Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Yesterday evening, before the House moved to the adjournment debate, I was making the point on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (News Media Diversity) Bill 2013 that in this island nation we already have media ownership that is regulated, to a degree, and that regulation is based on the rationale that argues, I think appropriately, that a diversity of media sources and media ownership provides the best possibility for us to hear a diversity of views and a range of perspectives on issues that may affect the nation. We want to be able to have a wide range of views to give us the broadest possible perspective. It enhances education and allows fuller participation of a representative sample of our community if we have news agencies, including television, print and radio, that allow the telling of multiple stories.

I was making the point in the comparison between Australia and overseas that two news companies in Australia that deliver their services online now assume an enormous 86 per cent share of the Australian newspaper market. That is two companies controlling 86 per cent of the sources of the news information that moves around our community. That is an alarming figure. In Canada, which is often considered a similar country—a Commonwealth nation, just as we are—the top two newspapers take up 54 per cent of the market. That is quite a difference. If we turn to America, the land that often proclaims it might have the free-est speech in the world, certainly their newspaper market indicates that there are a range of voices, a range of owners, involved, because the two top newspaper companies in the US constitute only 14 per cent of the market. Let us compare: 86 per cent owned by two newspaper companies in Australia, 14 per cent in the US and 54 per cent in the Canadian market. By those numbers, anybody looking at the concentration of media ownership in this country would have to agree that something has got to give.

We do have to look at reform from an international perspective to get a bit of an insight into what we might attempt to achieve. We have seen what has been going on in England. We heard the most horrendous stories about a corrupt media that was driven by the pursuit of a dollar—media out to make money rather than media out to uphold the high standards of journalism. I know from my interactions with friends who became journalists, who chose that noble profession, members of the fourth estate who seek to have an independent and powerful voice to tell our stories, are increasingly speaking of being diverted from that noble option as a journalist, to being coerced, to being limited in the stories that they can tell, to finding editorial change to things that they write. They are certainly very unhappy about that.

The reform that we can look to around the world is in Ireland, not just because it has been St Patrick's Day recently or because of my own Irish heritage but because the reform that has been undertaken there recently is quite important for us to consider. Ireland is 15th on the Press Freedom Index, and in that position, a place based on freedom of the media, it is 11 places above Australia. If we were that far down on the rugby league table or the rugby table internationally, I am sure we would be clamouring for the opportunity to improve media diversity—because we do need to improve our game. In 2007 the Irish government passed legislation that set out the structure, coverage and operation of what was to become the Irish Press Council. The media developed its own codes of practice. It developed a complaints handling process. These were approved by government and met the standard that was set in the legislation.

In Ireland—11 places above us on the Press Freedom Index—they went far, far further than what this legislation is proposing. I know from being in the House yesterday evening when the Manager of Opposition Business was speaking that there is an incredible amount of heat in the commentary from those opposite regarding this bill. The problem is that with the heat they have not put in the facts. This government will have no role in deciding whether or not the Australian Press Council meets the standards set in the legislation. We are proposing that that will be done by the Public Interest Media Advocate. We are separating it out from government.

See this speech in context