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

I return to the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017. Pauline Hanson's One Nation supports the government's broadcasting reform bill with changes we believe will bring better media coverage and support to rural and regional areas of Australia, and accountability for Australian taxpayers. Media diversity in Australia has changed over the decades, but not to the extent that it has since the introduction of digital media and the internet. The two-out-of-three cross-media reach rule prohibits a person controlling more than two out of three regulated media platforms—that is a commercial television broadcasting licence, a commercial radio broadcasting licence and an associated newspaper in any one commercial radio area. Unless a newspaper publishes at least three times a week, it does not come under the two-out-of-three cross-media reach rule. How many newspapers have we seen go under due to the lack of support?

Channel Ten is struggling to survive, as is the case with many media outlets, whether television, newspaper or radio. This is going to be the norm for a lot of media companies unless change is made. Is their failure due to poor management, poor content or not producing a product that the public want? I would say yes. From a personal point of view, I rarely watch Channel Ten, on the odd occasion when I do have time to watch television. CBS, an American company, put in a bid to buy Channel Ten. I don't believe it is in Australia's best interests to allow an American left-wing media company to buy Channel Ten.

I have stated my concern in many other areas in regard to the foreign ownership of Australian assets, business and land. We have to stop the takeover of our country. Do we want or need a mirror image of our ABC, a left-wing dominated organisation that is biased in their reporting and presentation of programs, and that is not reflecting a fair and balanced approach, especially when it comes to political issues? This brings me to One Nation's request that the government introduce legislation to insert the words 'fair' and 'balanced' into the existing subsection 8(1)(c) of the ABC Act. This amendment would mean the relevant subsection would state:

(1) It is the duty of the Board:

(c) to ensure that the gathering and presentation by the corporation of news and information is fair, balanced, accurate and impartial according to the recognised standards of objective journalism …

I have had complaints from the ABC about this inclusion in the charter. They don't want this because, heaven forbid, they may be held to account by the public. Let me tell you, Mr Acting Deputy President, since 1996, I have had a battle with the ABC—not all of the journalists but most of them. Rural ABC have given me more of a fair go—fair and balanced reporting—but their counterparts in the cities, excluding Steve Austin from ABC Radio Brisbane, are reluctant to let their biased opinions get in the way of a good interview, or they try to stitch me up, as was the case when I appeared on Q&A. This was also evident when I appeared on Australian Story in 1999. The producer Wendy Page was given the assignment. After having worked with me for the best part of six weeks, she informed me she didn't want the assignment in the first place but intended to do the best she could to present my story. When her colleagues discovered she was doing a fair story, she was shunned and abused and faced barriers that she had never faced before. She also came across footage filmed by the ABC where I was dressing down all the media for their biased reporting of me during an election campaign. I had asked it to be off the record. I had been told, 'Of course it was,' and the words used were, 'We are honourable people.' This was not the case with regard to the ABC. They kept filming, with the camera sitting on the floor to make it appear they were not filming. Wendy Page used that footage in her story of me.

The ABC receives over $1 billion a year from the Australian taxpayer. We are not all left-wing bleeding hearts wanting to open our borders to illegals and refugees. We are not all supporters of gay marriage. We are not all supporters of corrupt unions and socialist agendas. We are not all supporters of becoming a republic. And we are definitely not all supporters of destroying our Australian identity, culture and way of life to continue the push for multiculturalism and forever saying sorry.

In December 2016, a complaint was upheld that immigration minister Peter Dutton was inaccurately described as making inflammatory statements about Lebanese Muslims that he did not in fact make. In October 2016, a complaint was upheld that a report on the Safe Schools program was not impartial and did not give airtime to controversies surrounding the program. There are no similar examples of bias or overreach favouring the right side of politics and, under questioning during Senate estimates, the ABC was unable to provide any such examples. 'Fair and balanced' means just that. There are two sides to an argument or debate, and this is not presented in many of the ABC's programs or by its commentators, reporters and board. It will be very interesting to see their fair and balanced comments in relation to same-sex marriage.

One Nation has also asked for transparency in relation to the salaries provided to the senior staff and on-air talent of our national broadcasters. The taxpayer has a right to know what remuneration is being paid to ABC staff. It is no different to my pursuit of the excessively high remuneration packages paid to the CEO of Australia Post, the CEO of NBN, and those in other government positions. When you have one ABC presenter who appears on TV one night a week for an hour and receives via the taxpayer more than $350,000 a year, according to figures released a few years ago, it doesn't pass the pub test. If the ABC is confident that their remuneration packages are fair, why are they so reluctant to let the public know about them? They have fought tooth and nail to keep them confidential and they continue to do so.

One Nation also wants a stronger focus from the ABC on providing services to rural and regional Australia by way of a regional advisory council and a requirement that the ABC board have at least two non-executive directors who have a substantial connection to, or experience in, a rural and regional community through business, industry or community involvement. We are calling for a better outcome for rural and regional Australia. How can the ABC justify spending only 17 per cent of their funding in rural and regional Australia when 35 per cent of the people live there?

As I said before, the ABC receives just over $1 billion a year in government funding. Is it fair to say their importance to the Australian public is to provide a service that is not provided by the private sector in general? Because the ABC is an advertising-free network, they rely on government funding. So it begs the question: why is the ABC begging for programs—for excessive amounts of money—against commercial stations that will advertise during their broadcasts and give the companies a return on their investment, and pay taxes? If we intend to have diverse media outlets in Australia, then the ABC has to get out of trying to compete with the commercial market. Bidding on the World Cup that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars is not in the public's interest. If the ABC chooses not to, then I suggest that the ABC forgo taxpayer funding, become a commercial enterprise on the same level playing field and see how well it does without its slush fund.

Senator Jacqui Lambie made some ridiculous statements that One Nation wants to cut the ABC budget. This is all speculation on Senator Lambie's part. For the information of Senator Lambie and others and to set the record straight, it was never discussed with the minister or his advisers. I intend to pursue the ABC's funding with the relevant minister at some appropriate time in the future. The ABC is no different to any other government organisation funded by the taxpayers, and I will pursue with it with regard to accountability and value for money. Senator Lambie is trying to justify her reason for not voting with the government, although she does agree with getting rid of the two-out-of-three rule, by blaming One Nation. I suggest that Senator Lambie pick up the phone and talk to me, rather than ignoring the facts, like so many others in this place, who are ready to have a swipe at me to try and make themselves look good.

I am very pleased to be able to assist community radio in small and remote towns. Local community radio stations are the glue that binds communities together. For locals, it is a job of love carried out by locals who give up their time to keep their communities informed. One Nation has secured an extra $12 million in total funding for community radio over the next four years. Part of that funding will enhance the industry's existing national training program to focus on management and small business skills as well as other training. The grants will enhance their online presence, including the establishment of a central online streaming portal, which will provide more content relevant to local communities and enhance the diversity of media services available to their audiences. There is also provision for additional funding towards the expansion of the national radio news service to assist community broadcasters to maintain or enhance their provision of news content. An additional $2 million will support the rollout of community digital radio by extending the time frame by two years till 2021.

Australians have seen too many iconic assets and too much land in the hands of foreign ownership. Most of the time we are treated like mushrooms and told by our leaders that it is in our best interests to privatise and sell to foreign investment because of the money it brings into the country. The truth is that successive governments have failed to balance the budget. One Nation will not stand by and continue to see this happen. If we can't stop it, at least we will know who is buying us up. We are asking for a register of foreign ownership interests in regulated media assets—be it associated newspapers, commercial television broadcasting licences or commercial radio broadcasting licences. Under the proposal, foreign persons, as defined in the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975, would be required to disclose holdings of 2.5 per cent or higher of these regulated media assets. Any foreign bid of five per cent or more will still have to go to the Foreign Investment Review Board for approval.

I note Senator Bernardi is moving amendments to this bill. The first time I saw these amendments was last night. It's quite interesting that Senator Bernardi is now calling for a public register of foreign-owned media, a rural and regional advisory council, changes to the ABC charter and remuneration—declaration of the names of public employees' whose total remuneration exceeds $200,000. He is also calling for the ABC to be 'fair and balanced'. Well, I might say that is everything that One Nation has been talking to and negotiating with the government about, and it has been out in the public arena for quite some time now. I am amazed that Senator Bernardi has not spoken to me about this. It's quite interesting that, when I called for it to be fair and balanced, I remember Senator Bernardi saying to me that he wished he had come up with that himself. Although I see he is supporting everything I have been discussing with the government, he has not discussed it with the government. It will be interesting to see if Senator Bernardi does actually vote with the government to pass this bill.

One Nation, as I said, took into consideration the opinions and concerns presented to us from many media outlets, interested groups and journalists, in coming to our decision to help pass this bill. Media outlets are struggling and journalists are losing their jobs due to an ever-changing media environment that now heavily uses the internet. I am continually fighting against any Australian losing their job. Removing the two-out-of-three rule and the 75 per cent audience reach rules would reduce the regulatory burden on the media industry and enable them to better compete in the modern media environment.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These two bills that we're speaking about now, the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017 and the Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017, together achieve most of the agenda outlined by the Minister for Communications earlier this the year. On 6 May, Minister Fifield announced a number of broadcasting sector measures, including: repealing the two-out-of-three cross-media control rule and the 75 per cent audience reach rule and amending local programming obligations; amending the anti-siphoning scheme list; abolishing broadcast licence fees and datacasting changes; applying a fee for the spectrum used by broadcasters; imposing restrictions on gambling advertised in live sporting events across all platforms by codes of practice for broadcast platforms and by legislation for other platforms; a review of Australian and children's content; and funding to subscription television for women's and niche sports. Of these seven reforms, the first three are achieved by the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill and the fourth is achieved by the Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill. The final three, with the exceptions of codes of practice for other platforms, do not require legislation at this stage.

Labor supports most of these measures in these bills, because they're our measures. They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so it's really pleasing to see the government once again adopting Labor's policies. We led the way on broadcast licence fee relief, gambling advertising restrictions and funding to support the broadcasting of women's sports.

In March this year, Labor moved a second reading amendment here in the Senate which called on the government to work with broadcasters and sporting organisations on a plan to phase out the promotion of betting odds during live sports broadcasts. In a move that was the epitome of hypocrisy, the government voted against the motion and then, only a few weeks later, announced their own gambling advertising restrictions. The government's new gambling restrictions will prohibit all gambling promotions from five minutes before the scheduled start of play in all live broadcasts to five minutes after the conclusion of play or 8.30 pm, whichever is sooner. We have yet to see the impacts of these provisions, which still allow a fair amount of gambling advertising.

In relation to women's sports, Labor announced funding during the last election to support broadcasting of women's sports on the ABC and the importance of this commitment cannot be overstated. Currently, women's sport only comprises seven per cent of sports coverage on Australian television. And of course the situation hasn't been helped by the government's massive cuts to the ABC—cuts that they went ahead with in the previous term despite Mr Abbott explicitly ruling them out on the eve of the 2013 election. Expanding the audiences of women's sport is key to addressing the massive gender pay gap that exists in elite sports. While male players are earning six-figure salaries in sports such as soccer, cricket and Australian rules football, their female counterparts are struggling to earn even a living wage. And that's just not good enough.

I want to now comment on some of the other measures in this bill. It's widely accepted that the 75 per cent reach rule is well past its use-by date. Labor will support the repeal of this rule. We share industry's frustration at the government's delay on this reform. We support the new local programming requirements for regional commercial television in schedule 3 of the bill. The provisions are triggered when, as a result of a change in control, the licensee becomes part of a media group whose combined licence area population exceeds 75 per cent of the Australian population. Labor supports these provisions. However, they actually do little to promote diversity.

Schedule 4 of the bill amends the anti-syphoning scheme by extending the automatic delisting period for listed events from 12 to 26 weeks. This schedule also repeals the multichannelling restrictions, enabling free-to-air broadcasters to premiere listed events on a digital multichannel. In a post-digital switchover environment, this rule is now redundant, and Labor supports the ability of Australians to enjoy coverage of premium sporting events on free-to-air television.

Schedule 5 of the bill abolishes broadcasting licence fees and datacasting changes. Currently, these fees and charges raise around $130 million per annum. However, the media market has changed significantly since broadcasting licence fees were first introduced. Labor, in government, commenced the process of licence fee relief, particularly in recognition of the impact of the global financial crisis on local content production, and in the context of the digital switchover. The government's argument that this will mean broadcasters are better able to compete with online competitors was actually put forward by Labor in 2016. The related tax bill that the government has introduced as part of its broadcasting reform package introduces a new spectrum tax. This is estimated to raise about $40 million a year. The radio frequency spectrum is a highly valuable and finite public resource, so it's fair that the Commonwealth gets a return on the use of this resource. Some broadcast licensees will be worse off under the new spectrum tax, hence the inclusion of a $23 million transitional support package and the establishment of an ACMA review of broadcasting pricing arrangements, to be completed by mid-2022.

We will support all but one of the reforms in the government's broadcasting reform package. However, we find it quite disappointing that after four years in office—in fact, I think they've just clicked over to beginning their fifth year in office—the government would present such a lazy, piecemeal approach to broadcasting reform. As we've said many times before—in this place, in the House and through the media—Labor does not support the government's proposal to repeal the two-out-of-three rule. The repeal of the two-out-of-three rule is a misguided obsession from this government. Should the government succeed in repealing the two-out-of-three rule, it would concentrate media ownership and it would undermine Australian democracy. One of the best explanations of the importance of media diversity to democracy was provided by the Australian Media and Communications Authority, ACMA, in their 2011 report Enduring concepts: communications and media in Australia. They said:

At the core of liberal democracy is the idea of ‘pluralism’—that is, more than one perspective has validity, and there is social and political value in people expressing, and engaging with, these perspectives. The rationale for intervention is that in the absence of intervention, media and communications markets (or other interests) may consolidate perspectives or favour certain opinions at the expense of others, and that a diversity of voices has social value.

You would think that the Liberals, of all the parties, would share this perspective. I've heard those on the other side speak in defence of free speech. A party that genuinely believes in liberalism would value a diversity of voices in the media.

Australia already has one of the most concentrated media markets in the world, yet this government would seek to make this situation worse. The argument that appears to be advanced by the government in favour of this change is that, currently, there is a collapse in traditional forms of media—that's radio, television and newspapers. And it's true that the media landscape is changing as technology changes. Social media platforms such as Facebook and Instagram and content-streaming services like Netflix are becoming part of the media landscape. But to suggest that a diversity of voices can be maintained in the media when one person exercises control over radio, television and newspaper in a broadcast area absolutely defies credibility.

Despite the changes in our media landscape, there is no denying that radio, television and print media remain dominant forms of reporting. For example, a 2016 study by the University of Canberra's News and Media Research Centre found that TV, print and radio are still the main sources of news for over half of Australians. This is a lot higher—more than 70 per cent—for people aged 65 and over, who make up a significant portion of the population. This figure does not account for news generated by these platforms but shared through other means such as social media. I know from my own use of social media that links to newspaper articles, in particular, feature prominently among the news reported on Facebook and Twitter. And the majority of the most popular news websites accessed by Australians—in fact, eight out of the top 10—are either directly or jointly owned by traditional media platforms. We should also recognise that many Australians, either by choice or due to poor service—of which there is quite a bit—are not active online and therefore continue to rely on traditional media platforms for their news.

This is the government's second attempt at repealing the two-out-of-three rule. Their first attempt was in a 2016 broadcasting reform bill, which was referred to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee. Three eminent academics provided evidence to that inquiry, outlining concerns about the current concentration in Australia's media market, and their comments were quoted in Labor's dissenting report. Professor Michael Fraser, from the University of Technology, Sydney, said:

It is notorious, in terms of news and current affairs, that we, among the democracies, have the least diversity in our newspapers and have very little in television.

Professor Rodney Tiffin, from the University of Sydney, said:

Media concentration in Australia is amongst the highest in the world. Our daily press is the most concentrated in the world … Our pay TV industry is the most concentrated in the world.

And Professor Graeme Turner, from the University of Queensland, said:

[It] is important that we are alert to the likelihood of any relaxation of media ownership restrictions making what is already an undesirable situation any worse.

Australia's high media concentration was also noted in the Finkelstein inquiry, which observed that we are the only country in the world where the leading newspaper company accounts for more than half of daily circulation, and the top two companies have an 86 per cent share. Commercial Radio Australia, the peak body for commercial radio stations, found in a study of Australia's audio consumption that new digital platforms such as Spotify and Apple Music had failed to dent radio's dominance of the audio landscape. Broadcasters such as Channel 7 and Channel 9, and newspaper companies such as Fairfax and News Limited, already have extraordinary power, and that power could be further concentrated.

In my home state of Tasmania, I think it's fair to say that our newspapers are dominant enough that political careers are made, or broken, based on which candidates our newspapers choose to cover and in what light they choose to cover them. Unless you can get positive coverage in TheExaminer, in the north of the state, or the Mercury, in the south, it's very difficult to have any success in politics or any recognition of what you may have achieved. This gives them incredible power, which they can potentially wield to influence public policy in Tasmania.

I mentioned earlier traditional media's use of online platforms. The proliferation of new digital media platforms has not necessarily led to a proliferation of new independent sources of news. The government's own department of communications submitted to the inquiry into the 2016 broadcasting bill:

… the internet has, to date at least, tended to give existing players a vehicle to maintain or actually increase their influence …

We recognise that much of the competition faced by traditional media is from overseas digital content providers who are not subject to the same taxes and media regulation. This is why, as I said earlier, we support broadcasting licence fee relief and the removal of the 75 per cent reach rule. Removing the two-out-of-three rule will not effectively address these competitive pressures, but it will have a number of unintended consequences, not the least of which is the further concentration of an already heavily concentrated media market. Australia's democracy depends on the availability of a diversity of opinions and points of view to be heard. The state of Australia's media market makes it difficult enough already to have a genuine public debate, without media owners steering and influencing public opinion. The government's misguided proposal to remove the two-out-of-three rule will undoubtedly make this situation worse.

On the subject of maintaining a diversity of voices in broadcasting, I want to acknowledge the importance of having a strong independent national broadcaster. This role continues to be served by the ABC and SBS. Our public broadcasters are not the subject of this bill, but, as Senator Hanson thought it okay to bag the ABC, I thought I would say a few words in their defence. In talking about the role of broadcasting in Australia's democracy, their contribution must not be overlooked. Australia's investment in national broadcasting ensures that, while having a variety of voices in our media, we also have an independent voice in the media that is free from commercial influence and subject to a stringent code of practice. The ABC serves several other useful functions, including the opportunity for Australian content to be seen and heard and the provision of local news, public announcements and emergency broadcasting in remote and regional areas. SBS was established to ensure that Australia's multicultural diversity was promoted and celebrated.

These national broadcasting functions have been threatened by the government's aggressive budget cuts. It's utterly shameful the way in which this government has undermined our public broadcasters, and continues to undermine our public broadcasters. We all remember Mr Abbott's pronouncements on the eve of the 2013 election, which included the promise of no cuts to the ABC or SBS. But the 2014 budget included $254 million in cuts to the ABC, overseen by Mr Turnbull as then communications minister. It has led to the loss of hundreds of staff across the ABC, cuts to transcription services for the deaf and hearing impaired, an end to shortwave radio transmission in the Northern Territory, and programing cuts, such as changes to Catalyst and cuts to music programs on Radio National. In my home state of Tasmania it has led to the loss of the local edition of the current affairs program 7.30.

Since coming to government in 2013 the Liberals have cut the ABC's funding by $355 million over five years. To make up for their cuts to SBS the government tried to increase SBS's hourly cap on advertising. This would lead to SBS prioritising revenue at the expense of its charter obligations and would further undermine its unique role as Australia's ethnic broadcaster. I find it incredible that the Liberals' coalition partner, the Nationals—a party which purports to stand up for the bush—would not be standing up for the ABC when it provides such a valuable service to rural and regional Australia. But, like on so many issues facing rural and regional Australia, the Nationals have sold their soul and are willing to jump to the Liberals' tune.

As if the ABC isn't facing enough pressure, the government has made a grubby deal with One Nation to further undermine the ABC. Senator Burston has made it clear that the proposed amendment to the ABC Act requiring the ABC to be fair and balanced is absolutely aimed at giving equal weighting to groups like the antivaxxers, who promote outdated and dangerous ideas. When Senator Burston offers Fox News as an example of a broadcaster that is fair and balanced, we really have to be concerned about what this government's intentions are for the future of the ABC. Of course, the ABC should be independent and promote public debate, but the public interest is not served by giving quack science and conspiracy theories equal airtime to proper expert analysis and opinion. It's outrageous that this government would be willing to give more airtime to antivaxxers, climate change sceptics and Holocaust deniers on the ABC in return for support for these bills.

The government's agreement to a competitive neutrality inquiry into the ABC and SBS is also extremely concerning. It could diminish the role of the ABC and SBS to mere market-failure broadcasters. What could this inquiry possibly be aimed at achieving other than setting the stage for the end of public broadcasting in Australia? Now we know that Senator Hanson and One Nation want to see the end of the ABC. It begs the question: in addition to this grubby deal, is there a secret side deal for the government to cut funding to the ABC in the next budget? Australians love their ABC, and I don't think they'll take too kindly to the government's or One Nation's attempts to undermine their national public broadcaster.

Even if these bills pass, there are a number of issues in the broadcasting sector that remain unaddressed by this government, even after four years in office. The community broadcasting sector still has no certainty about funding for community digital radio. I've mentioned in this place many times how the Liberal coalition partners, the Nationals, have lost their soul, as they fail to stand up for rural and regional Australia. Given 66 per cent of community radio services are focused in rural and regional Australia, this just adds to the growing list of issues where The Nationals have failed to serve their core constituency. The government's reforms also do nothing to support the introduction of audio description for the blind and visually impaired. Over 350,000 Australians are missing out on this service despite it having been available for years in the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, New Zealand, Thailand and Japan. I understand the government have a working group on audio description which is due to report at the end of this year, but they're dragging their feet and it's just not good enough.

To conclude, I would like to thank my colleague in the House, Michelle Rowland, who has worked very hard on scrutinising this package as shadow minister for communications. Broadcasting reform is a wide ranging and complicated policy area. Ms Rowland has also been a strong advocate for broadcasting reform and holding the government to account for their years of inaction in this area and the piecemeal approach they are taking with this package.

I will acknowledge that the government's package, piecemeal as it may be, is a step in the right direction. It would be a great shame if they held this package hostage for the sake of insisting on their misguided pursuit of repealing the two-out-of-three rule. I have given a number of reasons that the two-out-of-three rule is bad for Australian democracy, and I urge the government to accept our amendments. (Time expired)

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

I rise to speak on, and support, the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017. This bill amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. In return for our support for this bill, One Nation negotiated with the government for the term 'fair and balanced' to be part of the ABC's charter, increase its commitment to regional areas and to reveal the salaries of its top broadcasters, amongst other things.

At present, the ABC currently spends just 17 per cent of its revenue for the benefit of people working outside the capital cities, where 35 per cent of the Australian population resides. Consistent with that imbalance, the ABC reflects the concerns and interests of people living in our capital cities at the expense of the population in regional, rural and remote Australia. We should seek to restore the balance at the ABC between the city and bush by requiring the ABC to direct 35 per cent of budget expenditure to places where 35 per cent of the population resides. Restoring the balance between the city and bush at the ABC is not just a matter of justice and equity but also of recognising the unique contribution of the bush to Australian culture and values. Why should the cities get the lion's share of ABC funding when so much of our history and cultural identity is represented by the bush?

It should also be said that the unique character of rural, remote and regional Australia owes much to the talented people who live in communities outside the major cities. The ABC would benefit from the creative input of those people, as would the audiences who support the ABC. It seems to me that the national broadcaster should defend our national values, and ABC management will be much better placed to achieve this objective if its programs reflect the values of a broad cross-section of the community and not just the hopes and aspirations of people who live in the capital cities.

Much of the material broadcast on the ABC is produced in rural, regional and remote parts of the rest of the world, especially in the United Kingdom, and it has always struck me as rather odd that our national broadcaster has no problem recognising the appeal of this material, except on its own doorstep. One reason the national broadcaster fails to reflect a broad cross-section of the community in its programing is that increasingly the ABC is dominated by city people, who, naturally enough, project city values.

I was hardly surprised to learn just a couple of weeks ago from Jennifer Oriel from The Australian that research at the Sunshine Coast university found that 41.2 per cent of ABC staff voted for the Greens. This figure may be representative of the Greens' voters in privileged parts of our capital cities, but the Greens' vote struggles to get to double figures in rural and regional Australia. This lack of diversity at the ABC is the reason that the bush is deprived of broadcasting funds.

If the ABC were a commercial broadcaster, there might be some small justification for the failure to apply funds proportionately between the bush and the capital cities. Commercial broadcasters need to make a profit, which is impossible in areas of low density population. For example, free-to-air television, news and current affairs budgets in the bush are just 10 per cent of capital city budgets. But the national broadcaster is supposed to serve the public interest, as articulated in the ABC Charter, not commercial interests. The ABC should broadcast programs that contribute to the national identity and reflect Australia's cultural diversity. I contend that directing just 17 per cent of revenue to rural, regional and remote areas, representing 35 per cent of our population, is contrary to the ABC Charter and against the public interest.

I wonder whether the ABC is ignoring the bush as part of a wider agenda to compete with commercial broadcasters. Just recently Darren Davidson reported in The Australian that the ABC outbid the Australian Associated Press for a lucrative contract to supply an outdoor advertising company with syndicated newsfeeds. In the same article, the journalist reports that other television broadcasters complained that the ABC, with its $1.04 billion in base funding, is outbidding the Channel 7, Channel 9 networks and Foxtel for programming that is more suited to pay-television services and commercial networks. If the ABC has so much money to spend, why not spend some of it in the bush?

The importance of a strong and independent public broadcaster cannot be overstated. People trust the ABC, especially in times of emergency—and I've currently got a fire emergency in the Hunter. We assume that what we see or hear on the public broadcaster has not been compromised by commercial interests. In the same vein, we expect to see or hear important news and to be entertained and educated without the frustration and interruption of commercial advertising. It is often said that the ABC is a public service we're entitled to access without direct cost. We value the fact that our ABC broadcasts programs that are not determined by advertisers looking for large audiences to sell their products and services to. ABC content is not subject to the dictates of commercial interests, and commercial interests should not be allowed to starve regional, rural and remote Australia of the funds required to serve the public interest, recognised in the ABC Charter.

While not part of this bill, I would like to take this opportunity to advise the government that One Nation is supportive of Blind Citizens Australia's position and its recommendations regarding audio description. Audio description is a service that provides verbal narration of visual elements that appear on screen during television programs, inserted during natural gaps in dialogue within a standard program. The service provides information about elements such as facial expressions, scenes, settings, actions, costumes and on-screen text, which is otherwise inaccessible to audience members who are blind or vision impaired. I've been advised by Blind Citizens Australia that audio description has been available on free-to-air television in all other English-speaking OECD countries for many years, while Australia continues to lag behind. Frustratingly, although iconic Australian programs such as Neighbours and Home and Away are currently audio described for overseas audiences, they are still not accessible to Australians who are blind or vision impaired. It is my understanding that Australians who are deaf or hearing impaired enjoy comparatively high levels of access, with the Broadcasting Services Act now requiring 100 per cent of content that is broadcast between 6 am and midnight to be captioned.

There are currently more than 350,000 Australians who are blind or vision impaired. According to Vision 2020 Australia, around 80 per cent of vision loss in Australia is caused by conditions that become more common as people age. The need for television services that can adequately respond to the needs of an ageing population will only become more pertinent in years to come, with one in every four Australians projected to be aged 65 or over by the year 2056.

One Nation believes there's plenty of fat in the budget of both the ABC and SBS to provide this service, starting at a bare minimum of 14 hours per week. I call on commercial broadcasters to consider offering this service, especially if this bill is passed. I understand that earlier this year the government announced the establishment of an audio-description working group to explore options to increase the availability of audio description in Australia. The working group will provide a report to government on its findings by the end of this year. I look forward to the release of the report at the government's earliest convenience.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017. This bill is the Turnbull government's second attempt at media reform, yet it appears that they have learned absolutely nothing since the first attempt. The flawed Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Reform) Bill 2016 stalled in the Senate because of vehement opposition to the proposed repeal of the two-out-of-three rule—we can remember it because it wasn't that long ago—yet this new bill rehashes the same provision from the earlier flawed bill.

It is very well known that Labor supports a number of aspects of this particular piece of legislation. We will continue to do so as long as the provisions relating to the repeal of the two-out-of-three rule are omitted. Labor is ardently committed to the support of the Australian media industry, to the jobs that the Australian media industry produces and, of course, equally as important, to the content that the Australian media industry produces. Both the jobs and the content are important aspects of a thriving Australian media industry environment. But, unlike the Turnbull government, Labor is also committed to safeguarding the interests of the Australian public. Why? Because that's the central tenet of any democracy.

We acknowledge the competitive pressures that the media industry faces every day and that Australia does need a thriving and capable media industry. It's imperative that the sector remains viable and competitive in a modern media environment. It's for this reason that Labor will support measures in the bill that the Australian media industry needs most—indeed, the aspects of the bill that the Australian media industry has been calling for, for some time now—such as licence free relief, the repeal of the 75 per cent rule and the relaxation of the anti-syphoning scheme list. But Labor also acknowledges that Australians value media ownership diversity. They truly do. They understand the role that a government should assume in promoting diversity through competition. It's for that reason that Labor fundamentally opposes the repeal of the two-out-of-three rule, which is a direct attack on media diversity in this country.

It's becoming increasingly evident that our Minister for Communications has no vision for Australia's media sector. He has no ideas for how to adapt our media safeguards to the contemporary environment. He seems practically incapable of undertaking any type of genuine holistic reform. Instead, he prefers doing his business behind closed doors—something we've become very well aware of. Who are the victims of his doing this? The victims are the Australian public. The victims of these backroom dealings are our trusted public broadcasters. They are the victims here. But we don't hear the minister talking at all about them.

We know that the Turnbull government welcomed what it called 'constructive engagement' with Pauline Hanson's One Nation party over its deeply flawed media ownership laws. We know exactly what 'constructive engagement' means. It means the further undermining of our public broadcasters. Do not be fooled. When the Prime Minister says 'constructive engagement' with the crossbench party of Pauline Hanson's One Nation he is talking about undermining our public broadcasters. It means cutting funding to the ABC and SBS, despite the polls showing, year after year, that the ABC is Australia's most trusted broadcaster. Why? Because this is a government that has no commitment to our public broadcasters and, therefore, no commitment to the Australian people who put their trust in those broadcasters. If we take a short trip down memory lane, just four years ago—

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

Senator Singh, I am loath to interrupt, but, it being 12.45, we shall now proceed to senators' statements.