Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yesterday evening, before the House moved to the adjournment debate, I was making the point on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (News Media Diversity) Bill 2013 that in this island nation we already have media ownership that is regulated, to a degree, and that regulation is based on the rationale that argues, I think appropriately, that a diversity of media sources and media ownership provides the best possibility for us to hear a diversity of views and a range of perspectives on issues that may affect the nation. We want to be able to have a wide range of views to give us the broadest possible perspective. It enhances education and allows fuller participation of a representative sample of our community if we have news agencies, including television, print and radio, that allow the telling of multiple stories.

I was making the point in the comparison between Australia and overseas that two news companies in Australia that deliver their services online now assume an enormous 86 per cent share of the Australian newspaper market. That is two companies controlling 86 per cent of the sources of the news information that moves around our community. That is an alarming figure. In Canada, which is often considered a similar country—a Commonwealth nation, just as we are—the top two newspapers take up 54 per cent of the market. That is quite a difference. If we turn to America, the land that often proclaims it might have the free-est speech in the world, certainly their newspaper market indicates that there are a range of voices, a range of owners, involved, because the two top newspaper companies in the US constitute only 14 per cent of the market. Let us compare: 86 per cent owned by two newspaper companies in Australia, 14 per cent in the US and 54 per cent in the Canadian market. By those numbers, anybody looking at the concentration of media ownership in this country would have to agree that something has got to give.

We do have to look at reform from an international perspective to get a bit of an insight into what we might attempt to achieve. We have seen what has been going on in England. We heard the most horrendous stories about a corrupt media that was driven by the pursuit of a dollar—media out to make money rather than media out to uphold the high standards of journalism. I know from my interactions with friends who became journalists, who chose that noble profession, members of the fourth estate who seek to have an independent and powerful voice to tell our stories, are increasingly speaking of being diverted from that noble option as a journalist, to being coerced, to being limited in the stories that they can tell, to finding editorial change to things that they write. They are certainly very unhappy about that.

The reform that we can look to around the world is in Ireland, not just because it has been St Patrick's Day recently or because of my own Irish heritage but because the reform that has been undertaken there recently is quite important for us to consider. Ireland is 15th on the Press Freedom Index, and in that position, a place based on freedom of the media, it is 11 places above Australia. If we were that far down on the rugby league table or the rugby table internationally, I am sure we would be clamouring for the opportunity to improve media diversity—because we do need to improve our game. In 2007 the Irish government passed legislation that set out the structure, coverage and operation of what was to become the Irish Press Council. The media developed its own codes of practice. It developed a complaints handling process. These were approved by government and met the standard that was set in the legislation.

In Ireland—11 places above us on the Press Freedom Index—they went far, far further than what this legislation is proposing. I know from being in the House yesterday evening when the Manager of Opposition Business was speaking that there is an incredible amount of heat in the commentary from those opposite regarding this bill. The problem is that with the heat they have not put in the facts. This government will have no role in deciding whether or not the Australian Press Council meets the standards set in the legislation. We are proposing that that will be done by the Public Interest Media Advocate. We are separating it out from government.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How does that work?

Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It works in a way that very much allows for the liberation of some freedom in the ownership. We need to allow for freedom of ownership in our current structure where we have that 86 per cent ownership by the Australian news market. It works by making sure that this debate about freedom becomes one about people's interests in this country. (Time expired)

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Great journalism really can change the world. Emile Zola's 'J'accuse'letter did not just win Alfred Dreyfus his freedom; it helped to change the political character of modern France. When Woodward and Bernstein reported on Watergate, they brought down a president. In Australia, reporting by the Courier-Mailand Four Corners ended the Bjelke-Petersen government and led to the jailing of three ministers. In 2005, a newspaper article brought down New South Wales opposition leader John Brogden and probably changed the outcome of the 2007 New South Wales election.

Great reporting can shape the world for the better, but it is vital that that reporting keep pace with changes in technology, and there is possibly no industry changing more rapidly than that of the news media. We have seen a huge technological shift through not just cable and digital TV providing more channels—and, soon, digital radio having that effect for most radio listeners—but also the proliferation of new platforms, such as Facebook and Twitter, and other news sources. We are increasingly seeing newspapers change their format and their character.

These technological shifts, like standard technological shifts in other industries, have led to greater inequality in the news. If you are an engaged consumer, there has never been a better time to consume the news media. You can watch press conferences on Sky or ABC News 24. You can get transcripts straight off the internet. You can quickly get the opinions of thoughtful bloggers and sassy tweeters. But if you are less engaged then things tend to look a bit different. While the most engaged consumers have seen their news media become more abundant, more diverse in terms of outlets and more accessible, taken as a whole we have seen a rise in opinion and, I think, also a rise in nastiness and shallowness.

Those three shifts, which I talked about in a speech at the University of Canberra last year, have implications for media laws. The notion that the media laws should just stand still while the press goes through the largest shift in its history is, to me, a trifle strange. Certainly, if you were to look at the words of the member for Wentworth, you would get that sense—at least, if you looked at his words circa 2011. The member for Wentworth gave what I thought was quite a thoughtful speech on 7 December 2011 to the Centre for Advanced Journalism, noting:

The consequence of this decline in journalism is that too many important matters of public interest are either not covered at all or covered superficially. At the local level, there is less attention paid to local councils and even state parliaments.

He went on to say:

Consider the shrinking Canberra Press Gallery—the vast bulk of its coverage of federal politics is now about personalities and the game of politics.

Readers seeking a better understanding of how the carbon tax or the mining tax, for example, will operate will often struggle to find much assistance in the output of the gallery—with some very honourable exceptions—compared to the millions of words written about Kevin Rudd vs Julia Gillard let alone Tony Abbott’s budgie smugglers.

The member for Wentworth also said:

The consequence of all of this has been that what we used to call the 24 hour news cycle has become instead an opinion cycle.

He continued:

Over the last few decades we have seen a proliferation of mediums through which news and information can be viewed. In my youth as a reporter we were limited to the newspapers (more then than now), a few television stations, a few more radio stations and a handful of magazines.

The member for Wentworth also quoted the late US senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan: 'Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.' He noted one of the changes that I think is of greatest concern to many of us:

… the whole edifice of our fifth estate, of our journalism, has been built on a foundation of newspaper journalism and … that foundation is crumbling.

My largest concern about the changes in the news media is not about slant towards left or right. Media slant will come and go. When I studied media slant with Joshua Gans, looking at the Howard government period from 1996 to 2004, we found that most of the outlets adopted centrist positions. But I am concerned about the rise of opinion, the trend that Laura Tingle has described thus: 'Australia's politics and our public discourse have become noticeably angrier.' Annabel Crabb describes it as 'a hostile, scratchy feel to politics at the moment'. That rise of nastiness and the rise of shallowness with its emphasis on one-liners rather than thoughtful commentary are of concern. The increase in poll-driven journalism—focusing on the horse race rather than the issues of the day—is one to which the member for Wentworth referred in his 2011 speech.

You can get a sense of how unusual the current laws are by simply looking at the regulation of smh.com.au and ninemsn.com.au. They are two of Australia's most popular news websites, but content on the Sydney Morning Herald's website is created by a newspaper and so it operates under a voluntary code of conduct regulated by the Australian Press Council. The ninemsn website is created by a broadcaster and so its content must have complaints directed to the Australian Communications and Media Authority, a statutory authority, and ACMA can consider the suitability of a person who seeks to hold a broadcasting licence. I do not think anyone would argue that, were we starting from scratch today, we ought to regulate the SMH website and the ninemsn website in utterly different ways.

This regulation is outdated, and the member for Wentworth acknowledged in 2011 that that was a concern. Prominent journalists have themselves also acknowledged that changes in the shape of the media are a significant challenge for good public policy. George Megalogenis argues that the 1970s saw the media emerge as perhaps the only institution that played a constructive role, but he argues that the media is today 'an intrinsic part of the problem'. They are George Megalogenis's words. These changes are happening rapidly. Ray Finkelstein's review—ably assisted by Matthew Ricketson at the University of Canberra and Rodney Tiffen, who was my original politics and media lecturer when I was a whippersnapper at the University of Sydney, Francesco Papandrea, Denis Muller, Kristen Walker, Christopher Young, Graeme Hill, Jack Bourke and Mansa Chintoh—recognised that it is important to look at how the industry has changed. It noted, for example, the significant change in the number of daily metropolitan newspapers in Australia. If we go back to Federation, Australia had 21 metropolitan or national daily newspapers belonging to 17 owners. The number of newspapers increased to 26 in 1923, but that number has since fallen. In 1985 there were 18 of these newspapers; now we are down to 11.

The Australian newspaper industry is shrinking not only in the number of newspapers but also in concentration. We have three major owners, and that makes our newspaper industry perhaps the most concentrated in the developed world. Other speakers in this debate have noted these facts. Our top newspaper group controls 58 per cent of circulation; our top two control 86 per cent of circulation; our top four control 99 per cent of circulation. All of those numbers exceed the other countries that are surveyed in the International Media Concentration Research Project: Switzerland, Israel, Ireland, Portugal, France, Turkey, South Africa, the United Kingdom, Taiwan, the Netherlands, Brazil, China, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Russia, Korea, Germany, India, Mexico, Japan, Spain, Italy, the United States and Poland all have less concentrated newspaper industries than Australia.

Ensuring that we have a healthy newspaper industry is absolutely fundamental. It is fundamental to our democracy and it is fundamental, frankly, to freedom of speech. It is within that framework that the government brings these laws before the House. These laws are nowhere near the extreme imposition that the member for Wentworth would now have you believe. Let us recall that, when the Leveson inquiry began, when allegations of phone hacking were first aired in 2011, there were those in Australia who argued that we should have a 'fit and proper person' test applied, that we should curtail foreign ownership of the press, that we should put in place strict licensing regimes. Instead, what the government has put in place are much more modest and careful reforms that indeed I suspect are entirely in keeping with what the member for Wentworth spoke about in 2011—this great challenge that faces our society in which it is important to ensure that we have a proliferation of thoughtful voices in the media.

It is because newspapers journalists are fundamental to the media that we need to make sure that we have diversity of voices within the newspaper market. And we need to recognise that newspapers are important not only for their readers, who are indeed a declining group in Australian society. The Finkelstein report noted, for example, that in 1977 there were 29 newspapers sold for every 100 Australians; now we are down to 10 newspapers sold for every 100 Australians. But, while newspaper circulation is falling, newspapers retain their influence through agenda setting, their impact on talkback radio and their impact on television. Newspapers have also had a disproportionate influence on breaking news stories and on bringing about in-depth analysis of issues. I am thinking of some of the thoughtful reporting carried out, for example, by Neil Chenoweth of the Australian Financial Review. The degree of scrutiny that comes through high-quality press is enormously important to the strength of our democracy.

I rise to speak on these bills because of my passion for the journalism industry. I believe that we have great journalists in Australia at the moment and that it is important that that situation continue. It is important that the government and the opposition are held to account by the press and by a diversity of views. But we have to recognise in this debate that changes in technology bring with them inequality. It is a mistake to view changes in the media through the lens only of the most engaged news consumers. If you think about the current availability of news sources only from the perspective of being plugged in 24 hours a day, constantly updating yourself with tweets and reading the latest government reports, you have to realise that you are not a typical consumer. We have to recognise that the rise of opinion, of nastiness, of shallowness, does affect the way in which many Australians view the press. It has to be recognised that there are possibly more Australians interested in reading about Lara Bingle than reading Laura Tingle. But it is important that we have a set of news media laws that sustain great journalists like Ms Tingle. These extraordinary journalists will be supported and will continue to keep governments accountable under these laws. (Time expired)

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

I commend the member for Fraser for his contribution. I particularly like the idea that there should be more Tingle and less Bingle. It is true that the number of devoted readers to considered journalism has declined over recent years. We work in a parliament that has seen that. We have lost—I was almost tempted to say 'good friends'—good journalists. They have departed the building too often over the last five years as newspaper readership has declined. It is a rapidly changing digital world, and this has had implications.

The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (News Media Diversity) Bill is intended to protect the diversity of news in the media. As the member for Fraser states, we are one of the least diverse OECD nations in the world when it comes to news media. Basically, north of 80 per cent of the news is provided by two entities. If you take out the charter organisations—the ABC and the SBS, that have their own set of regulations, prescribed processes and complaints handling processes and the like—it is easy to put up an argument that the people of Australia are not being as well served as they could be, because there is not as much diversity as there should be in our news organisations.

I am going to read out a few newspaper headlines just to get the flavour of our newspapers: 'Kids make nutritious snacks,' 'Juvenile court to try shooting defendant,' 'Prostitutes appeal to pope,' 'Plane too close to ground, crash probe told,' 'Drunk gets nine months in violin case,' 'Something went wrong in jet crash, expert says,' 'Miners refuse to work after death,' and 'War dims hope for peace'. These are hopefully apocryphal but they give an idea about how we approach the media generally. Sometimes they do not get it right. I think some of those internet collections of newspaper headlines that people keep in their drawers are quite amusing. Perhaps the sub-editor who let them through had a strong sense of humour.

But the reality is that news entities have changed significantly since 1901 in terms of how they approach journalism and how they approach the product that they have to sell. The reality is that the declining sales of newspapers mean that the income streams for many news organisations has collapsed. They used to receive income for the weekend career ad or the ad for the sale of a car or the like; now many people are selling those products on the internet.

Whilst news organisations have stepped into the internet—some more efficiently than others—the rule of thumb seems to be that for every dollar that they would have got for a newspaper ad they are now getting 10c for an internet ad—and some say it is even less than that. That is a collapse in income for these organisations which has meant a rationalisation of employees. There have been many dismissals, redundancies and shrinkage over the last five to 10 years.

There are now cities in the United States larger than Brisbane that do not have a print newspaper. That is the wave that is coming to Australia. That is why it is so much more crucial that we have as much diversity as possible—and that is what this legislation is about. There have been colossal changes to the public's freedom of information in this country.

The digital age is upon us, and it is obviously embraced by this government. We have invested in schools to make sure that kids have computers. We have invested in the national broadband network to make sure that electorates like Braddon have broadband rolled out and so that it goes all around Australia. We understand the digital age. There is no point trying to hold back this tide. In fact, it is a greater opportunity for this nation in terms of boosting productivity and engaging with our Asian region, where we have great opportunities to sell services, products, knowledge and the like. It will ensure that my great grandchildren have jobs in the future.

But the digital age does bring challenges. Freedom of speech is very important. We have heard a lot of chest-thumping about it over the last few days both from the owners of newspapers and from those who wish to cosy up to the owners of news organisations. Freedom of speech is predicated on a free society, and to limit it would contradict self-government and limit our rights. This is not what this legislation is about.

We understand that diversity is extremely valuable and is something that is worth protecting, because if too much information is concentrated into one hand there is the opportunity for exploitation and for people to misrepresent things—and that does happen.

We have not seen a reasoned debate about these light-touch changes. The member for Corio was on the doors the other day and, for the first time since I have known him, he was unable to answer a question when asked about Senator Conroy being on the front page of the Daily Telegraph. That shows that the news organisations pitched it wrongly; it was a complete over-reaction.

The reality is that Australia has seen a decline in the number of news organisations serving our capital cities, and that has not necessarily been in the best interests of the Australian public. I have previously said, at the ALP National Conference, in my role as an author and working in the publishing industry, that we need to have Australian voices; we do not need to sell just one product that is made somewhere in Los Angeles. That applies to Australian news stories as well. We need Australian stories told with Australian accents so that the people of Australia, who come from everywhere—apart from our Indigenous Australians—understand what makes Australia great. One of the main things is that we tell Australian stories—not one Australian story but a diverse range of views. The good thing about the digital age is that it brings those voices to the forefront. You do not need a major printing press now; you just need the National Broadband Network, a good brain, a couple of computers and a few journalists and you can put an alternative voice out there. It is not just a case of whatever comes out of Rupert Murdoch's boardroom; now there are a range of views being put forward.

I particularly commend the work of the ABC and SBS. Quite a lot of journalists have been phoning me today. There must be something happening out there. I am not quite sure what they want to talk to me about, but I have said to every journalist that I am happy to talk about any government policy, especially regarding approaches to media regulation. There are different points of view. ABC journalists and SBS journalists have a charter. They have some strong guides as to what they can do and what their professional standards are, even regarding proper mentoring and proper treatment of people who provide information. I would suggest those standards are pretty dominant in Canberra, in the press gallery, but I am not sure that it is necessarily the case throughout Australia.

The Australian government must do the right thing by the nation through this legislation in promoting media diversity because things have changed so rapidly since the last time a government—I think it was the Howard government—made legislation regarding diversity. The digital age has created so many more voices. Consumers out there have choice—I do understand that—but it is quality choice and every consumer will still need a quality voice. They will still need a voice that can be trusted.

I certainly think that all 150 MPs in this House would have had their offices respond to emails with misinformation on a range of topics. It goes to show how quickly some information can fly around. The grapevine is so much faster than it used to be. Information can now be distributed through a variety of groups. When it comes from someone that you trust, you might like to trust the information that is in the email. I have seen it in my office time and time again: a half-truth or misinformation, or even a lie, is sent out around the email networks and we spend our time responding to it. That is why it is important that we have a strong news media; that it is why it is important that we have standards that make sure that facts are checked, information is verified and both sides of a story are given where appropriate, rather than having someone chase a rumour and report how someone responded to that half-truth.

There has been progression in Australia on how we approach the free expression of ideas. The fourth estate has always played a significant role. If we look at progression by the civil rights movement, the gay liberation movement and the women's movement we can see how those ideas are approached by the establishment, with the fourth estate being a representative of the establishment. It is interesting to see how they have treated the progression of ideas. I see it time and time again with an idea. That is what the Labor Party is: we are the progressive party; we tend to advocate for appropriate change. Sometimes it is difficult to pitch it exactly right, but you know that we do not rest on our laurels and do nothing. We are the party that tries to make sure that newspapers and journalists give the right analysis on a bit of information.

Editors have a tough job. I understand that. Adlai Stevenson famously said that an editor is one who separates the wheat from the chaff and prints the chaff. That is not necessarily an approach that I would agree with. I certainly try not to let my happiness connect to the front page of the Australian, even though I am a regular reader, or the Courier Mail. If we danced to their shadows, who knows where we would end up.

I will finish with a quote from a famous author: Leo Tolstoy. He made a comment about journalism and newspapers. He said:

All newspaper and journalistic activity is an intellectual brothel from which there is no retreat.

In light of some of the reporting we have seen over the last few weeks, I will leave the last word to Mr Tolstoy. That is an appropriate comment on this piece of legislation.

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have been in and around this place for some 15 years, although not continuously, unfortunately. I have not come across more hysterical reporting of legislation before the House than I have with this Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (News Media Diversity) Bill 2013 and the other media reform bills which are intended to follow. I have found it quite extraordinary. It is the shrillness of the so-called debate, rather than the content and substance of it, which is concerning—if perhaps not surprising. That shrillness, unfortunately, is a little bit reflective of debate in this country, both within states and nationally. We rarely seem able to have a debate of any substance in which the proponents and those opposed can present their arguments in a substantive way and have those listened to and debated logically, rationally and carefully.

This is, after all, a political debating house, although I am not sure how much debate actually takes place in it. More takes place in our caucus rooms and in the parliamentary committees, but it rarely takes place in here. The shrillness of this debate, though, is unparalleled—at least in my experience from the last 15 years. That is of great national concern. You would swear, if you were purely guided by the shrillness of the debate and the narrow views of those providing those shrill arguments, that the intention of both the legislation before us and the further media reform legislation intended to follow is the complete destruction of democracy and the introduction of totalitarianism in this country. But I think—and I suspect I will be right in this—that, when people protest too much, the public become concerned.

What I thought I might do, both for those who read the debate and those who listen to it—although it is not being broadcast at the moment—is actually look at the legislation, at what it is intended to do and how it is meant to do it. I have heard everyone comment on freedom of speech, freedom of the press, journalism and its codes, and self-regulation. Amidst that discussion, I have heard people give examples of what the press freedom situation is like in various totalitarian countries. But I have not heard many people talk about the bills before us, so I thought I might do that for you.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no detail.

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is plenty of detail, friend, but you are typical—you would not be interested.

Mr Hawke interjecting—

Go and get your water and then keep going to get some lunch. Show some manners.

Ownership of Australia's most popular and influential media organisations—and this is a fact—is already highly concentrated. The Prime Minister made that clear in question time and other speakers in this debate have made it clear as well. Market trends, particularly the shift of revenues to online and mobile services, are putting significant pressures on the existing market structure. That is a fact. These trends are not cyclical and will drive significant changes, with further concentration of ownership and a reduction in media diversity a real possibility. Hence we need to look at media diversity in this country and ensure that we have it. There is absolutely nothing illogical about that. It is a fact.

So what do we do about it? We introduce legislation to assure, to guarantee, that we have media diversity in this country. But, if you listen to the critics, we are out to destroy the media in this country. I will let those who hear the logic of this make up their own minds. The government's reforms will strengthen media diversity safeguards without inhibiting existing businesses from restructuring to adapt to the changing environment, which they have to do—we all recognise that.

Importantly, the reforms deal with national providers, such as national newspapers and subscription television, for the first time. They provide a mechanism which avoids a one-size-fits-all approach in a rapidly changing sector. The internet, as many have pointed out, has seen the emergence of a wide range of new formats for the delivery of news and opinion. Hooray! I hope we are always able to have access to that. However, and this is a fact, Australians still rely on the traditional authoritative sources for that news—television, radio and newspapers—and for the majority of their information on current events. This may change over time, not surprisingly.

The government's reforms update the existing control rules for the current and future environment and allow for inevitable changes in markets where a source of news may gain or indeed lose influence over time. The reforms arise out of the government's careful consideration of the findings of the Convergence Review and community feedback through that review's extensive public consultation process. Together, these emphasised the importance of media diversity to our democratic society and identified areas where reform is required.

How did the government react to this highly consultative process in an area of great interest to the Australian people? How did it seek to guard our media diversity—such as it is not, at the moment? The government's proposals introduce a public interest test, against which changes in control of media will be assessed. Why not? Why would you not? It makes sense.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How does that work?

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sit down and just listen for once. I know you know everything about everything and in so doing you know nothing. The proposed public interest test will assess whether transactions involved in changes in control of significant news media voices will result in a substantial lessening of diversity—I think you will understand that bit.

The various numeric rules contained in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 currently act as a quasi-public interest test by imposing constraints on mergers and acquisitions between different media groups. However, these are blunt regulatory instruments that do not effectively cover potential mergers between national media groups and do not provide flexibility for considering new voices that may come to prominence in a converged media environment. The public interest test will allow for a more cohesive, in-depth assessment of proposed changes to media ownership and control than current rules allow—there is a bit more in-depth information for you so that you can understand what we are trying to do—in the light of a highly concentrated view of the media and how it operates.

The government also considers that an effective public interest test over time can result in a significant rationalising of the blunt numeric tests which form the basis of current legislation and regulation. Let's go into it in a little bit more depth, seeing as you asked for that. The government's proposed public interest test model will only apply to new media voices whose audience or subscriber number is above a threshold based on audience—you have that one, so write it down and keep yourself busy. It will also require news media voices that reach this threshold to be included on a register maintained by the Australian Communications and Media Authority and test whether or not 'a substantial lessening of diversity of control of news media voices' will take place under a proposed control change.

We are looking at some form of public interest media advocate. The public interest test will be applied by the advocate, operating at arm's length from government, to changes to ownership and control; require news media voices involved in a transaction that results in a control event to apply for prior approval for that transaction to proceed from the advocate; and empower the advocate to reject or approve subject to the enforceable undertakings, changes of ownership and control following assessment under the public interest test. There is a bit more detail for you. You wanted it, and you are getting it, so just be nice and listen to it. See if you can absorb some of this stuff. You will have your say, no doubt. The public interest test will also allow the advocate to take into account a range of issues and criteria directly relevant to diversity considerations in making its assessment and will allow the advocate to approve a substantial lessening of diversity of control of registered news media voices if satisfied that the transaction will result in a benefit to the public and that the benefit outweighs the detriment. So, what is the public interest test?

Mr Murphy interjecting—

No, no, you have provided the passion. Others on the other side want to provide the passion. I am just dealing with the facts and trying to put the legislation so that people who listen to this can actually understand what this is about instead of listening to the shrillness of those opposite and some of those in the media itself. So let us keep going, because we like to do this logically. We do not need the loudmouths of life getting all the attention.

What is the public interest test? We are going to test whether or not a substantial lessening of diversity of control of news media voices will take place under a proposed control change. However, the advocate can approve a transaction where satisfied that the benefit of the transaction would outweigh the detriment, which I mentioned earlier, to the public cause by any lessening of diversity of control.

The public interest test is not a fit-and-proper-person test; it is solely aimed at ensuring that Australians continue to have access to a diverse range of news and opinion as the media and communications landscape changes over time. That is reasonable, rational, responsible. However, if you listen to those on the other side, it is the death and destruction of democracy itself, and the media with it.

Let us have a look at aspects of the new test so that we can give you some more substance and some more detail, because that is what you wanted. A new test will enable the advocate to approve a transaction where the applicant satisfies the advocate that a relevant control event will not result in a substantial lessening of diversity of control. This aspect enables simple transactions that do not affect diversity to be easily dealt with by the act.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who is the advocate?

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course, the advocate will be the advocate. Hang around and you will find out. You will have a vote, and we will give you all the detail you want. You might be able to apply, along with a few of your cobbers.

John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Alexander Downer.

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No thanks. In assessing whether a transaction is likely to result in a substantial lessening of diversity of voices, factors the advocate would likely consider include the extent of the applicant's control or likely control over two or more news media voices as a result of the control event—that is, the breadth or concentration of that person's control whether alone or in concert with others. Why would you not? We have enough concentration as it is. We all support more diversity, so why would you not support that? It defies logic. I do not understand the criticism. The advocate would also consider whether the control event materially changes the overall or relative diversity of controllers for the affected news media voices—again, logical, responsible—and, finally, a total level of diversity of controllers across all registered news media voices as a result of a control event or across the spectrum of news media voices. (Time expired)

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The debate is interrupted. In accordance with standing order 43 the debate may be resumed at a later hour.