Senator BUTTON (Minister for Industry and Commerce and Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications)(9.24) —I would like to thank the honourable senators who have contributed to the debate for their general support of the legislation and, indeed, for some of the constructive comments which have been made. I do not want to reply at any great length, but there are a few matters with which I would like to deal. First, I comment on the speech made by Senator Chipp, who commended the general approach of the legislation and expressed some concern about a number of matters. I correct Senator Chipp on one matter. I do not want to be in dispute with him about this. I am glad to hear in the course of the debate that it was the idea of the Australian Democrats that nominations for the board of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation should be submitted to a committee. There was no proprietary right in that. It has been a policy of the Australian Labor Party for some time. As honourable senators know, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) wrote to party leaders in accordance with that proposal a few days ago. Of course there has been debate about the mechanisms for securing the greatest degree of impartiality in the appointments to the board of the Corporation. I believe that the Democrats were earlier concerned to have appointments by the parliamentary process, which seemed to me to have some defects.

What the Government is trying to encourage here is a more civilised view than has existed in this country in the past about the political impartiality of the ABC and the need for this Parliament to behave in an impartial, non-partisan manner towards the Australian Broadcasting Commission. We are trying to establish in this country some of the civilised approach which exists in relation to appointments of the Governors of the Board of the British Broadcasting Corporation, for example, which are always matters of discussion between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in Britain. We think that that tradition could well be encouraged here. I remind the Senate that criteria are laid down in the Bill for the sorts of people who should be appointed to the board of the Corporation, general criteria which stem, I think, from the report of the Dix Committee of Review of the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

Senator Chipp says that there are deficiencies in the Bill. I agree with that. The Government will be quite prepared to examine some of those deficiencies and take steps at a later stage, if necessary, to rectify some of them. Senator Chipp raised the question of the staff elected board member. It is the intention of the Government that there be a staff elected board member. Senator Chipp was concerned, I think, that that proposal should be enshrined in the legislation. It may be a matter that could be looked at in a review of the legislation but in the current parliamentary program it was not possible to amend the legislation to devise what would be very complex procedures for the choosing of a staff elected board member, but it is the Government's intention that it should be done.

Senator Chipp made a concession in relation to the question of the difficulty of defining unfairness and bias when talking about the complaints procedure. I remind them again that the Government is committed to an inquiry by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal with a view to establishing a fairness code in relation to broadcasting which will apply not only to the ABC but also to the commercial stations. In that context we hope that when that inquiry reports we may be able to take some legislative action on a bipartisan basis in relation to those proposals. Senator Chipp also drew attention to the provisions of clause 78 which require the Corporation not to broadcast certain matters, on the direction of the Minister, in the public interest. The government will be examining that proposal with a view to changing it, as it will in connection with the similar provision which exists in the Broadcasting and Television Act. I do not think it is any comfort, as Senator Peter Baume said by way of interjection, that at some stage if the Minister acts in that way he is required to report to this Parliament. I do not think that is a sufficient safeguard.

Senator Peter Baume —It has been an effective sanction over the years.

Senator BUTTON —I do not think it is an effective sanction at all. I do not think that Senator Peter Baume will find in any of the legislation establishing great national broadcasting institutions around the world, a similar provision. Of course it is a war time provision which has lingered on in the Australian Broadcasting Commission legislation and, now, into this new legislation. I regard it as a defect.

Senator Crichton-Browne —Are you certain that there is not going to be another war?

Senator BUTTON —No, but I am certain of one thing: If there is another war I hope that this Parliament would have the wit, if necessary, to insert a provision of that kind into the legislation.

Senator Chipp —The powers are already in the Constitution, in the event of a national emergency, for the Minister to take over broadcasting.

Senator BUTTON —Yes. I do not want to comment in detail on Senator Chipp's speech. I just thank him for his constructive suggestions regarding the legislation.

Senator Crichton-Browne also applauded the general concept of the Bill and took up a number of issues which perhaps more appropriately could be dealt with at the Committee stage. He was concerned about the deletion of the no work no pay provision. He was concerned about the complaints procedure. He introduced into the debate the expression 'appealing from Caesar unto Caesar' which has become the golden thread of speeches in the course of discussions in the Senate tonight . He is to be congratulated on introducing that expression into the debate. It portrays his literary lineage, if I can put it that way.

I want to comment generally about the complaints procedure because it is a matter to which Senator Harradine has devoted a lot of time. As Senator Harradine reminded us in the course of his speech, the Australian Broadcasting Commission has existed for 50 years and there have been no complaints procedures at all in that period. The fact that a complaints procedure is being inserted now against the wishes of some people is, in my view, a considerable improvement . The real question is whether there might be a better complaints procedure than the procedure which has been suggested or whether there might be some variations of it. The complaints procedure which is in the Bill is, in a sense, modelled on the suggestions that were initially made in the Dix Committee of Inquiry report on some reference to the law Reform Comission's proposals for the reform of defamation law in Australia. In some ways, of course, it has regard to the procedure which pertains in relation to the British Broadcasting Corporation.

In referring to the complaints procedure, I remind those honourable senators who have commented on it about the structure of this Bill. The complaints procedure is not an exclusive procedural mechanism for making complaints. The complaints procedure is designed for an aggrieved individual who has a complaint that his or her privacy was invaded or that the ABC has published material about him or her which is untrue. The legislation is designed to provide a mechanism of speedy rectification of that sort of complaint. For example, if I say something on an ABC program about Senator Peter Baume and he complains to the ABC that what I said was untrue-a situation which I would find unbelievable coming from Senator Peter Baume-he has his remedy very quickly because the complaints officer can order the ABC to retract or correct the untruth which has been uttered about Senator Peter Baume. Therefore, the legislation provides a mechanism of speedy rectification.

Senator Chipp —Does Senator Baume's best friend have sufficient interest to complain?

Senator BUTTON —I am coming to that point. With respect, the argument that Senator Chipp has advanced about interest in the complaints procedure is really far wider than Senator Peter Baume's best friend in the context of what he put. The burden of Senator Harradine's complaint-I use that expression advisedly-is that the complaints procedure should be widened greatly to include complaints about program standards. I remind the Senate of the general charter of the Corporation as it will be. I refer first of all to clause 6 (1) of the Bill which states:

The functions of the Corporation are-

(a) to provide within Australia innovative and comprehensive broadcasting and television services of a high standard . . .

. . . .

(b) to transmit to countries outside Australia broadcasting programs and television programs of news, current affairs, entertainment and cultural enrichment that will-

(i) encourage awareness of Australia and an international understanding of Australian attitudes on world affairs . . .

Sub-clause (2) of the Bill states:

In the provision by the Corporation of its broadcasting and television services within Australia-

(a) the Corporation shall take account of-

. . . .

(ii) the standards from time to time approved by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in respect of broadcasting and television services;

Senator Harradine —That does not mean to say it will do that.

Senator BUTTON —No but I will come to that point in a minute. I refer next to sub-paragraph (iii). It reads:

(iii) the responsibility of the Corporation as the provider of an independent national broadcasting and television service to provide a balance between broadcasting programs and television programs of wide appeal and specialised broadcasting programs and television programs;

Clause 8 (1) states:

It is the duty of the Board-

. . . .

(c) to ensure that the gathering and presentation by the Corporation of news and information is accurate and impartial according to the recognised standards of objective journalism . . .

That is the charter of the Corporation; that is its function. That is what it is enjoined to do. Those are its duties. The complaints procedure is by no means exclusive of the capacity of citizens to complain to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation just as, in the past, when there has been no complaints procedure at all, any complaints of any kind have gone to the Commission.

Senator Harradine gave an example of the way the complaints procedure jurisdiction should be widened to include program standards. He quoted the example of a vivid and graphic bloodshed scene in an overseas war shown on ABC television news six or nine months ago. I make the point that of course this scene was shown on all commercial television stations too. I am not disagreeing with the honourable senator about whether that is desirable material in the community context to be screened. That is a matter of debate in respect of which we all have subjective views. We all have different views about the degrees of violence which are portrayed on television of one kind or another. Of course all television stations, whether they be national broadcasting stations or commercial television stations can be described by some of us as being guilty of showing programs which we might regard as too violent. Senator Harradine took the example of a hypothetical mother of six who was offended by such a program. Firstly, I ask Senator Harradine whether the mother or any citizen could complain that the portrayal of such a program could be described as being biased or unfair. Of course it could not be described as being biased or unfair. Those are the criteria which the Opposition seeks to add to the complaints procedure.

Senator Harradine —I am going further.

Senator BUTTON —I know that the honourable senator is going further. The honourable senator refers to biased, unfair or offensive--

Senator Harradine —Otherwise offensive.

Senator BUTTON —Or otherwise offensive. The honourable senator is absolutely right. The honourable senator says that there are legal definitions of the word 'offensive'. Of course in Australia there are 14 million definitions of the word 'offensive'. Each citizen has a subjective view about what is offensive to him or her. We cannot make an objective judgment about whether a particular program is offensive. Whether a program is offensive or not is a matter which is peculiarly subject to a subjective judgment.

Senator Harradine —The reasonable man test.

Senator BUTTON —With the greatest respect, I am sure that it would be a better world if we could apply the reasonable man test to determine what is offensive. A survey in the United States of America recently showed that the greatest purchasers of obscene video tapes were--

Senator Chipp —Reasonable men.

Senator BUTTON —Were reasonable men and adherents of the major protestant churches in the United States. By far the greatest group of purchasers of obscene videotapes were reasonable men who went to protestant churches every Sunday.

Senator Sir John Carrick —How could that survey be accurate? Why would such people admit it?

Senator BUTTON —Of course they would not. There is no doubt that that survey may not be accurate; that is precisely the point.

Senator Harradine —You know the definition of 'reasonable man' and 'otherwise offensive'. What you are saying is nonsense.

Senator BUTTON —With the greatest respect to the honourable senator, he is talking old law, as they say-about 1900, I would think. The point I seek to make is that there is no objective test of what is offensive in relation to television programs. No other country would attempt to define it in this way, with the possible exception of one republic whose name I decline to mention.

Senator Harradine also dealt with questions of law, as he put it, in dealing with who had a sufficient interest to make a complaint. Of course, if honourable senators look at the jurisdiction of the complaints tribunal described in the Bill they will see that the jurisdiction is confined, firstly, to complaints about untruth concerning a particular person and, secondly, to the invasion of privacy. In a sense that is very relevant to the question of who has standing to make a complaint. One has to look at the two provisions together. Senator Harradine said that sufficient interest is always defined. The legal interpretation of it is what he called hip pocket interest. With the greatest respect, that is not the legal interpretation of sufficient interest and has not been for a very long time. Since the law has developed in respect of class actions and matters of that kind, particularly in the United States of America and the United Kingdom, that sort of definition of sufficient interest has not really held sway at all.

In connection with the complaints procedure we would argue that one has to look at the structure of the Bill, the function of the Corporation and the functions and duties of the Board to realise that the complaints procedure in itself is not an exclusive arena for complaints. One can make complaints, if one wants to do so, if one is a vexatious complainant. If one wants to make complaints about program standards, as they have been called in the course of this debate, there is not much point in making them in retrospect to a complaints officer.

Senator Sir John Carrick —Why not?

Senator BUTTON —Let me answer the question asked by Senator Sir John Carrick because this will really illustrate the point. Let us take Senator Harradine's example. He sees, together with the mother to whom he referred, a violent scene on television to which he objects. He then makes a complaint about it and describes it as offensive. The community affairs officer might well agree with him and say: 'Yes, that program was offensive'. How has Senator Harradine advanced in one way by having made that complaint? In that situation Senator Harradine should make a complaint to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation about its program standards, which do not specifically affect him but, he would say, affect community standards. He should make a complaint to the Corporation and say: 'I do not like violence on television, You are not carrying out your charter. I saw these bad examples of violence on television and you should not show that sort of thing again'. That complaint would go to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

Senator Walters —It is Caesar unto Caesar.

Senator BUTTON —Would you be quiet for a minute? That complaint would go to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation as the maker of the program. That is the point. There are differences between the types of complaints.

Senator Walters —It is Caesar unto Caesar.

Senator BUTTON —It is of no use Senator Walters coming into this chamber and picking up the rhetoric of Senator Crichton-Browne at this stage of the evening. It has been said that a complaints officer is not independent of the ABC in the sense that it is an appeal from Caesar unto Caesar. I think the Australian Democrats have moved a very important amendment in relation to this matter, which the Government will accept-that is, to provide that the complaints officer is not appointed by the Board of the Corporation but is appointed by the General Manager on the recommendation of the Advisory Council. I think that is very important. When we talk about the independence of the complaints officer I think the Opposition really should have a look at its amendment. In the Opposition's amendment by whom is the complaints officer to be appointed? The Government. What an extraordinary provision for an Opposition, which is so concerned about the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, to bring up an amendment in which the complaints officer will be appointed by the government of the day. I cannot think of anything more outrageous in terms of a party which purports to be concerned about the independence of the ABC.

Senator Harradine —Who appoints the Advisory Council? The ABC.

Senator BUTTON —So what. I want now to deal with other matters which have been raised in the course of debate by Senate Baume and others. Firstly, on behalf of the Government I would like to pay tribute to the work of the Dix Committee of Review of the ABC. As far as the present Government is concerned, the Dix Committee did not necessarily provide the best solutions in all circumstances to the problems of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, but it provided a very good analysis of those problems. It is to be much commended for its report which was brought down under the chairmanship of Mr Alex Dix. Secondly, I would like to congratulate the Minister of the time, Mr Tony Staley, who appointed the Dix Committee. It is a great tragedy for this Parliament and for the Liberal Party that people in the Opposition today do not always share the Liberal-minded, independent sort of view of the role of the ABC which Mr Tony Staley had as Minister. It is a great tragedy that many of the appointments that he suggested for the Board of the ABC were not accepted by the Government of the time. I pay tribute both to the Dix Committee and to Mr Staley.

The Opposition has moved an amendment in relation to this matter which suggests , firstly, that this Bill should be delayed until legal action against the ABC by Premier Wran is completed. Secondly, the amendment seeks this assurance:

That there will be no Government interference with the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Commission in its programming policy.

The amendment contains a number of other matters but I just want to deal with those two that I have mentioned. This is the most shabby little amendment that any Opposition could ever bring into this place. The Opposition is using the Australian Broadcasting Commission as I am afraid the worst elements in the Liberal Party have always done, as a political football. It is really saying that the ABC's action with Premier Wran should be disposed of before this Bill is passed by the Senate. I could not see how anybody in this country who has any concern for the Australian Broadcasting Commission and who understands its current plight-I believe that there are plenty of honourable senators on the Opposition side who do-could vote for that amendment. There is nothing more urgent for the ABC than getting this legislation passed.

Senator Walters —Why are you talking for so long if the Bill is so urgent?

Senator BUTTON —I am surprised that Opposition senators, such as Senator Walters who interjects, do not feel the same concern about it. Last year they described this legislation as urgent legislation. Mr Neil Brown, the then Minister for Communications, campaigned throughout the election on the basis, as he put it, that the then Opposition had delayed the urgent ABC legislation in the Senate. The present Opposition now comes up, in the context of May 1983, with this sordid little amendment which attempts to use the ABC as a political football. I think it is absolutely extraordinary that this amendment could be countenanced as some sort of cheap political ploy.

What does this amendment mean, for example, to Senator Durack? Senator Durack has a libel action against the ABC. Should we amend the Opposition's motion to include a provision that the legislation should not be passed until Senator Durack's libel action against the ABC is disposed of? Does Senator Durack approve of that course of action? Does he think that it would be a good idea? I do not think so. That is precisely what he, as Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and his party have moved in this place by way of this cheap little amendment to the legislation. I find that quite extraordinary.

Senator Peter Baume made a number of other quite constructive comments about the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I know that in many respects there is a shared point of view about the importance of this legislation. I say exactly the same about Senator Sir John Carrick's speech with the exception, of course, of some of the observations which he made about the complaints procedure. I remind the Senate again that last year the previous Government introduced this legislation, containing a complaints procedure which the Chairman of the British Broadcasting Corporation, Mr Howard, described as outrageous. He said it would not be tolerated by any national broadcasting corporation throughout the world. He said: 'If I worked in the ABC and the Parliament passed this legislation containing complaints procedure providing for penalties against journalists and inquisitorial methods for finding out how programs were made, I would down tools and walk out'.

Senator Walters —Who was that?

Senator BUTTON —That was Mr Howard, the Chairman of the BBC, who was visiting Australia last year. That is what he said about the previous Government's complaints procedure. Of course, the Opposition introduced this amendment which purports to be modelled on the BBC's complaints procedure. It is not a BBC complaints procedure. It is a broadcasting complaints procedure which applies to all of the commercial networks in Great Britain, as well as the BBC. It is not a BBC complaints procedure. The Opposition's amendment argues that the complaints tribunal should be appointed by the government of the day. That seems to us to be an extraordinary interference with the process of a great national broadcasting organisation.

The Government is very concerned that this legislation should pass in the best possible form and looks forward to the reinvigoration of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation under a new board and a great future for it consistent with the great past which it has had-a past whose standards have in a sense deteriorated a great deal. I say that in a bipartisan way. It needs a great new stride forward to reinvigorate this important body. The Government commends the Bill to the Senate.

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator Peter Baume's) be agreed to.