Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Communications, Senator Fifield. Did the government approve changes to media ownership laws on Monday night, including scrapping the 'reach rule' and the 'two out of three rule'?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Urquhart, thank you for your question. I think you are asking me, 'What did cabinet deliberate upon this week?' As you would expect, ministers never comment on what may or may not have been discussed in cabinet. But I have been extremely up-front over a long period of time that the government is strongly of the view that media laws—in particular, the 75 per cent reach rule and the two out of three rule—are progressively being rendered redundant, not only by technology but by the choices that consumers exercise as a result of that technology. Let me be very clear: I think those two media laws have had their day. We are going through the orderly internal processes of government, and once those processes are concluded I will be in a position to make an announcement with further detail, including, importantly, what would be done, if there were changes to media law, to ensure that we protect local content in regional areas. That is something that my colleagues on this side highly value and that their communities highly value. It is important, as we look at the area of media reform, to make sure that regional communities continue to enjoy good local content and to see whether there is a capacity to even improve the level of local content in regional areas.

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Has the government decided to maintain the current sports antisiphoning list?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think all colleagues know that the antisiphoning list is often discussed by various media organisations. Clearly, there are some media organisations that are more content with the status quo, and there are some other media organisations that are less content with the status quo. The antisiphoning list has altered over time. There are, on occasion, items on the antisiphoning list that get amended. As I have indicated previously, I think that there is a consensus in the community that some sporting events are of national significance and it is appropriate for them to be on that antisiphoning list. I do not think anyone in this chamber would propose that those be removed from the antisiphoning list. (Time expired)

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a final supplementary question. Has the government told heads of media organisations, including incoming Channel 9 chair Peter Costello, about the changes to media ownership laws agreed on Monday night? If so, when? And when will the government inform the Australian people?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have ongoing consultations with representatives of different media organisations. You would expect, as we are looking at media reform, that I would be in contact with media organisations. Their input is important; they are stakeholders. Consumers of media are also important stakeholders. Their views are important, their views as expressed by my colleagues are important, and the views of media organisations are important. So I have discussed numerous scenarios with media organisations. As I indicated in answer to the primary question, once we have concluded the internal processes of government, I will make an announcement and be in a position to share that decision.