Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Urban Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

If the House agrees to these amendments, the House is agreeing to finalise and deliver the most comprehensive and significant package of reforms to media laws in over 30 years. Global forces of technological and economic change are sweeping through the media industry. There are enormous global competitors such as Google, Facebook, YouTube and many others operating over the internet and almost entirely free of being subject to domestic content and other regulation in Australia. And, yet, they are competing with long-established Australian media businesses which are subject to extensive domestic regulatory requirements. The Australian media sector has been crying out for changes to an out-of-date legislative and regulatory framework, changes which are critical to protect jobs in Australian businesses, to give Australian businesses the chance to compete on a level playing field and to ensure the continued provision of viable media services and choice in regional Australia.

That is why the Prime Minister and the Minister for Communications have laboured mightily to bring forward and deliver a comprehensive media reform package. The Turnbull government has achieved the unprecedented outcome in which every major participant in the media industry—all of the metropolitan free-to-air television providers, the regional free-to-air television proprietors, the newspaper proprietors, the operators of radio networks and the operators of subscription television—supported the package which the government brought forth containing changes to the outdated regulatory framework for the media sector which are designed to give the Australian media sector the opportunity to compete on a level playing field against global competitors and to give the sector the chance to remain viable, remain competitive, remain a significant employer and remain a provider of a diversity of voices in metropolitan Australia and in regional Australia. The Prime Minister and the communications minister have worked constructively with the crossbenchers and the minor parties in the Senate to achieve and deliver a responsible and constructive package.

This was a chance for the opposition to come forward and play a constructive role in nation-shaping economic reforms, much like the coalition did in the 1980s and 1990s when, as a responsible opposition, we came forward to work with the government of the day on significant and necessary economic reforms. This was a chance for the Shorten Labor opposition to come forward. This was a chance for the Labor opposition to come forward and responsibly play its part in significant reforms designed to meet the needs which unanimously the industry were calling to be addressed. What did we see from Labor when it faced this moment of truth? What did we see from the shadow minister, the member for Greenway? What we saw, I am sorry to inform the House, was a complete failure to engage constructively in this debate. The industry are virtually screaming at the shadow minister, saying: 'Please help us. Please assist us to provide continued employment. Please assist us to remain viable. Please assist us to continue to provide a diversity of voices in regional Australia and metropolitan Australia.' What is the indolent and indifferent response from the shadow minister? She sits there whistling, pretending nothing is happening. She does nothing. Labor does nothing. Labor has opposed every aspect of this package at every stage. You could not see a more dismal or more hopeless example of an opposition completely failing to engage with an important national requirement and completely failing to step up and meet the national interests because of its concern for grubby political self-interest.

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If we're going to talk about grubby political self-interest, we could be here all day talking about the grubby deals of those opposite. But the only question before the House right now is one dealing with programming requirements and additional points in the realisation of a trigger event. That is the only question before the House today, which is why Labor is not opposing this bill, the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017. But Labor's view on media diversity and the way in which this government has undermined it for this and future generations remains clear: the level of media concentration in Australia is already one of the highest in the world and it is about to get a whole lot worse thanks to those opposite. Though they think this doesn't matter to people, I would point out that an Essential poll has shown that the majority of Australians, 61 per cent of voters, disapprove of changing media ownership laws to allow a single company to control a newspaper, TV network and radio network in the same area.

Time will tell what the public will make of how the media reform sausage got made by those opposite. What will they make of the Turnbull government attacking our national broadcasters in a grubby deal with Pauline Hanson's One Nation? The substantive bill before us not only is contrary to the public interest but—do you know what?—doesn't even contain half the measures struck behind closed doors to change Australia's media ownership laws. The very laws that govern the fourth estate in Australia were traded away behind closed doors. And for what? For a flimsy so-called innovation fund for journalism that will run out in three years and for taxpayer funded handouts to commercial media—$30 million to Fox Sports—document free. Ladies and gentlemen, these days you can get $30 million from those opposite, document free, in taxpayer funded handouts to commercial media to attack public broadcasters at the behest of One Nation.

There's a list a mile long of the backroom deals and handshakes that were done here, and what have we got at the end of it? We've got more questions than answers, such as: where does the existing $60 million come from for this so-called innovation fund? What was it previously set aside for? Why are news organisations with foreign based parent companies not eligible for the fund but eligible for the cadetships and scholarships program? Does the Turnbull government concede that permitting the biggest media companies to consolidate by repealing the two-out-of-three rule could actually squeeze smaller publishers out of the market? If media mergers that occur after the repeal of the two-out-of-three rule result in job losses, where are these 200 new cadets going to work? Where will the 60 regional journalism scholarships go? Who will select the universities that are eligible for the fund? When will further details on the fund be revealed? How will the fund be administered? When will it be released? What are the 'business activities to drive revenue and readership'? Does that mean advertising, and does it include advertising on social media platforms?

One of the grossest things about the whole debacle in the Senate was that when all of these questions were being asked by Labor—what are the details of this?—we had the spectacle of the Minister for Communications being completely unable to answer those questions. Instead, he delegated responsibility for answering them to Senator Xenophon. That's the kind of minister we have—one that doesn't even know the details of these issues.

It goes on. Why are innovative publishers like The Guardian, Buzz Feed and the New Daily being cut out of the deal? Why are publishers affiliated with superannuation funds excluded from accessing the fund? As I said, where are all these new cadets going to work? No-one can tell me that having efficiencies, synergies and these back-end cost savings realised is actually going to promote more jobs. That is an absolute furphy.

I reiterate: Labor has made its position on this bill abundantly clear. All we have before the House today are two small amendments dealing with changes in points for regional programming in the event of a trigger event being realised, so Labor will not be opposing these two small amendments that are before us today. Our position on this bill has been made abundantly clear. Again we reiterate that if those opposite think Australians will simply bat this away and forget about it they've got another thing coming. When Australians find out how this sausage was made, they will give their judgement. (Time expired)

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Urban Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Once again the shadow minister has shown her extraordinary and unlimited capacity to miss the main issue. This is a shadow minister who had the chance to step up and to be part of a significant set of reforms designed to ensure that this vital sector, the media sector, remained competitive, remained able to provide employment, remained able to provide a diversity of voices in metropolitan and in regional Australia, and remained able to compete against massive global companies. The government has been working through an extraordinary, comprehensive range of responses to the needs identified unanimously by the industry. I welcome the minister as a visitor to the chamber today and I congratulate the minister for the extraordinary achievements he has delivered in putting together a package of reforms to the media sector called for unanimously across this vital industry and delivered in the face of the indifference, the insouciance, the complete lack of action by this incompetent shadow minister and this incompetent Labor opposition—a party which supposedly cares about jobs and champions employment. They have stood there doing nothing when employers across the industry, the businesses across the industry, have unanimously said, 'This is a set of changes we unanimously support and call for.' But, no, the shadow minister, in her wisdom, decides that she is not interested in any of that.

We had the ludicrous spectacle just now of the shadow minister proudly announcing that they're not going to oppose this amendment. I tell you something: they opposed it in the Senate, along with their consistent pattern of disgraceful obstructionism on this vital package at every stage on the way, at every stage of this vitally needed reform process, when the opposition and the shadow minister have had a chance to come forward and play a constructive part in this important set of reforms, which are designed to give this vital Australian industry the opportunity to compete on a level playing field against lightly regulated global players using a comprehensive new technology; the opportunity to continue to operate and to provide a diversity of voices in metropolitan Australia and in regional Australia; the opportunity to continue to be an employer of journalists and of so many other people working in the media sector.

What has the shadow minister done? What has the opposition done? They have completely failed to engage. They have been missing in action. It is one of the most depressing and disappointing spectacles to see a Labor opposition sitting there with their arms folded completely refusing to engage or to be constructive participants in this vitally needed package of reforms.

We congratulate the crossbenchers, who have engaged constructively with the minister as he has worked with them tirelessly and patiently over many months and engaged with them on a whole range of constructive and sensible suggestions. Of course there has been some back and forth. There has been some toing and froing, but there has been constructive positive engagement on the part of the crossbenchers: a willingness to engage; a recognition that this vital Australian industry was facing an hour of need and it fell upon the parliament of this nation to step forward and respond. What did we see from the shadow minister? Nothing—a complete failure to engage. It was a remarkably disappointing lack of capacity to meet the call of the hour. But, thankfully, the minister and the crossbenchers have worked together to deliver this vitally important package. It is extraordinary that we have seen Labor's consistent obstructionism and negativism. They have put forward no policy of their own—not one policy suggestion. What was their big idea? To have a review. The house is burning down, and they're calling for a review. No action, no way forward—a complete failure to step up and meet the needs of the moment. (Time expired)

Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Minister for Urban Infrastructure, representing the Minister for Communications, has just given a feverish speech which will be much more popular in the boardrooms than in the lounge rooms of Australia. As the shadow minister has pointed out, 61 per cent of Australians oppose the grubby deal that the government has done which has led to these amendments being put before the House today—61 per cent of Australians oppose the grubby deal that has been done by the government to ensure that this legislation comes before the House today.

The minister made a great song and dance about the proposed job-creating benefits of the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017. Well, if mergers, acquisitions and takeovers in the media industry lead to job creation in regional Australia, it will be the first time in Australian corporate history that that has occurred. We know that it won't occur. We know that that is absolute rubbish. We know that job losses are going to occur as a result of the three green lights that this government is giving to mergers and acquisitions in the media industry as a result of this legislation that is before the House because the government has been able to cajole and take the bribes of crossbenchers to ensure a deal could be done. The $60 million so-called innovation and job-creating fund deal done by the Nick Xenophon Team is not a deal they will be looking at very proudly in a few years' time, because we know that there are going to be job losses, we know that there is going to be a close-down in bureaus, newspapers, radio stations and television station studios in regional Australia as a result of this bill. The question we ask is: where are all these people going to be working in regional Australia? We know the answer is that if they are working anywhere, they will be working in the capital cities and not in the regional areas. It is unfortunate that the minister has left the chamber, because we are all very keen to have a look at his new cufflinks. When you give $30 million to a pay TV operator to provide a service that is already being provided by its free-to-air competitors, you have got to say that is one of the most expensive pairs of cufflinks in Australian political history.

If there is an aspect of this grubby deal that requires the most attention, it is the deal that has been done between the government and One Nation to yet again attack and heap scorn on the ABC. There is not a more respected or more valuable service in rural and regional Australia than the ABC, and yet it is the organisation most interrogated, most attacked and most maligned by these people opposite. They bite the very hand that feeds them because in their communities it is often only the ABC that is providing regular, reliable, unbiased and quality journalism to the communities that they represent. But, because there are a few clueless, blockhead knuckle draggers who are desperate to make a political career out of finding conspiracies where they don't exist, they have done this grubby deal for something called a competitive neutrality inquiry. We know what the target is—the target is the ABC and quality journalism. They are not after quality or unbiased journalism; they want a pack of cheerleaders and they won't be happy until they get them.

We reject the deal and all that hangs off it. We know that it will not create one single job in regional Australia. We do know, however, that hundreds and hundreds of journalists, production staff, technicians, support staff and sales people right around the country will lose their job as the mergers and acquisitions sweep their way across the media landscape, all because of the actions of this government today.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Urban Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the House considers the amendment that the Senate has returned to the House as part of the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017—this comprehensive, extremely important set of amendments and reforms to the existing outdated legislative and regulatory regime under which Australia's media businesses operate—the House should be informed about some of the ludicrous logical contortions we've seen from the shadow minister as she has desperately attempted in the media to defend her intellectually incoherent position on this issue and her complete failure to engage, her complete failure to respond to an industry that unanimously has been saying to the Labor Party and to the shadow minister: 'This is our hour of need. Will you help us to continue to be competitive in a world where we are competing with large global companies using global internet resources? Will you help us to continue to be competitive and to continue to be able to employ Australians in this vitally important sector? Will you help us to continue to offer a diversity of voices in metropolitan Australia and regional Australia?'

One of the propositions that is blindingly obvious, it would seem—to just about everybody except the shadow minister—is that if businesses are not sustainable, if businesses cannot keep going, then they cannot provide a diverse voice. If they're not there to provide a voice, you can talk until the cows come home, using all kinds of theoretical arguments about the desirability of a diversity of voices, but you need to turn your mind to the practical questions of how businesses sustain themselves so that they can provide a diversity of voices. That, it would seem, is a basic proposition of logic that has escaped the shadow minister. But we've seen some fairly remarkable propositions of logic from the shadow minister, including her immortal interview with Kieran Gilbert on Sky News, where she was trying to defend her head-in-the-sand attitude, her attempt to pretend that the internet hadn't fundamentally transformed the media businesses—a position that is almost indefensible. Kieran Gilbert, referring to the Australian regulatory regime governing the media sector, asked the shadow minister:

So these laws are current even though they were written at a time before the Internet?

Her answer was:

Well, quite frankly, we have competition laws in Australia that were written in the 1970s but we don't say that we should abolish competition laws outright Kieran. This government has gone ahead and said we're going to do all these deals with all these different parts of the media, we're going to call it a holistic package. This isn't a holistic package, this is a grab bag.

Now, notice the first rhetorical technique there—the straw man. You refer to some suggestion that you're going to change the competition laws. And the second rhetorical technique is the complete diversion into ad hominem attack. Kieran Gilbert then wanted to ask:

But every media outlet agrees . . .

And here's what the shadow minister had to say:

Every media outlet agrees because they've got something in it for them.

In other words, to the question, 'Is it not the case that the internet is fundamentally transforming competition and the conditions in the media sector and therefore it is well past time for regulatory reform?' the shadow minister's answer was, 'Well, participants in the industry have an interest in this reform, so we couldn't possibly support it.' That is the standard of analysis and contribution we have had from this shadow minister in one of the most inadequate, inept and hopeless performances from a shadow minister when faced with the opportunity to engage with a substantive set of reforms that are desperately needed and that have been unanimously called for across the industry.

And what have we seen from the shadow minister? We have seen a continued wilful, illogical and incoherent failure to engage. Step after step there has been bitter, trenchant resistance from the opposition and from the shadow minister to any reforms of the media sector. You could not find a better example of gross irresponsibility from an opposition or from a shadow minister, and it really does make me wonder what her motivations are for being in public life, if the whole exercise here is to stand there intransigently, opposed to every attempt by this government to make vitally needed reforms to this sector, reforms that the entire sector— (Time expired)

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

Question agreed to.