Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Communications) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Reform) Bill 2016, a bill that I think is very poorly named because it has the word 'reform' in it. What we are talking about in this proposed legislation is by no means reform. Indeed, this bill contains two substantive provisions, with some licence conditions for local programming obligations, but fundamentally this should be about a piece of housekeeping to deregulate a section of the Broadcasting Services Act dealing with the 75 per cent audience reach rule. That is a provision that could have been done at the beginning of the first term of this Abbot-Turnbull government. It could have gone through as part of a statute update, for example. It certainly is not something that should be classified as reform.

I will detail the substantive changes that are proposed. The 75 per cent reach rule prohibits a person from being in a position to exercise control of commercial television broadcasting licences for which the total population exceeds 75 per cent of the Australian population. As Labor has made very clear—not only since this bill was first introduced but since it was subsequently introduced, following its lapse at the time of the election—we support removal of this rule, because it is utterly redundant. We already have a situation in place where streaming occurs and where we have more than 75 per cent of the population being covered. It is a rule that is out of date and should go.

However, Labor has made it very clear that we remain to be convinced of the merits of repealing the other rule. I rise here to reaffirm what Labor senators said in their dissenting report to the Senate committee, which is that we are unconvinced that the two-out-of-three rule—the cross-media ownership restriction that prohibits mergers of more than two of three regulated media platforms; that is, TV, radio and associated newspapers in a particular licence area—should be repealed.

As I said, Labor has strongly indicated its support for the removal of the 75 per cent reach rule. It was, in fact, a Labor proposal to remove this now-redundant rule. The primary argument in favour of repealing the second rule, the two-out-of-three rule, is that there has been a rise in online sources that can compete for both news and advertising revenue. I must say, the argument about the impact and forecast decline of traditional media is one that is absolutely there, but one that must be taken with extreme caution. This notion that the internet and technological developments have negated the need for Australia to maintain rules around the ownership and control of broadcasting licensees in order to satisfy the objects of diversity in the Broadcasting Services Act is one that does not necessarily follow.

I note, in particular—and I will articulate this in my later comments—this notion of 'because internet': 'because internet' we do not need to have these rules in place and 'because internet' we have everyone capable of accessing these services. There are two things here. For a start, I hate to break it to this government, but unfortunately in certain areas of Australia—we know there is a digital divide not only between regional and metropolitan areas but certainly within metro areas themselves—you would be hard pressed to find Australians who are satisfied with the quality of their broadband service. That is even borne out by the latest statistics of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman. I see my friend the member for Burt is in the chamber. Having been to his electorate recently and seen the number of residents who have absolutely no internet access whatsoever and are not even on the rollout map for the NBN, I have to ask myself whether reliance on that notion of 'because internet' is simply a fallacy.

I note that the minister has accused anyone opposed to the repeal of these two rules of being an 'analog warrior' whose views reflect emotion rather than reason. I note that the minister has rejected the need to review any further evidence and asserted that the debate is over in this area and that no further consideration of issues is required. It would be useful for the minister to reflect—as I will come to—on his comments that were made as late as yesterday on this area and on the fact that, if this was supposed to be about landmark reform, he has run away from it at a hundred miles an hour. He has absolutely run away from it.

As my colleague the member for Whitlam has also said, it is entirely within the remit of this parliament and entirely within the capability of this chamber to rid ourselves of the 75 per cent reach rule before Christmas. We could rise from this place giving regional broadcasters precisely what they have been asking for for so many years—that is, we could get rid of a redundant rule that is inhibiting them. But it is to the utter disgrace of this minister that he has not only rejected the notion of doing that but he has walked away completely from true media reform. I note also some of the comments that have, as I said, categorically dismissed this notion of this bill being concerned with genuine reform.

I have seen a few comments from the minister alluding to him working with Labor. There were some quite nice comments about working productively with me. I do not know what he has been telling his stakeholders but I can tell you this: this minister has not picked up the phone once to me to discuss the substantive issues in this bill. I do not know what he is been telling stakeholders but I can tell you there has been no substantive discussion about the items in this bill. Maybe he has discussed it with others, maybe with former Senator Conroy, who knows? But he has certainly not discussed them with me.

So inept is this minister that, as I will highlight, he has talked about all the relevant facts being known; no other facts need to be known. I think the minister should acquaint himself with some of the facts that should be examined as part of this bill—things like the high level of concentration in Australia's media sector and also the views of Australians about this issue. I have heard from many stakeholders that Australians 'do not really care about this stuff'. As I will demonstrate, Australians do care about the diversity of voices, they care about Australian voices being heard and they care about the ability to be able to access those voices and to have the connectivity to do just that. But so inept is this minister that even yesterday we had Jack Mitchell in The Australian say:

The Turnbull government is ­considering reviewing the anti-­siphoning list to win industry ­support and deliver genuine ­reform of decades-old ownership and control laws.

Does that not just say it all, 'deliver some genuine reform'? Because what we have in this bill is not reform at all.

Free-to-air network television licence fees are also expected to be addressed in conjunction with the media reform bill as Communications Minister Mitch Fifield adopts a rejigged approach amid resistance to the current proposal.

If you start looking at licence fees and other issues to be addressed in conjunction with the items in this bill, what you are actually talking about is holistic reform of the sector, which, blow me over, is what I have been saying for months. It is what I would have been happy to discuss with the minister months ago. But the minister was so dismissive of this from the outset and now today, all of a sudden, holistic reform is the order of the day. I Know imitation is supposed to be the best form of flattery but this is just beyond ridiculous from the minister who is clearly out of his depth, who lacks passion for this portfolio and who simply does not know what he is doing in this vital area of media ownership rules.

The article in The Australian yesterday said:

Dealing with media ownership rules, licence fees and anti-siphoning at the same time would deliver wins for the industry, some ­observers believe, and progress for the government as it seeks to ­implement its legislative agenda.

Again, this is exactly what I proposed from the outset. All of a sudden, this minister has realised that you cannot just take one piece of the jigsaw in the converged media and communications landscape, fiddle with it and then think it will fit back and that everything will be hunky-dory. This is a minister who also had this bill on his list of the 20-point plan when this government came in. Now he has thrown up the white flag as reported last week in TheWest Australian and we have the headline 'Media law reforms on the backburner'—completely given up. But of course that would not stop him. The article said, 'He blamed Labor for the hold up.'

This government has been in power since 2013. What has it done in this area? It could have completed probably the most thorough review of the broadcasting sector. The last thorough one was in around 2000 by the Productivity Commission and actually had a strong evidence base for holistic review of the sector and corresponding legislative and regulatory reform, not to mention getting to work on some converged regulation and converged legislation in this area. But no, none of that happened under former communications minister Turnbull. We are certainly not going to see anything happen as this parliamentary year draws to a close from the current minister but we will wait and see.

As I quoted from The Australian earlier, the government is giving consideration to further reductions in licence fees in conjunction with other reforms including spectrum pricing. I wonder who has been advocating for licence fees and spectrum reform from the outset? Again, as part of a holistic package, this is exactly what Labor has been proposing. I note also in this article from The West Australian last week:

Senator Fifield maintained that he would not split the package into two Bills so the Government could chalk up a win on the abolition of the ritual.

He said:

It is extremely disappointing that the alternative government cannot see their way clear to help bring our media laws to reflect the world we live in.

To the contrary, it is completely disappointing that we have a minister here who is not willing to cut regional broadcasters some slack before the end of the year, which was exactly what Labor said we would be prepared to support and his obfuscation means that we will not be able to rise from this place, according to him, with this positive repeal in the bag. I note the comments he made here:

Because of the limited number of sitting days left and Labor's ongoing delay in relation to media reform legislation, it may well be—and probably will be—next year that we can conclude that legislation.

As I said, this government did nothing in three years to address the issue of proper, well thought through, evidence based media reform. It has taken their whole first term, and several months since the last election. We are now here in the dying days of this parliamentary sitting year, with a minister who is inept, who has absolutely rubbished the sensible approach that I suggested from the outset. And now he appears to have not only adopted those views but also, as a highlight, he almost appears to have instructed others—his own people in his own department—to support them. I will demonstrate what I meant by that in a moment.

Here on the opposition side, here in Labor, we are happy to help. We are happy to help deliver a bit of reform before the end of the year to at least give some of those parties, the regional broadcasters, a break in this matter. But I am not surprised that we are not seeing that much from this minister with his ham-fisted approach to media reform. What else have we seen? The spectrum review was kicked off in May 2014—we still do not know what the government is planning to do there. We have the ACMA review announced in June 2015; there is still no final report. We have the Vertigan review—its terms of reference were announced in December 2013—that is still doing the rounds.

I go to the substantive issue of what should have been applied, the frame, the whole prism of regulatory review that should have applied from the outset. As I said on 10 August this year and was quoted in GuardianAustralia by Katharine Murphy:

Labor says the government needs to undertake a comprehensive examination of the state of the Australian media landscape before rushing to scrap regulations that prevent moguls owning a TV station, radio network and newspaper in the same market.

And:

… Labor had already signalled it would support scrapping the reach rule, given the evidence showed it was a 'redundant' restriction.

But she said scrapping the two-out-of-three rule was much more contentious given the Australian media market remained one of the most concentrated in terms of ownership in the developed world.

Murphy quoted me further:

Seven of the 10 top websites in Australia, she said, were owned by the traditional media companies. 'While they are being delivered on different platforms it is clear the concentration of ownership is still there.'

I again noted:

… Labor was open to dealing with the package in two tranches.

That was on 10 August. On 29 August, the minister quoted in the same publication:

But Fifield has rejected that call—

This is the call for a review of the sector—

and confirmed his intention to bring forward the package. The last thing Australia’s media companies need is another review. It is time for action.

The minister might think it is time for action, but I certainly do not see any action on this front, and it is quite apparent that this minister has suddenly realised the need for holistic reform. He is talking about, for example, reviewing some of the regulations around subscription broadcasting. I do not know where this guy has been, but on 5 September, when asked by The Financial Review about the current regime and how it works, I pointed out that the anti-siphoning regime, as it currently stands, is already being circumvented. One day Netflix will go—maybe in the not too distant future, who knows—to a sporting code with a blank cheque and these cashed-up over-the-top operators will say, 'How much do you want?'

We have already seen telecommunications carriers going more and more into the content provision space. See, for example, Optus in the English Premier League. We recently had Twitter streaming Melbourne Cup delivery this year. But these are not on-the-horizon issues; these are issues here and now that need to be addressed. The fact is that it is entirely possible for these operators to circumvent the current anti-siphoning regime, which has been put in there for a very good reason, but it is perfectly capable of being circumvented by these firms that are not subject to the regime. I note the minister, yesterday, quoted as being ready to start looking at some of these issues. But from the outset, he is showing absolutely no interest whatsoever.

It is a fact that the pragmatic course of action that should be taken by this parliament is to repeal the reach rule. I note, also, that I have advocated for the execution of a sound principles based policy, which I will come back to it in just a moment. To the issue of holistic media reform; this should not have been news to the minister. He should not have had any problem signing up to, because it has been very clear from the submissions and evidence from industry stakeholders to the Senate, on more than one occasion, that this is exactly what they have been asking for. Foxtel is:

… strongly opposed to repeal of any media control rules in isolation. Therefore, we do not support passage of the bill at this time.

As set out below, we believe reform must be holistic and provide for de-regulation across sectors …

It goes on:

Hasn't the government always talked about taking a holistic approach to things like this, and it sounds like they're not going to. We'll continue to encourage them to do the right thing.

It goes on:

Seven West Media has maintained a consistent position in relation to any proposed changes to media laws. We see great danger in addressing these matters in a piecemeal manner.

And Nine:

… we understand the need for the proposed changes of repealing the 75 per cent reach rule and … more broadly as part of holistic reform. Incremental changes will not bring about the reform required for the ongoing viability of our industry.

It said: 'There are parameters under which, I would say, holistic media reform needs to be considered, and we need to look at the whole industry's part in how that public policy objective is maintained.' And so it goes on.

I will highlight one of the minister's more curious assertions in the months since this bill was reintroduced to the parliament, and I look at the headline from The Sydney Morning Herald from 10 August this year: 'Labor will be putting jobs at risk if it blocks media ownership changes.' Firstly, amongst other things, the notion that mergers and acquisitions do not lead to job losses is one which I think would be hotly disputed. But as he goes on, I quote the minister telling Fairfax Media:

The last thing Australia's media companies need right now is another review—it is time for action.

All the relevant facts are already known.

Labor's out of touch with the needs of the media sector and does not seem to care about the jobs that are at risk.

…   …   …

The legislation will be put back before the parliament as a priority and as a package.

It is curious, then, to examine one notable merger. For example, on 12 September this year The Australian had the headline 'ARM takeover spurs back-office cuts' and the article stated:

News Corp's planned acquisition of APN News & Media's Australian Regional Media newspaper business will result in up to 300 job losses as back office synergies are sought to secure the future of quality journalism in the affected regions.

The cuts are expected to be implemented over an initial phase, provided the deal is approved by shareholders and the competition watchdog …

It is not surprising to me that last week, even in The Australian, Mark Day commented:

The end-of-the-year awards season is almost here but there's already an odds-on favourite for the title of the most ineffective politician in the land.

Take a bow Mitch Fifield, the Homer Simpson of the Turnbull government. He has been the Minister for Communications and the Arts since September last year and—

here is the important bit—

he's just discovered the need for widespread reform of media regulation.

It is quite telling that we have the minister described in those terms. Not only has the minister has changed his position on this matter and how we should approach the prism through which we should approach media reform in this country; it appears he has not been capable of having an original thought up to this point. I will give you an example.

On 5 October this year, I made a speech to the Commsday Melbourne Congress and I set out the principles that I believe should be applied to communications policymaking in Australia, and I highlighted those principles and challenges and summarised them in three parts: firstly, piecemeal policy is poor policy; secondly, the legacy world must be confronted; and, thirdly, consumers must be at the policy core. I particularly noted some of the issues arising from this media reform bill and stated:

…   …   …

I was therefore quite surprised—though pleasantly surprised when these things happen—to see on 24 November the secretary of the minister's department, in a speech to the Institute of Public Administration Australia's Secretary Series, making the following comment:

That is in essence what Minister Fifield has asked us to begin work on—to think about a communications policy roadmap centred on a principles-based framework for communications policy. This roadmap will be the first look at the overall policy framework in nearly 20 years, since the introduction of competition into telecommunications in the late 1990s.

Well, blow me over, if you do not see your own words coming to you from the secretary of the department via, of course, a minister—'This is what Minister Fifield has asked us to begin work on.' I am happy to help out, but the sheer fact is this minister, being so incapable of understanding the entire media landscape and the need for a holistic approach to this area, is instead offering us piecemeal legislative change somehow disguised as reform—as my mother would have said, 'mutton done up as lamb'—yet comes to this parliament and argues that it is urgent when this government has done sweet nothing for the last three years. Not only has he gone out and rubbished what Labor has sensibly proposed; now he seems to want to adopt it as his own. I think it is useful to highlight how it got to this point.

Of course it got here because in June 2015, effectively, the Abbott government at the time killed off plans to put media ownership on the political agenda, as The Australian wrote 18 June 2015:

… after the leadership group of the inner cabinet decided against the move to avoid a fight with the main players.

…   …   …

'They are completely off the table', a source said. 'There will be no reform package any time in the foreseeable future.'

This is a government which not only has been scared of looking at this issue through a principles-based framework and put it off for so long; it is also ignoring the evidence.

In the time I have I want to highlight some of the evidence which demonstrates why it is important to maintain diversity, as set out in the Broadcasting Services Act and specifically the two-out-of-three rule. This argument of 'because internet' simply does not cut it. If you look at the Nielsen digital ratings, you will see seven of the top 10 sites are old Australian media just on different platforms—the same voices. In response to some of the stakeholders whom I have heard say, 'No-one cares about this; you can get rid of this set of rules and no-one will care,' I note that in September this year, we had a poll from Essential Poll looking at media laws and this question was put:

Would you approve or disapprove of changing the media laws to allow a single company to own all three of a newspaper, TV network and radio station in a single market?

The response to the question was total disapprove 61 per cent and total approve a mere 18 per cent. I believe this is an issue that is important to the Australian people. I believe this is an issue that should be examined in terms of the amount of media concentration that we already have. It is the fact that media concentration has been of enduring concern to the public and it has certainly been one that has prompted government to act and to put regulations and appropriate safeguards in place, even since the 1930s.

I have heard the minister trying to denigrate me as being stuck in the eighties and saying, 'These rules were conceived when Kylie Minogue was still running around on Ramsay Street.' Well, there are two points there. Firstly, the 1980s were pretty good. Any decade that contained Bon Jovi at their height was a good decade. But I would also point out, just as Paul Keating reflected in 2000 on these rules:

The technology might be complicated, but the issues are simple. Public policy should be directed towards promoting diversity and preventing any further concentration of media power. The result might be some arguable economic inefficiencies around the edges, but the Australian polity will be healthier. The principal objective has to be diversity. And the only way to get it is competition. That alone.

He goes on to say—and this is prophetic, since he was making these comments in 2000:

The last Labor Government's policy approach to the need to prevent concentration and encourage diversity was the cross-media rules. These limit owners broadly to either print or radio or television.

The question now is whether digital technology, which enables all forms of content to be delivered in similar ways, makes these rules out of date. I think this argument is greatly overstated by the government and the existing media owners.

The rules in Australia do not prevent any proprietor getting into new media.

He goes on:

In any case, the rationale given by those who argue for the ditching of the cross-media rules—that convergence is turning all forms of media into one—is the most powerful reason for not making it easier to concentrate ownership.

As Labor has consistently said, we have made our policy position known. It is based on the evidence, and the evidence is clear that Australians are concerned about these issues; that now is not the time to be ditching these important provisions; and that the Australian people respect diversity and want it preserved.

See this speech in context