Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications and Broadband) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) as circulated in my name together.

The purpose of these amendments is, as I foreshadowed in my speech on the second reading debate, to delete the new section 31AA in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act, which has the intent of and the effect of making the ABC the only eligible party or entity with which the Commonwealth can contract to deliver international broadcasting services.

We entirely respect the viewpoint that the ABC is an appropriate body to deliver the Australia Network. It is not an unorthodox view to conclude that it is the most appropriate entity to deliver an international broadcasting service. But it is surely remarkable that, having held a tender only 18 or so months ago for the delivery of the Australia Network, where it invited other parties to tender—including Sky, of course, which notoriously won the tender twice but then did not get the job because it did not suit the Prime Minister—and having acknowledged the appropriateness of having a tender, the government is now not simply giving the job of delivering the Australia Network to the ABC but seeking to remove the possibility forever, or at least until such time as the parliament would change this law it is hoping to enact in the next few days, of a government being able to make this important job of acting as Australia's international broadcaster contestable.

As I said earlier today, you have the very real proposition that a future Managing Director of the ABC, and a future minister, may be in a discussion about this where the minister says to the Managing Director of the ABC, 'Look, I think you're asking for far too much money for this; we don't think this is a reasonable price you are offering'—and then has no ability to put the matter to tender, no ability to make it contestable. This flies in the face of every conceivable element of good practice because, where you can introduce contestability, you should. If nothing else, it would keep the ABC on its toes and would ensure that it would always have, in the back of its mind, the thought that, if it started to pad out the contract, or sought too much money, or was not efficient in delivering the services, the matter could go out to tender and another entity, a private sector broadcaster, could compete with it.

In summary, we make no criticisms of the ABC as a public broadcaster that has done a good job and is delivering Australia's public diplomacy vehicle, its international broadcasting services—the Australia Network. We do not suggest it is an inappropriate broadcaster to deliver that service in the future. But the idea of removing any possibility of making this contestable seems utterly unreasonable, impractical, undesirable and thoroughly bad policy. I suppose we should not be surprised: it is consistent with all the bad policy and poor management we have seen from the government.

It indicates, if I may say, the chaotic dysfunctionality of the government—the fact that only 18 months ago, as I said, the government actually held a tender, so it clearly thought it was appropriate to make this matter contestable. And then when the result of the tender was not what the Prime Minister sought, the tender was scuttled and the ABC was given the contract. Future governments, not dysfunctional like this one—businesslike governments, reasonable governments, competent governments, like the one we hope to form following the election—will want to preserve that possibly of contestability. It may not always take advantage of it, it may not necessarily hold a tender, but you would want to have the ability to do so. This bill removes that possibility, and so our amendment, appropriately, is designed to delete section 31AA from the bill and leave the Commonwealth with that ability to have a tender and that discipline of contestability to ensure that the ABC, in making whatever proposal it makes to be the international broadcaster, does so on keen and competitive terms. I commend the amendments to the House.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the fact that I was able to have a discussion with the shadow minister earlier today about this very issue. I informed him at that time that the government would be opposing these amendments that have been put forward.

There are very strong public policy reasons for Australia's national broadcaster to provide the Australia Network service. The Australia Network is an important public diplomacy platform, as is the case with comparable operators such as the UK's BBC World Service, and it should be provided by the national broadcaster. You do not outsource this important service. The delivery of the Australia Network is subject to a funding agreement between the ABC and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to ensure that this service is delivered in line with the national interest.

The shadow minister has suggested that he concurs that, in normal circumstances, there are good public policy reasons for the ABC to perform this role, but he seems to be concerned that circumstances may arise where the ABC was imposing an unrealistically high charge on the government for delivering this service. The problem with the shadow minister's proposition is that it fails to take into account the structure of funding for the ABC as a government body. If it were the case that the ABC was seeking to gain extra revenue by overcharging by an amount on what could reasonably be expected to be an appropriate charge for delivering the service internationally, then the recourse to the government, as the funder of the public broadcaster would be immediate, clear and easy to implement.

It stands very clearly, in my view, that the only argument you can have for the shadow minister's amendment is not indeed the one that he puts forward about price gouging, if you like, in the way that the ABC puts itself forward but one that says the ABC should not register its concerns. So this is really just a Foxtel amendment the opposition has to make a show of moving. There is an argument that you might want a private tenderer to do it, but that is not the case. So I oppose the amendments put forward.

Darren Cheeseman (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment be agreed to. There being more than one voice calling for a division, a division is required and in accordance with standing order 133(b) the division is deferred until 8 pm. The debate on this item is therefore deferred until that time.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2), circulated in my name, together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 5, page 5 (line 10), omit "1,095", substitute "1,460".

(2) Schedule 1, item 5, page 5 (line 17), omit "1,460", substitute "2,920".

These amendments go to the simple point of increasing Australian content on commercial television. In the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill we are providing the TV broadcasters with a 50 per cent reduction in their licence fees. This recognises, as we appreciate, the significant commercial pressure faced by the commercial TV industry. But this gift of public spectrum comes in return for the Australian Content Standard, the stated objective of which is to promote:

… the role of broadcasting services in developing and reflecting a sense of Australian identity, character and cultural diversity, by supporting the community's continued access to television programs produced under Australian creative control.

When looking at the latest ACMA compliance results it is clear that free-to-air networks are far exceeding the required 55 per cent broadcast of Australian program hours on their main channels. In fact, they are each broadcasting between 60 and 67 per cent. Yet, the proposed regulation for Australian content on the multi-channels is comparatively very low.

The proposed regulation will only require the networks to screen local content for 12 per cent of the local broadcast hours across their multi-channels. This legislation allows the content hours to be spread across the multi-channels and includes repeats and sports. That is not the best way to protect Australian content producers—the writers, the artists, the technical expertise. That is why the Greens are proposing that we double Australian content. There needs to be a safety net that adequately protects the Australian public from cheap overseas imports, which according to Screen Australia typically cost around 75 per cent less per hour than the Australian equivalents. A recent Screen Australia study found that nine in 10 Australians believe it is important to have a film and television industry producing local content and that the most important benefit was to ensure that we are not overrun by cheap Hollywood imports. Those surveyed agreed that Australian content brings us together as a community and as a nation. Australian content is important for the strength of our democracy. Australian content enables us to express ourselves as Australians.

In 2000, the Productivity Commission stated on Australian content and drama in particular:

If availability of these programs to Australian audiences declined, a loss of social and cultural benefits to the community would be likely. Australian drama can be effective in providing information and education as well as entertainment, for example, by canvassing contemporary community issues and concerns. Documentaries have a direct role in providing information and education.

These are the fundamental cultural objectives of the Content Standard.

With the free-to-air networks so highly protected, the Australian public must not be short-changed by a safety net that is cripplingly low, given that the free-to-air networks enjoy new opportunities for long-term growth once this transitional phase has passed.

These bills give us the opportunity not only to protect but to strengthen Australian content on commercial television. From the Greens perspective, given the now significant reduction in licence fees that will be afforded to the commercial TV networks upon passage of these bills, increasing local content in the manner prescribed in the amendments, an increase from 1,095 to 1,460 minimum hours of Australian programs in one section, and from 1,460 to 2,920 in another, is an acceptable amendment. I commend the amendments to the House.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government does not support these amendments. We are very supportive of increasing the amount of Australian content on commercial television channels other than the broadcaster's primary or main channel. However, the government also recognises that increased local content requirements will result in increased costs for broadcasters. So the new requirements will be phased in over time in accordance with industry consultation that has already been undertaken.

The government's bill already imposes an Australian content quota on commercial television broadcasters of 55 per cent between 6 am and midnight on their primary channels, as well as separate quotas on multi-channels during these times. This is an important reform. I am very much a supporter of increasing Australian content, and this bill does just that. But it is a matter of striking the right balance and of making sure that the change is affordable and achievable. I believe the government's bill has the balance right, and I commend the bill to the House. I again indicate that the government will not be supporting these amendments.

Darren Cheeseman (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments be agreed to. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133(b) the division is deferred until 8 pm. The debate on this item is therefore deferred until that time.