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

There is absolutely nothing integrated about this bill. If you wanted any evidence of that, you get it from the minister himself. The minister himself has realised that there is nothing integrated about this. It is not just me saying it. Do not even take my word for it. Take the word of an important stakeholder like Channel 7 for example. They said:

… what we would like to see is a comprehensive package of changes so that we can understand the full implications of regulatory change for our business, for our industry and for consumers more generally.

They went on:

This bill on its own does not address that. It may be of use to one or two players for one or two deals, but it does not do anything for our entire industry.

If the minister at the table, the Minister for Urban Infrastructure, were so concerned about ensuring business structures are capable going forward from tomorrow, he would be supporting the repeal of the 75 per cent reach rule, which is essentially a piece of housekeeping.

I urge the regional MPs on that side—two of them came onto the speaking list at the very last minute, but that is about it from their side—to think very carefully about what their regional affiliates are going to think if they vote against this. Their regional affiliates are expecting to have at least something by the end of the year. I have no truck with this rubbish about Labor standing in the way. These people have had more than three years. We know that Prime Minister Turnbull, when he was communications minister, got rolled, because then-Prime Minister Abbott said, 'We're not going to have any changes unless the entire industry agrees with one another.' So all he came up with were these two changes, one of which Labor has consistently said we would be happy to support and would have done in government. Labor has been entirely consistent on this position. Those regional members who might be listening to this should think very, very carefully about whether they are going to go back to their regional affiliates when parliament rises and what they are going to say to those regional affiliates, who are expecting this change to go through.

Before I was interrupted, I was going through some of the figures that the ACMA itself has released today. The minister at the table likes to run the 'because internet' argument. Here are some facts. Despite the prevalence of internet and the ability to get news, current affairs and any other information from a variety of sources, the regulator's own report, tabled in this place today, says:

… broadcast television remains the main source of news for adult Australians …

It goes on:

Despite this decline in print subscriptions and the availability of other online news sources, broadcast television remains the main source of news … Television also had the highest weekly news reach with 65 per cent, ahead of radio with 40 per cent and print with 38 per cent.

This is reflected in the monthly digital ratings for news, where the online platforms of print newspapers or television broadcasters record the largest audiences in the current and global news sub-category.

It also confirms, in a table, what we have been saying all along—that, although we have the rise of the internet and the rise of these online provisions, seven out of the 10 top news sites are still old media, on different platforms: same voices, different platforms. The ACMA report affirms that today. Today this evidence has come out. Those opposite might like to think this is no big deal to the Australian public. Well, I have seen one public poll taken on this, by Essential Media. Sixty-one per cent of Australians surveyed do not support repeal of the two-out-of-three rule. Again, regional members might like to think about this: 61 per cent of Australians do not support repeal of the two-out-of-three rule. It is a shame the member for Kennedy has gone, because he was very astute in highlighting the deficiencies you get when you start to relegate this sector to general competition law.

The New Zealand Commerce Commission has recently considered some of these issues, and they recognised the deficiencies of it—as pointed out in the dissenting report to the Senate review:

Competition law is of questionable efficacy as a tool for achieving social policy objectives as contained in the Broadcasting Services Act …

Those opposite should know that the objects of the Broadcasting Services Act clearly demonstrate that the BSA is not a piece of industry policy legislation. It is in fact one that has as its objects what would be better described as pieces of social objectives. And a pertinent point to note is: whilst we have these media guidelines and whilst they are being reviewed and we have another set of draft media guidelines, it is a fact that this does little to assist parliament in understanding what mergers would be blocked under competition law and whether general competition law would require adequate safeguards for diversity in the event of the removal of the two-out-of-three rule. (Time expired)

See this speech in context