Bills Digest no. 84, 2017–18
PDF version [354KB]
Philip Hamilton
Politics and Public Administration Section
2 March 2018
Contents
Purpose of the Bill
Structure of the Bill
Background
Government entities’ reporting of
executive remuneration
Changing annual report requirements
Questions about ABC and SBS executive
remuneration
British Broadcasting Corporation
Committee consideration
Senate Environment and Communications
Legislation Committee
Senate Standing Committee for the
Scrutiny of Bills
Policy position of non-government
parties/independents
Australian Greens
Opposition
Cross-bench senators
Position of major interest groups
Financial implications
Statement of Compatibility with Human
Rights
Parliamentary Joint Committee on
Human Rights
Key issues and provisions
Reporting requirement
Commencement
Applicable reporting threshold
Coverage
Employees
On-air talent
Specialist contractors
Treatment of payments for expenses
Attributing payments to reporting
periods
Use of third parties may affect
coverage
Accountability
Government funding
Gender pay gaps
Privacy issues
Compatibility with the Privacy Act
1988
Parliamentary committees’ concerns
about privacy
Consistency with public sector and
broadcasting industry
Public sector
Broadcasting industry
Possible commercial consequences
Date introduced: 6 December 2017
House: Senate
Portfolio: Communications and the Arts
Commencement: the day after Royal Assent.
Links: The links to the Bill, its Explanatory Memorandum and second reading speech can be found on the Bill’s home page, or through the Australian Parliament website.
When Bills have been passed and have received Royal Assent, they become Acts, which can be found at the Federal Register of Legislation website.
All hyperlinks in this Bills Digest are correct as at March 2018.
Purpose of
the Bill
The purpose of the National Broadcasters Legislation
Amendment (Enhanced Transparency) Bill 2017 (the Bill) is to amend the Australian
Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 (the ABC Act) and the Special
Broadcasting Services Act 1991 (the SBS Act) to require that, where
total amounts paid exceed $200,000 annually (as adjusted by an annual indexation
factor), the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting
Services (the national broadcasters) must report:
- salary and allowances paid to employees and
- payments made under contracts to ‘on-air talent’ (that is, for
services that include appearing in a television program, or speaking or
performing on a radio program).
The names of such employees and contractors, and the
positions or services they performed, must also be reported.
Structure
of the Bill
The Bill is divided into two Schedules:
- Schedule 1 comprises proposed amendments to the ABC Act
and
- Schedule 2 comprises proposed amendments to the SBS Act in
equivalent terms.
Background
In August 2017 the Government secured the
support of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party (PHON) for passage of the Broadcasting
Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Act 2017.[1]
In exchange for this support, the Government agreed to
initiate an inquiry into ‘whether or not the practices of the national
broadcasters are breaching the general principle of competitive neutrality and
that they are operating on a level playing field with their commercial
counterparts’.[2]
Legislative initiatives arising from the Government-PHON
arrangement are:
Government
entities’ reporting of executive remuneration
The inclusion of the disclosure measures in the
Government-PHON arrangement was preceded by developments
in relation to Government entities’ reporting of executive remuneration, and a new
requirement for the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) to disclose the
names and salaries of its highest-earning actors and presenters.[4]
Changing
annual report requirements
The annual reporting obligations of government entities,
including the national broadcasters, are established by:
Under the Labor Government, government entities’ reporting
of executive remuneration disclosed the benefits received by individuals.[5]
From 2014‒15 that changed, because a Coalition Government Financial
Reporting Rule stated the intention that entities ‘report the cost to the
Commonwealth of employing senior management personnel for the reporting period,
as opposed to reporting the individual benefits received by those persons’.[6]
The reduced detail prompted interest in executive remuneration at government
entities, most notably that of Ahmed
Fahour, the former CEO of Australia Post.[7]
Questions
about ABC and SBS executive remuneration
At a Senate
Estimates hearing in May 2017, PHON posed a number of questions about the
remuneration of ABC and SBS employees.[8]
In July 2017 the ABC’s answers
to Questions on Notice provided information about the ABC’s twenty
highest-paid on-air presenters, and other matters, without disclosing details
about individuals.[9]
In August 2017 the Government stated that it
would write to the ABC and SBS to request regular disclosure and advise that ‘in
the event either broadcaster does not agree to implement this policy, the
Government will introduce legislation before the end of 2017 to ... give effect
to this policy’.[10]
In October 2017 the ABC’s Managing Director, Michelle Guthrie, told a Senate
Estimates hearing that ‘we were advised by the Department [of Communications
and the Arts] and by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that
listing individual names on the website would breach the Privacy Act’.[11]
In the same month the Chairman of the SBS Board, Dr Bulent Hass Dellal,
was quoted as saying that ‘SBS is unable to comply with the proposed increased
disclosure—principally because, in the absence of consent, disclosure would
breach the Privacy
Act 1988’.[12]
In a subsequent development, in December 2017 the ABC
published a table that details the remuneration and names of Key Management
Personnel for the year ended 30 June 2017. The ABC states that the table is
‘part of the ABC’s commitment to align remuneration disclosures with standards
in the private sector for Key Management Personnel’.[13]
The information complements two other tables published as the ABC‘s Remuneration
disclosure log, in which:
- Table A includes, in $25,000 increments, the average reportable
remuneration paid to the Leadership Team (excluding the Managing Director) at
30 June 2017 and
- Table B provides, in $25,000 increments, aggregate information
about other employees including former employees (excluding the current
Leadership Team), whose average annual reportable remuneration was more than
$200,000 for the year to 30 June 2017.[14]
In its Annual report 2016‒17, SBS published tables
similar to the ABC’s tables A and B.[15]
British
Broadcasting Corporation
From 2016‒17, the BBC has been
required to publish, on an annual basis, information (including names) about
senior BBC executives, and other people working for the BBC, who have been paid
more than £150,000 from television
licence fee revenue in a financial
year.[16] The
BBC published the first such list in
July 2017.[17]
Committee
consideration
The Bill has been referred to the Senate Environment and
Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 26 March 2018.[18]
Details of the inquiry are at the inquiry homepage.[19]
Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
In its consideration of the Bill, the Senate Standing
Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills (Scrutiny of Bills Committee) expressed a
concern that the Bill ‘may unduly trespass on personal rights and liberties’.[20]
The Committee’s views are discussed under the heading ‘Key issues and
provisions’ (below).
Policy
position of non-government parties/independents
Australian
Greens
In October 2017, the Australian Greens (the Greens) initiated
a motion proposing that the Senate ‘will not support legislation that forces
the ABC or SBS to publicise the salaries of its staff, breaching their right to
privacy’.[21]
The motion was passed 34 to 27.[22]
Opposition
The Senate motion was co-sponsored by the Australian Labor
Party.[23]
Opposition senators supported the motion.[24]
Cross-bench
senators
PHON senators and Senators Bernardi and Leyonhjelm opposed
the motion, thereby indicating that they are likely to support the Bill.[25]
Senator Hinch voted for the motion, stating that:
I think it will be enough for the ABC to publish the total
money paid to their staff, otherwise it will inhibit ABC staff members who
might want to move into the commercial area ... As long as we're told the total
money spent on journalism and staff, that is enough for us to know. I think
individually those contracts should be protected.[26]
The circumstances of other cross-benchers have changed
since they voted for the motion in October 2017. Skye Kakoschke-Moore, Jacqui
Lambie and Nick Xenophon are no longer senators, and Senator Gichuhi has joined
the Liberal Party.
Position of
major interest groups
Commenting on the Government-PHON arrangement
that facilitated passage of the Broadcasting
Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Act 2017, the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance stated that ‘the Government’s
grubby deal with One Nation is beneath contempt. Facilitating baseless attacks
on our public broadcasters is disgraceful and we will be lobbying Senators to
reject any legislation when it is presented’.[27]
Financial
implications
The Explanatory
Memorandum states that ‘the measures in
this Bill are expected to have no financial impact’.[28]
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
As required under Part 3 of the Human Rights
(Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth), the Government has assessed the Bill’s compatibility
with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared in the international
instruments listed in section 3 of that Act.[29]
The Explanatory
Memorandum states that:
The Bill is compatible with human rights because to the
extent that it may limit or restrict the right to privacy, those limitations
are reasonable, necessary and proportionate.[30]
Privacy issues are discussed under the heading ‘Key issues
and provisions’ (below).
Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Human Rights
In its consideration of the Bill, the Parliamentary Joint
Committee on Human Rights (Human Rights Joint Committee) questioned whether the
approach taken in the Bill is the ‘least rights-restrictive way to achieve the
stated aim’ and sought advice from the Minister on this issue. The Committee’s
views are discussed under the heading ‘Key issues and provisions’ (below).[31]
Key issues
and provisions
Reporting
requirement
The Bill inserts proposed section 80A into the ABC
Act[32]
and proposed section 73A into the SBS Act.[33]
The provisions require that, where total amounts paid exceed the applicable
reporting threshold annually, the national broadcasters’ annual reports
which are given to the Minister in accordance with the PGPA Act must
disclose the salary and allowances paid to employees[34]
and payments made under contracts to ‘on-air talent’.[35]
The names of employees and on-air talent, and the positions held or services
they performed, are to be specified.[36]
Amounts of foreign currency are to be translated to Australian currency at the
exchange rate applicable at the time of payment.[37]
Commencement
Proposed section 80A of the ABC Act and proposed
section 73A of the SBS Act apply in relation to annual reports for a
period beginning after Royal Assent.[38]
If the Bill receives Royal Assent by 30 June, the first reporting period would
be the 2018‒19 financial year, and relevant annual reports would be
published around October 2019.
Applicable
reporting threshold
The applicable reporting threshold for the
first reporting period is $200,000.[39]
The Explanatory Memorandum states that for subsequent years ‘this reporting threshold
amount will be indexed annually in line with the Consumer Price Index (CPI)
figures published by the Australian Statistician’.[40]
Proposed section 80B of the ABC Act and proposed section 73B
of the SBS Act set out how the indexation of the applicable reporting
threshold will be calculated. Definitions which are relevant to the amendments
being indexation factor, index number, and reporting
period are inserted into existing subsection 3(1) of the ABC Act
and section 3 of the SBS Act.[41]
Coverage
Employees
Proposed paragraph 80A(1)(a) of the ABC Act covers
employees whose salary and allowances during a reporting period exceed the
applicable reporting threshold. Proposed subsection 80A(2) exempts lump
sum payments paid on termination for unused leave entitlements. Proposed paragraph
73A(1)(a) and proposed subsection 73A(2) of the SBS Act are
in equivalent terms.
On-air
talent
Proposed paragraph 80A(1)(b) of the ABC Act and
proposed paragraph 73A(1)(b) of the SBS Act cover a party to one
or more on-air talent contracts. In relation to on-air talent, the
Explanatory
Memorandum states:
‘On-air talent’ is intended to have broad meaning and be
platform neutral, in recognition of the changing media landscape. The proposed
reporting measures are intended to capture on-air talent (above the specified
monetary reporting threshold) across all platforms used by the national
broadcasters including online and podcasting services such as ABC iView and SBS
On Demand.[42]
However, in contrast to that apparent intention, the Bill captures
only individuals who perform services that consist of or include:
- appearing on a television program or
- speaking or performing on a radio program.[43]
Consequently, it is unclear whether the Bill would apply
to individuals who perform in content that is available exclusively on an
online platform, as distinct from individuals who perform in content that
originally appeared on television or radio, and is subsequently made available
on an online platform.
Specialist contractors
In addition to employees and on-air talent, the BBC reports
on ‘specialist contractors’ who perform a range of production roles, but
apparently do not appear on-air. Roles include: writer; casting director; programme
manager; IT programme manager; technical project manager; identity
architect; analytics architect; service architect; and integration lead.[44] Unlike the position in the UK then, the Bill is specifically
focused on employees and on-air talent, so payments to specialist contractors are
not within the scope of the proposed disclosure regime.
Treatment
of payments for expenses
In relation to specialist contractors and on-air talent, the
BBC specifically noted that its list excluded expenses.[45] In
contrast, the Bill does not address the treatment of expenses. It may be intended
that expenses will be dealt with in the context of the allowances provided for in
proposed section 80A of the ABC Act[46]
and proposed section 73A of the SBS Act,[47]
but this is not clear.
Attributing
payments to reporting periods
In relation to specialist contractors and on-air talent, the
BBC specifically noted that its list excluded royalties and repeat fees.[48] In
contrast, the Bill does not address the treatment of royalties and repeat fees.
This could affect the transparency of the disclosure regime because royalties
and repeat fees are a form of payment for work performed in previous reporting
periods.
In compiling its list, the BBC appears to have been
afforded some discretion in the classification and presentation of payments,
particularly in relation to attributing payments to the reporting period in
which work was performed.
This table is based on monies paid in the financial year
2016/17. For four individuals, the timing of cash payments made in the
financial year materially distorts their banding. We have therefore fairly
reflected the substance of these payments in the table. In the case of two of
these individuals, material payments that took place between the end of the
financial year and the date of this report which relate to work done in 2016/17
have been included. In the case of the other two individuals, payments in
relation to long-term agreements have been apportioned evenly over the contract
term.[49]
However, the Bill requires the national broadcasters to
report on the basis of the timing of payments, rather than when the work for
which the payment is being made was performed.
Use of
third parties may affect coverage
The Bill refers to individuals, specifying that ‘an on-air
talent contract is a contract (other than a contract of employment) entered
into between the Corporation and an individual’.[50]
However, when publishing its disclosure of remuneration,
the BBC specifically noted that the list excluded payments made through
independent production firms.[51]
As a result, some high-profile presenters were not included in the BBC’s list
because the individuals were not paid directly by the BBC—the individuals were
paid by production companies that had contracts with the BBC. It was reported:
Graham Norton’s stated earnings of
£850,000-£899,999 make him the third highest-paid star on the list, but they
cover only his work on Radio 2, Eurovision and the BBC One Saturday night show Let
It Shine. His main entertainment programme, The Graham Norton Show,
is made by his own production company, So Television, and the money he earns
from that is not covered in the BBC report ...
Independently-made shows include Question
Time, The Apprentice, University Challenge and MasterChef, meaning
the salaries of David Dimbleby, Lord Sugar, Jeremy Paxman, John Torode and
Gregg Wallace do not appear in the published accounts. Instead, the BBC pays an
overall sum of money to the programme-makers, who decide what proportion of it
is paid to the stars ...
The list of highest-paid actors is dominated
by the cast of EastEnders, Holby City and Casualty. But it is
unlikely that they out-earn the Hollywood stars who have graced BBC One dramas
in the past year: Tom Hiddleston in The Night Manager and Benedict Cumberbatch
in Sherlock. Both were co-produced with independent companies.[52]
The BBC experience suggests that the existence of
disclosure measures could provide an incentive for payments through third
parties such as production companies. If third parties were used in contractual
arrangements for on-air talent, it could have the effect of placing some
payment arrangements outside the scope of a disclosure regime that is focused
only on remuneration provided directly by the national broadcasters to
individuals as envisaged by the Bill.
The UK Telegraph newspaper/website also anticipates
another possible use of third parties that could impact on a disclosure regime.
The situation will become more opaque in the
2017/18 accounts because the corporation’s in-house production unit, BBC
Studios, became an independent commercial entity at the beginning of this tax
year.[53]
Accountability
Government
funding
The Explanatory
Memorandum states that ‘the measures
will complement the Government’s existing policy that public agencies and
entities should be transparent in how Commonwealth funding is allocated and
spent’.[54]
However, the Bill does not limit reporting on the
remuneration of individuals to positions that are funded by appropriations from
the Budget. Revenue from sources other than Government is significant for the
ABC and particularly for SBS.[55]
Portfolio Budget Statements indicate that in 2017‒18:
- approximately 7.8 per cent of the ABC’s total revenue will come
from non-Budget sources ($1.043 billion from the 2017 Budget, and a forecast
$88.7 million from other sources)[56]
and
- approximately 26.6 per cent of SBS’s total revenue will come from
non-Budget sources ($280 million from the 2017 Budget, and a forecast $101.6 million
from other sources)[57]
Accountability for public funding would be improved if the
reporting regime focussed on positions funded by Government, and did not include
positions funded by revenue from sources other than Government. This approach
would be comparable with the arrangements applicable to the BBC, where the
intention has been to improve accountability by reporting on positions funded
by licence fee revenue, excluding positions funded by revenue from other
sources.[58]
Gender pay
gaps
Following publication of the BBC’s inaugural list in July 2017,[59] commentators noted a lack of ethnic diversity on
the list, and a gender pay gap. Of the 96 actors and presenters paid more than
£150,000, 62 were men and 34 were women. The seven highest earners were all
men.[60]
It has been reported that at least one prominent female staff member has
resigned and lodged an equal pay complaint.[61]
The Explanatory
Memorandum states that measures in the
Bill will ‘allow the public to [identify] ... if there is a gender salary gap
across similar roles or level of talent [and] how proactive the national
broadcasters are in closing any identified gender salary gaps’.[62]
However, at a Senate Estimates hearing in October 2017, the Managing Director
of the ABC, Michelle Guthrie, gave evidence that ‘49 per cent of our
senior executive is female and 51 per cent of the general workforce is female.
This is also the case in relation to pay. There is no pay gap unfavourable to
women at any level in the ABC’.[63]
More detail was provided in the ABC’s 2016‒17 annual report.[64]
Speaking in relation to the Bill, Senator McGrath stated:
The national broadcasters assert that no pay gap unfavourable
to women exists within their organisations. That is to be commended. The
additional transparency measures proposed by this Bill will ensure ongoing
scrutiny and visibility to the Australian public of the performance of the
national broadcasters in this regard.[65]
The Scrutiny of Bills Committee[66]
and the Human Rights Joint Committee questioned whether there are
‘less rights restrictive ways’ to achieve the objective, such as ‘requiring
the ABC and SBS in their annual reports to disclose the number or proportion of
female employees and on-air talent earning over $200,000 compared to male
employees and on-air talent in the same position’.[67]
Privacy issues
The Privacy Act 1988
contains the Australian Privacy Principles (at Schedule 1) which set out rules
for the handling of personal information. APP
6 is relevant here—it provides that entities can only use or disclose
personal information for the particular purpose for which it was collected. In
this context, the managing directors of the national broadcasters have stated
that, in the absence of consent from the individuals who would be affected,
disclosure of remuneration under current arrangements would breach the Privacy
Act.[68]
However, APP 6 includes a number of exceptions, including
where the use or disclosure is authorised by an Australian law (see APP 6,
clause 6.2(b)). That being the case, passage of the Bill would allow disclosure
of the information required to be made public under the amendments.
Parliamentary
committees’ concerns about privacy
The Scrutiny of Bills Committee expressed its concern:
in publishing the names and remuneration details of ABC and
SBS employees and contractors receiving more than $200,000, the bill impacts on
the right to privacy of such persons and may unduly trespass on personal rights
and liberties. The committee draws these scrutiny concerns to the attention of
Senators and leaves to the Senate as a whole the appropriateness of publishing
such details.[69]
In seeking to balance enhanced
accountability for public spending ‘without limiting the right to privacy of
employees and on-air talent’, the Human Rights Joint Committee suggested the option of ‘disclosure of de-identified or anonymised
information as to the number of employees and on-air talent earning over
certain amounts (as specific figures or in pay bands)’.[70]
Consistency
with public sector and broadcasting industry
Passage of the Bill would clear a legal path for the
disclosure of remuneration. However, the disclosure arrangements would not be entirely
consistent with current arrangements for the disclosure of remuneration either in
the public sector or in the broadcasting industry.
Public
sector
Senator McGrath’s second
reading speech in relation to the Bill makes the point that ‘the concept of
reporting on employee salaries is not a new one ... members of parliament,
ministers, judges, senior public servants and military officers all have their
salaries publicly released’.[71]
The Remuneration Tribunal determines, reports
on or provides advice about remuneration, allowances and entitlements for senior
public offices such as those listed above.[72]
The Tribunal publishes its determinations and advice, so the
processes are relatively public for the senior and prominent positions within
its jurisdiction. However, there are key differences between the Tribunal’s
processes and the provisions provided for in the Bill, namely:
- the Tribunal operates in relation to specified offices (generally
the one or few most senior positions in each organisation) without a focus on
the individuals who may occupy those offices from time to time and
- in contrast, the Bill will require reporting on remuneration
above an arbitrary dollar threshold, with a specific focus on the naming of
individuals regardless of their responsibilities (except in relation to
performance on-air).
In relation to other less prominent and less senior public
sector positions, rules
issued by the Minister for Finance under the PGPA Act state that ‘the
intention ... is to report the cost to the Commonwealth of employing senior
management personnel for the reporting period, as opposed to reporting the
individual benefits received by those persons’.[73]
The Bill’s focus on the naming of individuals is therefore not consistent with
established practice in the Commonwealth public sector.
Broadcasting
industry
Senator McGrath also makes the point that ‘private
companies, including commercial broadcasters are required to include similar
information in annual reports, provided for under the Corporations Act
2001’.[74]
However, it is not clear that the measures in the Bill are comparable to
current requirements applicable to commercial broadcasters.
By way of an example, the 2016‒17 annual report of
Nine Entertainment Co includes information about the remuneration of directors
and the company’s most senior executives, but does not base this reporting on a
threshold of any particular dollar amount. The report does not include
information about the remuneration of on-air presenters.[75]
Possible
commercial consequences
At Senate Estimates in October 2017, the Managing Director
of SBS, Mr Ebeid, recounted that ‘the BBC told me that, since they published
names and salaries, all it has done at the BBC is increase salaries right
across the board as employees then started asking questions about why they were
earning less than colleagues’. For this reason, Mr Ebeid’s view is that
disclosure ‘doesn't make a lot of commercial sense and it's not in the public
interest for us to do so because it will drive costs up’.[76]
Supporting this assertion, at least one contract renegotiation at the BBC has
been reported.[77]
It has also been reported that at least one prominent female staff member has
resigned and lodged an equal pay complaint.[78]
Commenting in August 2017 on the BBC’s disclosure of
remuneration for on-air talent, Australian journalist Dennis Atkins observed
that the disclosure of remuneration ‘led to a lot of people leaving and going to
commercial networks because those networks knew how much they were earning and
offered a few more dollars to poach them’.[79]
No examples were provided, but a possible unintended consequence of the Bill
may be that the national broadcasters lose some highly talented individuals
through poaching.
[1]. P
Hanson (One Nation Senator for Queensland), One
Nation gives conditional support to media reform, media release, 15
August 2017.
[2]. M
Fifield (Minister for Communications), One
Nation support for media reform package, media release, 15 August 2017.
[3]. Ibid.
[4]. L
Battersby, ‘One
Nation wins ABC reform changes in reform deal’, The Sydney Morning
Herald, 16 August 2017, p. 1.
[5]. Section
23, Commonwealth
Authorities and Companies Orders (Financial Statements for reporting periods
ending on or after 1 July 2010).
[6]. Section
27, Public
Governance, Performance and Accountability (Financial Reporting) Rule 2015, issued February 2015 and deemed to have commenced 1
July 2014. The current
compilation of the Rule (May 2017) includes the same statement of intent.
[7]. Arrangements
for the setting of remuneration for CEO positions include a degree of public
transparency. Remuneration for Principal
Executive Officers (for example, the CEOs of many Commonwealth corporate
entities such as Australia Post and the national broadcasters) is set by the
independent Remuneration Tribunal.
The Tribunal assigns each Principal Executive Officer (PEO) position to a classification
band that prescribes a Total Remuneration Band Range within which an
Employing Body (typically, an entity’s board), may determine a specific level
of remuneration. Consequently, the Tribunal’s determination provides an indication
of the level of remuneration for a CEO. Specific details of CEO
remuneration may be released by an employing entity on an ad hoc basis (for
example, in a media
release at the time of her appointment in December 2015, the ABC disclosed
that the remuneration for incoming Managing Director, Michelle Guthrie, would
be $900,000 per year). As noted above, depending on the requirements of rules issued by
the Minister for Finance under the PGPA Act, entities have also
disclosed in their annual reports specific information about CEO remuneration,
or sufficient detail that the remuneration for a CEO may possibly be deduced.
[8]. Senate
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Official
committee Hansard, 24 May 2017, pp. 176, 189, 190.
[9]. Senate
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Answers
to Questions on Notice, Communications and
Arts Portfolio, Budget Estimates 2017–18, Questions 115,
116,
131,
132,
133,
134
and 135;
T Minear, ‘Aunty’s
big wages bill’, The West Australian, 21 July 2017, p. 14.
[10]. M
Fifield (Minister for Communications), One
Nation support for media reform package, op. cit.
[11]. M
Guthrie (Managing Director, Australian Broadcasting Corporation), Evidence to Environment
and Communications Legislation Committee, Official
committee Hansard, 24 October 2017, p. 104.
[12]. M
Mason, ‘ABC,
SBS refuse to disclose staff paid over $200,000’, The Australian
Financial Review Weekend, 11 November 2017, p. 8.
[13]. ABC,
‘Remuneration
disclosure log’, ABC website.
[14]. Ibid.
[15]. SBS,
Stories
worth talking about, annual report, SBS, Sydney, NSW, 2017, p. 164.
[16]. The
BBC differs from the ABC and SBS in relation to its funding. The BBC is
established by a Royal
Charter and its role is elaborated in an accompanying Agreement. The BBC receives over 75 per
cent of its revenue from a television
licence fee payable by all households and other residences in the UK. In contrast, the ABC and SBS are established by legislation that
includes functions specified in charters. The ABC and SBS are mainly
funded by the Budget.
[17]. BBC,
Annex
to the BBC annual report and accounts 2016/17, BBC, 2017. On page 6, the
BBC noted that the list excluded ‘amounts from: commercial investments into
programmes; any payments made by our commercial entities, such as BBC
Worldwide; payments made by independent producers; royalties; and repeat fees.
Expenses are also excluded’.
[18]. Senate
Standing Committee for Selection of Bills, Report,
1, 2018, The Senate, Canberra, 7 February 2018.
[19]. Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, National Broadcasters Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Transparency)
Bill 2017, The Senate, Canberra, 2018.
[20]. Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Scrutiny digest, 1, 2018, The Senate, 7
February 2018, p. 81.
[21]. S
Hanson-Young, ‘Motions:
Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Special Broadcasting Service’, Senate,
Debates, 18 October 2017, p. 7909.
[22]. President
of the Senate, ‘Motions:
Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Special Broadcasting Service’, Senate,
Debates, 18 October 2017, p. 7909.
[23]. S
Hanson-Young, ‘Motions:
Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Special Broadcasting Service’, Senate,
Debates, 18 October 2017, p. 7909.
[24]. President
of the Senate, ‘Motions:
Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Special Broadcasting Service’ ,
Senate, Debates, 18 October 2017, p. 7909.
[25]. Ibid.,
p. 7909.
[26]. D
Hinch, ‘Motions:
Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Special Broadcasting Service’, Senate,
Debates, 18 October 2017, p. 7910.
[27]. Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance, Media diversity and jobs to be lost under ‘reforms’, media release, 14 September 2017.
[28]. Explanatory
Memorandum, National Broadcasters Legislation Amendment (Enhanced
Transparency) Bill 2017, p. 4.
[29]. The
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights can be found at page 5 of the Explanatory
Memorandum to the Bill.
[30]. Ibid.,
p. 7.
[31]. Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Human Rights, Human
rights scrutiny report, 1, 6 February 2018, p. 53.
[32]. Inserted
by item 3 in Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Bill.
[33]. Inserted
by item 3 in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Bill.
[34]. ABC
Act, proposed paragraph 80A(1)(a); SBS Act, proposed
paragraph 73A(1)(a).
[35]. ABC
Act, proposed paragraph 80A(1)(b); SBS Act, proposed
paragraph 73A(1)(b).
[36]. ABC
Act, proposed subsection 80A(1); SBS Act, proposed subsection
73A(1).
[37]. ABC
Act, proposed subsections 80A(4) and (5); SBS Act, proposed
subsections 73A(4) and (5).
[38]. Item
4 in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Bill and Item 4 in Part 2 of
Schedule 2 to the Bill.
[39]. ABC
Act, proposed subsection 80A(6); SBS Act, proposed subsection
73A(6).
[40]. Explanatory
Memorandum, National Broadcasters Legislation Amendment (Enhanced
Transparency) Bill 2017, p. 3.
[41]. Inserted
by item 1 in Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Bill and item 1 in Part
1 of Schedule 2 to the Bill respectively.
[42]. Explanatory
Memorandum, National Broadcasters Legislation Amendment (Enhanced
Transparency) Bill 2017, p. 3.
[43]. ABC
Act, proposed subsection 80A(3); SBS Act, proposed subsection
73A(3).
[44]. BBC,
Annex
to the BBC annual report and accounts 2016/17, op. cit., p. 6.
[45]. Ibid.,
p. 6.
[46]. Inserted
by item 3 in Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Bill.
[47]. Inserted
by item 3 in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Bill.
[48]. Ibid.,
p. 6.
[49]. Ibid.,
p. 10.
[50]. ABC
Act, proposed subsection 80A(3); SBS Act, proposed subsection
73A(3).
[51]. BBC,
Annex
to the BBC annual report and accounts 2016/17, op. cit., p. 6.
[52]. A
Singh, ‘BBC
pay list: the hidden names the corporation does not want you to see’, The
Telegraph, 20 July 2017.
[53]. Ibid.
[54]. Explanatory
Memorandum, National Broadcasters Legislation Amendment (Enhanced
Transparency) Bill 2017, p. 3.
[55]. Subsection
29(2) of the ABC Act permits the ABC to determine charges payable in
respect of a range of activities ‘with a view to raising as much net revenue as
is practicable’, and section 57 of the SBS Act allows SBS to receive
money from sponsorship, advertising and other activities.
[56]. Australian
Government, Portfolio
budget statements 2017‒18: budget related paper no. 1.3: Communications
and the Arts Portfolio, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 2017, p.
71.
[57]. Ibid.,
p. 285.
[58]. The
BBC’s list excluded payments from the profit-making, wholly-owned subsidiary BBC
Worldwide.
[59]. BBC,
Annex
to the BBC annual report and accounts 2016/17, op. cit.
[60]. A
Santos, ‘BBC’s list of top-paid stars sparks controversy over pay gap, lack of
diversity’, NBC news, 19 July 2017.
[61]. M
Whyte, ‘How
women in media won some pay equality in the 1970s, and why they’re still
fighting today’, The Conversation, 15 January 2018.
[62]. Explanatory
Memorandum, National Broadcasters Legislation Amendment (Enhanced
Transparency) Bill 2017, p. 6.
[63]. M
Guthrie, Environment
and Communications Legislation Committee, op. cit., p. 103.
[64]. ABC,
Investing
in audiences, annual report, 2017, vol. 2, p. 49.
[65]. J
McGrath (Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) ‘Second
reading speech: National Broadcasters Legislation Amendment (Enhanced
Transparency) Bill 2017’, Senate, Debates, 6 October 2017, p. 9915.
[66]. Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Scrutiny digest, op. cit., p. 81.
[67]. Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Human Rights, Human
rights scrutiny report, op. cit., p. 53.
[68]. M
Guthrie (Managing Director, Australian Broadcasting Corporation), Evidence to
Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Official
committee Hansard, 24 October 2017, p. 104; and M Mason, ‘ABC,
SBS refuse to disclose staff paid over $200,000’, op. cit., p. 8.
[69]. Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Scrutiny digest, op. cit., p. 81.
[70]. Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Human Rights, Human
rights scrutiny report, op. cit., pp. 52–3.
[71]. J
McGrath (Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) ‘Second
reading speech: National Broadcasters Legislation Amendment (Enhanced
Transparency) Bill 2017’, op. cit., p. 9915.
[72]. Remuneration
Tribunal, ‘About us’,
Tribunal website.
[73]. Financial reporting
rule, section 27.
[74]. J
McGrath (Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) ‘Second
reading speech: National Broadcasters Legislation Amendment (Enhanced
Transparency) Bill 2017’, op. cit., p. 9915.
[75]. Nine
Entertainment Co, Create:
distribute: engage, annual report, Nine Entertainment Co, 2017, pp.
36–43.
[76]. M
Ebeid, (Managing Director, Special Broadcasting Service), Environment and
Communications Legislation Committee, Official
committee Hansard, 24 October 2017, p. 152.
[77]. G Ruddick and N Khomami, ‘Emily Maitlis offered new BBC contract amid row over pay and sexism’, The Guardian, 21 July 2017.
[78]. M
Whyte, ‘How
women in media won some pay equality in the 1970s, and why they’re still
fighting today’, The Conversation, 15 January 2018.
[79]. D
Atkins, S Johnson and F Whiting, ‘Should
the ABC have to reveal the salaries of its highly paid talent?’, The Courier
Mail, 19 August 2017, p. 61.
For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to members of Parliament.
© Commonwealth of Australia
Creative Commons
With the exception of the Commonwealth
Coat of Arms, and to the extent that copyright subsists in a third party,
this publication, its logo and front page design are licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence.
In essence, you are free to copy and
communicate this work in its current form for all non-commercial purposes, as
long as you attribute the work to the author and abide by the other licence
terms. The work cannot be adapted or modified in any way. Content from this
publication should be attributed in the following way: Author(s), Title of
publication, Series Name and No, Publisher, Date.
To the extent that copyright subsists
in third party quotes it remains with the original owner and permission may
be required to reuse the material.
Inquiries regarding the licence and
any use of the publication are welcome to webmanager@aph.gov.au.
Disclaimer: Bills Digests are prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament.
They are produced under time and resource constraints and aim to be available
in time for debate in the Chambers. The views expressed in Bills Digests do
not reflect an official position of the Australian Parliamentary Library, nor
do they constitute professional legal opinion. Bills Digests reflect the
relevant legislation as introduced and do not canvass subsequent amendments
or developments. Other sources should be consulted to determine the official
status of the Bill.
Any concerns or complaints should be
directed to the Parliamentary Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are
available to discuss the contents of publications with Senators and Members
and their staff. To access this service, clients may contact the author or
the Library’s Central Enquiry Point for referral.