionary power to allocate a substantial sum of money.

The Scrutiny of Bills Committee sought the Minister's advice as to 'why the criteria for the award of the grants and the standard terms and conditions to be imposed are not included in the bill or subject to any other appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny'.

At the time of writing this Digest, the Minister's response had not been published.

Has the minister supplied a response to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have, and let me share it with you. What I conveyed to the committee was:

It is common practice for the details for a competitive grant program, including any criteria relating to eligibility, to be set out in the program's guidelines, as part of a call for grant applications. The Government has determined a set of eligibility criteria for grants under the Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund, which forms part of the Regional and Small Publishers Jobs and Innovation Package. Whilst the program guidelines are under development, these eligibility criteria have already been made public and will be incorporated into the guidelines for the grant program. In addition, the guidelines will specify a set of merit criteria against which the Australian Communications and Media Authority will assess the relative merits of applications.

It is expected that the guidelines for the Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund will be released in the first quarter of 2018, following a process of consultation with industry and key stakeholders.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It would be great if you could table that response.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is in the latest digest.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much. I was attempting to listen carefully to what you said. Is there a particular reason it isn't in the bill? What was the rationale for that? You've explained the process, but why was it not included in the bill?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll share again part of my response, which is that it's common practice for the details of a competitive grant program, including any criteria relating to eligibility, to be set out in the program's guidelines as part of a call for grant applications.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What's the decision here around guidelines, rather than putting it in the legislation? Given the hasty nature of the construction of the deal and the concerns that were raised here in the chamber at the time it went through, why have you not put it into the legislation to make sure that the money actually goes where it's supposed to go?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a common practice for guidelines and criteria for grant programs to not be in legislation.

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

I have been listening to this exchange between the minister and Senator O'Neill with interest, and I find myself agreeing with parts of what Senator O'Neill says—

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

Shock, horror!

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

Yes, shock, horror indeed, Senator Hanson-Young—in that the political ghost of former Senator Xenophon lingers large over this place. The price of a hastily cobbled together deal for much-needed media reform is incumbent and evidenced by this bill, which is why it is entirely wrong. The horsetrading only costs Australian taxpayers hundreds of millions, sometimes billions, of dollars, and the cumulative efforts of Senator Xenophon over the years have, I think, only added to our national debt, which is why we should be voting down this bill. It was cobbled together very late at night, if I recall, and I see that it serves no meaningful purpose other than to disrupt the budget repair that is so necessary.

I also happened to agree with Senator O'Neill when she was referencing the young people and the obligations we have to them—perhaps for a different reason, because Senator O'Neill did reference the young people who were in the gallery and spoke about their opportunities. Well, we are squandering their opportunities by saddling them and burdening them with a massive debt load. And that debt load is going to have to be repaid by them. No matter how many jobs you create at the ABC, which seems to be Senator O'Neill's great wish, that debt load is not going to be removed—that will only add to it. So this is where I depart from Senator O'Neill's contributions. Cutting spending to the ABC is in our national interest, quite frankly. If you go back through the rich heritage that the ABC has and the important role it has played in our country and continues to play, you will recognise that it's morphed from a radio station available nationally to a television station available nationally to now the largest media empire in the country. It has four television stations. It has, I think, maybe five national radio stations plus its regional outreach. It has a commanding presence in the newspaper of the 21st century, which is the online media portal, which is not paywalled or firewalled; it is cannibalising the commercial media operations.

The media landscape is undergoing radical change, and the ABC is at the centre of it. It is simply too big. It is simply too outrageous. It doesn't comply with its charter. Indeed, the latest managing director, Ms Guthrie, has basically levelled a threat against the government saying that the ABC will use its voice to showcase and highlight the damage that's been done to the ABC and that it wouldn't be able to comply with its charter. Well, here's news for you, Ms Guthrie: you're not complying with the charter now. It is appalling. And I say this not in a partisan sense, but it is appalling that the ABC will defend the use of the c-word on its own shows directed at political candidates in the name of humour yet won't allow that great other c-word to be used—the Conservative!—to get a fair and reasonable platform on the ABC. And congratulations to you, Minister, for not accepting that ridiculous response from Ms Guthrie—a form of which I received as well, where they review themselves and say, 'No, we've done nothing wrong'—and pursuing it with ACMA.

We had a Senate inquiry into commercial broadcasting standards, because other networks were broadcasting similar language in inappropriate timeslots. I don't think it's appropriate at any time, quite frankly, but nonetheless they came to that same conclusion. Channel 9, I recall, wrote a letter or made a public statement that they would not allow that sort of language to be broadcast at any time on their network. And yet somehow the ABC, which is meant to be reporting news and current affairs for all Australians, thinks it's okay—that it's good sport—to just allow all that sort of language; it doesn't matter if it's a Labor candidate, a Conservatives candidate, a Liberal candidate or anyone. They defend it. They are out of control.

If you want to do something serious about the ABC, Minister—$80 million cut, good. Thank you. For the young people of Australia, thank you for applying those funds to debt recovery, to budget repair and to preserving the future of our young people. If you want to do something serious about it, think about allowing our national broadcaster to consolidate, to merge, with SBS, to encourage them to provide a single news and current affairs channel and a single national radio network, or maybe two, to provide news and current affairs for all Australians. I do believe it is important for all governments—we don't know what's going to come down the pipe in the future—to be able to communicate with all Australians, and that includes in areas where market failure means that there are no other, rival services available. I do think the ABC fulfils an important role, but get it to consolidate.

If you don't want to do that, let's make the ABC accountable. Why not provide every Australian with shares in the ABC and allow them all to chip in their 8c a day, if that's what they want to do, or maybe hand in their shares to someone else who wants to pay their 8c or 11c a day. Let all Australians have a stake in it, rather than fund it and simply be told one version of news or current affairs, according to the partisan, cheerleading nature of the zeitgeist within the ABC. It is out of control, Minister, and I continue to encourage you to pursue media reform in this sense.

Returning to the substance of the political ghost of former Senator Xenophon: this bill is ridiculous. It's ridiculous because, as some regional media operators suggest to me, it will allow them to maybe upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 10, or something along those lines. I just think it's a complete shemozzle and a waste of taxpayers' money. I believe that this is how we get into the problems in our parliamentary system, when the price of enacting important media reform—which you have achieved, Minister—is reflected by additional spending that is not going to make any difference to anyone except the poor taxpayers, who will end up having to pay it back. Minister, I won't be supporting this bill, but I want to go on the record saying that I congratulate you for your media reforms, I congratulate you for making a small start on the ABC and I'm sad that you've attached your name in any way, shape or form to endorsing this bill. Anything I can do to scupper it, I probably will, which may entail supporting some radical amendments from the Greens to make it completely unpalatable. But let's see what we can come up with.

Senator Steele-John interjecting—

Senator Steele-John is interjecting. I'll ignore the impertinence.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll just make the observation that the program that this bill will enable is modest, time limited and targeted. I think it will make a positive contribution. There are media organisations in the regions that do welcome what we would like to put in place, but I also acknowledge that this is a product of the discussions which occurred through media reform and we have always been upfront about that.

Just touching on the earlier part of your contribution, Senator Bernardi, for the sake of completeness, because I haven't mentioned it in my responses to Senator O'Neill, the government has initiated a competitive neutrality review into the public broadcasters to look at the questions that are raised about whether those organisations in any way use their status as government organisations to compete unfairly with commercial broadcasters. The commercial broadcasters have their view and public broadcasters have their view, and what a competitive neutrality review will do is flush out those issues so that they can be canvassed in an open way. The people we have doing that work are: Robert Kerr, the former head of office of the Productivity Commission, who is chairing that review; Sandra Levy, the former head of ABC TV; and Julie Flynn, the former head of Free TV Australia.

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

I would just like to ask the government a question in relation to the bill before us, to clarify the total amount of funding per year that is set to go to regional publishers. Can we just get some clarification around it not being less than 25 per cent of the non-regional publishers, the conditions for access to that funding and some clarification around the fact that the primary operations must be located in the regional areas. Could the minister give us some clarification around the total funding per year for these grants?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For the Innovation Fund, it's $16.7 million per year over three years.

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

Could the minister please give some indication as to how you are going to check and maintain that this money is being used for what the criteria sets out? That is, how are you actually going to monitor this and what kind of due diligence is going to be done? As a result of that, who does this, how is that funded and how much is that, in itself, going to cost?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The grant guidelines will have acquittal processes within them outlining how organisations need to demonstrate their expenditure.

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

The minister didn't answer my question in relation to how much it is going to cost to ensure that people are abiding by the prescribed criteria. The reason for this, of course, is trying to work out if it's really worth the taxpayers' money to be funding these grants if, indeed, it's going to be clogging up other administrative time in the department. I say this as I have just sat here and heard the minister talk about the need for efficiency dividends across various different government agencies, and we know the minister likes to keep taking the axe to the ABC. Could the minister explain how much money from his department is being spent on administering this grant? Also, how much money will be spent administering it and monitoring it from ACMA, and what are any other administration costs that might be included?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of the $50 million for the Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund, about $2.1 million will go towards the administration by ACMA.

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

Thank you. And is that $2.1 million over the three years? Or is that in the beginning, in order to establish it?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's over the three years.

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

Thank you. Could the minister explain what consultations his department or his office have done in relation to the creation of this fund—the prescribed criteria, what consultations, who you consulted, who you spoke with, the time frame of those consultations, and who was involved?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are a range of entities who were provided with a copy of each of the scoping papers on 23 February and were provided with two weeks to provide any comment, by 9 March. I have a long list of the relevant bodies here, and I'll see whether we can put that in a form to table. It involved: ACMA; ASTRA; the Australian Press Council; Commercial Radio Australia; the Community Broadcasting Association of Australia; the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia; the Country Press Association; Foxtel; Free TV Australia; the Indigenous Remote Communication Association; the Journalism Education and Research Association of Australia; the Walkley Foundation; Universities Australia; Ace Radio; APN News & Media, which is now HT&E Media; Fairfax; Imparja Television; James Yates and Sons Pty Ltd; Junkee Media; The Courier Mail; Mamamia; Macquarie Radio Network; McPherson Media Group; New Matilda; News Corp Australia; Nine Entertainment Co; NOVA Entertainment; Pedestrian; PRIME Media Group; Private Media; Seven West; Southern Cross Austereo; Star News Group; Schwartz Media; Solstice Media; Network Ten; The Conversation Media Group; WIN Corporation; News Beats Project; News and Media Research Centre; the Public Interest Journalism Foundation; The Civic Impact of Journalism; Facebook; Google; Huffington Post Australia; MEAA; Mumbrella; The Guardian Australia; Digital Policy Industry Group; and what looks to be every university in the nation.

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

Thank you. I'd just like to draw the committee's attention to the fact that I have circulated a new amendment on sheet 8432. This is a tweaked version of the amendments that were previously circulated on sheet 8373. The amendment goes to the fact that we are extremely concerned that the government has just made a blind and ideological attack on news agencies that don't fit their political agenda. We know that this government, particular members of its frontbench and particular members of its backbench don't like media organisations like The Guardian, BuzzFeed or, let's face it, all the ABC or SBS. This government has a problem within its ranks—thinking that just because it's in government it should be able to pick and choose which journalists and which media outlets it supports, based on whether these agencies give it a good run or not, based on whether they ask tough questions or not and based on whether they're just prepared to swallow the government spin day in, day out.

I concur with many of the things raised by Senator O'Neill in relation to how this bill was constructed and put together as part of a pretty shabby deal with former Senator Nick Xenophon and the Centre Alliance team. It's the whole reason we're even discussing this piece of legislation. The legislation itself is just one of these ridiculous, slap-it-together, 'She'll be right, mate' kinds of legislation that's come out of a deal negotiated by former Senator Nick Xenophon. Despite all of the hoo-ha, he's never been a really good negotiator, has he?

He spends a lot of time putting himself in the kingmaker position. But, when it comes to the crunch, what does he actually ever get? It ends up being pieces of legislation, or amendments, with unintended consequences or, indeed, not much more than a handshake and a promised word. At the end of the day, that is a bit disappointing when he is not even here now to have responsibility for it and be accountable.

The whole point of this package was to support small and regional publishers and help them to continue to have a role and to do a good job in underpinning public interest journalism in Australia. We have one of the most highly concentrated media markets in the world. Here we have a bill that is meant to do something to help support those smaller players, but it is just so ideologically bound and blinded by this government. The amendments on sheet 8432 that I have had circulated—

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

Senator Hanson-Young, I'm loath to interrupt you, but I would like to seek clarification. There has been another set of amendments circulated on sheet 8434.

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

Yes, that's an additional amendment. Perhaps I should clarify it from the beginning. I shall withdraw the set of amendments on sheet 8373 revised. There are two other amendments that have been circulated and there'll be a third one coming. The first one that I'm talking to is on sheet 8432. Then there is a second amendment, on sheet 8434, which is the one you have just referred to, Temporary Chair. And at some stage I imagine—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: We don't need to deal with the withdrawal as you had never moved those amendments. So we will set them aside. So the clarification is that 8432 will be the subject, I understand, of a motion from the senator but there are additional amendments on sheet 8434.

Yes.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Temporary Chair, I seek clarification as to whether 8432 won't be proceeded with and 8434 is replacing it. It looks as though there are common elements to 8434 and 8432.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Minister, 8432 replaces a set of amendments that were never moved, which were described on sheet 8373. So, to assist the chamber, we ought to ignore 8373. Senator Hanson-Young has just mentioned amendments which I assume are described on sheet 8432. So that's the contemporary set before us. The senator has circulated in the chamber amendments that are described on sheet 8434, which it is her intention to move, and she has foreshadowed that there will be a further set of amendments circulated. So we'll be dealing with three sets. If we can just treat them in order—

On my quick examining of the two, 8432 looks to be a subset of 8434. So 8434 has some amendments which are the same as 8432, but 8343 has what 8432 has plus further amendments. So is 8434 ultimately going to replace 8432?

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Hanson-Young.

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

Thank you, Temporary Chair. This is the way the Clerk's office has decided to circulate them. I'm happy to take some advice as to why they have done it in this particular way.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Before I give you the call, Senator Bernardi: Senator Hanson-Young, they are your amendments; so, while Senator Bernardi makes a contribution, you might be encouraged to do a comparative on those two sheets and then guide us as to what you'd like to happen. Senator Bernardi.

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

Thank you, Temporary Chair. I'm conscious that I'll be relieving you in a few minutes, and I suspect these amendments will be discussed when I won't be able to make a contribution. In the event that 8435 is proceeded with, I would like to telegraph a question to Senator Hanson-Young about amendment (3) on sheet 8435, dealing with the grant schedule in subsection H. It says:

(g) the person does not receive financial assistance from, and does not carry on its business with regard to the interests of, any of the following:

It then lists a range of entities, including political parties, trade unions and so forth.

My question is with respect to the definition of 'financial assistance'. Does 'financial assistance' mean entering into any commercial relationship with any of those entities—such as for paid advertisements if a trade union or a political party enters into a commercial relationship with one of these publishers? It's quite a genuine question about what the definition of that is. Should you be proceeding with those amendments, I'd be interested in a response.

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

I'm still trying to get some clarification on why the drafters have put some of these amendments on the same sheet. If I could just have a bit more time to do that, that would be helpful. Perhaps Senator O'Neill might have some questions that she would like to ask.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the interests of collegiality—we've all been in a situation where we're trying to figure out exactly what's going on. What I can say, for those who are here, is that one of the concerns I have as a senator in this place—and I have lived most of my life outside the political world—is what happens when you get all of these Independents in here. There's a sense in the media, the champion of the Independents, that this is going to provide fantastic scrutiny and it will be a wonderful thing. What we're actually doing today is cleaning up after the party. We've all been in that situation, where there's been this great big party and there's a big mess and you've got to come in the night after and do the cleaning up. The cleaning up is pretty hard sometimes. This is the cleaning up that's being done because the government wanted to get rid of the two-out-of-three rule—to make sure that, if you live in a particular media market, no one company can get in there and have a massive say about the kind of news and information that you get.

The government did a deal. They did a whole lot of deals, actually. It took quite a degree of contortion to make deals with multiple people. One was with Pauline Hanson's One Nation party. But the deal that we're discussing today is the deal that was done with former Senator Xenophon. The way that it's characterised all the time in the media is that the government are pushing for this deal and they're going to deliver this reform. What did they trade off? In the case of this particular piece of legislation that we're cleaning up here today, we're doing it in the absence of former Senator Xenophon, who actually did the deal. The deal went through very late in the evening. Sometimes when you're not here in the chamber you'll hear that we worked until one or two o'clock in the morning. The debate was continuing, but the deal was so uncertain and we had many questions that couldn't be answered. Senator Xenophon left the chamber, the vote was taken and the government got their multiple deals sorted—there were enough votes for their legislation. And now we get this clean-up job to sort out what they actually agreed to. We understand that it was very dynamic that night, and the deals weren't clear and the questions weren't able to be answered. But, when we get to this point and we're about to make legislation, we would hope that everything would be in order.

This morning I asked Senator Fifield a number of questions about what's been going on, particularly with regard to the cuts to the ABC—$83.7 million. I'm very concerned about that, but I have to say I'm very concerned about what this piece of legislation is seeking to do. Increasingly, I'm also a little uncertain about what it is that we're supposed to be debating right now. There are a number of pieces of legislation that get amended and, at the moment, with many amendments coming from the Greens, we're not quite sure where we are. That's as I see it at the moment, and I think that's a fair characterisation.

Senator Fifield, how many publishers do you understand will be eligible for the fund? I note that, in response to a question from Senator Hanson-Young, you read quite a long list of supporters of this short-term injection of funding into the Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund, but, from the advice that you've received from your department, how many people exactly do you think will actually be eligible for this fund?

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

For the benefit of the chamber, we are having a general discussion about the bill. There have been no amendments formally moved. The reason for that confusion may be because I addressed an amendment, given I was going to be in the chair shortly.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The list of organisations that I referenced before were those which were consulted in relation to the package, which has three elements: the Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund, the Regional and Small Publishers Cadetship Program and the Regional Journalism Scholarships. That range of organisations would have had interest in each of those, not necessarily all of them. Some of the organisations may have only had an interest or potential eligibility for some of them. Some of them are organisations which make contributions to public policy and so were interested from that point of view. So that was the list that I referred to before.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In terms of eligibility, there's a reasonable degree of certainty about what you think's going to happen there. How many applications does the government anticipate will be made, and how does that interface with the responsibilities that you now have apportioned to ACMA, for which I understand you indicated there was a $2.1 million funding allocation for administrative and supervisory purposes?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can't provide an estimate as to the number of applications that will be forthcoming. That's something that is beyond my knowledge, and it is up to each individual media organisation to assess whether they're eligible to make application and whether they wish to make application. But we are confident that the $2.1 million that is part of the $50 million for the Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund will be appropriate to administer the applications that are received, and ACMA is also of that view.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With regard to the amount that's been negotiated, the $50 million for this particular fund, how arbitrary is that number? Is that just what was agreed for the purposes of getting the deal done, or is that an assessment of the need that you're responding to, presumably, in agreeing to this deal?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is what was determined by the government and also former Senator Xenophon to be an appropriate quantum for a program of this nature.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The quantum was clearly agreed. By what means did you determine it was appropriate? And, will there be sufficient funds there to meet demand? Has there been any demand analysis?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was determined through discussion and, obviously, government has its own internal processes whereby ministers need to seek agreement for propositions, and that quantum was agreed within government.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I'm hearing you correctly, the number was agreed. You had to convince your colleagues to give you $50 million, for this part of the deal at least?

But there has actually been no analysis of the need or whether this is going to be an efficacious program, and it does have a time limit of just three years, which indicates the hasty and short-term nature of the deal. Is that correct, Minister?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why am I not surprised by the minister's answer? But I would think that my characterisation of what happened is probably pretty close to the truth.

Finally, how will the ACMA decide between competing claims if the demand—which you are unable to explain—is far greater than the funds that are there? Conversely, if there is little demand, how will the ACMA decide between competing claims?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

ACMA will apply the grant criteria and, as with a range of grant programs, not every applicant meets the criteria; not every applicant is successful.

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

I'm in the hands of the Senate. I do recognise that there is some discussion going on in regard to some amendments. I'll look for an indication as to whether those amendments are ready to proceed with. One option may be that the committee reports progress. I'm in the hands of the Senate. Minister?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll endeavour to be of assistance to colleagues, because we operate in real time in this place and we could all find ourselves, when presenting amendments, in a situation where the machinery is racing to catch up. I wonder if this may be of assistance: just looking at these two amendments sheets here, it looks to me as though it may have been the intention of the Australian Greens that the third amendment on sheet 8434 be circulated as a separate amendment, so that sheet 8432 stood as it was. If that's the case, then it might be possible for 8432 to be moved while amendment (3) on sheet 8434 comes as a separate amendment. I just offer that as a suggestion, as it may have been the intention of the instruction that the Greens gave.

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

Thank you, Minister, for that. Yes, I think what has happened is that these have been put up as separate sheets when really they should have been on one sheet and then we could move the three blocks of amendments separately. I understand that the Clerk is just circulating a revised sheet that puts it all together, and then we can discuss each amendment as we go. So we now have a sheet in front of us, sheet 8435, which includes amendments in relation to making sure that we can get the maximum amount of effectiveness out of this fund. I would like to suggest that we move amendments (1), (2) and (3) on sheet 8435. And if we can have a bit of a conversation about those things, that would be good.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Hanson-Young, are you seeking leave to move amendments (1), (2) and (3) on sheet 8435 together?

Yes, I am.

Leave granted.

I move Greens amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 8435 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 18 and 19), omit all the words from and including "The Minister" to and including "ACMA.".

[simplified outline]

(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (lines 4 and 5), omit all the words from and including "unless" to the end of subsection 205ZH(2), substitute:

unless:

(a) the ACMA is satisfied that the person satisfies the criteria specified in section 205ZHA; and

(b) the person is party to an agreement under subsection 205ZJ(2).

(grant criteria]

(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (after line 10), after section 205ZH, insert: 205ZIIA Grant criteria

The following criteria are specified in relation to a person for the purposes of paragraph 205ZH(2) (a):

(a) the person carries on a business that in the financial year commencing on 1 July 2016 had a turnover of between $300,000 and $30 million;

(b) the primary activity of the business is journalism that investigates and explains, from an Australian perspective, public policy and issues of public interest or significance;

(c) the primary activity of the business is carried on by individuals resident in Australia;

(d) each senior manager of the person is resident in Australia;

(e) either or both of the following apply:

(i) the person is a member of the Australian Press Council;

(ii) the person has in place a process for the making and handling of complaints made to the person in relation to the person's business;

(f) the person has in place a code of conduct, editorial guidelines or other framework directed at the provision of quality journalism;

(g) the person does not receive financial assistance from, and does not carry on its business with regard to the interests of, any of the following:

(i) a political party;

(ii) a trade union;

(iii) a superannuation fund;

(iv) a financial institution;

(v) a non-government organisation;

(vi) a policy lobby group.

(grant criteria]

(4) Schedule 1, item 1, page 6 (line 7), omit "grants; and", substitute "grants.".

(annual report]

(5) Schedule 1, item 1, page 6 (lines 8 and 9), omit paragraph 205ZL(d).

(annual report]

Basically, what these amendments do is correct the problem that we have had with this piece of legislation from the beginning: that there is an ideological blindness that's been drawn into this bill. We want to make sure that if you're an Australian publisher, if you're an Australian news outlet, if you employ Australian journalists, if you're reporting Australian news and you're doing it for an Australian audience and you're within that small sphere as outlined by the criteria, you have access to this fund. It shouldn't matter whether you are friends with the government ideologically or not. The issue in relation to this would mean that we can ensure that the applicants, to be able to access this fund, must have a body corporate controlled by Australian residents. That is of course important. In this way it ensures that eligible applicants must have Australian management and Australian control with independent Australian editorial direction. But it is not based on whether it is from the right-wing media or the left-wing media—that shouldn't matter. It should be about whether the editorial control and the management are within Australia. It is Australian taxpayer funds, so let's ensure that we are supporting and that this fund can support agencies and news outlets that report Australian stories and employ Australian journalists.

One of the key elements of this whole debate that came out of the media reform package was: how do we protect Australian journalists' jobs? We know that it is becoming a tougher and tougher gig to be a journalist in Australia. The margins to be able to keep funding organisations are getting harder and harder to work within. We know that the 24-hour media cycle has an impact on that. These are all of the different elements that we have covered over the months and years that we've been debating this issue in a broad sense. The whole objective is to protect Australian journalism, because it's in the public interest to have good journalists writing about Australian stories and what's going on, informing the Australian public, reporting on what we do here in this parliament, at a time when trust in politics is so low. It is a matter of having good support for the journalists who scrutinise us, question what we're doing and make sure that, as a government and as parliamentarians, we're upholding our obligations to the public properly. These are all important roles in relation to why we want a strong journalism sector in Australia. If that's the case, let's make sure this fund actually does that: supports Australian stories and Australian journalists and gets away from just saying, 'Well, it's only available to these people because they fit certain criteria.' The criteria should be that it is Australian managed, that it has Australian editorial control and that they're employing Australian journalists for an Australian audience. I don't see why this chamber should have any issues in relation to that.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The bill that we have before us is intended to be a simple amendment to give legislative authority to ACMA to independently administer the Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund. We have set down a number of eligibility criteria. They are outlined in the explanatory memorandum to the bill but aren't proposed to be legislated. It is normal practice for guidelines and eligibility criteria to sit outside legislation.

The other point I would make is that if the grant criteria were to be legislated it would mean that the government wouldn't be able to make minor tweaks to the criteria in a straightforward fashion—based on feedback from industry—in light of the administration of the fund, which is something that I think would be helpful.

The final point I'll make is that the Greens amendment does clear the way for outposts of large foreign media outlets to be eligible for funding, and that would mean less funding available for Australian publishers.

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

Could the minister explain why the government would be opposed to ensuring that this bill clearly outlines that this fund should be available to publishers who are writing Australian stories and employing Australian journalists for Australian audiences—organisations that are Australian managed and have Australian independent editorial control? Surely that's the objective of this entire bill?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's the view of the government that outposts of large foreign media outlets should not be eligible for funding. That would mean less funding available for Australian publishers in genuine need.

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

Could the minister explain whether the government supports the objectives of public interest journalism—small publishers who are trying to ensure they can keep themselves sustainable to support the role of public interest journalism, particularly in regional Australia, where the local news is really important when you turn on the radio or you open up your local paper? It is often the lifeblood of the community—the heartbeat of the community—to know what's going on and who's saying and doing what. Surely, the government must believe that those entities, if they put their hand out for public money, should have independent Australian editorial control?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government does want to support small publishers and regional publishers; that's the purpose of the fund. But I can really only reiterate that we think the funding that's available should go to Australian publishers and not to parts of what are large foreign media organisations.

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

Temporary Chair, I'd just like to answer one of the questions that was asked by you during the committee stage, before you entered into the chair, in relation to clause 3 of the amendments on sheet 8435. From memory, you were asking about the types of things that this money could be spent on and the grant criteria. This is probably a question that needs to go to the minister in some respects, because we need to make very clear that this money is being spent on public interest journalism. This is what this is for; it's not to offset the budgets that bigger organisations perhaps have from their parent bodies in the city. This is about supporting journalists here in the regions, to ensure that those regional communities get the news and the analysis that they deserve. Just to be clear: we need to make sure—and it is in here—that the following criteria are specified in relation to a person for the purposes of this grant:

(g) the person does not receive financial assistance from, and does not carry on its business with regard to the interests of, any of the following:

(i) a political party;

(ii) a trade union;

(iii) a superannuation fund;

(iv) a financial institution;

(v) a non-government organisation;

(vi) a policy lobby group.

This money needs to be spent on journalism. This money should be being spent on what it takes to make sure Australian communities know what's going on in their communities and what their government is doing, and to underpin their ability to do that. Most newspapers or radio stations have advertising and sell ads to keep the newspapers in print or the radio stations on air. Their advertising revenue is up to them, but how do we ensure the money from this bill is being spent on journalists and journalism?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The purpose of the innovation fund is to assist eligible organisations to make changes to their business processes to ensure they're in a better position to compete in the changing environment. Examples might include commissioning feasibility studies or planning work; commissioning IT builds or installations; acquiring intellectual property or installing new technology, plans and equipment; acquiring assets that are directly and solely employed to achieve the project outcomes, which might take the form of acquisition or lease costs; training staff that directly support the achievement of project outcomes; and defraying the costs of financial auditing of project expenditure. They're some of the things that are eligible.

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

How are we going to keep track of that? How are we going to know what's happening? Is there going to be an auditing process? Will there be spot checks? How will we know that organisations aren't just spending this to subsidise other activities? What type of quality control is the government foreseeing to ensure the money will be spent in the right places?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Regular reporting and acquittal arrangements will be required, as is usually the case with grant programs. There are clear criteria as to what is eligible and what is not.

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

I don't quite understand. It feels as though the government hasn't really thought about how they're going to manage the quality control very well. I understand that a lot of it will be left up to ACMA, but is this part of the consultations the minister has had? Has the minister spoken with the various agencies about how best to ensure this money is spent in the right place? Have these organisations asked to be able to spend this money on other things, and have you had to reject those requests?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There will be standard audit and assurance processes, as undertaken by departments and Commonwealth agencies across portfolios. The Commonwealth and its agencies are well experienced when it comes to audit and assurance of grant programs.

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

When coming up with this whole idea for the innovation fund, how did the minister come up with the figure of $50 million? Was this just plucked out of the air or was this done through research? Do we know how many jobs $50 million will actually create, keep or sustain through this fund? Why is it $50 million?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did canvass the question of $50 million with Senator O'Neill a little earlier and how that was arrived at in discussions with then Senator Xenophon. We reached the view that that was an appropriate quantum to be meaningful and that amount was agreed to by the government through its usual internal processes for such matters.

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

I hate to say it, but that's not very illuminative in terms of why it is $50 million. Is that all the Treasurer let you have, a measly $50 million for your negotiations? Is that what happened or is that just loose change at the back of the couch that you had left over from something else? If we are serious about the demise of public interest journalism in this country, why is it only $50 million? If you're genuinely interested in making sure you protect Australian journalists' jobs, why is it only $50 million?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's not the practice that ministers will go to the internal deliberations of government and its internal decision-making processes. But, clearly, when you are in discussions over legislation such as the media reform package, colleagues from across a range of parties come forward with different propositions, and different colleagues will suggest what they think to be appropriate quantums for particular projects that they think might be important and that might be of assistance in helping them to crystallise their thinking about a piece of legislation. I know, Senator Hanson-Young, that you're not unfamiliar with those processes and propositions which might from time to time come from your party to the government in relation to different pieces of legislation.

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

Does the minister have any idea of how many publishers or media agencies would be eligible to apply for these grants across the country? Do we have a comprehensive list of how many candidates are eligible and is that broken up by press, newspapers, radio, television or online? Do we have a list of potential candidates who would be able to apply for access to these grants?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There would potentially be dozens and dozens of media organisations who would potentially be eligible, but I can't furnish a list of organisations that would be eligible. It's ultimately up to individual organisations to assess themselves against the criteria to see if they meet those criteria in order to be eligible to make an application. I should point out that just because an organisation is eligible to make an application doesn't mean that an application that they submit will necessarily be successful.

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

I find this interesting. You think that there could be dozens and dozens of these organisations who could be eligible. Have you done any work in your consultation as to how many organisations might apply? You said you've done some consultation. You must have an idea of how many applications you're going to get. The reason I'm interested in this is that it helps us to understand how effective this is going to be as an innovation fund. If there are dozens and dozens of organisations that would be eligible under the criteria, how on earth will you determine which organisations in which locations will get access to this support? Would we be in a situation where Queensland, for example, gets nothing but your home state of Victoria and the regional newspapers in Victoria get a lot? Or, indeed, would it be that the media agencies in Queensland would get a lot and, say, those in my home state of South Australia will not?

You said to me you didn't want to explore, in this place, why $50 million was put on the table. You're now telling me that dozens and dozens of agencies would be eligible. How on earth are we going to decide which ones get them? How do we make sure this isn't just a pork-barrelling exercise for the government?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's independently administered.

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

Yes, but how do we make sure, Minister, that there is a genuine spread that supports the entire Australian community with what you say would be an effectiveness of this innovation fund? How do we make sure that, whether you live in a regional area in Queensland or you live in a regional area in South Australia, as a taxpayer, you're going to get some benefit from this fund? Otherwise, it just seems like it is purely $50 million put on the table to satisfy former senator Nick Xenophon without any thought about the actual benefit to the taxpayer and to regional communities.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The criteria have contained within them that two-thirds of the fund needs to go to regional publications.

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

You're not answering my question. My question is about how, if there are dozens and dozens of these organisations that would be eligible, they're not all going to be able to access this fund. You've said that yourself. What protections are there? How will you manage to ensure that it's not lopsided? How do we make sure that it is not just communities on the east coast of Australia that are benefiting from this and no-one from Western Australia, South Australia or, indeed, Tasmania? How are you going to make sure that doesn't happen? It sounds as though, perhaps, you haven't really thought about (a) whether $50 million is appropriate or (b) how many are eligible in the criteria in relation to ensuring that you've got a fund that will effectively meet the needs of small publishers and media agencies whether they are in the suburbs or the bush.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It will be a merit based process. The outcomes will be determined by application quality, and we're sure that there will be good-quality applications from around the nation. As I said before, the criteria require that two-thirds of the grants go to regional publications.

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

I've been itching to ask Senator Hanson-Young a few questions about her amendments. I know she tried to address one that I foreshadowed earlier, but I don't believe it was adequately clarified for me. I'm specifically referring to amendment (3) on sheet 8435, in which there are very specific grant eligibility criteria. One of them is subsection (g): 'the person does not receive financial assistance from'—and then it lists political parties, trade unions and so forth. My question specifically is: what is the definition of 'financial assistance' in this case? If a political party undertakes a commercial contract with a person, as defined by this schedule, for advertising services or other engagement of a commercial nature, does that rule the person as described ineligible to apply for the grant?

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

This wording is directly out of the minister's explanatory memorandum. It is his wording. It's already in the bill as their criteria. Perhaps the minister could give you that response.

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

Thank you for that direction. I look forward to a response from the minister on that particular matter. Minister, you could nod if you'd like me to restate my question, because you might have tuned out earlier.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Bernardi. As your question was to Senator Hanson-Young, I may have momentarily been otherwise focused.

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

I understand how difficult it can be managing so many complex issues in your portfolio, Minister. For the benefit of you and your advisers, amendment (3) on sheet 8435 lists a range of grant criteria which Senator Hanson-Young has advised are directly out of your explanatory memorandum. I'm interested in the definitions of several clauses and several words in there. The one I particularly raised was financial assistance. What denotes financial assistance from one of those political entities? Is a regular commercial contract engaged, say, between a publisher and a political party or a financial institution deemed to be financial assistance because they are, in effect, giving money to the publisher? I want to know what criteria, specifically, apply to financial assistance.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bernardi, I can't help you because the wording in Senator Hanson-Young's amendment is not the wording that is in our explanatory memorandum and is not the wording that is in our criteria. Our criteria, in relation to that, are much broader. In our explanatory memorandum, where we talk about an independence test, we say that it not be:

… affiliated with a political party, union, superannuation fund, financial institution, non-government organisation or policy lobby group);

So we talk about affiliation, which is a much broader concept than that which is in Senator Hanson-Young's amendment. What Senator Hanson-Young is referring to by way of financial assistance I can't tell you because it's not our criteria and it's not in our EM.

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

Thank you, Minister. You'll understand why the Senate may be a bit confused when one senator says one thing, and I'm sure it's not due to malfeasance or anything else, and the minister says another. I will redirect the same question to Senator Hanson-Young. Do you have a response, Senator Hanson-Young?

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

The wording 'financial assistance' is used throughout the explanatory memorandum. That is why those are the words.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

'Financial assistance' is used in the explanatory memorandum in terms of the Commonwealth's grant to an entity. It's not in relation to the relationship between the entity and a third party.

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

Thank you for that. As these amendments are moved and circulated by the Greens, I'm going to address the question to the Greens. In order not to delay the Senate in considering this bill in a timely manner, there are other questions about definitions as well which the minister may like to take under advisement should they be redirected towards him. There are questions around the phrase in the Greens amendment: 'each senior manager of the person is resident in Australia'. A 'person' being, let's presume, a corporate entity, does that mean each and every director? Does it mean the editors? Does it mean any senior personnel within the organisation? These are very specific questions because they go to the ability to implement the amendments that Senator Hanson-Young and the Greens have put forward. I'm just seeking some sort of assurance that Senator Hanson-Young has received the appropriate advice and is ready to respond, which I believe she is.

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

These would be matters for ACMA to interpret, as per the rest of the criteria in the current bill as before us. As the minister has said, this fund is meant to be administered by ACMA. We set down the criteria as they are, and they oversee them. I'd be interested to know, from the minister's perspective, how on earth ACMA are meant to interpret, for example, to ensure which of these 'dozens and dozens' of organisations that he believes would be eligible won't all just be concentrated in the same state.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've already answered that.

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

I regret that I can't just accept the buck-passing to ACMA. I do note that the other amendments deal with ACMA dealing with it, but these are very specific issues because the description of each senior manager of the person is one that could lead to ongoing legal dispute, if I may say so. What is deemed a 'senior manager'? Is it a director? Does having one foreign director on your board in a corporate entity contradict the grant criteria, if you've got some international expertise? These are quite genuine questions because they go to the workability of it. Similarly with 'financial assistance': I could mount an argument that financial assistance is a regular commercial contract. If you're preventing small publishers from entering into a commercial contract with a financial institution, a political party. a trade union, a superannuation fund, a policy lobby group or a non-government organisation you're probably killing their business. I'm sure that's not the intention, but I've learned in my time in this place that you're better off being quite specific and resolving these issues now rather than leaving it to an outside entity to interpret them, because they're prone to problems later on. I'm trying to avoid the problems.

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

In relation to paragraph (g), I would point out to Senator Bernardi:

(g) the person does not receive financial assistance from—

and—

does not carry on its business with regard to the interests of …

The argument about a regular commercial contract and advertising—I don't believe that is caught by this at all. The point is that this is about the interests of these political organisations or trade unions or superannuation funds or whatever and the rest of that group. It's not just about the financial assistance. It's about ensuring that the interests of that group are not going to be supported by any of the activities that this fund would underpin.

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

Thank you, Senator Hanson-Young, that's very helpful. Just to clarify: something that is like The New Daily, which is funded by industry super funds, I understand, would be ineligible to receive a grant under this criterion. Is that correct?

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

I would imagine that would be the case, or that would be up to ACMA to make that determination.

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

In respect of the definition of what a senior manager is, amendment (3), paragraph (d), reads:

(d) each senior manager of the person is resident in Australia;

What is a senior manager?

Is it a director in a corporate entity—as most of these small publishers would be for liability reasons? And if they had a foreign director, even if there were only one of them, would that deem them ineligible? What if they had an editor in an offshore post somewhere, maybe in the Pacific or in an Asian country, and the editor were effectively deemed to be a senior manager? Where do the criteria begin and end?

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

I do believe that this would be something that, in terms of those details, ACMA would need to oversee. But let me just be very clear: the intent of this is to ensure that eligible applicants have Australian management of the media outlet and agency—that they are Australian controlled—with independent Australian editorial direction.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can we get some clarification, because there are so many bits of paper moving around in the chamber at the moment. Could Senator Hanson-Young clarify the status of the sheet that was distributed during her contribution, which is numbered 8434 revised?

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

Do you mean clarify whether she wants to withdraw that?

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are there going to be votes on any of the other pieces of paper before us, or is their proposal simply that there will be a vote on the amendments as indicated on sheet 8435, which is before us currently?

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Hanson-Young, would you like to respond to that?

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

I'm working off sheet 8435. That's the current one. Those are the amendments that I have moved.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are they the only proposed amendments that we're going to be dealing with before we go back to the bill?

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Hanson-Young, do you have other amendments that you propose to deal with?

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

I don't believe so.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Hanson-Young has moved amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 8435 together. Would you like us to split them up, Senator O'Neill?

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No. It's fine with us if they're moved as a block. I just want to put some comments on the record, as it looks like we're about to go to a vote—I think we are. Labor will support this amendment, which seeks to ameliorate one of the flaws with the fund—that the grant criteria is ideologically motivated.

Public interest journalism, the fourth estate, is a key pillar in our democracy. Support for public interest journalism in our democracy should not be ideologically motivated. We had several things to say about that on the night the bill came before us for the first time. It was sadly ironic that the two-out-of-three cross-media control rule, which acted as a democratic safeguard in promoting media diversity in Australia, was done away with through a deal that was conducted behind closed doors and away from democratic scrutiny.

Labor understands and shares the sentiment behind this amendment. On the night the Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund was announced in this place, Labor decried the government's ideologically motivated exclusion of certain innovative publishers from the fund. That included The Guardian Australia, BuzzFeed and The New Daily. The concerns we have about those very important parts of the media, which we have access to every day as citizens of this country, are the key motivation for our support of this amendment. Labor will continue to hold the government to account for the deal, and we'll monitor the uptake of this fund. We will be watching who applies for it, we will be watching who accesses it and we will certainly be watching to see what, if anything, it achieves.

Labor are aware that the government has valid concerns with the drafting of this amendment, such as concerns that there are technical defects. I have to say that we do share some of those concerns, but we do not think that these concerns are insurmountable, and we believe that the government will have the opportunity and resources to remedy them as the bill progresses through the parliament.

Labor is also conscious that legislating the eligibility criteria will mean that any changes to the criteria in future would require legislative amendment. For example, if the minimum revenue threshold of $300,000 were too high, it would be necessary to return to parliament to amend the criteria. To the extent that flexibility to tweak the criteria is desirable should the government discover along the way that the criteria are not fit for purpose, Labor notes that the government took the decision to forge these criteria behind closed doors, away from parliamentary scrutiny. That the government is making this fund up as it goes along is a matter of concern for the government and it is certainly of concern to us. While, as the minister outlined, it is standard practice to include criteria in guidelines and not legislation, the government has, unfortunately, acted to create a fund that is ideologically motivated, and has thus motivated the amendment that is now before us. Labor notes that, without legislating the criteria, it would be open to future governments to revisit the eligibility criteria. But the issue before the Senate with this amendment is whether the overarching criteria are actually suitable. As the criteria are ideologically motivated, we believe they should not be supported because they are not suitable.

I want to close by putting on the record that Labor has sought consultative engagement with both the Greens and the government with regard to this particular amendment. There are many unanswered questions on this bill and on the amendment. The amendments circulated by the Greens today are many and, in our view, they are not drafted perfectly. Yet, on balance, Labor believes that this does address an ideological attack on a vital part of the media landscape of this country and the amendment goes a significant way to redressing that balance. So, on balance, Labor will support this amendment on 8435.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Bernardi?

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

Thank you, Chair. I've just received a text message saying that I referenced InDaily as being sponsored by Industry SuperFunds. I meant The New Daily. InDaily is, of course, a reputable South Australian online journal of note. So I want to correct the record.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Bernardi. Minister.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Chair. I would make two quick observations. Firstly, it's very interesting if the Labor Party are saying that, henceforth, they believe program criteria and guidelines for grants should always be legislated. That's very interesting. That seems to be the Labor Party's new position across programs and portfolios. We'll be watching that with interest. Secondly, Labor themselves have conceded that there are errors and difficulties in the Greens amendments. It's very odd that the Labor Party, recognising that, are proposing to support the amendments and are saying that it's somehow the government's job to clean up inadequate amendments to give effect to something that is not government policy.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator O'Neill, do you want to respond?

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just for the record, I don't intend to allow the minister to verbal me and declare that this is a position for Labor going forward. This is a bill that you constructed in the dark, in a dirty deal with Senator Xenophon, who's no longer here. This is a bill with guidelines that you constructed that excluded key participants in the media landscape of this country. This amendment is important in that it seeks to redress that ideological attack. This is an extraordinary situation, not business as usual, Minister. So I don't want you to misunderstand in any way our action on this very particular matter.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Minister?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can only take the implication from that comment that the Labor Party are against any cross-party agreements and that they will not, from this point on, be entering into any agreements with any crossbench groupings in this place and will never have discussions outside of this chamber with any crossbench grouping. So, again, that's a curious development.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator O'Neill.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For the record, I think the senator is deliberately misinterpreting the nature of my comments this morning. I would not like his interpretation to stand as an accurate record. Of course the Labor Party will continue to constructively converse with all participants here in the chamber.

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

The question is that amendments (1), (2) and (3) on sheet 8435 be agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( 11:3 3 ): Senator Hanson-Young, it would assist the chair if you'd clarify that you won't be moving amendments (4) and (5) on sheet 8435 separately?

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

No, I won't.

Bill agreed to

Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.