House debates

Wednesday, 21 June 2017

Bills

Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017, Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017; Second Reading

10:32 am

Photo of David ColemanDavid Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017 is a truly historic piece of legislation that deals once and for all with so many of the unresolved issues in the Australian media sector. The reality is that for many years—arguably decades—Australian media law has not reflected their reality of the Australian media industry. There have been a wide range of people calling for reform, and this bill delivers it. A few years ago, back in 2014, I wrote a number of articles in newspapers on this topic, calling for the abolition of the two-out-of-three rule and the 75 per cent rule, and it is very good to see that incorporated in this process.

The problem is that those opposite are applying a 1987 mentality to a 2017 problem, because, by seeking to oppose the abolition of the two-out-of-three rule, they seek to condemn Australian media to irrelevance over time. What is happening in the Australian media industry is not a matter of subjective interpretation; it is something we can see with our own eyes. We see the newspaper industry under extreme pressure. We see the closure of suburban and regional newspapers. We see very large-scale redundancies, particularly in the newspaper industry. We also see extreme pressure in other parts of the media sector, none more so than the regional television market, where you look at companies like Prime, Australia's largest regional media broadcaster, whose value has declined by more than 90 per cent in the last decade. That is a reflection of what is happening in the media sector and why these laws need to change.

What is happening is that digital is increasingly taking over. That is a reality of the market. If consumers want to visit digital platforms and if advertisers want to advertise there, then that is absolutely appropriate and so be it. What we need to do is ensure that Australian media operators are not competing with digital with one hand tied behind their back. But that is what Labor says they should do. Labor says that a newspaper company should not be able to merge so as to own newspaper, radio and television in one market, because they would be far too powerful if they were to do this, in Labor's assertion. But think about this, Deputy Speaker: it is a very unusual situation where an industry can be so weak that it is effectively in the process of going out of business, which is what is happening in the print newspaper sector around the world. It is so weak that it is no longer a viable industry at all in the medium term—but so strong, according to Labor, that they cannot be allowed to merge with other companies so as to have the economies of scale which will enable them to continue to produce the quality and independent journalism that is so important to our nation.

What happens in an environment where those companies cannot merge and cannot get those economies of scale is that the march of Google and Facebook continues on unabated. Every year they grow at double-digit rates, and every year the print media sector, particularly, continues to struggle. SMI, which is a data-gatherer in the media sector, said that newspaper advertising in 2016 was down by 14 per cent; regional newspaper advertising was down by five per cent; and community titles were down by eight per cent. This been going on year after year since about 2007 or 2008. Those opposite say: 'Just ignore all that. Just pretend that everything is fine in the newspaper industry. Pretend that everything is fine in television, particularly in the regional television industry.' They say we should not enable those industries to take sensible measures to create the strength they need so they can actually compete with these massive international platforms. So the only people who are cheering at the outcome that those opposite propose are, in fact, global international digital platforms—because, by constraining the domestic media sector in competing with those digital platforms, those opposite would seek to do the work of those digital platforms, to the detriment of our domestic media sector. That is a massive issue. It is an extraordinarily large issue.

It is very important to remember here that if you abolish the two-out-of-three rule, enabling newspapers, radio and television to merge, should they seek to do so, you still maintain the ACCC's capacity to block mergers. The fact that the two-out-of-three rule does not exist anymore does not mean that every merger is automatically approved. The ACCC looks at mergers in every market in Australia and asks, 'Is this going to have a negative impact on competition and outcomes in this market?' And if the ACCC has concerns about a particular merger, they can stop it. They do that now and they have done that in numerous circumstances over the years, and they could do that, should they have a particular concern about a proposed media merger, in the future. But the two-out-of-three rule acts as an artificial barrier which means that media companies do not even get to the point of putting forward a deal for the ACCC to consider, because it is unlawful. That is a very bad situation, and it is very materially constraining our media sector.

Deputy Speaker, when you think about the Australian media industry, agreement and camaraderie are not the first two things that would come to mind, so it is very notable that support for the government's proposal is quite overwhelming. We have all the regional television broadcasters, the metropolitan broadcasters, the key newspaper companies and the radio companies—basically everyone in the industry—acknowledging that this package needs to happen, if we want to have a modern, competitive media industry that has the economic capacity to grow, to compete, to employ journalists and to employ not just the journalists but all the other people who are involved in our media sector.

It was interesting to hear the comment from Ian Audsley, the CEO of Prime Media Group, when he testified before a Senate committee last year and spoke on this issue of diversity. He said:

There has been a lot of talk about the threat to diversity if the two-out-of-three rule is repealed. We would argue that there is greater threat to media diversity if the media reform bill is not passed because the risk is that more journalists will lose their jobs in regional Australia, more newsrooms will be faced with scaling down and, in the worst case scenario, some businesses may close.

That was from the CEO of the largest regional television company in Australia. But Labor says that the entire industry is wrong, that everyone who follows the industry and who has analysed this issue is wrong, but that the shadow communications minister and her caucus colleagues are right. I guess there is a theoretical chance that those three or four people could be right, and anyone else who has any understanding of this industry is all wrong—it seems unlikely, but that is the position they maintain.

It is very important that people understand that the position those opposite maintain is one that works absolutely in the favour of international digital platforms that do not employ substantial numbers of people in Australia. Those bodies would look at Labor's opposition to this bill and give it a big tick. They would say that that is okay and that is going to make it harder for those domestic media competitors who are already struggling to compete against us. Labor's policy says: let's create a situation that is good for those massive international platforms with limited local employees, but bad for the companies that employ thousands and thousands of Australians and, ultimately, bad for diversity because, by stopping these companies from competing on their own two feet, it is going to stop them from growing into the future. It is a very bad position taken by Labor, and anyone who has looked at this industry seriously understands that its position is completely untenable.

There are a number of other important reforms in this bill, which I want to touch on. The 75 per cent rule is one of the most ridiculous rules, frankly, not just in media regulation but that one could come across pretty much anywhere in government. Basically what this says at the moment is that if you own a television network and you want to broadcast content to Australians, if you do it over the internet, that is fine. You can reach 100 per cent of people and there is no problem—you put it online and 100 per cent of people can be reached, that is fine. You can also do a deal, if you are a metropolitan broadcaster, with a regional broadcaster, and say that the same piece of news content will reach 100 per cent of people via the broadcast spectrum. The only thing you cannot do is reach 100 per cent of people through the broadcast spectrum through the ownership of one company. And that does not make any sense because, presumably, the original intention of the 75 per cent rule was to say that the government of the day did not want any particular piece of content to reach 100 per cent of the community, particularly news, but that has been happening for decades anyway via the broadcast spectrum. That is because the regional broadcaster simply redistributes exactly the same news content as the metros, so they are already reaching 100 per cent. And now, with internet technology, of course, one company can reach 100 per cent of the community, and that is fine too. So what this law simply seeks to do is to say that 100 per cent of people could be reached via the broadcast spectrum. That makes perfect sense, and it is good that those opposite support it.

Broadcast license fees are also a very outmoded part of the Australian media regulation landscape and, effectively, operate as something of a super profits tax. Many decades ago, the government effectively said that a broadcast licence is a very valuable thing so, in addition to paying company tax, they had to pay a very substantial percentage of their gross revenue to the government. That has become more and more anachronistic as time has gone by, and the Australian licence fee provisions are way out of step with the rest of the world. Sensibly, this bill seeks to abolish licence fees. What it does say is that there is a public asset which broadcasters use, and that is spectrum. Spectrum is one of those fancy terms, but all it means is the airwaves. Broadcasters use the airwaves and that is an asset which is, in a sense, regulated by government. What the government says is: 'We will charge a fee for the access of spectrum and that is appropriate. Other people pay fees for access to spectrum, but we will no longer charge this very excessive broadcast licence fee.' That is entirely appropriate.

Another important reform in this bill concerns the broadcast of advertising related to gambling during children's viewing hours in sports broadcast. I think most of us, as members of parliament, would have had concerns expressed by members of the community about advertising for gambling products either during sporting events or at the half-time break in sporting events and so on. That has been a real concern because people want to be able to watch a sporting event with their kids without having a conversation about what it means that a player is $9 to score the first try or whatever the particular product on offer might be. So, sensibly, the government is saying that during those sporting broadcasts—five minutes before and five minutes after—there can no longer be gambling advertising. That is entirely appropriate.

The government is also moving on the antisiphoning list. This list has existed for a long time and is somewhat out of date. There are a number of events on the antisiphoning list that are very rarely seen on free-to-air or, if they are seen on free-to-air at all, generally by very small audiences. What this bill will do is take off a number of events from the antisiphoning list while leaving in place a whole range of all the key events in areas such as the AFL, NRL, cricket and so on. Again, it is a sensible reform.

Finally, the bill provides for a $30 million package for subscription television to assist it in investing in women's and niche sports on subscription TV. Women's sport is only about seven per cent of all sports broadcast in 2013. Through providing these additional funds, the government will foster and encourage greater broadcasting of women's sport on television. That is a good thing and it is good that that has broad support. This is an exceptional bill, and I commend it to the House.

Comments

No comments