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

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) together:

(1)   Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2, column 1), omit “Schedules 1 and 2”, substitute “Schedule 1”.

(2)   Schedule 2, page 4 (line 1) to page 5 (line 14), omit the Schedule.

It is possible for this parliament to rise and be able to say that we have put through something that is a positive result for regional broadcasters—I am talking about the repeal of the 75 per cent reach rule. This amendment encapsulates Labor's well-articulated position on this issue. We certainly support repeal of these provisions; we recommended this when in government. Not a single speaker who has spoken on this bill—very few from the other side have contributed to the second reading debate—has disputed the fact that the 75 per cent reach rule should go. The fact that we have the word 'reform' in this bill and we are still dealing with the repeal of the 75 per cent reach rule simply indicates what a farce this entire bill is. In fact, you could have put through this provision in one of those many statute stocktakes or red-tape repeal days, and it would have gone through with, probably, very little debate. I note that the few members opposite—including the minister who did the summing up—who actually bothered to contribute to the second reading debate probably needed some updated speaking notes, because they seemed quite unaware that on Monday the Minister for Communications and the Arts did one of many backflips to adopt Labor's position on this bill. An article in The Australiansays that the Turnbull government is now trying 'to win industry support and deliver genuine reform of decades-old ownership and control laws'—I stress 'genuine reform'. Ipso facto, there is nothing genuine about any reform in this bill. The article goes on:

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.

What has Labor been advocating since the election on this bill? We have been advocating that a holistic approach be taken on this issue. I am happy to help. Imitation certainly is one of the better forms of flattery, so I am happy to assist the minister here. He has thrown in the towel. This is a minister who has thrown in the towel, and what do you expect, when you get commentary in The AustralianThe Australian!awarding you the title of most ineffective politician in Australia and likening you to Homer Simpson. What do you expect from this kind of minister? The minister has thrown in the towel on this matter. Minister Fifield 'conceded the government is unlikely to mobilise the necessary support this year.' The article continues:

Labor and Seven West Media oppose the reforms while Nine Entertainment wants to see the bill deferred until licence fee cuts are tackled.

That really does not correlate with what we heard the minister at the table, the Minister for Urban Infrastructure, saying a short time earlier, when he was trying to indicate that somehow there was broad support for this. I note the headline in The West Australian from last week—again, maybe some updated speaking notes would have been appropriate for those opposite—'Media law reforms put on the backburner'. The article says:

A proposed overhaul of media ownership laws has been shelved until next year as the Federal Government battles to woo crossbench support.

Here is a minister who refuses to be pragmatic for the benefit of regional communities. We have the now Prime Minister, formerly the communications minister, indicating on some occasions that he was open to making sure that at least the 75 per cent reach rule was repealed, but this current minister is being obstinate and clearly he does not understand his brief. The article goes on:

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 reach rule.

What kind of a minister would not want to go into the new year with a bipartisan position on something that everyone recognises needs to go. The minister at the table, as we just saw in his summing up, is totally unaware of the latest evidence that has come in today, of all days, from the regulator—the ACMA communications report was tabled today. These people who take the 'because of the internet' argument are simply putting this blanket argument that we do not need cross-media rules any more, everything is hunky-dory. They should have a look at the latest statistics. I quote from the ACMA communications report— (Time expired)

See this speech in context