Senate debates

Wednesday, 11 October 2006

Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006; Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006; Communications Legislation Amendment (Enforcement Powers) Bill 2006; Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 2006

Second Reading

10:13 am

Photo of Barnaby JoyceBarnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I do not think the Red Hot Chili Peppers or the Pussycat Dolls will put any government out of business, so I do not think we should count them as a voice. It is a bit strange to say that a program that plays predominantly music can be determined to be a voice. People will say, ‘Lots of people listen to that.’ They listen to it but they do not form their opinions from it. The 20 per cent of the people of this nation who are extremely dangerous because they change their vote will not be guided by the inspiration of the Pussycat Dolls. We have to make sure that we protect the voices that do change the aspirations, the inspirations and the opinions of our nation.

For that purpose, a voice should not be a media outlet that is predominantly a music channel—or a racing channel. Who wins race 5 at Dapto does not change the result of an election. The name of the red-hot runner at Randwick is not going to affect the governance of our nation, so that sort of channel should not be determined to be a voice; it should be knocked out. Of course, reducing the number of voices reduces the capacity of people in a market to merge. Obviously, things start falling below the five- and the four-level test. So there are ramifications, and that is why the voices test needs to be tightened up, and that is why the related entities test needs to be tightened up. The related entities test in the tax act, by way of a continual amendment process, is a vital piece of legislation. If something similar were incorporated in this legislation, it would give transparency as to who owns what.

I am prepared to vote for such amendments. Unfortunately, having regard to the dynamics of our democratic process, inspiring others to do the same can be difficult. However, on this side we have not fallen so far as to start signing pledges as to which way we are going to vote. It is good that at this point in time we on this side still do not sign pledges saying, ‘You will usurp your democratic duty for the sake of a caucus.’

The debate will go on for a number of days. I look forward to the involvement of others in the debate. I look forward to the committee stage. All in all, I feel that the National Party has carved out a whole swathe of issues that are completely and utterly different from the position when we started. We can go right back to its inception—to a resolution at a Queensland state conference—and follow it from there.

Comments

No comments