Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I want to thank the member for Goldstein for bringing this motion for debate. I know the member is very thoughtful and genuine in her concerns regarding media diversity and regulation and your motivations here. For those watching at home, I say the words 'debate' because private members' motions don't get voted on. So thank you for the emails and calls. We can hold the calls, but motions are an important way to bring issues for debate.

The health and diversity of Australia's media sector is critically important, as has been said, for our democracy and society. I'll quote from the Senate report, which aptly stated:

Public interest journalism is essential to a democracy. Active citizenship requires access to reliable information, and democracy cannot flourish without a diversity of media sources and a regulatory regime that protects consumers against the spread of misinformation.

The concentration of media ownership is inherently corrosive of democratic practice because it places control over the sources of information and opinion in far too few hands.

The problems in Australia are real and have been steadily growing under the previous government, and the motion summarises these well. I'll just highlight a few aspects: 255 media outlets across Australia closed down over the three years prior to March this year—255. One hundred and twelve local print newspapers shut down after ownership of APM was transferred. One company in Australia—and let's not be coy, it's uncle Rupert's News Ltd—has a 59 per cent share of the metropolitan and national print media market by readership, and the second largest has 23 per cent. What that means is that the majority of our nation's newspapers are controlled by one company, headed by a US citizen. The Senate report outlines deeply concerning examples of editorial coordination and bias. By global standards—I was shocked to read this in the motion—the Columbia University study which you cited indicates that only Egypt and China have a greater concentration of newspaper ownership, out of the countries studied.

The question, then, in front of us as a parliament, and certainly for the government, is what to do. The Senate report was in response to Kevin Rudd's petition signed by 500,000 Australians—the largest petition that parliament's ever received, which certainly demonstrates a degree of community concern. The Senate report, and this motion, called for a judicial inquiry to investigate the state of media diversity in Australia.

I'll just state my view on the notion of a judicial inquiry. It should be uncontroversial to accept that in the future, at whatever time a major inquiry into media diversity is called, it would make sense for it to be at arm's length from politicians. The vested interests are too powerful and the incentives are all wrong for politicians to undertake such a task. At that time, an independent examination of media diversity would seem to be an appropriate course of action. There are different forms. You've put one forward; the Senate report puts another forward. No doubt there are others. But I also accept that, for now, the government is right to focus on practical actions.

Frankly, we've had a decade of inaction by the previous government. It's actually worse than that. The few things that they actually did do in this space made the matter worse. Labor opposed the former government's repeal of the two-out-of-three cross-media rules in 2017, which has led to more concentration, and we fought at every step the Liberals' plans to boot community TV off the air—it is so important to give voice to local communities. Labor also opposed the Liberals' cuts to the ABC's budget. The former Prime Minister used a funny little trick when he got sick of that. He added about a dollar so he thought we couldn't say it's a cut. Well, it was a cut in real terms, and everyone knows that. I'm very pleased the government will introduce five-year funding terms for the national broadcasters.

Right now, though, the government is focused on acting to support the long-term viability and diversity of the sector; implementing a backlog of recommendations—and there is a backlog—from previous inquiries; and taking concrete action. These are things the previous government just didn't do. We're delivering a $29 million local news and broadcasting transition package, the news media assistance program, the review of the broadcasting services determination and the review of the anti-siphoning rules—it is so important to ensure working families can watch events of national and cultural significance for free. And we'll be legislating a prominence framework to ensure Australian TV can easily be found on smart TVs.

Importantly, the responses to media concentration and reform will be principles based, evidence informed and consultative. It's old-fashioned, I know—nerdy. Public policy based on evidence! The minister's committed to developing a meaningful framework to measure diversity, which is long overdue. We need to actually have an agreed measure, which should have been done a long time ago.

I'm healthily sceptical, let's say, that these actions will prove sufficient in the long run. But they're absolutely the right focus for now. I also acknowledge that the regulatory framework—the point you made—has to be updated to take account of the internet providers and the fact that we live in a digital age, which the current regulatory framework doesn't do. Right now, we're getting on with action, but I really thank you for bringing on an important debate. I'm sure it's not the last we'll hear of these matters from the member for Goldstein.

See this speech in context