Matt Keogh (Burt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Can I begin by wholeheartedly endorsing the comments by the member for Lalor about the importance of the Lockie Leonard book series in teaching young Australian children about an Australian voice in our literature history of Australia. As a person who has very much benefited from reading that series as a student not long after they were written, I wholeheartedly endorse her comments.

Turning now to the core of this bill, the challenges faced by all aspects of the broadcasting sector and the appropriate regulatory arrangements to meet the disruptive challenges now and into the future are not served by this narrow bill. The bill is not about genuine sector reform. After three years in office, this is a substandard response by government—something which is even acknowledged by stakeholders. Labor will go on to develop a comprehensive principles-based approach to sector reform, and is prepared to work with government to achieve this. Labor also acknowledges the particular economic challenges being faced by regional broadcasters, which is why we are prepared to support the abolition of the 75 per cent reach rule.

Economic reform of current licensing arrangements is clearly a priority for the sector, and must be addressed before any reform to industry structure. The government and a number of media interests continue to express dismay, in fact, at the time it has taken to pass this bill. However, consider this: the Abbott and Turnbull governments did nothing in media ownership policy for almost three years; indeed, they were virtually silent on the topic during the election campaign. Now Mr Turnbull wants to rush some changes through this parliament on the basis that they are, supposedly, urgent, when the reality for this urgency is actually the interests of a number of the media players themselves. Labor has indicated it will support the removal of the 75 per cent reach rule, as I indicated, but we are not yet convinced of the merits of repealing the two-out-of-three rule.

The primary argument in favour of repealing the two-out-of-three rule is the rise of online sources. As I think was so eloquently put by the member for Greenway: 'The government's argument boils down to this: because internet.' They say that they are competing with online sources for both news and advertising revenue. This impact on the forecast decline of traditional media is irrefutable; however, it does not necessarily follow that technological developments have negated the need for Australia to maintain rules around ownership or control of broadcasting licensees. Traditional media players still dominate the production of news and information consumed by Australians. There may be more places about to access news from, but seven of the top 10 news sites in Australia are still owned and operated by traditional media companies. It is the same voices that we had before; they are just operating on more and different platforms.

Western Australia, and Perth in particular, has one of the most concentrated media markets in the country, with Seven West Media now owning the only daily newspaper, The West Australian, and The Sunday Timescovering all seven days of the week—as well as Channel Seven, with a combined newsroom. This is not necessarily a criticism of the work that they do, as one only has to look at some of the great work coming out of The West Australian's press gallery here over the last 12 months in breaking federal stories to realise that Western Australians are well served by our state newspaper. But this does highlight the importance of having alternative news sources available in WA, given that our main local newspaper network, the Community Newspaper Group, is also 50 per cent owned by Seven West Media, with the other half being owned by News Corp.

In its recent review of the Seven West acquisition of The Sunday Times the ACCC noted that Western Australia's news content was highly valued by Western Australian consumers, as national news sources do not cater to the WA news market. I would go even further, and point to the importance of local and regional news sources in ensuring that our local communities can access the news that matters to them that might not be picked up in state and national media. Being so far away from the eastern states, this is particularly important to those people in WA.

Disruption in this dynamic sector, though, is not new. The owners of newspapers were not enthusiastic about the arrival of radio back in the 1920s. They claimed it was likely that broadcasters would pirate their print news stories without providing compensation to the sources. Then newspapers started complaining when the ABC moved away from reporting news as printed in newspapers and started running its own radio newsrooms, competing against the papers in the provision of news—thereby diversifying the sources. Then, as noted by Nick Herd in his book Networking: Commercial Television in Australia, aHistory:

Initially newspaper interest saw radio as a competitor, but as it grew in popularity, they moved to acquire ownership.

With regard to television, he said:

… commercial media of newspapers, magazines and radio were initially apprehensive about the prospect of television, but quickly realised it was something they could not ignore.

Thus we have seen the ever-growing march towards consolidation of our media resources and sources.

Related to the issue of technological developments, Australian media companies are concerned about their viability in the face of licence fees and local content requirements, which are not borne by online competitors such as Google, Facebook and Netflix. However, it is notable that this concern is of course being faced in other jurisdictions around the globe, and other governments are looking seriously at options to secure tax dollars from such entities and using it to produce more local content. The industry is already adapting to the challenges posed by their shrinking advertising revenues compared to their online competitors. On 3 September 2016, for example, it was reported that Australia's three major news publishing groups—Fairfax, NewsCorp, Seven West—were looking at collaborating to compete against their online rivals. The ACCC may say things about that later.

The government believes there is no point with another referral of this bill to a Senate committee. However, the positions of new crossbenchers in the Senate are largely unknown, and their public comments appear to indicate that they have not formed a firm view and are open to persuasion. Senator Lambie was most critical of Minister Fifield's attempts to block the referral, arguing that this is a complex policy area that requires scrutiny—and it does.

These changes are not about genuine reform of Australia's media sector. The Australian media landscape has seen enormous change over the past 20 years. But, after years of telling us that everything was changing, all that Prime Minister Turnbull and Minister Fifield have been able to come up with is some tinkering around the edges of an important but complex regulatory scheme.

The changes proposed by the government are about the corporate interests of certain industry players; they are not about the national interest. The government's reform bill does virtually nothing to put in place a regulatory framework that will deliver for 24 million Australians going forward through the 21st century. Worse still: it does not provide any assurance of greater local content, including in regional areas, which I am sure our friends in the National Party will be most concerned about, as we are on this side. Labor believes that it is critical for Australia to have the regulatory processes and industry structures that support a strong and independent media in the public interest.

Mobile technology and the growth in internet use have completely reshaped how we consume content in these modern times. And, while convergence and globalisation have driven changes to the way content is developed and distributed, as I said before, traditional media players still dominate the production of news of information consumed by Australians. What is required is comprehensive media reform. On that path, I just want to mention that it is critical that we continue to support our local media—both independent and those run by the major media companies.

People in my electorate are particularly lucky to have two local news outlets producing weekly papers focused on the issues that matter to our local community.    I pay special tribute to the independently owned Examiner Newspapers. The Examiner started out as a local newsletter in 1989 and now has a circulation of almost 100,000 across Armadale, Gosnells, Canning and Serpentine-Jarrahdale. The Examiner produces quality local content and, during the Canning by-election, Examiner reporters unexpectedly found themselves at the centre of some very large national media packs—and they did the south-east of Perth very proud.

At a time when traditional media is struggling and the media landscape is becoming more and more concentrated, to have an independent news source going from strength to strength is a testament to the strength of the team at The Examiner. And I would like to give a shout-out also to Heritage FM in Gosnells, which is broadcasting 24/7 community radio to residents across Perth's south-eastern suburbs.

The bill before the parliament is a disconnected and piecemeal package that will benefit certain incumbents. Labor will not stand by and watch this government waste more time with their dithering and pandering to vested interests. Labor will undertake further consultations not just with industry but with stakeholder experts and the community on a comprehensive package of reforms to take to the next election. And we are prepared to work with the government to achieve these outcomes during this term.

Our approach seeks to foster a comprehensive package which ensures the independence of media in Australia with standards; diversity in our content, including in the ownership of companies and industry structure; ensuring the provision of regional services and the support of more regional content; and supporting jobs and local content. However, before any reform to industry structure can take place, there needs to be real economic reform of licensing arrangements.

Australian media entities have submitted that these changes will provide the best incentives to support the creation of local jobs and Australian content, because the economics of local content are being challenged by these new over-the-top providers who do not have to deal with the issue of licensing fees. Indeed, the experience from the United Kingdom shows that reducing licensing fees has resulted in stronger investments in jobs and local content. That is a critical element of what we need to see. It is not just locating the local content but combining it with ensuring that we maintain and create local jobs.

To truly put in place the right media market, there must be an examination of the entire landscape of the media industry in Australia and the key trends that we are seeing not just here but how these are being dealt with around the globe. This government has really shirked its responsibility to do the job right and to look at the entire sector to make sure that we get meaningful change that ensures the protection of the sector, the protection of local jobs, the creation of local content and a diversity of news outcomes for all Australians. Unfortunately, we have not seen that at all in the presentation of this bill by the government.

See this speech in context