Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I will speak briefly on the Meteorology Amendment (Online Advertising) Bill 2014. As Senator Singh has acknowledged, the bureau is one of the most widely respected and visited sources in the country, whether you are checking the app on your mobile phone or the website to see if you need an umbrella or not on that day. Indeed, you might not be aware that they are the source for the TV news every night. From that ordinary sense all the way through to the fact that the bureau does critically important research on longer term climate impacts on Australia, I think it is important to note at the outset that this is a widely respected and trusted institution.

I am aware from my work in a slightly different context over the years with SBS of the idea that publicly funded, available, trusted broadcasting services be compelled to take advertising—which is something that, fortunately, has not crossed over to the ABC yet, although we know that that is being discussed behind closed doors. At least in the context of SBS, forcing the Special Broadcasting Service to take advertising was simply an excuse, once it had been worked out roughly how much the agency would be able to raise, to withdraw public funding and to make it more difficult for the SBS to carry out its deeply important role. What I see occurring with the extension and normalisation of advertising that will be carried on the Bureau of Meteorology's site, is creeping commercialisation allowing government to gradually abandon and withdraw responsibility for funding a service that all Australians, whether they know it or not, deeply depend on from the day-to-day mundane all the way through to the critically important enabling research and modelling on what our climate is doing. In forcing an entity like the bureau to run advertising on its web presence—which, as Senator Singh has acknowledged, has a lot of eyeballs, presence and reach—although it obviously boosts the fortunes of the bureau, we will find the Australian government removing a dollar for every dollar that is raised in advertising.

In the meantime, we have commercialised something that should have remained free from those influences. As was noted at SBS—and it would be interesting to consider how the bureau might respond—the SBS changes its programming, ethic and the way it thinks about its role if it is effectively chasing eyeballs. When you begin to advertise, effectively your audience and viewership becomes a commodity that you sell to advertisers. It is a very different way of thinking than when your customer is the people of Australia, who rely on you for reliable weather services and climate research. I do not think the case has been made at all.

This has been listed as non-controversial legislation. I would like to put on record on behalf of the Australian Greens that for us it is procedurally non-controversial in that we do not intend to call a division, because we understand the government and the opposition have called in favour, but I think this prospect is one of controversy. We should not simply let through to the keeper the idea that government can withdraw responsibility for a service like this, pulling funding from the BOM, while encouraging it to become some kind of commercial broadcaster on behalf of advertisers. I know the context of SBS is somewhat different, that SBS is a broadcaster and broadcasters sometimes carry advertising. This is a profoundly important public service.

What happens next? Will we have the health department advertising pharmaceutical products? I do not mean that in a glib or a tongue-in-cheek kind of way. Is that where this is heading? I think it is a very dangerous path for us to be going down. On the one hand is the fact that it means the government can reduce its responsibility for funding something that is very important; on the other hand, is the way that these kinds of commercial imperatives—which are entirely appropriate for private companies as opposed to government essential services—can warp the priorities of the agency itself. That is what I think we should be extremely careful of here.

The Greens are quite disappointed to see the bipartisan cross-party support on behalf of Labor and the coalition for normalising something that I think we should apply some critical thinking to in order to see how much further down this curve the government proposes to go. I guess Senator Mason is going to rise to speak on this bill, on behalf of the government. I would be interested to hear from you, Senator Mason, on your behalf, whether this is something we are likely to see for other government online presences. Are they—

Senator Mason interjecting—

Well, you have some advisers in the box next to you. I understand that you are in a representative capacity here, that this is not your portfolio. But I would be interested to know: today the Bureau of Meteorology, yesterday SBS—who is it going to be tomorrow, and where is this going to take us? I am recording now that the Greens will not be calling a division, but we do oppose this bill and we think some critical thinking should be applied to the whole concept.