Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Whitlam for his great contribution and for the great work that he does in this area. Like the member for Whitlam, I rise to put Labor's position with regard to the Communications Legislation Amendment (Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund) Bill 2017 on the record today in light of the many deals that were done—in fact, so many dirty deals, I think the preceding speaker, the member for Whitlam, mentioned—by this coalition government. Just this week, we saw Senator Hanson's secret deal to secure her support to give $80 billion to big business, multinationals and the big banks. I think we've got the fourth iteration of that deal at the moment. They do say that sausages are like sausage making: it's horrible when you actually see the process. But when we examine the input of the 'supreme president for life', Senator Hanson, the details are truly 'offal'.

However, this particular deal, the Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund, exists only because of a shoddy, last-minute backroom deal between the Turnbull LNP government and the Nick Xenophon political party, who now refer to themselves as Centre Alliance—an optimistic moniker at best. I don't think they're yet to earn either of those titles. So this fund is the result of a heavily compromised trade-off. The fund didn't come about because the Turnbull LNP government is genuinely committed to promoting public interest journalism—far from it. It came about to grease the path for the government's repeal of the two-out-of-three media control rule.

Labor will not oppose this bill, but we maintain that it does precious little to fill the void left by the repeal of the two-out-of-three cross-media control rule. This rule acted as a public interest safeguard by stopping any one voice in the media landscape from becoming too dominant. It promoted diversity and competition between different voices. A 'bulwalk against authoritarianism' is how I've always seen this media rule operating. The two-our-of-three rule ensured that no individual or company controlled more than two out of three regulated media platforms—commercial television, commercial radio or associated newspapers—in the same licence area. In essence, it was to preserve a diversity of opinion on our airwaves, and it stimulated alternative viewpoints.

Over the six months that have passed since the Turnbull government abolished the two-out-of-three cross-media control rule, cross-media merges have begun as a result. How many have actually come through? Zero. The milestone makes a mockery of communication minister Senator Fifield's alarmist urgings that parliament must act on media reforms to protect Australian jobs and to give industry a fighting chance and of his dire predictions of the failure of Australian media organisations. Senator Fifield even went so far as to suggest that Labor's opposition to the repeal was crippling the industry and limiting the options for organisations like Channel Ten. How wrong he was. Just on a sidenote, I commend Channel Ten for their stance on axing the TV show Roseanne in light of her offensive comments. They were out of the blocks quickly. Well done, Channel Ten.

Back to this legislation: development since that time clearly demonstrates just how captured by the top end of the sector the Turnbull government was, and how out of touch it clearly remains. The CBS acquisition of Channel Ten occurred thanks to the two-out-of-three rule. So, as it was actually working as designed and benefitting the sector, the geniuses in the coalition decided that they'd best get rid of the rule. So, well done! It is so dangerous without it. The repeal of this rule is a threat to informed democratic debate, as it allows a single person or organisation to control how local news is reported. This potentially gives one person a lot of power in a market where big media players are already wielding a great deal of power.

The Australian media landscape is one of the most concentrated in the world, with an extremely small number of firms producing content that reaches the vast majority of Australians. According to market research from IBISWorld from June 2016, the industry's four largest players were estimated to have accounted for over 90 per cent of industry revenue since 2015-16. These players included News Corp Australia, Fairfax Media, Seven West Media and APN News & Media. Obviously, we all know the role of our national broadcaster, the long-trusted, ever-professional ABC. In the budget, the ABC is suffering yet another cut of $84 million. That's on top of the $254 million cut in that horror 2014 budget, after the then Liberal Leader of the Opposition had said before the election that there will be no cuts to the ABC. As anyone who understands the ABC would know, there was no fat to be cut in 2014. But, after those two big cuts of $84 million and $254 million, we're not slicing off any fat; we're now slicing off muscle and making our national broadcaster less affective.

Anyway, back to this fund: this one-off fund will dispense $50 million of taxpayer funds over three years before it runs out. What then? The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, or MEAA, has expressed concern that these short-term programs, without adequate follow-up, may serve only to temporarily boost the numbers and scope of journalism and journalists. MEAA argues that the benefits of the program will be exhausted shortly after the 2020-21 financial year, unless consideration is given to sustaining these programs during their rollout.

Labor believes it is imperative that taxpayer support for journalism be ideology-free. However, there is considerable scope for government to influence the way the funding is distributed. The government already appears to be influencing the recipients of this funding through the inclusion of the foreign parent company veto. The foreign parent company veto was likely included with the aim of preventing The GuardianAustraliafrom receiving funding from this grant, given they have selectively waived the veto for other media groups. TheGuardian is a little progressive, but any progressive outfit that provides high-quality journalism on the digital platforms should be cultivated, surely.

ACMA will also have considerable leeway to decide the purposes for which funding will be allocated. The legislation does not require that an advisory committee be set up to advise ACMA. This is all subject to the minister's discretion. The whims and whimsies of the minister are supreme, as there are no checks and balances on his decision. How is the foreign parent company veto being used? A range of publishers like The Guardian, BuzzFeed and The New Daily have been excluded from the fund due to having a foreign parent company. Publishers affiliated with a superannuation fund are also excluded from accessing the fund. So, while The Guardian Australia has a foreign parent company, its local business, supporting Australian journalism and publishing jobs, depends on maintaining a viable Australian revenue model. The Guardian Australia has created 80 jobs for Australians over the last few years. The Guardian argues that is every dollar of revenue it earns in Australia is invested in Australian journalism, given they have no shareholders or proprietors to pay. If the package were really intended to boost Australian journalism, why was The Guardian excluded? The Guardian argues that this legislation disadvantages a fast-growing source of Australian news and jobs for Australian journalists, when the whole purpose of the fund is to encourage both these things—a pretty fair point, if you ask me.

How does the Turnbull government justify giving $30 million to Fox Sports but cutting Australian content creators like The Guardian Australia out of the fund? Let's just think: both are Australian companies with a foreign based parent company. It sounds a bit fishy to me; in fact it stinks. They say that a fish rots from the head first. Fox Sports, owned by News Corporation, another company with a foreign parent, was granted $30 million in the 2017 federal budget with the vague purpose of covering women's sports and niche sports. This grant was dodgy. It was provided without conditions or any transparent process. I love sport. I love netball. I love all the sorts of sports they're talking about, but last time I checked we had a public broadcaster or two funded to perform exactly this role. Don't get me wrong: broadcasting and supporting women's sport is a good use of money. Young girls can't be what they can't see—perhaps an important message for all the people on that side of the House that talk about quotas! If that were the endeavour, surely our trusted public broadcasters ABC or SBS would have been better placed to host that content. $30 million given to them to bring in those niche sports and transmit them would have gone a long way with people that know how to do it.

Like The Guardian and other outlets, publicly owned media are ineligible for funding under this measure despite the government funding cuts they have been subjected to in recent years. As I said, the budget handed down by Treasurer Morrison and Prime Minister Turnbull cuts $84 million from the ABC on top of the $254 million the LNP have already cut since the 2013 election. The sneaky way the government cut funding from the ABC, hidden in the fine print of the budget papers, was to freeze the indexation of ABC's operational funding, amounting to a cut of $83.7 million. When the ABC's core content costs are rising faster than inflation, that is an cut in absolute terms. You can't argue otherwise. They articulated that it's to ensure the ABC continues to find back-office efficiencies. I think One Nation is pursuing the fact that they might drink coffee sometimes on budget mornings out in front of Parliament House, but I'm sure there's not $83.7 million worth of coffee being consumed at the ABC. The government should know that they can't squeeze blood from a stone.

The ABC itself says it's out of fat to cut, and that it's cutting into muscle. I fear the ABC will suffer most where? In the bush. The old Nationals are signing off on cutting bush broadcasting services. Estimates last week heard that the ABC have shed 1,012 jobs since 2014, cut under the watch of Prime Minister Turnbull and Prime Minister Abbott. They know full well that this cut they are inflicting on the ABC means cuts to jobs, content and services at the ABC, particularly in the bush. The Liberals and Nationals complain that the ABC isn't doing enough news coverage, yet these hypocritical politicians have left a $43 million hole in funding for ABC news and current affairs. The ABC said the impact of the cuts cannot be absorbed by efficiency measures alone, because the ABC has already achieved significant productivity gains in response to past budget cuts.

The Liberal Party claims their budget is about investing to create more jobs every day and to support essential services, yet these cuts to the ABC will inevitably lead to job losses and a reduction in the quality or breadth of service, especially damaging for those in the bush, the rural and remote parts of Australia that are too sparsely populated to sustain commercial media. Redundancies at the ABC are on the horizon as a result of the government's cuts to the ABC in the recent budget, and the reduction in ABC services that Australians value will be the consequence of the budget delivered by the Treasurer a few weeks ago. We'll have less news and fewer jobs as a result of these attacks on the ABC.

Labor will fight these fresh cuts, just as we did last year. In government, Labor gave additional funding to set up the ABC children's channel, ABC News 24 and ABC online. Now, how's that for promoting local public interest journalism? Publicly funded broadcasters like the ABC and SBS provide an important source of public interest journalism, which is critical for a robust democracy. It is why the top floor of this building, on the Senate side, is devoted to the fourth estate. I don't think any other parliament in the world has the fourth estate inside the building, sitting alongside the lawmakers, because they serve such a crucial role. They are critical. However, government funding cuts mean the capacity of publicly funded broadcasters to produce high-quality investigative content has been smashed. The Indigenous Remote Communications Association objects to the exclusion of Indigenous licenced community broadcasters from eligibility for funding from the Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund. The IRCA argued that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander audiences utilised broadcasting services more than print or online services for their news. Why? It's because many of them are in rural and remote areas.

How is it fair that large companies like News Corp can the $10.4 million set aside for scholarships and cadetships? Why are taxpayers' funds being used for cadetship and scholarship programs at large commercial media organisations? I'm a strong believer in training and skills development, but I have to ask: what's the point of cadetship and scholarship programs in a declining market for journalism jobs? Does the industry need to train more journalists when there are not enough jobs for existing journalists? These are just a couple of questions when we look at the repeal of two-out-of-three rule and what the impacts are. Job prospects for Australian journalists are growing fewer by the day. At least 2,500 journalism jobs have disappeared in Australia over the past six years, according to MEAA. Wouldn't funds be better spent creating long-term employment opportunities in journalism? Instead, the government has slashed $84 million in funding to the ABC.

Another question is: do regional media companies have the reliable and affordable broadband they need to enable them to grow their businesses and create more jobs in the digital age? What also would be of great help in rural and regional areas would be lobbying for decent broadband. Unfortunately, the deal with Centre Alliance was not the only dirty deal done by this government to secure support for its broadcasting bill last year. Even worse than their deal with Centre Alliance was their deal with One Nation to change the ABC's charter. It is a deal clearly that is aimed at undermining the integrity of the ABC. As one of the One Nation senators has admitted publicly, this deal is absolutely a platform for fringe groups such as anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers and even more dangerous right-wing groups.

See this speech in context