Senator BOURNE (9:58 AM) —Madam Chair, please correct me if I have this wrong, but I think this is the point at which I should move the motion on sheet 2127.

The CHAIRMAN —That is correct, Senator.

Senator BOURNE —Therefore, I move:

A Bill for an Act to amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 in relation to multi-channelling

1 Short title

2 Commencement

3 Schedule(s)

Schedule 1—Amendments

Broadcasting Services Act 1992

The reason for my doing this is that, first of all, I want everything which has been agreed to by the Senate so far to be considered by the Senate. Secondly, I have the very distinct impression—I may be incorrect but, if I am incorrect, it will not matter; and if I am correct, then this is important—that, if this bill goes through with these very important multichannelling amendments in it, the rest of the bill will probably languish in the House of Representatives and never be seen again. I think it would be most unfortunate if that were to happen because the bill, as it is, even without the multichannelling amendments, is very important to both the ABC and SBS. It contains provisions which allow the SBS to include international news on its multichannel and second channel. It contains provisions which allow the ABC and SBS to handle complaints procedures themselves, by their own boards, as well as other provisions which the ABC and SBS both believe are important for them.

If this motion goes through, that bill will go back to the House of Representatives. It is the bill that the government has agreed to—in fact, it is mostly the bill that the government has put up—and it would go through. However, I do not want the multichannelling amendments, which I still believe are very important and should be dealt with again, to disappear. So the second bill would also come up separately, as a split bill, and it would be considered by the Senate at a later date. I have circulated a sheet which puts up 6 August 2001 as the later date, so it would come up as an order of the day on 6 August and we would debate it, starting from scratch, as a separate bill. It is important that all parts of this bill are considered by the House of Representatives, but I think it will be better for the ABC and SBS if it is considered by the House in two parts. That is what this is designed to achieve.

If I am wrong and the government are prepared to let the multichannelling go through because they want the other bit so much, then they will vote for both of them. But I do not think that is going to happen. I am sad to say this but I think cabinet as a whole are not as devoted to the ABC and SBS as one would hope they were. I fear that may be the case; if that is the case, the whole bill will just disappear. It is very important that the whole bill does not just disappear. At the moment we have agreement amongst all of us—everybody in this chamber and, I imagine, everybody in the other chamber—that a very substantial part of this bill should go through and that substantial part will advantage the ABC and SBS, they believe quite considerably. So I believe that should go through. I still believe that the multichannelling needs to be debated again and go back to the House of Representatives for another go; but I do not believe, sadly, that there is any chance whatsoever that the imperative is so great on the government that multichannelling would be pulled through in the wake of the other amendments.

I am sure Senator Alston is not involved in this but, sadly, the cabinet as a whole are not that keen on the ABC and SBS. I am very sad to say that. Cabinet as a whole are not going to die in a ditch over the ABC and SBS being advantaged. I think they will live with this bill if it is in two parts. They will live with the advantages to the ABC and SBS of SBS multichannelling, including international news and current affairs, and they will live with the other things that they have put up themselves. It is important that they go through. It is important that the multichannelling is debated again. It is an absolute, total tragedy that multichannelling was not included last year, when I think it would have gone through; but it was not, so the more debates we have on it the better. I believe that is what this motion will achieve and I recommend it to the Senate.