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

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (8) on sheet 8219:

(1) Clause 4, page 3 (after line 31), after paragraph (a), insert:

; (ab) the ability of all enrolled persons, including persons aged 16 and 17, to express their views by ensuring that steps are taken to update the electoral rolls prior to, and during, the period in which the marriage law survey process is conducted;

(2) Clause 5, page 4 (line 18), omit "In", substitute "(1) In".

(3) Clause 5, page 5 (after line 29), after the definition of civil penalty provision, insert:

claim for enrolment, by a person, means a claim by a person who has turned 16, but is under 18, to have his or her name placed on the electoral roll in accordance with section 100 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918.

(4) Clause 5, page 6 (after line 14), after the definition of Electoral Commissioner, insert:

electoral roll means an electoral roll under the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918.

(5) Clause 5, page 6 (lines 15 to 17), omit the definition of enrolled person, substitute:

enrolled person means a person:

(a) enrolled on the electoral roll at any time during the limitation period; or

(b) who has made a valid application for enrolment on the electoral roll before, or at any time during, the late enrolment period; or

(c) whose name is on the electoral roll, at any time during the limitation period, as a result of a claim for enrolment by the person; or

(d) who has made a valid claim for enrolment before, or at any time during, the late enrolment period; or

(e) who has received a notice from the Electoral Commissioner under subsection 103B(2) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 as applied by section 12B of this Act, before, or at any time during, the late enrolment period, but only if the details of the notice are correct.

Note 1: Paragraph (a) includes a person who is an eligible overseas elector.

Note 2: Paragraph (b) includes a person who has applied for enrolment from outside Australia.

Note 3: Paragraphs (c) and (d) refer to a person who has turned 16, but is under 18, years of age.

Note 4: Paragraph (e) refers to a person who the Electoral Commissioner is satisfied is entitled to be enrolled or to make a claim for enrolment.

(6) Clause 5, page 6 (after line 18), after the definition of Federal Court, insert:

late enrolment period means the period:

(a) beginning at the end of 24 August 2017; and

(b) ending at the end of the 14th day before the end of the limitation period.

(7) Clause 5, page 8 (after line 28), at the end of the clause, add:

Definition of elector

(2) Despite the definition of elector in subsection 3(4) of the Census and Statistics (Statistical Information) Direction 2017, an elector, for the purposes of the marriage law survey process and that direction, is taken to include a person who is an enrolled person within the meaning of this Act.

(8) Page 19 (after line 20), after Part 3, insert:

Part 3A—Enrolment matters

12A Updating or transferring a person's enrolment without claim or notice from the person

(1) This section applies if, on or before 10 October 2017, the Electoral Commissioner is satisfied that section 103A of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 applies to a person.

(2) Section 103A of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 applies for the purposes of this Part, subject to subsection (3), as if:

(a) the word "may" in subsections 103A(2), (3) and (4) were replaced with the word "must"; and

(b) the words ", by 10 October 2017," were inserted after the words "a notice" in subsection 103A(2); and

(c) the words "28 days" in subsections 103A(3) and (4) were replaced with "7 days".

(3) The obligation on the Electoral Commissioner to update or transfer the enrolment of a person under this section applies to the end of the late enrolment period.

12B Enrolling unenrolled person, or placing a young person's name on the electoral roll, without claim or notice from the person

(1) This section applies if, on or before 10 October 2017, the Electoral Commissioner is satisfied that:

(a) section 103B of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 applies to a person; or

(b) for a person who has turned 16, but is under 18—section 103B of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 would apply to the person if the person were 18.

(2) Section 103B of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 applies for the purposes of this Part, subject to subsection (3), as if:

(a) the words "or is entitled to make a claim for enrolment" were added to the end of paragraph 103B(1) (a); and

(b) the words "or has not made a claim for enrolment" were added at the end of paragraph 103B(1) (c); and

(c) the word "may" in subsections 103B(2), (3) and (4) were replaced with the word "must"; and

(d) the words ", by 10 October 2017," were inserted after the words "a notice" in subsection 103B(2); and

(e) the words "or to make a claim for enrolment" were added to the end of subparagraph 103B(2) (b) (ii) and paragraphs 103B(3) (b) and (4) (b); and

(f) the words "28 days" in paragraph 103B(2) (b) and subsections 103B(3) and (4) were replaced with "7 days".

(3) The obligation on the Electoral Commissioner to enrol a person under this section applies to the end of the late enrolment period.

When we were aware that a safeguard bill would be brought to this parliament several weeks ago, we made it clear that our view would be that we should allow 16- and 17-year-olds to participate. Consistent with that position adopted several weeks ago, we're introducing amendments to lower the age to 16 for people to participate in the marriage law survey. It's consistent with our view, and it has been a long-term view, that 16- and 17-year-olds should be able to vote in general elections. We know that in many other jurisdictions, in countries like Austria and Scotland, for example, 16- and 17-year-olds participate in their democracy, with very good results, a high youth turnout and greater engagement in the public debates on many issues.

We think that 16- and 17-year-olds should be able to participate in this survey. Young people can open a bank account, buy property, can work and pay taxes and, of course, can marry. So, in that context, we have long held the view that 16- and 17-year-olds should be able to participate in a plebiscite, should that receive the support of the Senate, or indeed now the marriage survey. It is consistent with our long-held position of having 16- and 17-year-olds vote in general elections. We know that young people are feeling disfranchised from the democratic process, and we know that much of our politics is dominated by short-term thinking, and here we have an opportunity to engage young people who have a great stake in their future. They have a great stake in many issues that are going to shape the course of their lives.

We know that this is an issue that has a direct impact on many young people in our community, particularly young people who are coming to terms with their sexuality, and we would like to afford them the opportunity to participate in this debate. I understand that the government have already determined their position on this, but we—just to put it on the record—felt that it was important that we express our support for that position through these amendments.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition has made its position on these matters clear. First, we have a proud history of advocating for the extension of the electoral franchise, and I'll come back to that point. But, as we made clear in debate on legislation, I think, on Monday when the Greens moved a similar amendment, we do believe that such a significant issue as the extension to 16- and 17-year-olds should be considered fully and properly and through the JSCEM process. For those reasons and a desire to progress this legislation as a consensus position in the parliament, we won't be supporting the Greens' amendments to extend the franchise on this occasion. Prior to the last election, the Labor Party moved to extend the vote to 16- and 17-year-olds in this country and the Leader of the Opposition did, at that time, commit a Labor government to consult on the issue appropriately prior to recommending a change. We believe it's an issue that requires appropriate consultation, and we would recommend that the issues canvassed by the Greens' amendments be referred to the JSCEM, where the Australian Greens can participate and, with other parties, seek appropriate reform.

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

One Nation does not support these amendments. Reducing the voting age to 16 or 17 is, I think, a bit ridiculous, to say the least. A lot of kids are still in school at that age and very few are in the workforce, paying taxes or providing a roof over their own heads, let alone having a decision in this. That's why the voting age is set at 18 years of age. I think it is terribly irresponsible to want to reduce the voting age—even though it may be in other countries around the world. The whole fact is that we know a lot of our younger generation haven't experienced life. Most of them are still being looked after and cared for by their parents; they have no understanding of what marriage is all about, let alone paying their own way in life, having jobs and paying their taxes. So One Nation will not be supporting this bill at all.

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

Senator Bernardi, did you have a question?

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

I have general questions, but not in relation to these amendments.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that the amendments moved by Senator Di Natale on sheet 8219 be agreed to.

Question negatived.

I thank you for providing me the opportunity to participate in this debate—for your consideration in that respect. Minister, I have a few questions of clarification. Thank you for addressing one of the matters I raised in my speech in the second reading debate: that the Attorney-General effectively will be acting as a gatekeeper to assess the merits or otherwise of any complaints and actions before they proceed to court. Are you able to advise me whether such a gatekeeping role is applicable to any other law or whether there are any legislative impediments to providing access to the judicial system?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, indeed, there are. I'm advised that there are consent-to-prosecute provisions in a range of laws, including the Criminal Code.

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

Let me get this straight, Minister: you're saying that there are legislative provisions that determine whether an individual citizen has access to our legal systems in order to resolve an issue that they have. I would ask for perhaps some examples where access to justice is first assessed by the Attorney-General.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to examples, I'll have to take that on notice. My advice is that there are consent-to-prosecution provisions in various laws, as I've indicated, including the Criminal Code. I concede that the arrangement here is somewhat unusual. That is because of the unusual circumstances we're in. The measure is designed to be a safeguard to ensure that there is an appropriate check and balance on protecting freedom of speech.

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

Without labouring this point, if this is such a good idea for this bill, why is it that the Attorney-General doesn't act as the gatekeeper for a whole range of other complaint mechanisms that go through to tribunals, rather than an independent judiciary?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ultimately the independent judiciary would, of course, consider any complaint and make relevant decisions independently. I think that these are matters that are appropriately considered by the parliament on a case-by-case basis as to whether the public interest in a particular circumstance warrants the approach that the government has taken on this occasion. In all of the circumstances, we believe that the circumstances and the context for this legislation do warrant this approach.

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

Minister, I think you made the point that the independent judiciary will be able to consider it, but only if the complaint is approved by the Attorney-General in the first place, and I just think that is fundamentally wrong. I think it is entirely flawed and indicative of how this has been put together at very short notice. You may respond to that later, but I have some other questions of clarification. The circumstances are that there has already been campaign material released, including videos online, memes in social media, various ads, posters and things. Will these need to be updated once this bill passes, which it will, to ensure that they comply with authorisations and any other requirements contained in this bill?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Bernardi. The provisions in this bill will apply from commencement until 15 November 2017. That means that they don't apply retrospectively to communications that have been made in the past, but any communications distributed by relevant means from the commencement of this bill will need to comply with all the relevant requirements, including the authorisation requirements. May I say that the leadership of both sides of this argument were advised very early on of the government's intention to move along these lines. Progressing this legislation was held up by the legitimate process in front of the High Court because, for understandable reasons, a number of key stakeholders were not prepared to meaningfully engage on this until the High Court had resolved the questions on the validity of this process, which, of course, it now has. But the answer to the question is that, from the commencement of this bill, any communication and any material that is distributed has to carry the authorisations as provided for in this bill.

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

Minister, I'm not trying to make a political point here. I think it's a very important point. Materials have been published already and they have been prepared and not released. When does the authorisation have to be placed on them? Will it be from when this bill passes through the parliament or from royal assent? What happens if material continues to be supported or displayed that had previously been published without an authorisation? It's essentially a very practical step, Minister.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thought I had addressed this. To be very clear: what is relevant is not when material is printed or prepared; what is relevant is when material is distributed in the public domain. From the commencement of this bill, which will be on royal assent, all relevant material under this legislation that is distributed will have to carry the appropriate authorisations on the terms and conditions as provided for in this legislation.

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

So, Minister, anything that has been publicly displayed, printed, broadcast or shared before royal assent will not have to carry the authorisation, if it continues to circulate in its existing form?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, that is not what I've said. Anything that has been circulated, published or distributed in the past—that's in the past—obviously can't be changed, but anything that is published, circulated, distributed or in the public domain as part of this campaign from the commencement of this bill will have to carry the appropriate authorisation. Let me say here again that the leadership of both campaigns were advised right from the outset that it would be the government's intention to put safeguards in place similar to those that would apply in the context of an election campaign, including the authorisation requirements, so that is not something that should have come as a surprise to anyone.

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

Let me be more specific. If someone has prepared a video or a Facebook post about this campaign and has published that without authorisation, and then they choose to share that again or put it on a different Facebook site, do they have to rework the material, if it's just an extension of what has already been out there? Will you have to take these posts down and reauthorise them after the passage of this bill? It's a very practical thing. It's not about an orchestrated campaign or the 'yes' or 'no' campaign. It is for the independent contractors, if you will, or the campaigners who feel strongly about this material and may have put some stuff out there already.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Anything that is published after the commencement of this bill will have to be appropriately authorised. If somebody wants to share material that falls under the provisions of this legislation, from the commencement of this bill it will have to be appropriately authorised.

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

So if someone, after the royal assent, decides to share something that had been previously published, they will find themselves in offence with this bill and could find themselves before the assessment process of the Attorney-General for liking or sharing or publishing something that already has been published. Is that correct?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bernardi now is conflating two different issues. The Attorney-General has no role in relation to managing compliance with authorisation requirements. Authorisation requirements are managed in the usual way, through the Australian Electoral Commission, under this legislation, and, as is always the case in the context of an election campaign, relevant material will have to be properly authorised, which is something that was flagged by the government right from the outset, which is precisely what would have been the case if the Senate had passed legislation to put in place a compulsory attendance plebiscite. That's precisely what would have happened in that scenario, and it is going to be the case under this bill, if the Senate passes it.

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

Thank you. I am no better informed, Minister. I understand you're saying exactly what the facts may be, but they don't assist in this circumstance. Let me give you a particular scenario. If we accept that Senator Dastyari, for example, has produced a video advocating for the redefinition of marriage—

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

True. So far, true.

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

Thank you, Senator Dastyari. That's why I chose it—because I know it's true. If it doesn't contain the appropriate authorisations, but I decide to retweet it after royal assent of this bill, will I be in breach of the act? Or, if it is not Senator Dastyari but some unknown meme artist who has put something on Twitter, who may be in breach of the act: if I retweet it, would I then be in breach of the act because I'm acting as a publisher or a promoter of such?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The arrangements are precisely the same as they would be during an election campaign. Paid advertisements obviously have to be authorised. In relation to the sorts of matters that Senator Bernardi describes, if they directly relate to the marriage law survey or to the question before the Australian people as part of the Australian marriage law postal survey, then these matters would have to be appropriately authorised, which is precisely the way this would be handled in the context of an election.

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

I just have a follow-up point of clarification, because I thought that was quite a fair question. I think the point that Senator Bernardi is making on this is that, a lot of times in these kinds of situations, when we're dealing with social media and other matters, people can wrongly or inadvertently—and it's not their fault; we're all professional politicians; we follow the passage of laws; we're well aware of the Electoral Act and other matters—get themselves involved in the passing on of different bits of information without realising what the consequences of that are going to be. It's not their fault. There is a lot of material out there at the moment that, once the passage of this legislation occurs, would not comply with what we are looking at possibly passing today. That's not malicious—the rules were not in place.

I note that Senator Bernardi and others have created social media content. I have personally created social media content. It's a healthy part of the debate. People have created videos, memes or images to promote their cause and to explain things to different people, and they've gone out there and actively shared this type of information. I think the point that Senator Bernardi is making—and I think it's an important point of clarification—is that it's understandable that content producers, be they the marriage equality central campaign or larger political parties, would now be able to make sure that future material is authorised and they may even be able to deal with material that already exists. But, in this social media world, material has been created, which the content creators have now lost control of, and other people have taken and used it and are sharing it around the place. Minister, I understand how the act works, but the difference between the act and what we're addressing now is that, when we deal with election campaigns, because it is already in place, the material itself has normally been properly authorised by the content creators, be they political parties, larger organisations, trade union councils, minerals councils or whoever. But could you clarify for me whether people acting in good faith would be in breach of this legislation if next week some older material that didn't have the proper authorisation were to be shared?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have pretty well answered all of these questions. From the commencement of this bill, the authorisation requirements will apply in the usual way, and the Electoral Commission will administer them in the usual way. They don't take a heavy-handed approach to compliance in the first instance, and I would expect them to take into account the relevant circumstances. But let me say that relevant material that falls under the relevant provisions of this bill will have to be authorised from the commencement of this bill, consistent with section 6 of this bill, which is precisely what we're seeking to achieve. It is something that the government has well and truly telegraphed right from the beginning of this process. This is not something that is new in any way, shape or form. You'll find that a lot of the material that has been distributed or broadcast has carried authorisations, even though there wasn't yet a legal provision or a legal requirement.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Continuing on with authorisation, I'm interested to know how these authorisation provisions differ from the authorisation provisions in the Electoral Act, in particular where there is greater focus on social media and other means of communication which haven't yet been covered by the Electoral Act. How do you see that working in terms of authorisation for social media posts, phone calls and text messages—where I can see potential issues? Similarly, we don't have authorisations on T-shirts and other small materials, which are going to be difficult to authorise. How will this legislation cover the authorisations of these new media?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Senate would be aware that, earlier this week, we actually did pass modernised authorisation requirements for the purposes of an election period which cover things like so-called robo-calls, text messages and the like. This bill is 100 per cent consistent when it comes to the breadth of the authorisation requirements of these sorts of platforms. It's entirely consistent with what the Senate endorsed earlier this week.

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

Minister, just to clarify, you say that the bill will not come into effect until it has been ratified. When will that happen? When will it receive royal assent?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It obviously depends on when the bill passes the parliament. Assuming it passes the Senate, it will go to the House of Representatives. The government would like to think that the House of Representatives will also deal with this legislation swiftly. We would recommend royal assent to the Governor-General at the earliest opportunity, because, of course, our intention is for these additional safeguards to be in place as soon as possible. But I can't give you a specific time because it depends on the processes of the parliament.

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

This becomes null and void from 15 November. From other bills in this place, we know that it could take at least two or three months for royal assent. You can't envisage that. So is it worthwhile to pass this bill?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, it is worthwhile to pass this bill. When I say that the government will be taking steps to recommend to His Excellency the Governor-General royal assent as quickly as possible, we will propose for that to happen within days, I would say. The outer limit would be within days, but it would be as swiftly as possible.

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

On the fines that can be created, section 4 of the bill states:

A person may, for example, be liable to a civil penalty if the person vilifies, intimidates or threatens to cause harm to another person or persons because of:

(a) views expressed or held, or believed to be held, by the other person or persons in relation to the marriage law survey question ...

Minister, does this mean that you're going to shut down people from expressing their views held with regard to same-sex marriage?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No; clearly not. If you go to section 15(2), on conduct, in the first instance nobody will be found to have breached the anti-vilification, anti-intimidation and anti-threat-to-cause-harm provisions by reason only of the expression of his or her views about the marriage law survey question. There has to be the additional element of vilification, intimidation or threat to cause harm. Because Senator Hanson raised this in her speech in the second reading debate, subsection 15(3) also specifies:

... does not apply if the conduct is done reasonably and in good faith and is:

(a) the reporting of news, the presenting of current affairs or any editorial content in news media ...

that's self-explanatory—

or

(b) the communication of matter solely for genuine satirical, academic or artistic purposes ...

My advice is that is consistent with similar provisions that would apply in an election context.

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

The bill finishes on 15 November. If a complaint is made under 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act by anyone vilified, insulted, offended, humiliated or intimidated, it can take up to 18 months. What provisions have you taken into account? Who will they complain to if there is a complaint? And how is it going to be dealt with if this bill finishes on 15 November?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If this bill is passed, the law will apply during what is called the 'limitation period', which is the period from the commencement of this legislation to 15 November. If an act in breach of this section were to take place during that limitation period, between commencement and 15 November 2017, any processes that flow from that would continue until they're resolved.

The government hopes, and I believe the parliament hopes, that these provisions will not have to be used at any one point in time. That is because we would like all Australians to engage in this debate and express their views freely but with courtesy and respect. We don't believe that, to make the point on either side of this argument, there is a need for vilification, intimidation or threats to cause harm. I think people on both sides of the argument can make their points in support of their side of the argument in a way that is courteous and respectful. It is our hope that the parliament sending this message that we will not tolerate vilification, intimidation or threats of harm is sufficient to prevent that behaviour occurring. But, in the end, there is the opportunity for action to be taken by the Attorney-General—the gatekeeper—who will make the judgement as to whether or not the action proceeds to the next stage.

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

Minister, I have one last question on vilification, intimidation and how people feel. It is a known fact that a lot of people are bringing signs to protest rallies and so on, and those for the 'yes' vote have signs saying 'homophobic' or 'you're a bigot'. Would that be classified as vilification? Would those people be charged under this act?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's not going to be my judgement. What I would say is that we should err on the side of freedom of speech, and that is certainly the intention, but this provision will help to ensure that extreme behaviour on both sides of the argument can be properly addressed.

There is a safeguard here, of course, because the Attorney-General has to make the judgement as to whether he will consent to prosecution. That is a deliberate safeguard. Anti-vilification and similar sorts of provisions that seek to provide safeguards against intimidation and threats to cause harm have been in place at a state level for some time. There are established processes and understandings on how these things are pursued. We believe that, in the context of an eight- to nine-week period, hopefully we will not need to pursue any actions under this particular provision.

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

Minister, I'd like to just move to part 3, proposed section 12 of the bill, which is about allowable broadcasting of non-program matter. It may be that I've missed something here, but proposed section 12(1) (a) and (b) talks about non-program matter—which I take to be commercials—and says that, between 6.00 pm and midnight, a primary commercial television broadcasting service is allowed to have 14 minutes 'provided that on average no more than 13 minutes per hour comprises non-program matter that is not marriage law survey matter'. Yet proposed subsection (2) says, in relation to commercial television broadcasting, that between 6.00 pm and midnight, which is the same time frame, 'up to 15 minutes per hour, plus one minute per hour of non-program matter that is marriage law survey matter'. So my reading of it suggests it's 14 minutes, maximum, and then it's 16 minutes in the other one. What have I missed?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, what I would say is that these provisions are literally a copy and paste out of the relevant provisions that apply during an election period. The second point is that one is a cap within the hour and the other refers to an average during the day on an hourly basis. That's the reason for the difference. It is 100 per cent consistent with equivalent provisions that would apply in the context of an election campaign.

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

It says:

… the licensee may schedule, on average, in each hour no more than the following amounts of non-Program matter:

(a) between 6.00 pm and midnight—14 minutes, provided that on average no more than 13 minutes …

That is the average that is not marriage law survey. Provided that the averages in subsection (1) are met, subsection (2) says:

… up to 15 minutes per hour, plus one minute per hour of non-Program matter …

That is for the same time period. One is saying that there's a maximum of 14 minutes, provided that, on average, there are no more than 13 minutes, and the next one says it's up to 15 minutes, plus one minute per hour of non-program matter.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is as I said: one relates to the daily average. As the second subsection then indicates, as long as that daily average is complied with, then, within any one hour, there is the flexibility to go up to 15 minutes per hour plus one minute per hour of non-program matter that is marriage law survey matter. Essentially, as long as you comply with the average per hour on a daily basis, in any single hour, you are able to take advantage of the relevant provisions in subsection (2).

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

Minister, you'll be pleased: I'm going to wrap up shortly—maybe not; I've got a few more pages. The obligations of broadcasters were about presenting equal sides. In respect of advertising, is there a requirement for broadcasters to make available equal time within those 14-, 15- or 16-minute averages that are specified here in the bill?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to correct you here: what we are legislating here is not a provision for equal time. What we are legislating here is a provision for reasonable opportunity. It does apply to both programming and advertising.

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

I thank the minister for that clarification. In a scenario which we've seen, one of the national broadcasters, SBS, refused to run particular advertisements during programming. Would they be within their rights to refuse to carry programming because they disagreed with the content, which complied with the law and all the legal restrictions but didn't fit within their philosophical framework?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The precise purpose of this provision, as would be the case in the context of an election campaign, is to ensure that all broadcasters, including the ABC and SBS, provide reasonable opportunity for both sides of the argument to be heard. The answer to your question is that SBS should not be able to deny the opportunity for the 'no' side of the argument to put their case.

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

Thank you, Minister. I'm not trying to conflate it, but does that apply equally to advertising and broadcast matter? I understand the intention was to ensure that broadcast matter for programming gave reasonable opportunity, but it applies equally to advertising—is that correct?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can confirm that it applies equally to both.

The CHAIR: The question is that the bill stand as printed.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.