SENATE BILL: The Atlasian National Broadcaster Bill (Law'd)

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

This is a common factor across the globe to provide entertainment/news without being driven by advertising.

We can easily reduce the costs.

Look at the BBC does anyone doubt the value of the BBC? This is an opportunity for Atlasia to not just provide support for Atlasian arts and culture but also to provide an avenue to export them abroad.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm sick of cheap, tacky television based upon nothing more than shock, sensationalism and dumbing down our national discourse.

I'm fully prepared to defend the values behind this Bill, as well as the benefits.

I would however prefer not to focus the argument on emotional/theoretical arguments about the role of government in broadcasting.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I will be addressing all points raised shortly.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

As to Clarence's points.

The first is if this were 30/40 years ago, you'd probably be right. However, what is very clear is that over that period television has become driven by profits... consider this, the average number of commercial breaks and the length of those breaks have increased over those periods, also, the production costs of television have been forced down. So advertising increases and production costs/values reductions.

We haven't seen a commercial network established for a quarter of a century, you think that's because of a lack of demand? No, this is one area where the faith in the market has failed miserably. Two things that have occurred that make your primary view a touch flawed, the rise of cable television and the internet.

Cable is a system that does indeed have room for market activity, if enough people demand a station on... bolivian goat herding it'll arise. If they need more money, they just hike subscription rates... hardly fair on the people who have a hard time paying for such luxuries now.

The Internet is the other thing, both with piracy and the availability of cheaply made, but easily available programming the idea that public demand for a new high-quality network will bring it about is frankly highly optimistic.


I believe I have made plain why I believe we should do this. I'm very happy to investigate the nature of the levy, but to suggest that we as a government have no role in this is frankly ideological and not balanced out by evidence.

Consider this Board will be governed by public nominees, are any of the network or cable channels governed by the public good? The reason why advertising should not be permitted is to avoid the temptation of what has happened to commercial TV now. An hour program is at best... 42-43 minutes long, you need 15 minutes of advertising to pay for less than an hour of television. The quality of the programming should not be undermined by the need to attract advertisers.

A national broadcaster will create high-quality programming that not only reflects Atlasian culture and supports their creative industries of this country, but also be a tremendous opportunity to export those products abroad.

So I ask the Senate, the ones with the open minds , to consider the value of a national broadcaster whose sole-role is to create programming in the national interest, a network where all Atlasians have a stake in it, governed by public nominees and not driven by advertising revenue.

Consider that Atlasia is one of the few developed nations without such a thing?

Atlasia does have small public or community networks but surely we can handle the creation of a such a network here.

The cost factor will be very small on most people, and we can work to bring that down to the minimum, but also consider that many of the highest-quality programs are on premium cable, the most expensive channels. So have we gotten to the point that the only people who deserve such programming are those that can afford it? And those who cant need to make do with revenue-driven drivel and risk the consequences of internet piracy?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

So just to get this straight, no advertising for non-national broadcasting shows will be allowed on the the public TV channel and radio station, correct? The way it is written now, it seems like you ban advertising for non-national broadcasting shows on all TV channels and all radio stations.

I certainly wouldn't want that... apologies for the confusion.

Yes, this would ONLY apply to the national broadcaster.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I agree that an amendment purely to clarify the text without changing the meaning of it is a necessity.

I apologise for the confusion I would request an amendment along those lines.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I support the amendment but oppose the bill...

I appreciate Polnut's response to my concerns but I do not belive the government should be creating a station because the President doesn't like what's on television...and CERTAINLY there should not be a tax increase to crate it...

It's not as simple as that, and you know that. It's about support for the Atlasian creative industries that isn't reliant on commercial revenues, as well as a way to export to the rest of the world. I appreciate the Senator's position, but would urge him to reconsider his position and perhaps read-up on the history of public broadcasting in the rest of the world, but retain full respect regardless.

I support Senator Yankee's amendment for the record.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I'm not ideologically opposed to this bill, but I don't see a compelling reason why we need government-funded broadcasting when there is no shortage of private options already available. Why do we need this?

I believe I've given a number of strong reasons, given that, I doubt I can do anything to convince you.

Oh, I can speak there now.
I will oppose this bill in the any form.
Why?
1 - I oppose any new taxes
2 - Gov't will use National Broadcaster as a method of brain-washing. Knowing our current administration, it will have a liberal/progressive bias.

I understand concerns about the first but I completely and utterly reject the second as pure, ill-informed paranoia.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I can not support this bill ESPECIALLY when it raises taxes- it would be much less objectionable if it cut somethign else to pay for it but as it stands I bet there is national outrage over this...

So you'd rather cut, say, the ANHP than raise taxes a fraction of a percent on a wealthy fraction of the population? We'll see how that flies with the voting public.

This bill- if proposed in real life- would get Polnut and me (because I technically sponsored it) thrown out of office...an outright tax increase for a new TV channel...the population on this board who knows

This is a levy, which can be reduced, and if the people are soooo reactionary to consider a MAXIMUM 0.5% levy, some assault on rights, freedoms etc etc... then we have much bigger problems.

And for the record I don't believe such hyperbole.

I believe we can reduce the costs, and so reduce the levy, I continue to respect the issues MOST of the Senators opposed have presented, but I also think there is a degree of closed-mindedness to the benefits.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I would like to invite sympathetic Senators to work with the administration to develop amendments for a graduated levy and lower levy.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I also resent your description of me Polnut as "close-minded" considering I was the one who sponsored this bill upon your request...

I'm not calling you closed-minded, but I think you have displayed a degree of closed-mindedness to this Bill, I see a difference, but understand if you don't and I apologise for the inference. I appreciate your sponsorship of it, but it's not like you didn't express a clear position from day one and have not shifted.

I didn't expect you too and I appreciate what you've presented in the debate, regardless of how much I disagree with you.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I propose an amendment to reduce the taxes associated with this bill. I highly doubt we would have needed as much money as the original bill was asking for.

Hence why I'm wanting to look at amendments like yours. I support this amendment FTR.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

As a former small business owner- I had many years where my business took in more then $350K and I took home less then $50K... let's not even discuss the double taxation that many small business owners (sole proprietors) face and just pretend their business income is thir personal income...

A restaurant owner takes in 400K let's say... your levy would take away $2000...that means a lot for a small business. All employees and the owner have to take that out of their salaries...prices would have to be raised potentially- $2000 for a non-necessary part of gov't doesn't seem like a fair price for me

The President seemingly forgets small businesses that will be affected by a corporate income levy- many of which make more then $350K but would still be heavily affected by this levy

I'd be happy to see an amendment to address your concerns, but if the only position you're willing to have on this is "levy=tax" and "this isn't necessary" then I'm afraid we don't have much room to move.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]