Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise with pleasure to support the member for Greenway's amendment to the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Reform) Bill 2016. I do so knowing how hard the shadow minister has worked, in terms of stakeholder consultation, to get across all of the issues that this legislation proposes, and to support the notion that the two-out-of-three rule should be looked at much more carefully over a much longer period of time and with much deeper consultation for all members in this place.

The fourth estate plays a central role in the preservation of our democracy, as does drama, media and entertainment play in the preservation and the continuation of our developing culture. I am proud that everyone in this country is encouraged to vote. On both sides we value the fact that almost everyone participates in our democratic processes. However, these processes need a diverse media in order to inform voters of key issues, challenge their assumptions and hold politicians to account. We need them to report the truth so people can make informed decisions. Having said that, Labor, unlike those opposite, acknowledges the political economy of the media. We understand that some degree of government regulation is necessary in order to protect citizens from abuses of media power. We believe that the two-out-of-three rule needs to stay. A completely unregulated media market is likely to result in a handful of powerful media outlets dominating traditional forms of media.

I understand that the internet means that there are more outlets for media, but the evidence suggests that there are still only a few trusted names in the media space. When media power is consolidated, we run the risk of having our society become an echo chamber. We run the risk of only hearing one point of view. We need a diverse media landscape because that is when the powerful are held to account and the views of people from across the political spectrum are represented. I say this acknowledging the challenges facing the media interest as it stands. There are clearly risks to its future. However, the challenges faced by all elements of the broadcasting industry are not served by this narrow bill.

The regulatory arrangements that need to be made in order to assist the broadcasting sector through this period of disruption are not served by the government's plan. Some elements of media regulation in this country are antiquated. That is why we support removing the rule that prevents a person from being able to exercise control over a commercial broadcasting licence that can reach 75 per cent of the Australian population. In the age of the internet, a kid with a camera can, theoretically, reach 95 per cent of the Australian population. However, this part of the regulation is not antiquated; it is vital. When radio came about, newspapers were initially sceptical, but then they promptly acquired radio stations. Similarly, when television arrived, radio stations and print media were nervous but quickly found a way to move into that space and become viable.

It holds that large media companies still have the time and expertise necessary to produce content that consumers trust and want. In fact, seven of the top 10 news sites in Australia are owned by traditional media companies. This is not necessarily about a decline in readers; it is more about a shift towards the online space, which is admittedly harder to commodified. If local media companies feel it is unfair that competitors such as Google, Facebook and Netflix do not bear the burden of licence fees and local content requirements, then they should join Labor in calling for swift and wide-reaching reforms that will level the playing field while making sure that we do not diminish our democracy or our capacity to tell our own stories.

I will reflect on my time in classrooms at this point, and specifically on sharing with students the Lockie Leonard works of Tim Winton. Teaching Australian literature and film is an absolute privilege, but one of the strongest memories I have from a classroom is teaching Tim Winton's Lockie Leonard series with year 7s. It was an extraordinarily powerful thing when they recognised the Australian voice, the Australian landscape and the Australian experience in the stories—their voice, their landscape, their experience. It changed their writing. It emboldened them and it validated their experience as a legitimate basis for narrative. This cannot be underestimated in the way Australia moves forward. We need to protect our ability to tell our own stories, to share them with our children and to encourage our children to take this up as we move forward.

Let's not pretend that it is easy for new players to step in and become trusted news sources or trusted entertainment and drama sources. You need to spend years developing a brand that the Australian public will respect and listen to. While many Australians might read blogs, on election night they are looking for Antony Green, they want to hear Laurie Oakes' analysis, they will tune in to the ABC, to SBS or to 10, 9 and 7. Why? It is because people trust those media brands. So, when they are looking out for information that they will use to form their opinions on political issues, it is likely that they will continue to look to 'old' media sources. When you give one of those trusted sources unfettered access to the entire media landscape and limit others' access, you prevent other organisations developing their own relationships with the public and with consumers and you prevent their building up trust for their brands in their own sector.

Diversity in this space is absolutely critical. We know that people get cues about where society is headed or where society has been from drama and entertainment. A couple of friends may discuss the latest episode of, say, House Husbands, commenting how a particular character or relationship reminds them of their own or perhaps challenges their own habits or labels. Entertainment prompts people to reflect on aspects of their own lives. It might sound trivial, but something as simple as characters' relationships or the types of characters portrayed in entertainment can have a huge influence on what we perceive to be normal. It is, in many ways, a reflection of ourselves and our customs. If a handful of companies are able to control what we get to see, that could directly affect our culture.

Having said that, the Australian stories are largely told by our domestic media companies. While there is more that unites than divides us, there is still a range of Australian experiences that need space to breathe and be heard. If I think of Lockie Leonard, Tim Winton was telling a particular story—a Western Australian story, and a quintessential Australian story. But I know that if Tim Winton had lived in Melbourne it would have had a different flavour; it would have been a more multicultural story.

We need to ensure that we have the domestic capacity to continue to tell these stories. We need to ensure that we have an industry that makes sure that the emerging Australian story also has space in that field. Australian stories are largely told by domestic media companies. I will say again that, while there is more that unites us than divides us, there is still a range of Australian experiences that need space to breathe and to be heard. Increasing ad revenues from an additional sector of the media is not going to stop people from going online for content. Regarding Australian content, we need to make sure that there is a range of editorial voices telling Australian stories. There is a clear way forward. There is a way to support local media entities while also ensuring our democracy is protected and ensuring every Australian consuming Australian media can see someone who looks like them, sounds like them and has relationships like their own.

I know that Netflix and the unfortunate scourge of illegal downloads mean that more and more people can choose what they want to watch and are no longer beholden to what is presented to them on free-to-air TV, radio and print. The internet is a major disrupter but, if we think about it, ad revenues are falling across the sectors and it has become easier to produce good content online, so allowing the consolidation will not correct the trend—it is more likely to create even larger media empires that have delayed their demise by a couple of years.

In order to protect the local media industry and to ensure local media jobs are preserved, we need a principle-based approach that focuses on independence in media and better standards of diversity in content, including the ownership of companies and industry structures. We need to ensure the provision of regional services and support for regional content, and we need to support local jobs and local content.

Labor sees and appreciates the firms that are failing, which is why we are committed to undertaking reform of licensing agreements to help smaller firms to stay competitive. We need real reform that is in the national interest, not a poorly thought-through scheme designed to help corporate media interests. If you think about the narrowing in this space and what it may mean for the way our population informs itself, particularly around the democratic processes, you will realise that the narrower that editorial voice becomes, the more at risk our democracy becomes. We need to ensure that Australians are hearing from a wide range of voices, not a minimalist one.

This government has clearly not put much thought into this policy proposal. It will not help media companies to innovate and embrace the future; it just allows a few key players to increase their influence at the cost, potentially, of our democratic processes and at the cost of Australia being able to tell its own stories. Here we need a much more thoughtful approach, and I support the amendment the member for Greenway has presented to the parliament to ensure that we have that.

See this speech in context