Justine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I, too, rise to speak on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Reform) Bill 2016. The bill proposes to repeal two of the control rules that apply to commercial television broadcasting, commercial radio broadcasting, and associated print newspapers.

Labor believes that it is critically in the public interest for Australia to have the regulatory processes and industry structures that support a strong, diverse and independent media. This is particularly important for the diversity and content requirements for regional and rural areas, such as my area on the far north coast of New South Wales.

In regard to the bill, Labor has indicated its support for the removal of the 75 per cent reach rule. It was in fact a Labor proposal to remove what we now see as a redundant rule. But we do not support the repeal of the two out of three rule. As our shadow minister, the member for Greenway, pointed out in her contribution, Labor has made it very clear that we remain to be convinced of the merits of repealing this rule. In fact, Labor senators said in their dissenting report to the Senate committee that we are unconvinced that the two out of three rule, which is the cross-media ownership restriction that prohibits mergers of more than two of the three regulated media platforms—that is, TV, radio and associated newspapers—in a particular licence area, should be repealed.

Turning to the provisions of the bill, schedule 1 of the bill proposes to repeal the sections of the Broadcasting Services Act that set out the conditions of the 75 per cent reach rule. This rule prevents a person, either as an individual or as a director of one or more companies, from being in a position to exercise control over commercial television broadcasting licences whose combined licence population area exceeds 75 per cent of the population of Australia.

Schedule 2 of the bill proposes to repeal the two-out-of-three cross-media control rule, which is also set out in the Broadcasting Services Act. The two-out-of-three rule prohibits a person controlling more than two of the three regulated media platforms—that is, a commercial television broadcasting licence, a commercial radio broadcasting licence and an associated newspaper—in any one particular licence area. We are not convinced as to the merits of this specific action.

Indeed, schedule 3 of the bill also contains licence conditions for local programming obligations that would apply to regional commercial television broadcasters in the event a change in control occurs—what is referred to as a trigger event. A trigger event will occur where a person starts to be in a position to control a commercial television broadcasting licence and immediately after that event is in a position to control two or more commercial television broadcasting licences, including at least one regional commercial television broadcasting licence, in a combined licence area population exceeding 75 per cent of the population of Australia. In those circumstances, the event is a trigger event for each regional commercial television broadcasting licence in the group and each such licensee will be subject to additional local programming requirements under proposed sections for regional aggregated commercial television broadcasting licensees, which will commence six months after the trigger event. Those are the schedules of the bill.

When we look at issues relating to the regulation of the media, the federal government has played a role in the regulation of broadcasting in the media since the 1930s. Since those times, and in any particular changes that have been put forward, predictably the industry have always raised their concerns that they do not particularly like any sort of media control and they want to have less regulation. We are also aware that many sections of the broadcasting industry have been lobbying for the removal of certain rules, which they consider outdated and which they argue prevent mergers and economies of scale which will assist them to remain economically viable in the changing and challenging modern media environment. But we in Labor maintain that regulation is necessary and reform is necessary. What we need to see is a comprehensive reform based on the evidence that it is necessary. There does need to be some sort of regulation, but we need to see, across the board, more comprehensive media reform. We are not seeing this.

I can appreciate that the industry objections have increased, particularly with the rise of the emergence of the internet. It is a new media landscape. We all acknowledge that. There are new media technologies and there are increasing convergences of various media platforms. We have had the entire broadcasting and media industry really change in the last five, 10, 15, 20 years. But it is important to remember that when we hear people talking about the increased role of the internet and the greater role that it plays in many facets of our society—in this instance in terms of broadcasting and media—it is in some ways quite a false argument. We refer to regional areas, because of the fact we do not have access to the internet and access to the national broadband network in many parts of rural and regional Australia.

In my electorate, for example, there are many areas that are still waiting very long times. We have said on this side of the House on many occasions that the rollout of the NBN by this government has been incredibly chaotic. We have to be quite careful when people are talking about the rise of the internet, because there are many people in regional and rural Australia—indeed in many parts of metropolitan Australia too—that just do not have access to the internet. So it is indeed a very false argument.

When we look at the history of regulatory controls we see that prior to the introduction of the 75 per cent rule by the Hawke government in 1987 broadcasters were not permitted to own two television stations or radio licences in the one market and ownership or control could not exceed 60 per cent. The Hawke government's report into the broadcasting media recommended that the government encourage local ownership, control and presence and prohibit the buying and selling of licences for purely investment purposes.

When we look to some of the media reforms and we relate them to this government, who have been in power since 2013, we have seen that they have done nothing effectively and nothing comprehensively when it comes to the media sector. There should have been a thorough review of the entire broadcasting sector, but that did not happen. The last time we saw such a thorough review was around 2000, by the Productivity Commission. It had a strong evidence base for a holistic review of the sector, and corresponding legislative and regulatory reform came out of that.

But none of that has happened under this government. It certainly did not happen under the former communications minister, who is now the Prime Minister. We did not see any effective media reform or regulatory changes, on top of not seeing any effective rollout of the NBN. I do not think we are going to see anything else as this parliamentary year draws to a close in terms of any commitment from this government to effective evidence based reform of the media sector.

In the current climate, the large media providers continue to remain a primary source of news and information for the majority of people. It is not in the public interest to remove regulations which are likely to encourage mergers of existing media outlets and the consequential impacts that this would involve. These impacts will lead to less, not more, media diversity in the long run. This is because one owner will be able to control radio, television and newspapers in local areas. Despite minimal local content requirements that may be in place, there will be at the larger companies fewer independent voices and fewer local journalists employed to report on and investigate local issues. This will potentially create a less transparent and informed society. We want to see, particularly in those regional areas, more voices, greater input, greater transparency and greater diversity. That is what we aim for.

Let us not forget, when we are talking throughout this debate, that seven of the top 10 news sites in Australia are still owned by the big traditional media companies. That is the reality. The industry, however, asserts that certain media regulation is unnecessary and is preventing media entities from realising the economies of scale needed for them to survive in the modern media environment. This alone does not necessarily negate the need for Australia to maintain rules around the ownership and control of broadcasting licensees in order to satisfy and ensure diversity. We have to have that in place to make sure we have that diversity and transparency.

Despite all the concerns, the controlling influences are in the hands of the traditional media players who, as I have said, still dominate the production of news and information accessed by Australians. There are certainly many more places to access news than five or 10 years ago. There is absolutely no doubt about that. But despite all of that, with seven of the top 10 news sites in Australia still owned by traditional media companies, it is still very, very concentrated. So we have to make sure we include that when we talk about the challenging and changing media environment and the role that those traditional media companies still play. Labor is aware of the impact of convergence and globalisation, but we remain committed to ensuring Australia maintains regulatory processes and industry structures to support a strong and independent media in the public interest. That is what drives it to make sure we have that diversity.

I referred earlier to the Senate inquiry into the bill. It was quite rushed and was completed before the election was called. This was duly noted by Labor in a dissenting report. The inquiry provided scant analysis of the most pertinent issues needed to inform this debate and these questions still remain today—we still want answers to them: what are the potential consequences of the removal of the two-out-of-three rule? What are the potential models of activity as a result? And what would be the likely effect on the ability to make and broadcast diverse Australian content, including Australian news? We still have those questions unanswered.

The Australian media landscape has seen enormous change over the past 20 years and the government would have us believe that some of the reforms they are putting forward in this bill are about genuine reform of the sector. They are, in fact, not that. They had an opportunity to do that but it just really has not happened in this case, or in the term of this government or the previous one. The bill before us is a disconnected and piecemeal package that maybe will just benefit certain incumbents. The changes proposed by the government are about the corporate interests of certain industry players and not in the national interest in terms of what the public wants to see—diversity and transparency. This is especially so in those regional and rural areas, like the one that I represent. The bill does not really put in place an effective overall regulatory framework that will deliver for everybody; it just delivers for some groups.

We believe 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. And we believe that only a comprehensive, principles-based approach to media reform will succeed in giving all Australians that fair and equitable access to a variety of locally and nationally produced media content, which is indeed what people do want to see in their media.

Labor's approach seeks to foster a comprehensive, principles-based approach with a focus on: independence in media and better standards; diversity in content, including in the ownership of companies and industry structure; and ensuring the provision of regional services and the support for regional content—that is an issue that I will always talk about in this House, that focus on regional Australia. It is also focused on supporting jobs and local content—we recognise how important that is.

I would also note in my contribution the outstanding role of the ABC and SBS in regional and rural Australia, and also right throughout the country. Again, I condemn the government for their continuous cuts in these areas, because the services they provide are absolutely important for regional Australia. There should be a greater investment in their services, not a cutting of those services. We want to see a greater role that is played by them. They are often the lifeline in regional areas, and we should always support them; we should not continue to see cuts by this government.

As I have said: it was Labor's proposal to remove the now redundant 75 per cent rule. We have indicated that we certainly support the move to do that. Whilst it is true that the industry is going through large structural changes—and we acknowledge that, and we acknowledge the challenges ahead—we still remain unconvinced of the merits of repealing the two-out-of-three rule and thus cannot see the merit in changing that.

As we have said consistently, our policy position is based on the evidence; and the evidence is clear that Australians are concerned about these issues and that they are concerned about the potential of the diversity and content of their media outlets. They do want to see those in place. I certainly know that it is great to see the diversity of a whole range of different media outlets and the role that they play in my area in expressing the local news and local content. It is a lifeline to my electorate, which is a very diverse area. We do have a variety of different outlets, and whether they be radio, newspaper or television, they do reflect a lot of the diversity of our area. I certainly would not want to see that changed, and I know that locals feel the same way. They particularly want to see a lot of independent, transparent and comprehensive news. That is what we have, and I would certainly like to see that in place in my area and right throughout the country as well.

As I have said, Labor has many concerns about this bill. I think this was a real opportunity to have a more comprehensive reform package, and the government have really walked away from that—it was just all too hard. It could have been a much more thorough review. We certainly believe that it is valid to do that. In conclusion, we certainly have not seen it from this government; we have just seen a very piecemeal approach to the current media landscape.

See this speech in context