David Seymour: ACT leader on why the party invoked the Agree to Disagree clause for the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill

David Seymour doesn't think the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill will solve underlying issues with media.  

The Government's progressing an amended version of the Bill which will make digital platforms like Facebook pay for news content.  

ACT's invoked its right to 'agree to disagree' and will oppose the Bill.  

Party leader David Seymour told Mike Hosking that it will probably make issues with media worse.  

He says that's because the one attractive thing about the original Labour policy was that it deals with private companies with no politicians involved, but now they're proposing a politician be involved. 

LISTEN ABOVE 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
So that's fair. Digital news marketing bill going ahead. Labour
came up with it, of course, meltily missed it up
or Goldsmith. You get the sense has been drag kicking
and screaming to the line. But there are a couple
of changes, not least of which is a minister's now
involved in final calls and we have the second degree
to disagree trigger pulled in the coalition this time by act.
David Seymour was with us. Very good morning to you
wedding make Was this a die in the ditch thing

(00:21):
for you or are we going to do you think
see a bunch of agree to disagrees before the next election.

Speaker 2 (00:27):
Well, the nature of the government is a coalition. There's
three different parties. People voted for them for different reasons,
and the people that voted for us want to see
us stand up and present them with their values. I
don't think meaning if any people who voted at want
to see a policy that is based on the Labor

(00:48):
Party theory of economics. There's a company with some money,
let's take it off them and give it to someone
else that might support us, which is all that says.
It's not going to solve the underlying and quite serious
problems with media. In fact, that we'll probably make them
worse because the one attractive thing about this whole policy

(01:09):
was that it deals between private companies with no politicians involved.
Now they're proposing that a politician gets involved in effectively
funding media, and it's just not acceptable.

Speaker 1 (01:22):
The problem with it is that the one side of
the equation is so gargantuan and so big and so powerful.
The argument would be you need a politician to drag
them to the table otherwise they don't care.

Speaker 2 (01:33):
Well, that may well be the case, but it also
tells you something about the nature of the relationship. It's
not always obvious who needs who the most, and when
it comes to digital media, whether it's The Herald Online
or stuff or whatever. They are benefiting from being able

(01:54):
to be found on Google, from having their stories shared
on Facebook and Instagram, and I've heard from people who
work in those companies that they're trained to help enhance
their visibility on these internet platforms so they get more readers. Now,
if you're going to try and strike a deal, it's
not actually obvious who should be paying who for what service.

(02:18):
But to put a politician in the middle trying to
figure that out. Well, that's the kind of policy we
expect from the Labor Party, and of course the origin
of it is a labor policy. And I just think
we're going to be honest about the problems with the
media actually relate to the product. It's never been easier
to share news. It's not like you have to pay

(02:40):
a network of thousands of school kids to deliver papers
every morning. Anyone can start a media company. It's easy
to communicate. The issue is I don't think people want
the product. And if you start trying to subsidize by
pulling down other companies that are doing well, you're just
delaying the change that needs to happen that we need
more journalism can actually trust.

Speaker 1 (03:01):
By While I got you this absentee in business down
down thirty percent on travel, you know, the flight center stuff,
I didn't think it would work as much as it has.
You've got to be pleased with thirty percent.

Speaker 2 (03:13):
Well, I haven't talked to them directly, and I've only
seen what's been reported in media, But yeah, that does
sound really positive. I mean term one this year was
the best term one in five years going back to
twenty nineteen. So I think people are starting to take
attendance more seriously and obviously thrilled about that, but it's

(03:35):
far too early to celebrate. The truth is that, you
know that term one might be a high point in
five years, but you know, we got sixty two point
three percent of students attending regularly. Our target as a
government is eighty percent by the end of the decade.
It's a long way from sixty two percent regular attendants
to eighty So it absolutely have to continue to make

(03:57):
this a national project. And the more kids go to school,
the more knowledge with past to the next generation, the
brighter the future for all of us because each of
those kids are empowered to succeed in whatever the next
century throws of us.

Speaker 1 (04:10):
Well sid appreciate it. David Seymore, act leader. For more
from the Mic Asking Breakfast, listen live to news talks
that'd be from six am weekdays, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio.