Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Reform) Bill 2016, a bill that I think is very poorly named because it has the word 'reform' in it. What we are talking about in this proposed legislation is by no means reform. Indeed, this bill contains two substantive provisions, with some licence conditions for local programming obligations, but fundamentally this should be about a piece of housekeeping to deregulate a section of the Broadcasting Services Act dealing with the 75 per cent audience reach rule. That is a provision that could have been done at the beginning of the first term of this Abbot-Turnbull government. It could have gone through as part of a statute update, for example. It certainly is not something that should be classified as reform.

I will detail the substantive changes that are proposed. The 75 per cent reach rule prohibits a person from being in a position to exercise control of commercial television broadcasting licences for which the total population exceeds 75 per cent of the Australian population. As Labor has made very clear—not only since this bill was first introduced but since it was subsequently introduced, following its lapse at the time of the election—we support removal of this rule, because it is utterly redundant. We already have a situation in place where streaming occurs and where we have more than 75 per cent of the population being covered. It is a rule that is out of date and should go.

However, Labor has made it very clear that we remain to be convinced of the merits of repealing the other rule. I rise here to reaffirm what Labor senators said in their dissenting report to the Senate committee, which is that we are unconvinced that the two-out-of-three rule—the cross-media ownership restriction that prohibits mergers of more than two of three regulated media platforms; that is, TV, radio and associated newspapers in a particular licence area—should be repealed.

As I said, Labor has strongly indicated its support for the removal of the 75 per cent reach rule. It was, in fact, a Labor proposal to remove this now-redundant rule. The primary argument in favour of repealing the second rule, the two-out-of-three rule, is that there has been a rise in online sources that can compete for both news and advertising revenue. I must say, the argument about the impact and forecast decline of traditional media is one that is absolutely there, but one that must be taken with extreme caution. This notion that the internet and technological developments have negated the need for Australia to maintain rules around the ownership and control of broadcasting licensees in order to satisfy the objects of diversity in the Broadcasting Services Act is one that does not necessarily follow.

I note, in particular—and I will articulate this in my later comments—this notion of 'because internet': 'because internet' we do not need to have these rules in place and 'because internet' we have everyone capable of accessing these services. There are two things here. For a start, I hate to break it to this government, but unfortunately in certain areas of Australia—we know there is a digital divide not only between regional and metropolitan areas but certainly within metro areas themselves—you would be hard pressed to find Australians who are satisfied with the quality of their broadband service. That is even borne out by the latest statistics of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. I see my friend the member for Burt is in the chamber. Having been to his electorate recently and seen the number of residents who have absolutely no internet access whatsoever and are not even on the rollout map for the NBN, I have to ask myself whether reliance on that notion of 'because internet' is simply a fallacy.

I note that the minister has accused anyone opposed to the repeal of these two rules of being an 'analog warrior' whose views reflect emotion rather than reason. I note that the minister has rejected the need to review any further evidence and asserted that the debate is over in this area and that no further consideration of issues is required. It would be useful for the minister to reflect—as I will come to—on his comments that were made as late as yesterday on this area and on the fact that, if this was supposed to be about landmark reform, he has run away from it at a hundred miles an hour. He has absolutely run away from it.

As my colleague the member for Whitlam has also said, it is entirely within the remit of this parliament and entirely within the capability of this chamber to rid ourselves of the 75 per cent reach rule before Christmas. We could rise from this place giving regional broadcasters precisely what they have been asking for for so many years—that is, we could get rid of a redundant rule that is inhibiting them. But it is to the utter disgrace of this minister that he has not only rejected the notion of doing that but he has walked away completely from true media reform. I note also some of the comments that have, as I said, categorically dismissed this notion of this bill being concerned with genuine reform.

I have seen a few comments from the minister alluding to him working with Labor. There were some quite nice comments about working productively with me. I do not know what he has been telling his stakeholders but I can tell you this: this minister has not picked up the phone once to me to discuss the substantive issues in this bill. I do not know what he is been telling stakeholders but I can tell you there has been no substantive discussion about the items in this bill. Maybe he has discussed it with others, maybe with former Senator Conroy, who knows? But he has certainly not discussed them with me.

So inept is this minister that, as I will highlight, he has talked about all the relevant facts being known; no other facts need to be known. I think the minister should acquaint himself with some of the facts that should be examined as part of this bill—things like the high level of concentration in Australia's media sector and also the views of Australians about this issue. I have heard from many stakeholders that Australians 'do not really care about this stuff'. As I will demonstrate, Australians do care about the diversity of voices, they care about Australian voices being heard and they care about the ability to be able to access those voices and to have the connectivity to do just that. But so inept is this minister that even yesterday we had Jack Mitchell in The Australian say:

The Turnbull government is ­considering reviewing the anti-­siphoning list to win industry ­support and deliver genuine ­reform of decades-old ownership and control laws.

Does that not just say it all, 'deliver some genuine reform'? Because what we have in this bill is not reform at all.

Free-to-air network television licence fees are also expected to be addressed in conjunction with the media reform bill as Communications Minister Mitch Fifield adopts a rejigged approach amid resistance to the current proposal.

If you start looking at licence fees and other issues to be addressed in conjunction with the items in this bill, what you are actually talking about is holistic reform of the sector, which, blow me over, is what I have been saying for months. It is what I would have been happy to discuss with the minister months ago. But the minister was so dismissive of this from the outset and now today, all of a sudden, holistic reform is the order of the day. I Know imitation is supposed to be the best form of flattery but this is just beyond ridiculous from the minister who is clearly out of his depth, who lacks passion for this portfolio and who simply does not know what he is doing in this vital area of media ownership rules.

The article in The Australian yesterday said:

Dealing with media ownership rules, licence fees and anti-siphoning at the same time would deliver wins for the industry, some ­observers believe, and progress for the government as it seeks to ­implement its legislative agenda.

Again, this is exactly what I proposed from the outset. All of a sudden, this minister has realised that you cannot just take one piece of the jigsaw in the converged media and communications landscape, fiddle with it and then think it will fit back and that everything will be hunky-dory. This is a minister who also had this bill on his list of the 20-point plan when this government came in. Now he has thrown up the white flag as reported last week in TheWest Australian and we have the headline 'Media law reforms on the backburner'—completely given up. But of course that would not stop him. The article said, 'He blamed Labor for the hold up.'

This government has been in power since 2013. What has it done in this area? It could have completed probably the most thorough review of the broadcasting sector. The last thorough one was in around 2000 by the Productivity Commission and actually had a strong evidence base for holistic review of the sector and corresponding legislative and regulatory reform, not to mention getting to work on some converged regulation and converged legislation in this area. But no, none of that happened under former communications minister Turnbull. We are certainly not going to see anything happen as this parliamentary year draws to a close from the current minister but we will wait and see.

As I quoted from The Australian earlier, the government is giving consideration to further reductions in licence fees in conjunction with other reforms including spectrum pricing. I wonder who has been advocating for licence fees and spectrum reform from the outset? Again, as part of a holistic package, this is exactly what Labor has been proposing. I note also in this article from The West Australian last week:

Senator Fifield maintained that he would not split the package into two Bills so the Government could chalk up a win on the abolition of the ritual.

He said:

It is extremely disappointing that the alternative government cannot see their way clear to help bring our media laws to reflect the world we live in.

To the contrary, it is completely disappointing that we have a minister here who is not willing to cut regional broadcasters some slack before the end of the year, which was exactly what Labor said we would be prepared to support and his obfuscation means that we will not be able to rise from this place, according to him, with this positive repeal in the bag. I note the comments he made here:

Because of the limited number of sitting days left and Labor's ongoing delay in relation to media reform legislation, it may well be—and probably will be—next year that we can conclude that legislation.

As I said, this government did nothing in three years to address the issue of proper, well thought through, evidence based media reform. It has taken their whole first term, and several months since the last election. We are now here in the dying days of this parliamentary sitting year, with a minister who is inept, who has absolutely rubbished the sensible approach that I suggested from the outset. And now he appears to have not only adopted those views but also, as a highlight, he almost appears to have instructed others—his own people in his own department—to support them. I will demonstrate what I meant by that in a moment.

Here on the opposition side, here in Labor, we are happy to help. We are happy to help deliver a bit of reform before the end of the year to at least give some of those parties, the regional broadcasters, a break in this matter. But I am not surprised that we are not seeing that much from this minister with his ham-fisted approach to media reform. What else have we seen? The spectrum review was kicked off in May 2014—we still do not know what the government is planning to do there. We have the ACMA review announced in June 2015; there is still no final report. We have the Vertigan review—its terms of reference were announced in December 2013—that is still doing the rounds.

I go to the substantive issue of what should have been applied, the frame, the whole prism of regulatory review that should have applied from the outset. As I said on 10 August this year and was quoted in GuardianAustralia by Katharine Murphy:

Labor says the government needs to undertake a comprehensive examination of the state of the Australian media landscape before rushing to scrap regulations that prevent moguls owning a TV station, radio network and newspaper in the same market.

And:

… Labor had already signalled it would support scrapping the reach rule, given the evidence showed it was a 'redundant' restriction.

But she said scrapping the two-out-of-three rule was much more contentious given the Australian media market remained one of the most concentrated in terms of ownership in the developed world.

Murphy quoted me further:

Seven of the 10 top websites in Australia, she said, were owned by the traditional media companies. 'While they are being delivered on different platforms it is clear the concentration of ownership is still there.'

I again noted:

… Labor was open to dealing with the package in two tranches.

That was on 10 August. On 29 August, the minister quoted in the same publication:

But Fifield has rejected that call—

This is the call for a review of the sector—

and confirmed his intention to bring forward the package. The last thing Australia’s media companies need is another review. It is time for action.

The minister might think it is time for action, but I certainly do not see any action on this front, and it is quite apparent that this minister has suddenly realised the need for holistic reform. He is talking about, for example, reviewing some of the regulations around subscription broadcasting. I do not know where this guy has been, but on 5 September, when asked by The Financial Review about the current regime and how it works, I pointed out that the anti-siphoning regime, as it currently stands, is already being circumvented. One day Netflix will go—maybe in the not too distant future, who knows—to a sporting code with a blank cheque and these cashed-up over-the-top operators will say, 'How much do you want?'

We have already seen telecommunications carriers going more and more into the content provision space. See, for example, Optus in the English Premier League. We recently had Twitter streaming Melbourne Cup delivery this year. But these are not on-the-horizon issues; these are issues here and now that need to be addressed. The fact is that it is entirely possible for these operators to circumvent the current anti-siphoning regime, which has been put in there for a very good reason, but it is perfectly capable of being circumvented by these firms that are not subject to the regime. I note the minister, yesterday, quoted as being ready to start looking at some of these issues. But from the outset, he is showing absolutely no interest whatsoever.

It is a fact that the pragmatic course of action that should be taken by this parliament is to repeal the reach rule. I note, also, that I have advocated for the execution of a sound principles based policy, which I will come back to it in just a moment. To the issue of holistic media reform; this should not have been news to the minister. He should not have had any problem signing up to, because it has been very clear from the submissions and evidence from industry stakeholders to the Senate, on more than one occasion, that this is exactly what they have been asking for. Foxtel is:

… strongly opposed to repeal of any media control rules in isolation. Therefore, we do not support passage of the bill at this time.

As set out below, we believe reform must be holistic and provide for de-regulation across sectors …

It goes on:

Hasn't the government always talked about taking a holistic approach to things like this, and it sounds like they're not going to. We'll continue to encourage them to do the right thing.

It goes on:

Seven West Media has maintained a consistent position in relation to any proposed changes to media laws. We see great danger in addressing these matters in a piecemeal manner.

And Nine:

… we understand the need for the proposed changes of repealing the 75 per cent reach rule and … more broadly as part of holistic reform. Incremental changes will not bring about the reform required for the ongoing viability of our industry.

It said: 'There are parameters under which, I would say, holistic media reform needs to be considered, and we need to look at the whole industry's part in how that public policy objective is maintained.' And so it goes on.

I will highlight one of the minister's more curious assertions in the months since this bill was reintroduced to the parliament, and I look at the headline from The Sydney Morning Herald from 10 August this year: 'Labor will be putting jobs at risk if it blocks media ownership changes.' Firstly, amongst other things, the notion that mergers and acquisitions do not lead to job losses is one which I think would be hotly disputed. But as he goes on, I quote the minister telling Fairfax Media:

The last thing Australia's media companies need right now is another review—it is time for action.

All the relevant facts are already known.

Labor's out of touch with the needs of the media sector and does not seem to care about the jobs that are at risk.

…   …   …

The legislation will be put back before the parliament as a priority and as a package.

It is curious, then, to examine one notable merger. For example, on 12 September this year The Australian had the headline 'ARM takeover spurs back-office cuts' and the article stated:

News Corp's planned acquisition of APN News & Media's Australian Regional Media newspaper business will result in up to 300 job losses as back office synergies are sought to secure the future of quality journalism in the affected regions.

The cuts are expected to be implemented over an initial phase, provided the deal is approved by shareholders and the competition watchdog …

It is not surprising to me that last week, even in The Australian, Mark Day commented:

The end-of-the-year awards season is almost here but there's already an odds-on favourite for the title of the most ineffective politician in the land.

Take a bow Mitch Fifield, the Homer Simpson of the Turnbull government. He has been the Minister for Communications and the Arts since September last year and—

here is the important bit—

he's just discovered the need for widespread reform of media regulation.

It is quite telling that we have the minister described in those terms. Not only has the minister has changed his position on this matter and how we should approach the prism through which we should approach media reform in this country; it appears he has not been capable of having an original thought up to this point. I will give you an example.

On 5 October this year, I made a speech to the Commsday Melbourne Congress and I set out the principles that I believe should be applied to communications policymaking in Australia, and I highlighted those principles and challenges and summarised them in three parts: firstly, piecemeal policy is poor policy; secondly, the legacy world must be confronted; and, thirdly, consumers must be at the policy core. I particularly noted some of the issues arising from this media reform bill and stated:

…   …   …

I was therefore quite surprised—though pleasantly surprised when these things happen—to see on 24 November the secretary of the minister's department, in a speech to the Institute of Public Administration Australia's Secretary Series, making the following comment:

That is in essence what Minister Fifield has asked us to begin work on—to think about a communications policy roadmap centred on a principles-based framework for communications policy. This roadmap will be the first look at the overall policy framework in nearly 20 years, since the introduction of competition into telecommunications in the late 1990s.

Well, blow me over, if you do not see your own words coming to you from the secretary of the department via, of course, a minister—'This is what Minister Fifield has asked us to begin work on.' I am happy to help out, but the sheer fact is this minister, being so incapable of understanding the entire media landscape and the need for a holistic approach to this area, is instead offering us piecemeal legislative change somehow disguised as reform—as my mother would have said, 'mutton done up as lamb'—yet comes to this parliament and argues that it is urgent when this government has done sweet nothing for the last three years. Not only has he gone out and rubbished what Labor has sensibly proposed; now he seems to want to adopt it as his own. I think it is useful to highlight how it got to this point.

Of course it got here because in June 2015, effectively, the Abbott government at the time killed off plans to put media ownership on the political agenda, as The Australian wrote 18 June 2015:

… after the leadership group of the inner cabinet decided against the move to avoid a fight with the main players.

…   …   …

'They are completely off the table', a source said. 'There will be no reform package any time in the foreseeable future.'

This is a government which not only has been scared of looking at this issue through a principles-based framework and put it off for so long; it is also ignoring the evidence.

In the time I have I want to highlight some of the evidence which demonstrates why it is important to maintain diversity, as set out in the Broadcasting Services Act and specifically the two-out-of-three rule. This argument of 'because internet' simply does not cut it. If you look at the Nielsen digital ratings, you will see seven of the top 10 sites are old Australian media just on different platforms—the same voices. In response to some of the stakeholders whom I have heard say, 'No-one cares about this; you can get rid of this set of rules and no-one will care,' I note that in September this year, we had a poll from Essential Poll looking at media laws and this question was put:

Would you approve or disapprove of changing the media laws to allow a single company to own all three of a newspaper, TV network and radio station in a single market?

The response to the question was total disapprove 61 per cent and total approve a mere 18 per cent. I believe this is an issue that is important to the Australian people. I believe this is an issue that should be examined in terms of the amount of media concentration that we already have. It is the fact that media concentration has been of enduring concern to the public and it has certainly been one that has prompted government to act and to put regulations and appropriate safeguards in place, even since the 1930s.

I have heard the minister trying to denigrate me as being stuck in the eighties and saying, 'These rules were conceived when Kylie Minogue was still running around on Ramsay Street.' Well, there are two points there. Firstly, the 1980s were pretty good. Any decade that contained Bon Jovi at their height was a good decade. But I would also point out, just as Paul Keating reflected in 2000 on these rules:

The technology might be complicated, but the issues are simple. Public policy should be directed towards promoting diversity and preventing any further concentration of media power. The result might be some arguable economic inefficiencies around the edges, but the Australian polity will be healthier. The principal objective has to be diversity. And the only way to get it is competition. That alone.

He goes on to say—and this is prophetic, since he was making these comments in 2000:

The last Labor Government's policy approach to the need to prevent concentration and encourage diversity was the cross-media rules. These limit owners broadly to either print or radio or television.

The question now is whether digital technology, which enables all forms of content to be delivered in similar ways, makes these rules out of date. I think this argument is greatly overstated by the government and the existing media owners.

The rules in Australia do not prevent any proprietor getting into new media.

He goes on:

In any case, the rationale given by those who argue for the ditching of the cross-media rules—that convergence is turning all forms of media into one—is the most powerful reason for not making it easier to concentrate ownership.

As Labor has consistently said, we have made our policy position known. It is based on the evidence, and the evidence is clear that Australians are concerned about these issues; that now is not the time to be ditching these important provisions; and that the Australian people respect diversity and want it preserved.

David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is good to talk on this bill, the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Reform) Bill 2016. I have to say that the position of the opposition on this bill is absolutely absurd. It is just lacking in any logic and any sensible rationale and it would simply seek to crystallise the Australian media industry and freeze it as if it were 1987. It is not 1987 and it is an absurd position that the opposition are taking, and they should be ashamed of it.

Let us get to the crux of this issue in relation to the so-called two-out-of-three rule. At the moment, due to rules that have existed for decades and are now massively outdated, a media proprietor in a particular market can own two out of three of the platforms of newspaper, radio and television but is not able to own all three. So what part of this package would seek to do is change that rule to create the capacity for further mergers in this sector. It is really important to understand that the fact that the two-out-of-three rule is removed does not automatically mean that mergers can occur, because we still of course have a thing called the ACCC.

Mr Deputy Speaker, as you well know, the ACCC will run the ruler over any proposed transaction, certainly including the media sector. If the two-out-of-three rule is no longer there, the ACCC will still look at each and every transaction and ask, 'Is this appropriate? Does this lead to an inappropriate concentration of market power?' If the answer is yes, they will say that the merger cannot proceed. We also have a diversity rule in media which basically requires that there are numerous voices in different markets, particularly in the radio sector. So the diversity rule absolutely remains and the ACCC remains.

The opposition is basically saying that no company should be allowed to even put a proposition forward to merge those entities—so no newspaper should be allowed to put forward a proposition to merge with radio and TV. The newspaper industry is not what it used to be. So, on the one hand, we have this quite remarkable situation where the opposition is saying that the newspaper industry is so powerful that it must not be allowed to merge with other media platforms and, on the other hand, newspaper companies all around the world, and certainly in Australia, are on the verge of shutting down their newspapers, because the newspaper business has chronic and likely terminal problems. Those opposite say, 'So powerful; can't be allowed to merge with other entities,' whilst the reality is that these companies are in dire straits and are anything but the powerful entities that they once were. But that does not matter to those opposite, because there is clearly some sort of political agenda here. Whether it is some sort of a grudge that those opposite or predecessors of theirs in the communications portfolio hold, I do not know, but it is a ridiculous proposition.

It is worth noting that, under the current rules, one company could own Facebook, Google and every other website in Australia—thereby having immense power and reach—but not have any problem under the two-out-of-three rule. That would actually be okay under the two-out-of-three rule. But if a newspaper company that is perhaps in the process of shutting down its newspapers because they are not doing so well wished to partner with a radio station and a TV station in a particular market, those opposite say, 'No, we can't allow that to happen.' They cannot allow that to happen, but they have no objection to one entity basically owning everything online. It was also interesting that the previous speaker, the shadow minister, talked about how seven out of the top 10 digital sites are owned by traditional media companies, but she neglected to mention that No. 1 and No. 2, who are dramatically bigger than everyone else, are of course Google and Facebook, which have a far greater reach than any other companies online.

So you do have to wonder why, in 2016, a party which purports to hold itself out as an alternative government, says, 'We cannot allow companies in this industry to put forward proposals to merge.' Proposals will still have to go to the ACCC and will still be subject to the diversity rules that apply in this sector. They say, 'Don't even let them put forward a proposal to the ACCC. Watch them wither on the vine, with the attendant job losses that will occur'—and they will occur, and I do not think anybody who follows this sector would disagree with that. Let them wither on the vine; let them wither away; do not let them put forward constructive proposals to make their businesses more viable, even though those proposals would still be subject to ACCC approval. That is just an absurd proposition. It is a completely ridiculous proposition and it is not befitting a fringe group, let alone a group who purport to be an alternative government.

We should also address the 75 per cent rule, which is contained by this bill. It is good that the opposition do support the abolition of the 75 per cent rule—though it is bad and ridiculous that they do not support the abolition of the two-out-of-three rule. To explain the 75 per cent rule, this is a strange rule indeed. Basically, at the moment no one entity can own free-to-air television stations that reach more than 75 per cent of the Australian population. That is why, in the Australian television industry, we have, basically, two types of companies. We have the metropolitan broadcasters, Seven, Nine and Ten, and then in regional markets we have Prime, Southern Cross and WIN. The reason it is structured that way is that it is not possible for either the regional broadcasters or the metropolitan broadcasters to reach more than 75 per cent of the population, so there are basically two entities doing broadly the same thing. Presumably, when the 75 per cent rule was established, the rationale was to limit the reach, so to speak, of any one entity into the television market. Presumably, the idea was that they did not want a particular company being able to reach 100 per cent of the community through TV.

The problem, though, is that it has actually never worked like that. Let me explain why. The free-to-air metropolitan networks all have deals with the regional broadcast networks—Seven and Prime, and now Nine and Southern Cross, and now Ten and WIN. They have deals where they, basically, redistribute their programming. If you have watched regional TV while in Canberra, Mr Deputy Speaker, which I am sure you have on occasion, you will have noticed that the broadcast bears a striking similarity to what you will see on Seven, Nine or Ten. Critically, the national news of Seven, Nine and Ten is broadcast unfiltered and unchanged into those regional markets. So, if the concern of the legislation was to limit the reach of those news stories into regional markets, it has not been very effective. The national story of the day on Nine will be seen in regional markets, and the same applies to Seven and Ten—so they have been reaching 100 per cent of markets the whole time. Of course, regional networks do have some individual regional stories, which is a good thing. Some of them do that simply to comply with the content rules and some of them actually do a great deal more than is required under the content rules. Some of them provide far more local content than they need to under the rules. They do so for commercial reasons. The regionals provide some local news content, but they also redistribute 100 per cent of the content of the main networks, particularly in news, and they might have one or two other shows—maybe a regional fishing show or a couple of other shows—but overwhelmingly it is the same schedule as in the metropolitan market. That has always been the case and it was the case before the internet, so this rule has kind of never made sense, to be honest.

It makes even less sense now because what you can do now—and this is actually happening—is reach 100 per cent of the population with a TV product via the internet. Channel 7, I think, was the first to start doing that, with the broadcast of, effectively, the Seven metropolitan content into regional markets. So 100 per cent of the community can access Channel 7, even in regional markets, and that is okay under the law. Point 1, it is okay to reach 100 per cent through digital distribution. Point 2, even through the distribution on free-to-air spectrum, it is actually okay for programming to reach 100 per cent of the community, because it does and has been doing so for decades. The only thing that is not okay is for 100 per cent of people to be reached via spectrum via the same ownership structure, which again makes no sense because it is already happening through other means.

So it is good that the opposition agrees that this rule should be changed—frankly, this rule should have been changed many years ago—but this is a package because the 75 per cent rule is quite linked to the broader reform of the two-out-of-three rule. The opposition say that a modern media industry in Australia should be stuck in rules that were created under the Keating government. The shadow minister talked in very glowing terms of Mr Keating and even used the term 'prophetic' to describe his pronouncements on this industry, but I am not sure that I would agree that his influence has been quite so other-worldly. This is creating a constrained situation in the Australian media industry and it will lead, and is leading, to reduced activity in the sector and reduced employment. The newspaper sector, for example, is, I think it is fair to say, the most challenged of the three traditional sectors. Barely a day goes by when you do not hear about a newspaper company in the world scaling back operations, laying off staff or shutting down particular versions of their newspaper. The reason they are doing that is, basically, that the economics of the newspaper business do not work very well anymore. They used to work well. They used to be very powerful economics, but what has happened is that the classifieds industry, which for so long was really the linchpin of the revenue streams of newspapers, has gone away pretty much completely. You would be familiar with Seek and Carsales and realestate.com and all those websites, Mr Deputy Speaker. The vast majority of what used to be the foundation of the newspaper industry—those job ads, car ads and housing ads—is gone now and is online. As a consequence—there are other reasons too—the newspaper industry is in immense financial difficulty.

Those opposite say, 'No, let's not let newspaper companies or other media sectors come forward with constructive proposals to build companies that will survive in the current era, companies that will be able to take on those international competitors, companies that will be able to fight against the googles and the facebooks who are making so much headway and taking so much of that market which has traditionally been captured by Australian companies.' Those opposite say; 'No, don't let them react to that. Make them sit there. Make them sit there and, basically, watch as their industry is fundamentally changed by these massive foreign companies who do employ people in Australia but only a small fraction of the number of people who are employed by traditional media companies.' Whatever their political motivation is—I do not fully understand what their motivation is; it is difficult to decipher—they say, 'Don't let Australian companies come up with proposals to take on Google. Don't let Australian companies come up with proposals to create structures that will enable them to compete in the future with these very aggressive and very successful search and social media platforms.' That is, as I said, a ridiculous proposition.

The 75 per cent rule and the associated changes in this legislation will include even further improvements to regional content rules in the television industry. They are already very strong, but they will be even stronger under this package of reforms. This is a reform that means regional Australia will get quality media services into the future because they will be allowed to have structures that work in a business sense. Those opposite say, 'Don't let them. Let them wither on the vine. Let the foreign websites come in and take over without allowing a fair fight from the domestic media companies.' It is absolutely wrong, and the opposition should support this legislation.

Meryl Swanson (Paterson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this evening to speak on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Reform) Bill 2016, which calls for a relaxation of media ownership laws in Australia to meet the needs of a changing marketplace. We understand it is a changing marketplace. Despite strategies by various governments over the past decades, Australia has one of the most concentrated media environments in the world. But in recent years the media landscape has changed, and it continues to change.

Traditional media operators—television, radio and newspapers—have protested that the majority of government regulations now no longer fit the changed landscape. They say the conditions are onerous and have not just restricted their business but stifled their business Since the advent of the internet, with greater diversity of sources, diversity of voices and innovative practices, traditional media say they can no longer compete. They argue that the removal of these rules is necessary for their survival, and it is a compelling argument. We have seen job losses throughout all sectors of the media, and those losses have, in turn, impacted on their and our communities. Despite the freedoms of the internet, many of us still place great faith in traditional and established media outlets. We trust them for our news; in fact, they are one of the first things we turn to when we have learnt that things might go bad. This is especially the case in the regions.

A diversity of ownership means a diversity of voices. In my electorate of Paterson, which crosses the Hunter Valley and Port Stephens, we are fortunate to still have strong, local independent media voices. We have a strong local Fairfax Media newsroom, which produces the Newcastle Herald, Australia's best regional daily newspaper, and a host of other free weekly, bi-weekly and tri-weekly papers throughout the Hunter, each with a focus on unique local content and each with their own websites.

We have a strong local television station in NBN which, although now owned by the Nine Network, still has a strong regional and local focus and covers local events that matter to the community in its remaining hour-long news bulletin, which is so important and informative to our community. We have a strong local ABC radio station in 1233 Newcastle, an award-winning emergency broadcaster and a sound source of news and comment for many people of the Hunter region. We have several other radio networks—Southern Cross Austereo, the Super Radio Network, the University of Newcastle station 2NURFM—all with their own newsrooms that add to the diversity of voices. And we have a multitude of smaller independent newspapers in micro markets that serve their communities very well.

I understand the value of strong local media because I have worked in it as a broadcaster. I have worked in talkback radio, where the discussion of local news and issues is vital to communities and the individuals who make up those communities. I have worked on the radio when bushfires have raged across our area, and I have personally directed people around alternative routes to try and get home safely and be with their loved ones. I understand the regional media market. Strong local and regional media is a vital cornerstone of Australian society, of Australian democracy, and, most importantly, of local stories, the very fabric that keeps us all connected. People in regional and rural communities do not want to see reflected on their TV screens, across their airwaves and in their newspapers only pictures and stories that are generated in big cities, for big cities and about big cities. They want their own stories.

There are tensions and difficulties in the new digital landscape, and it would be foolish and counterproductive to ignore that. Labor does hear the voices of those media outlets who say they are struggling, that the laws are outdated and that they need to merge to survive. But we are also compelled by the strong need for strong independent media, especially in our regions, and we are compelled by the need for a diversity of voices. We are compelled by the ability to hear and tell the stories of the bush, the regional towns and the cities like my own. Labor does not oppose removing the 75 per cent reach rule. It had been Labor's policy to get rid of that anyway, so we are in agreement there, but we are unconvinced that removing the two-out-of-three rule is a good thing. Getting rid of the rule may help create scalable media businesses, but it does nothing to protect and promote the diversity of voices, which are just so critical.

The government says that Labor is holding up media reform by not passing the two-out-of-three rule, but Labor is willing to meet the government. We are willing to meet the government by over halfway—two-thirds of the way, in fact. We will agree to the removal of the 75 per cent reach rule. We will agree on improving local content rules. We will agree on reducing licence fees. But we will not agree on removing the two-out-of-three rule. The government has not made the case to remove that rule, and there is, as I have said, a solid argument against it. Removing the two-out-of-three rule risks further concentration of media ownership in a few hands, and that is not something that would be of benefit to regional Australians, particularly those who still need to have their stories told.

Splitting the bill is the pragmatic approach, and it is the one that we have suggested. It will ensure that the government gets some media reforms through the parliament this year. That will be pleasing to the media companies, who can at least say there is some progress towards reform, and pleasing to the people and the communities of rural and regional Australia, who want to ensure their stories continue to be told. We know that this is an important issue.

When these restrictions were put in place in the 1980s and nineties the media landscape did look very different. Now we have a whole range of new players—internet-based players—who have entered the market. It really makes no sense to have the 75 per cent reach rule. We get that. We can get rid of that this year, if the government agrees to split the bill. We can make some progress on that. We can do that right now. The minister cannot continue to hide behind the furphy that the failures of this bill are Labor's fault. They clearly are not. The minister can at least get some reform through by talking to Labor and by splitting the bill.

There have been two Senate inquiries on media reform this year and in both cases the abolition of the 75 per cent reach rule received unqualified support, so there is no argument there. We are meeting you more than halfway on this. The pragmatic course—the sensible thing to do—is to repeal the 75 per cent reach rule, ensuring local content is bolstered following a trigger event and providing immediate licence fee relief to the commercial broadcasters. We agree on that as well. Once the impact of these changes can be assessed, the question of media diversity safeguards should then be considered properly as part of holistic and genuine reform.

The internet has altered the media landscape, but it does not justify discarding important diversity safeguards. Let's be clear and frank about this. Let's not forget about the problems with internet access Australia-wide thanks to the second-rate NBN and its botched rollout.

Mr Tim Wilson interjecting—

Not everyone can get the NBN. Not everyone can dip into this feast of internet-based television and internet-based radio. We just cannot get it. That is one of the critical arguments. Everyone says: the internet has made such a difference. It makes a difference if you can actually get it. It is all very well for you to scoff, but if you are spending half your life watching a buffering circle it can be very frustrating. This is particularly so in the most remote areas thanks to the stuff-up—that is all it is—of satellite internet.

Australians support diversity of media. They do not support changing media laws to allow a single controller to own a newspaper, a TV network and a radio station all in the same licence area. Labor must oppose removing the two-out-of-three rule, because it would achieve very little at potentially great cost. Further media consolidation and a reduction in the diversity of voices across the media landscape is not what we need. The parliament must support diversity in the control of our media for the effective functioning of our democracy. The Australian public deserves better than a government that is condemning important media diversity safeguards to the scrap heap in the name of so-called reform.

The media landscape continues to undergo dynamic change. We need a comprehensive vision and the execution of sound principles-based policy to ensure our media laws support both a thriving democracy and a competitive media sector. We will have neither under this government. What we must have are those stories from our local regional area, because they are the stories that truly link people together. They are the stories that build community—and it is through community that a great Australia is built and continued.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Reform) Bill 2016 highlights the forward-looking agenda of the Turnbull government. I do not think I am going to get a chance to finish everything I want to say this evening before the adjournment debate begins, but I do think we need to start by addressing some of the comments that were made before by the previous speaker and, in particular, to highlight the simple absurdity that has been raised here that somehow you need to retain the two-out-of-three rule in order to maintain media diversity.

The previous speaker specifically, and quite rightly, mentioned the fact that we have never lived in a more diverse media environment in this country or around the world. Today you can access—yes, through the internet, but also through lots of other means—technology and information services from all around the globe. The idea that you need to maintain some archaic, anachronistic, 1950s-style model of legislation and regulation to protect diversity fundamentally misunderstands where we are now, where we are going and the wonder and opportunity of what the future holds.

When you look at the challenges we face in the media, they are not around diversity—quite the reverse. The challenges in the media are around integrity and quality and making sure that we have media that has a rigor behind it. The way you are going to achieve that in the 21st century, when the cost of entry is low and there are costs associated with making sure we have quality journalism, quality stories, quality drama, quality programming, is to recognise that business models have to be viable.

By putting unnecessary, archaic and anachronistic restrictions on that you will not achieve the business model we need for Australian media to thrive. It needs to thrive to project stories not just for domestic consumption, which is very important because Australians always need to be able to see themselves and their stories through the media that is projected within our country and our continent, but for the world through a business model that is effective and commercially viable. That is the future of Australia's culture—making sure it is commercially viable, so that we can project that image to the world. It can be a great export sector for this great country.

Debate interrupted.