Senator MARGETTS (12:33 PM) —I tried to think what might be the government's rationale for proposing these changes to the migration regulations in relation to the film industry, but I could not entirely be clear what it would be. I thought there were a few options. One is an ideological preference that the free market will serve everybody's interests. There might even be a belief that, if Australians can provide bit part actors and extras in films that might give individuals a revenue of $200,000 and maybe some technical assistance, it might be worth Australia providing all the assistance for multimillion dollar films. In some instances, we could get a bigger chunk, but it does seem somewhat naive. So ideology could be part of it.

Revenge might be part of it as well, I suppose. It may be that, like a number of community groups, the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance may have opened their mouths and criticised some elements of government policy in recent times. It could be that issues such as the Australia-New Zealand treaty—which is impacting on the ability of Australian television and film productions to continue to have time to produce Australian content—might be threatened and they are putting that forward. Or it might be related to the fact that Australia is positioning itself to be pre-emptive to our further negotiations on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment.

It must be pointed out—and I am not sure that all senators are aware of this—that cultural issues are not one of the exemptions under the negotiations for the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. So should Australia sign up—as we were going to a couple of months ago; it will be back on the table in about four months time—any investors would have the right to demand that they have no restrictions on their investment in arts of any nature or in cultural activities in Australia. It basically says that the dollar is right: the dollar rules all.

This is not an extraordinary thing that is being asked of the alliance. It is being asked to continue a situation where reasonable opportunities need to be offered to Australians or sought at all levels of the production before approval will be given for overseas actors. All the alliance can do, despite what the government says, is provide advice on these criteria. It is not the alliance which provides the actual approval. Its advice is forwarded to the Department of Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, and of course the minister makes the final decisions.

Is the government saying that it is not reasonable to continue with the present system where reasonable opportunities are offered to Australians? I would think other countries may think that is somewhat naive on Australia's part. It has been pointed out in the debate so far today that countries like the United States have very restrictive conditions. It does seem somewhat hypocritical that some companies in the United States are insisting that Australia not have even some regulations or some areas of self-interest in relation to the arts.

This government is being less helpful to the arts in some ways by saying that the arts and other sectors of the community now are more likely to have to find their funds from their own private sources. These sources are not necessarily easily found within Australia, so you might have an Australian production, an Australian writer and an Australian producer having to go overseas to seek funding. Think about it: wouldn't it be extraordinary if we had an Australian film, that might even be on Aboriginal issues, and you could not even argue that you should have Aboriginal people portraying Aboriginal characters? I saw an American film where they had people from Papua New Guinea played by North American negroes. It is rather extraordinary that they should think that is appropriate.

Potentially, we could have a situation where a film written in Australia—our intellectual property—which was produced by Australians, so that all the brain work was done by Australians, needed an overseas investor. The irony would be that there would be no requirement for reasonable opportunities to be offered to Australians, simply because the government believes that this industry ought to go for averages and populism, and ought to look overseas for investment. The government's arguments do not hold water. It is reasonable to assume that it has no specifically valid arguments in relation to this. I would like to quote briefly from a letter from Lyn Gailey, the imports policy officer from the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance. She says:

When Senator Alston announced the proposed changes last November, it was to announce that the consultation with the Alliance would no longer be required—

click, go, your services are no longer required—

The amendments to the Migration Regulation are even more serious than those flagged. The removal of the requirements to consider Australians is a devastating blow that will impact badly on a sector of the community whose unemployment averages 90 per cent.

It is not just that there will not be consultation with the body representing media, entertainment and the arts in Australia; it is that the government believes that it is no longer reasonable to suggest that films that take place in Australia using our resources—and there is an opportunity cost for using the assistance and the resources—should, where possible, utilise the abilities and skills of those in Australia, given that this sector has 90 per cent unemployment on average. I do not think the government has made its case, and I will be supporting the opposition's disallowance motion.