Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

There is plenty of detail, friend, but you are typical—you would not be interested.

Mr Hawke interjecting—

Go and get your water and then keep going to get some lunch. Show some manners.

Ownership of Australia's most popular and influential media organisations—and this is a fact—is already highly concentrated. The Prime Minister made that clear in question time and other speakers in this debate have made it clear as well. Market trends, particularly the shift of revenues to online and mobile services, are putting significant pressures on the existing market structure. That is a fact. These trends are not cyclical and will drive significant changes, with further concentration of ownership and a reduction in media diversity a real possibility. Hence we need to look at media diversity in this country and ensure that we have it. There is absolutely nothing illogical about that. It is a fact.

So what do we do about it? We introduce legislation to assure, to guarantee, that we have media diversity in this country. But, if you listen to the critics, we are out to destroy the media in this country. I will let those who hear the logic of this make up their own minds. The government's reforms will strengthen media diversity safeguards without inhibiting existing businesses from restructuring to adapt to the changing environment, which they have to do—we all recognise that.

Importantly, the reforms deal with national providers, such as national newspapers and subscription television, for the first time. They provide a mechanism which avoids a one-size-fits-all approach in a rapidly changing sector. The internet, as many have pointed out, has seen the emergence of a wide range of new formats for the delivery of news and opinion. Hooray! I hope we are always able to have access to that. However, and this is a fact, Australians still rely on the traditional authoritative sources for that news—television, radio and newspapers—and for the majority of their information on current events. This may change over time, not surprisingly.

The government's reforms update the existing control rules for the current and future environment and allow for inevitable changes in markets where a source of news may gain or indeed lose influence over time. The reforms arise out of the government's careful consideration of the findings of the Convergence Review and community feedback through that review's extensive public consultation process. Together, these emphasised the importance of media diversity to our democratic society and identified areas where reform is required.

How did the government react to this highly consultative process in an area of great interest to the Australian people? How did it seek to guard our media diversity—such as it is not, at the moment? The government's proposals introduce a public interest test, against which changes in control of media will be assessed. Why not? Why would you not? It makes sense.

See this speech in context