Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

At the heart of any media reform package, there have to be two important principles. The first is: how do we ensure that we have diversity in our media landscape? The second is: how do we ensure that we protect independent journalism at a time when current business models are failing, where we're seeing the collapse of independent media right around the country and, indeed, right around the world?

On the first point, the question of media diversity, Australia's right up there, with one of the highest concentrations of media ownership amongst any liberal democracy anywhere in the world. It is remarkable that in our country we have one proprietor who alone controls 70 per cent of the newspapers that are read in this country. We have to ensure that, whatever we do, Australians right around the country have access to a diverse range of voices. That is so critical in any democracy. Ensuring that we have a public debate in this nation that reflects the diversity of opinion has to be reflected in the media that people can access. Yet here we are, with the very real potential that, rather than increasing media diversity in this country and ensuring that we have a broader cross section of voices, we may see further concentration here in the Australian media landscape. That is one of the great concerns that we have: that a shrinking range of views will be captured by the wealthy and powerful players in the world of Australian media.

The second point is the question of ensuring that we try to encourage and in some ways protect a business model that is failing. Let's remember why it is important that we have independent journalism in this country. We've got the fourth estate that exists here to ensure that the three branches of government are accountable, that they can inform the public and that people are given access to up-to-date and accurate information and a range of views so that they themselves can form their own opinions. I've got to say what we're seeing at the moment is of great concern to the Australian Greens. We're seeing the loss of dedicated reporters. I can tell you: when I first started here in the parliament almost six years ago, there were a range of dedicated health reporters, all of whom had experience in the health sector, understood the space and could analyse policy positions from the point of view of experience and expertise. We've lost that. We've lost that in the reporting around the energy sector. Right now we're having a debate around energy, and there are so many reporters who were here when I first started, working across a range of papers, whose analysis was something you could go to, understand, trust and respect. You would not always agree with it, but you would know that you're getting an informed opinion. That's gone.

There is a huge concern that, as these redundancies across our major print media and indeed right across the board continue, we're losing knowledge and experience, and as a result our polity is poorer. That's why we supported the Fairfax strikes when the executive staff continued with their multimillion-dollar salary packages while people were being laid off by the dozens. The view seems to be that one of our major media empires would be better if it were a property magazine rather than a newspaper to inform the public.

So the issue is that we've got a rapidly changing media landscape, and the regulatory environment doesn't match the changes that we're seeing today. You only need to look at Fairfax through Stan or News Limited through Foxtel. They've got television audiences, radio and print, but they're not caught by the two-out-of-three rule because they aren't network licences, and that reflects the changes that are going on at the moment. So the power of the two-out-of-three rule is diminishing. It still has some effect, but it is diminishing. The question is: if we are to get rid of it, what takes its place to ensure diversity, and what can we do to try to encourage independent journalism?

The 2013 Convergence Review recommended that we have an independent regulatory body, something like the KEK in Germany or Ofcom in the UK—basically, to modify regulatory environments as new technologies develop and the way that people access media changes. The reason that those bodies exist is to ensure a diversity of voices so that we don't see further concentration in the media market.

In Australia, here we are with an opportunity to come up with a 21st century regulatory model. If we scrap the two-out-of-three rule, which we agree is losing the power that it once had, what do we put in its place? How do we create a new regulatory environment for start-ups and emerging media organisations? How do we come up with a comprehensive package for the 21st century? That's what the outcome of this debate should be, and I have to say, unfortunately, from what we've seen and from the little that we have heard, that's not what we're going to get.

The first thing is that the package clearly contains what looks like a bribe to commercial networks—a gift of $90 million to their bottom line. 'Here you go, here's a reduction in your licence fees. Have it. Have it! No corresponding duties to boost local content or provide audio description services. Have this gift on behalf of the Liberal-National Party.' Of course, we know where that gift comes from. It comes from ordinary mums and dads right around the country. It comes from the taxpayer. It comes from the people who are listening to this broadcast, right now. You are giving wealthy media proprietors a gift, with nothing in return.

Next we saw another gift given to Foxtel—a $30 million handout was just given to them. What was remarkable about it was that, when we tried to find out why on earth Foxtel was given a cheque for $30 million, there were no ministerial documents to justify that pay-off—no paperwork, nothing. So $30 million—taxpayer dollars—were given to Foxtel. We don't know what it was for. Given that there were some restrictions around gambling advertising, this was a pay-off. We can only assume that was the case, because there's no paperwork. It is remarkable that you could give a $30 million cheque to Murdoch's Foxtel and not have any documentation to demonstrate why it was done.

What we're worried about is that we've got two out of three being secured in exchange for what is going to be a completely deregulated media ownership environment. We're going to see big players swallowing up smaller players, including some of the emerging successful enterprises that might provide a bit of healthy competition. That is the great concern here. We understand that there might be a few scraps for regional cadetships. We support regional cadetships, but, alone, that's not enough. What is the point of training journalists if there are no jobs for them to go to? What's the point of having a regional cadetship, if you haven't injected the sorts of incentives that are necessary to turbocharge independent journalism in this country and give people a job? We're training them for no reason. This is a pathway to nowhere. The media landscape in Australia is crumbling before our eyes. It's changing rapidly. Training journalists for jobs that don't exist is a waste of taxpayer money. Now, of course, if there's a pathway to ensure that there are going to be new jobs then training journalists has merit, but so far that's not what we understand to be the case. We don't know what the case is, because the details of any deal that has done so far have not yet been announced.

That brings us to another question, which is the process for dealing with a piece of legislation like this that has been a year and a half in the making. Yet, here we are, 20 past nine at night, and about to sign off on a deal that we haven't even seen. It's such incredibly poor process. I have to say that I expect better from my colleagues on the crossbench, Senator Xenophon. We would have at least liked to have known what was part of this deal so that we could scrutinise it and make sure that there are no unintended consequences.

You have already heard from my colleague Senator Hanson-Young about our concerns about the impact any potential deal will have on the public broadcaster, the ABC. This deal gives the green light for the ABC to be subject to the competitive neutrality review, and that worries us deeply. It should concern anybody who, late at night, might be snuggled up under the doona and wanting to catch up on the latest Utopia episode or have a laugh with Shaun Micallef. We don't know if people are going to be able to do that anymore, because there may be a paywall erected around iview. If this review does lead to iview or SBS On Demand being put behind a paywall, you can come back and look at the deal that has been done today to know the origin of that. This deal today may give, through the competitive neutrality review, the green light to put up a paywall around iview or SBS On demand. I know there'll be many Australians right around the country who will be deeply concerned if that's the case. The truth is that Australians love their ABC, and they are right to do so.

I heard the unhinged rant from the One Nation senator before. Look, as unhappy as One Nation are with their coverage on the ABC, let me tell you, the Greens are often not thrilled with our coverage on the ABC, but that's not the point. That is not the point! The point of any media reform shouldn't be to make sure that, whatever you do, you get your mates a free kick so that you get better coverage through the media. That's not the way this should work. In any democracy we should be encouraging a range of voices and, in that, the voice of the national broadcaster is absolutely critical.

Like many Australians, while we might have our criticisms of the ABC at times, we know how precious it is, the important role that it plays. We need to ensure that they get, through any changes around media reform, a fair hearing. And it seems that while Foxtel are getting a great deal out of this, while all the private broadcasters are getting a great deal out of this, the ABC looks like it's getting screwed over. The national broadcaster is getting a terrible deal out of this. They're going to be under pressure, as a result of this review, to vacate the field so that commercial networks can come along and hoover up the audience that is so dedicated to the ABC.

So let me just finish by saying: we did undertake to have discussions with the government through this process. We did do that. We did it because, in our view, here was an opportunity to increase the range of voices in the media, to improve diversity and to look at potentially putting in place some incentives that might actually give a future to independent journalism in this country. That's why we engaged in this review. We knew that if the two-out-of-three rule was to be scrapped, there had to be something meaningful in its place. A modern, 21st century regulatory environment that ensures that all Australians, no matter where they live, can hear from a range of opinions, can be informed and make up their own minds. Sadly, from what we know of this deal, that's just not the case. We've seen a few crumbs thrown to things like cadetships, which won't provide any certainty to independent journalism. We'll see further concentration in the media landscape and, rather than protecting our ABC, it appears that this deal takes a hatchet to it.