Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I have been very pleased and interested to hear the contributions made by the opposition in this debate. All the shrill shrieks have come from the opposition as they are concerned about the great threat to Australian democracy. We have heard comments by the member for Perth and the member for Lowe that in some way this government’s legislation will lead to a massive reduction in diversity, as the member for Perth said. The reality is that the bills before the House—the first, which has been passed, and the one we are currently debating—will do much to bring an outdated, outmoded regulatory approach that was implemented 20 years ago by the Australian Labor Party into the 21st century.

The core issue in this debate and what the member for Perth is proposing in the amendments that he has put forward to the House today is not to take Australia forward when it comes to media policy. It is not to set a new agenda or to develop a policy framework that takes into account the advent of the internet; the advent of a whole variety of subscription services that are delivered via, for example, online services; the advent of new digital serves such as snack TV on digital TV channels; and the advent of additional TV channels. We know that there will be approximately 15 channels by 2009 with the switch-off of analog. All of that is ignored by the member for Perth and the Australian Labor Party as they turn their backs on the 21st century and look straight back to 1987 by moving amendments that seek to ensure that the regulatory regime the Australian Labor Party has had for the last 20 years is good enough as far as the Labor Party is concerned to meet the needs of Australia for the next 20 or 30 years.

In essence, that is the best policy that the Australian Labor Party can come up with—a policy that served our country for 20 years that ignores the advent of the internet, that ignores digital TV and that ignores subscription services and the great myriad of new technology and new media platforms that are made available to Australians, whether you live at the back of Bourke or in downtown Sydney. The Labor Party policy turns its back on all of that and says, ‘No, we’ll sit with the policy framework that has existed since 1987,’ when in essence all there was were newspapers, TV stations and a handful of radio stations.

Amongst the outrageous claims that I have heard from the opposition are that we need more than the two or three test and the four or five voices test. We need more than that. We need greater safeguards. This ignores the fact that, under this policy proposal put forward by the Howard government under what has been years of consultation by the Howard government not only with the public but also with various media proprietors both in and outside of Australia, we have in place a framework that will protect media diversity rules. But you do not hear any remarks from the Labor Party about that. If an unacceptable media diversity situation arose, ACMA has at its disposal a number of powerful sanctions including, for example, fines of $2.2 million per day and up to $11 million per day for companies, and the ability to force divestiture by those with licences. The ALP will say that there are not adequate safeguards but ignore the fact that there are fines of up to $11 million, for example, and powers of divestiture that are afforded to the industry regulator.

The simple fact is that it is high time the Australian Labor Party came up to speed with modern media, and it is high time that the Australian Labor Party recognised that under the proposal the government has put forward there is not some great threat to voices in Australia; rather, there is an increased level of flexibility that will ensure that, going forward, media players in our country have the opportunity to move into new markets and, importantly, be subject to greater levels of competition which, by definition, means greater levels of diversity in this country. That is the direct consequence of this bill. Foreign owners of media companies coming into Australia and entering marketplaces is something that should be welcomed. We have in place a floor, a safeguard, which prevents media markets from becoming too shallow, and that is also an appropriate safeguard for the Australian people. Turning your back on those safeguards and attempting to have in place a 20-year rule is simply farcical. (Time expired)

See this speech in context