Jason Falinski (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I assume Labor are opposed to that because they are arcing up—and critical changes to restrictive ownership rules that are holding Australian companies back. The government has also announced a review of the Australian and children's screen content and a $30 million package of support for the broadcasting of women's, niche and underrepresented sports. It is a very comprehensive plan—the only comprehensive plan in town, and it enjoys the support of the entire media industry.

Minister, you would think Labor would welcome this package and support it through the parliament. But, no, Labor say they have a problem with it. So what is their comprehensive plan? David Crowe reports in The Australian today that the member for Greenway told caucus they would support a standalone bill that just dealt with the 75 per cent reach rule. Can you believe it! Labor call for comprehensive reform and their policy is to support a bill with just one single change to one ownership rule—it beggars belief.

Minister, if you are looking for a comprehensive reform plan for Australia's media industry, who would you rather take advice from? On the one hand, there is Seven, Nine, Ten, Prime, WIN, Southern Cross Austereo, Foxtel, News Limited, Fairfax and the commercial radio industry. They are unanimous in their support for the Turnbull government's plan and have called for it to be passed in its entirety. Or, on the other hand, there is the member for Greenway and her plan to do very little and let Australian companies wither and die. This is the Labor approach to policy—score cheap political points, no matter the cost to jobs, livelihoods and children watching sport.

Minister, can you explain why the Turnbull government's plan is so comprehensive and holistic? How will it ensure the ongoing viability and strength of Australia's critical media industry? What support does it enjoy from industry? What alternative comprehensive and holistic plans for media reform are you aware of?

See this speech in context