Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the Senate Environment and Communication References Committee with the support of the Labor Senators recommended to the 46th Parliament that the Commonwealth initiate a judicial inquiry, with the powers of a Royal Commission to investigate the concentration of media ownership in Australia;

(b) according to the Public Interest Journalism Initiative, 255 media outlets across the country closed down between the beginning of 2019 and March 2022, nearly 70 per cent in regional Australia;

(c) the transfer of ownership of APN led to 112 local print newspapers being shut down;

(d) according to a comprehensive international study of international media ownership and concentration by Columbia University, only Egypt and China have greater concentration of newspaper ownership of the countries studied;

(e) one company has a 59 per cent share of the metropolitan and national print media market by readership and the second 23 per cent;

(f) 3,000 journalists had lost their jobs in the decade to 2018 and more since then;

(g) unlike the United Kingdom there is no longer a 'fit and proper person' test in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992; and

(h) the public interest test does not apply to cross-media mergers; and

(2) supports and calls on the Government to:

(a) initiate a judicial inquiry, with the powers of a Royal Commission, to investigate and report on the state of media diversity in Australia with the following powers, to:

(i) call witnesses and require the production of documents and information equal to those afforded the Royal Commission into the banking system;

(ii) seek expert advice and make recommendations to broaden media diversity, especially in rural, regional and suburban Australia; and

(iii) seek expert advice and make recommendations on the state of self-regulation of media in generally available in Australia, in particular, whether the Australian Press Council and the Australian Communications and Media Authority are fit for purpose;

(b) commit to the long-term and adequate funding of Australia's only independent newswire, Australian Associated Press;

(c) establish an independent and permanent trust to assist emerging news ventures, especially in regional areas, including the funding of journalism traineeships; and

(d) abide by the independent process for appointments to the boards of the ABC and SBS.

The Senate committee on media diversity in Australia that reported last year, with the support of Labor senators, stated this in its report:

The committee recommends the establishment of a judicial inquiry, with the powers of a royal commission … It is clear that the current regulatory framework is not fit for purpose and significant changes are required.

To quote from the report again:

The committee heard significant evidence that Australia's system of media regulation is not effective … including lack of oversight for digital media. The committee heard extensive evidence that the complaints processes for traditional media are insufficient and slow. There was clear evidence that the self-regulation model for print media through the Australian Press Council is woefully inadequate. Equally, the Australian Communication and Media Authority's (ACMA) oversight of broadcast media is slow, complex, onerous for complainants and often inconclusive.

This was a majority report supported by Labor senators, and, yet, like the last government, this government refuses to face up to and tackle one of the biggest existential threats to our democracy. Information is power; disinformation, unfortunately, even more so. The contraction of media means that sources of conversations around the country are fewer and less diverse. There is less scrutiny, especially at the local level, with consequences for the quality of governance. In some parts of the country there are no local print outlets at all. In others, there are several, but they're all run by the same company. According to the Public Interest Journalism Initiative's Australian Newsroom Mapping Project, 31 LGAs have no local print or digital outlet at all. In just the last few weeks, for example, ACM closed the print editions of the Campbelltown Macarthur Advertiser, the Camden-Narellan Advertiser, the Fairfield City Champion, the Liverpool Champion and the Wollondilly Advertiser, leaving residents of much of Western Sydney and its southern outskirts less well informed.

In the United States, a study by Penn-America found that, as local newspapers closed, local government corruption costs and inefficiency rose, while spending and environmental checks went down. From my own observations, having reported extensively in the US, the lack of local media means that political debate is had at the national level, without reference to local community impact, cost or benefit. This is highly destructive and disconnects people from their government, and, in some cases, the void created sends people down the rabbit hole of conspiracy theories and makes them vulnerable to disinformation. The storming of the US Capitol in January 2021 was one example of this. In Australia, changes to the Broadcasting Services Act in 2017 have accelerated the trend to concentration and closure. The two out of three cross-media control rule was abolished, as well as the 75 per cent audience reach rule. Now, just two owners are responsible for 86 per cent of the circulation of all daily newspapers—an oligopoly, if not a monopoly.

My intention in proposing this motion is that this be the start, not the end, of a process. It will not come to a vote, but I appreciate those who are contributing to this important discussion. I'll conclude with a number of steps designed to give us the media framework to enhance our democracy. ACMA should, at the very least, be reformed so it has teeth, with the resources to initiate its own inquiries. This should equally apply to the Australian Press Council, including releasing regular updates on complaints received and resolved. There should be a framework to ensure truth in media reporting. A fit and proper person test should be restored to the Broadcasting Services Act. There should be adequate and long-term support for the Australian Associated Press. There should be support to restore broader reporting of affairs at the local, regional and rural levels, and tax-deductibility status for not-for-profit media organisations. As the Senate report articulates:

Public interest journalism is essential to a democracy. Active citizenship requires access to reliable information, and democracy cannot flourish without a diversity of media sources …

These are the facts, and they go to the stability of our country. We ignore them at our peril.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to thank the member for Goldstein for bringing this motion for debate. I know the member is very thoughtful and genuine in her concerns regarding media diversity and regulation and your motivations here. For those watching at home, I say the words 'debate' because private members' motions don't get voted on. So thank you for the emails and calls. We can hold the calls, but motions are an important way to bring issues for debate.

The health and diversity of Australia's media sector is critically important, as has been said, for our democracy and society. I'll quote from the Senate report, which aptly stated:

Public interest journalism is essential to a democracy. Active citizenship requires access to reliable information, and democracy cannot flourish without a diversity of media sources and a regulatory regime that protects consumers against the spread of misinformation.

The concentration of media ownership is inherently corrosive of democratic practice because it places control over the sources of information and opinion in far too few hands.

The problems in Australia are real and have been steadily growing under the previous government, and the motion summarises these well. I'll just highlight a few aspects: 255 media outlets across Australia closed down over the three years prior to March this year—255. One hundred and twelve local print newspapers shut down after ownership of APM was transferred. One company in Australia—and let's not be coy, it's uncle Rupert's News Ltd—has a 59 per cent share of the metropolitan and national print media market by readership, and the second largest has 23 per cent. What that means is that the majority of our nation's newspapers are controlled by one company, headed by a US citizen. The Senate report outlines deeply concerning examples of editorial coordination and bias. By global standards—I was shocked to read this in the motion—the Columbia University study which you cited indicates that only Egypt and China have a greater concentration of newspaper ownership, out of the countries studied.

The question, then, in front of us as a parliament, and certainly for the government, is what to do. The Senate report was in response to Kevin Rudd's petition signed by 500,000 Australians—the largest petition that parliament's ever received, which certainly demonstrates a degree of community concern. The Senate report, and this motion, called for a judicial inquiry to investigate the state of media diversity in Australia.

I'll just state my view on the notion of a judicial inquiry. It should be uncontroversial to accept that in the future, at whatever time a major inquiry into media diversity is called, it would make sense for it to be at arm's length from politicians. The vested interests are too powerful and the incentives are all wrong for politicians to undertake such a task. At that time, an independent examination of media diversity would seem to be an appropriate course of action. There are different forms. You've put one forward; the Senate report puts another forward. No doubt there are others. But I also accept that, for now, the government is right to focus on practical actions.

Frankly, we've had a decade of inaction by the previous government. It's actually worse than that. The few things that they actually did do in this space made the matter worse. Labor opposed the former government's repeal of the two-out-of-three cross-media rules in 2017, which has led to more concentration, and we fought at every step the Liberals' plans to boot community TV off the air—it is so important to give voice to local communities. Labor also opposed the Liberals' cuts to the ABC's budget. The former Prime Minister used a funny little trick when he got sick of that. He added about a dollar so he thought we couldn't say it's a cut. Well, it was a cut in real terms, and everyone knows that. I'm very pleased the government will introduce five-year funding terms for the national broadcasters.

Right now, though, the government is focused on acting to support the long-term viability and diversity of the sector; implementing a backlog of recommendations—and there is a backlog—from previous inquiries; and taking concrete action. These are things the previous government just didn't do. We're delivering a $29 million local news and broadcasting transition package, the news media assistance program, the review of the broadcasting services determination and the review of the anti-siphoning rules—it is so important to ensure working families can watch events of national and cultural significance for free. And we'll be legislating a prominence framework to ensure Australian TV can easily be found on smart TVs.

Importantly, the responses to media concentration and reform will be principles based, evidence informed and consultative. It's old-fashioned, I know—nerdy. Public policy based on evidence! The minister's committed to developing a meaningful framework to measure diversity, which is long overdue. We need to actually have an agreed measure, which should have been done a long time ago.

I'm healthily sceptical, let's say, that these actions will prove sufficient in the long run. But they're absolutely the right focus for now. I also acknowledge that the regulatory framework—the point you made—has to be updated to take account of the internet providers and the fact that we live in a digital age, which the current regulatory framework doesn't do. Right now, we're getting on with action, but I really thank you for bringing on an important debate. I'm sure it's not the last we'll hear of these matters from the member for Goldstein.

Stephen Bates (Brisbane, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to strongly support the motion by the member for Goldstein, and I thank the member for bringing this critical issue to parliament. Media diversity—or, truly, the lack thereof—in Australia is a severe problem. It is a problem for our democracy, for our society and for the future of this country.

Just over a year ago, more than half a million Australians signed a petition started by the former Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. They called on the government to establish a royal commission into media diversity and specifically into the dominance of the Murdoch media in our country. The Greens successfully led the push to establish a Senate inquiry in response to this petition. We moved for the inquiry and have long advocated for public-interest journalism to be better protected.

During the course of this inquiry, as we've heard, the problems with the media landscape became increasingly apparent, with the dangerous rise and spread of misinformation through traditional media and new online platforms. We heard about the many Australian journalists who produce high-quality in-depth reporting with integrity and professionalism. It is those hardworking journalists that are being let down by a broken regulatory system and a corporate culture inside news organisations that allows poor behaviour to flourish. This simply cannot go on unchecked and unregulated. The health of our communities and our democracy is at stake.

After 13 months of public hearings and over 10,000 submissions from the public, news organisations and countless experts, the inquiry, chaired by Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, produced a report that recommended the establishment of a judicial inquiry with the powers and weight of a royal commission into media diversity in Australia. The majority report, supported by the Greens and Labor senators, also recommended a number of measures the government of the day should get on with implementing immediately to maintain public-interest journalism and prevent a further decline of media diversity in Australia. Only an inquiry with the powers and weight of a royal commission can truly do this issue, so vital to our democracy, justice. I am glad to see the member for Goldstein move a motion to establish such an inquiry today. The Greens are proud to support the member's motion and will continue our long fight to demand a fairer and less centralised media landscape.

But why is a diverse media landscape so vital to a well-functioning democracy? The public's decision-making abilities rely on the free flow of information for people to make informed decisions on topics from health care to education to who they elect to send to this place. They need a full tapestry of information, because there are not always two sides to each story—a Liberal and a Labor take. Some stories have one side. Some stories may have three or four. The window of conversation is often so much broader than what Australia's monopolised media would imply.

We cannot rely on one single company to provide reliable and balanced reporting, because their goal is not always to hold the government of the day to account; it is to turn a profit—profits which are often driven by clickbait headlines or even headlines which are knowingly misleading and promote misinformation. This erodes trust in public journalism, public-interest journalism and journalism more broadly, and in flow our democratic institutions. The pre-election retreat by Labor on addressing this issue shows just how much power—and let's be real—News Corp wields in Australia and why we must take steps to undo the monopolisation of media in Australia.

If we want to live in a country with a vibrant democracy, we must ensure that we all have access to a wide range of diverse voices and views in our media. Supporting this motion is the first step in taking us there. It should not be up to one company to dictate the direction of our country. That power of decision-making should belong to the people.

Josh Wilson (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm glad to participate in this important conversation. I thank the member for Goldstein for bringing the motion forward. The member brings to this place very considerable experience and expertise from her time as one of Australia's leading journalists.

I'll make it clear at the outset that I think it's always worthwhile for us to give consideration to the health and good functioning of Australia's media—not least because a high-standard, fair and free press is an essential feature of our democracy. I think it's also entirely fair to ask whether a royal commission is needed. On balance, I don't think that's the case right now, and I'll come back to why that's my view.

A strong, independent, fair, principled media is not an optional extra in Australian society. Democracy does not only comprise a set of foundation documents, formal institutions and procedures. Democracy is, to an enormous degree, a matter of culture and convention. It's a matter of what we describe as checks and balances: oversight, scrutiny, assessment, analysis and judgement. We need high-quality journalists and media organisations to contribute to those essential elements of our democracy.

Without question, the Australian press, like the press in any country, can from time to time be more or less independent, fair, well resourced and diverse. Media concentration and control is a legitimate issue of concern in this country and has been for some time. There's no doubt that Australia's media has faced significant challenges in the last few decades, largely as a result of technological change. We've seen publishers or platforms like Facebook and Google emerge as significant and growing sources of news information, yet we know their model depends on operating largely as cavalier free riders who make use of and benefit from the content that media organisations fund and provide. Let's not forget that in 2021, when the Australian government considered the absolutely justified and relatively light-touch regulation of social media platforms, Facebook responded by switching off pages in Australia. That behaviour raised the question of how we allowed some of these companies to hold such a dominant and yet poorly regulated position in our communication world. But it's also true that aspects of our traditional media structure and culture need to be refreshed and substantially improved, and no-one should be especially defensive about that proposition.

We can't continue to have Australia's public broadcasters, especially the ABC, run down in terms of funding and reputation—and when there's a clear political element to those attacks. We also can't have Australian political journalism drift towards a sensationalist or trivially combative style of engagement reporting. We can't have a narrow set of media companies with outlets running what to any sensible person appears to be a coordinated and self-interested political agenda on some issues. As I said, culture, convention and principle are as critical to the best practice of the art of journalism as they are to the best practice of the art of politics. That observation has been made by some of the most experienced and respected of Australia's political journalists, and it's an observation that was made in relation to some of the conduct we saw in the course of the recent election campaign.

I agree entirely with the way in which the motion describes some of the unhealthy trends and outcomes that we've seen in the Australian media, noting that some of these are the result of technological change and regulatory neglect. I absolutely understand the Australian community's and people in my community's strong interest in seeing more diverse, more balanced and more independent journalism, and their supporting an inquiry to that end. But I don't think that holding a royal commission at this time is the way to make practical improvements. And I agree with the Minister for Communications that there are recommendations from previous reviews that have gone unaddressed. Indeed, the previous government still hasn't responded to the Senate inquiry concluded in December last year. I'm glad that the current minister has made it clear she's considering those recommendations and will respond in due course.

The Labor government has already committed funding to better support small, local and regional media organisations. We'll also deliver a news media assistance program to build the evidence base that informs longer-term policy, which we need. We'll increase funding certainty for our public broadcasters, and we will end the thin-skinned bullying that was a dangerous feature of the previous government's style.

In conclusion, this motion puts before us a critically important topic, and it identifies serious issues in relation to the loss of diversity, the loss of locally and regionally specific coverage, the loss of journalists within the Australian media, and the consequences of all three. We must do something about that. I'm glad to be part of a government that's begun the task, with a minister who's preparing the ground to do more. The Australian community is right to expect that to occur, and we need to see that for the health of our democracy.

Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to support the motion moved by the member for Goldstein for action on media diversity. One of the basic tenets of the free market economy is that the provision of goods and services should not be concentrated in the hands of too few players. Concentration of ownership in any market inevitably leads to stifled innovation, erosion of working conditions, poorer outcomes for the customer and decline of an industry. That is the concern with media ownership in Australia. What populations consume as news determines what we believe to be true. It informs our views of the world and its issues, influences how we treat each other and guides how we vote. If we value democratic principles of accountability, transparency and free elections, then we have to guard those principles.

The peak of media pluralism in Australia was in the 1920s, when 21 independent media owners owned 26 capital-city daily newspapers. Now we have two media corporations controlling two daily newspapers in Sydney and Melbourne. Every other capital city in this country has only one daily paper. The media corporations have extended from the legacy media of print, television and radio into digital news and on-demand services. Australia's print media market is the most concentrated of any global democracy.

Over many decades, the hard work of reporters in this building has changed Australia's democracy for the better. Whether it's a decision made by a local council or the allocation of billions of dollars in the federal budget, the public's ability to trust in our decisions, knowing that they are fair and proper, depends on the media's capacity to investigate and hold leaders to account.

Australia's media landscape is dominated by three companies: Seven West Media, Nine Entertainment and News Corp. The concentration of the media into three main corporations has centralised information, it has eviscerated regional and specialty media outlets and it has cut thousands of jobs. Media empires can use their reach to make or break policy proposals and change the outcomes of elections. In the last few years, those three companies have been responsible, in this country, for climate denialism, for fostering racial hostility and for undermining our response to the COVID pandemic. They have never been held to account for disseminating misinformation.

The Press Council is almost entirely funded by News Corp, 9Media and Seven West. Last year it rejected 93 per cent of complaints made by the public about inaccuracies and bias in our media. To be clear: it didn't rule on those complaints in the publisher's favour; it declined to even consider those complaints. What recourse does the public have when it reads a story in the paper that contains false information or vilifies people based on their racial background? With three companies offering most jobs in the industry, reporters cannot report critically on their own patch. Last year the Senate heard News Corp employees confirm enforcement of a top-down editorial line from the company's executives. Last month 9Media journalists, in their enterprise bargaining efforts, demanded freedom from editorial interference. We have to critically review the Press Council and ACMA to prevent further erosion of the public's trust in our media.

Two recent former prime ministers, Malcolm Turnbull and Kevin Rudd, have come forward, after politics, to warn of the political influence exerted by these media empires. Our governments have shown repeatedly that they do not have the courage to take on Australia's media empires. The crossbench is doing that today because our electorates have told us that they want to see politics done differently, with truth, integrity and transparency. The concentration of media into the hands of fewer and fewer people should concern all Australians. In democracies, the media should serve the public's right to know. The media should not determine what the public is able to know. A free and fearless media is essential for a transparent, accountable democracy. That's why an inquiry with the resources and powers of a royal commission is needed to guide the way to reform of our media landscape, with restoration of diversity, balance and independence.

Tracey Roberts (Pearce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

ROBERTS () (): The concept of diversity is enduring and goes to the heart of our democracy. Diversity inspires new thoughts and ideas, while discouraging stagnation and increasing the possibilities of finding better ways to address various issues. Diversity enhances creativity. It encourages the search for broad perspectives and information, leading to better decision-making and problem-solving. If we are exposed to diversity, we get to experience different views and how those views arise. In democracies, the media is fundamental to political life. It provides facts to allow us to be better informed about the issues that matter to us. It provides criticism and debate to ensure that information is tested and examined from all points of view.

Media outlets have gained an incredibly powerful influence over the past 50 years. With the rise of technology, individuals are now able to share their stories and opinions as they are unfolding. As we face a growing tide of unregulated hate speech, the role of the media is crucial in normalising diversity. As a society, we place a tremendous level of trust on media sources to feed us the information that we need in order to make informed and accurate decisions every day. Along with our immediate surroundings, media also shapes our self-image and societal norms. Body image, self-confidence and mental health all stem from what we see or we hear on a daily basis. Consequently, it's imperative for inclusivity to be encouraged in common media and marketing strategies. Diversity in the media is no longer only about minorities; it is well and truly a mainstream concern. Streaming company Netflix has elected an executive to oversee its diversity and inclusion strategy. British media companies, like the Financial Times, the Telegraph and Sky, are following suit.

It is important to continue to monitor the status of media concentration to identify areas, particularly suburban and regional areas, that risk losing local news sources. The support and encouragement of local and regional news outlets is imperative to provide educated, concentrated opinion pieces and news articles from the people who are directly affected by events at hand. In July, the Albanese government announced $15 million in funding for local and regional newspaper publishers to help absorb newsprint price hikes which threatened to wipe out local newspaper titles for good.

I know my local community love their local media. They love hearing the stories about children, families and seniors—the good-news stories, the uplifting stories, the things that people want to read to escape from a world sometimes full of hatred. I often reflect back and remember the Willesee brothers and George Negus and the stories that used to come to us through them. They were real, but they were fun and compelling. They had their stories because people trusted them as journalists. Individual people had influence on how that material and their stories were being portrayed.

Know that Labor has also called for concrete, workable proposals to support Australia's media on the table, noting that we still don't have a meaningful framework in place to measure diversity, localism and the availability of local news throughout Australia. To support struggling regional, local and community media providers facing immediate challenges, Labor also committed to deliver a $29 million local news and community broadcasting transition package. This includes a $15 million Regional and Local Newspaper Publishers Program to support eligible publishers to absorb rising print costs.

In conclusion, the government supports a free, diverse and sustainable media sector. We believe this is critical to the health of Australia's democracy. Together, diversity and depiction bring about inclusion—the commitment to diversity where everyone is acknowledged, empowered and celebrated. Inclusion understands that everyone, no matter their identity, is worthy of being seen instead of merely tolerated for our differences. We need to embrace the extensive diversity within every individual. I will leave you with the wise words of Mahatma Gandhi, who said, 'Our ability to reach unity in diversity will be the beauty and the test of our civilisation.'

Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Our future-building system is made up of government, media, business and non-profits, and we need to be able to trust these institutions so that they can move us towards the country we want to become. Trust in government and media is very low in Australia. Government and media are both seen as being unethical and incompetent in this year's Edelman Trust Barometer. We're working towards improving trust in government with the introduction of the National Anti-Corruption Commission bill this week, but how do we build trust in the media?

The success of our democracy depends on free and open exchange of ideas and information. This requires diverse media made up of well-resourced journalists empowered to investigate fearlessly and report truthfully on those in power. There's a tension between media as business and media as a democratic institution. As well as being companies selling their content to deliver returns for shareholders, our media need to maintain their role as custodians of the public interest. We rely on media to expose corruption, hold authorities to account and provide a platform for debate. The ability of media to perform this role declines as media concentration increases.

According to the Centre for Advancing Journalism, Australia now has only three national-scale commercial media voices, and it will come as no surprise as to who they are: News Corp, Nine Entertainment and Seven West Media. A landmark study in 2016 showed that Australia had the most concentrated newspaper industry out of any country studied with the exception of China and Egypt. Yes, we rank third behind China and Egypt. Since that report, our media has become even more concentrated, with News Corp now controlling about two-thirds of metro dailies.

In my home state of Western Australia, Seven West Media controls WA's only locally edited daily metro paper, the West Australian; the state's only other metro paper, the Sunday Times; and Community Newspaper Group, which owns 23 local newspapers across Perth. It also owns 18 regional mastheads, as well as the Seven television network, Prime TV and related channels and streaming products. Radio and television across the country are little better, with the largest player in both holding a 25 to 30 per cent market share. And, while online news is more diverse, it is yet to replace the local reporting done by regional and community newspapers. Even in online news, News Corp still dominates.

The tension between commercial freedom and public duty is difficult to balance and so requires some regulation. Currently the industry is self-regulated through the Australian Press Council and the Australian Communications and Media Authority. Self-regulation of an industry always has risks, and it's timely to review whether this approach is actually working.

While there have been multiple reviews into media concentration over the past three decades, the scope of the problems has expanded during this time. The internet plays a very different role now, and recommendations need to be considered through this changing landscape. Concerningly, many of the inquiry's strongest recommendations have been abandoned over time, under pressure from a few large media companies, confirming the urgent need for reform. I note the government's response in this debate that the government is focusing on implementing a backlog of recommendations. I look forward to seeing these changes actually being made, and I hope that these include recommendations such as limits on cross-media and foreign ownership laws, including a minimum number of owners test; a restructured replacement of the Press Council; and an expansion of ACMA's few powers.

In the absence of an updated review, my concern is that recommendations of previous reviews are cherrypicked to suit the interests of the current government, with minimal offence to the large media companies. It's not in the interests of politicians to poke the bear. They have too much to lose. Taking any real action on the dire state of our media concentration will require community support and engagement. The most recent review completed recommended the establishment of a judicial inquiry with the powers of a royal commission to settle the heavily politicised policy discussion at arm's length from political and media interference. I back this call for a judicial inquiry in the interests of protecting the integrity of the institutions that our fragile democracy relies on.

I implore the government to continue its work on rebuilding trust and improving integrity of our institutions by considering this call for a judicial inquiry, for an updated perspective on how best to address this vital issue in 2022. In the absence of a further inquiry, my community will be watching carefully to see how much courage this government will muster in the face of powerful media voices.

Tania Lawrence (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Goldstein for bringing attention, through this motion, to the woeful state of our media landscape, and I thank the many constituents of Hasluck that wrote to me, sharing their concern and support for this debate. The motion calls for a judicial inquiry. A judicial inquiry is an option where there are objects that cannot be attained in any other way. They are serious inquiries with serious powers and occasion serious expense. A serious government is sometimes a better option.

If the Morrison government had won the May election and the then Prime Minister—by now also probably communications minister—was continuing to fail in this policy area, then perhaps an independent inquiry would be the only alternative. I'm still not sure what the novel objects of that sort of inquiry would be. Election results like we saw in Goldstein, and indeed in Hasluck, and in electorates across Australia indicate to me that the voters really do want a government that is committed to looking forward, to action, and not backwards at problems already well understood, and the voters have spoken, and we have such a government now.

Prior to the election, the now Prime Minister made it quite clear that a further inquiry was not part of this Labor Party's agenda. We went to the election on that basis. The then communications spokesperson and now minister, the member for Greenway, likewise made it clear that she did not see any point in an inquiry into an established fact. Minister Rowland identified the problem as one of a failure to act, not a failure to inquire.

We know there are pitfalls in self-regulation. We know the emergence of online platforms has destroyed the traditional business models underpinning the production of high-quality journalism from diverse perspectives. We know that the bargaining code initiated by the previous government to have social media platforms compensate news producers for the content only worked to further entrench the power of Australia's media moguls. We know that small mastheads are being squeezed out of the market. We also know the diabolical state of media literacy across the entire community. Media consumers—like you and me, my mum, my dad, their friends, the next generation of school students—all require the skills to discern fact from fiction and from spin. This is what most concerns me. A study in 2020 by the Australian Communications and Media Authority found:

It appears news literacy in Australia is quite low. One study—

by Park et al from 2018—

found that only 51% of Australian news consumers 'understood that the ABC is free of advertising and funded by taxpayers'. This study also suggested that 'news consumers with higher literacy can distinguish humour from other types of fake news such as poor journalism, political spin and advertising'.

We need an educated citizenry who are able to recognise what is real and what is not in a world where the virtual and the real are convergent, where deep fakes undermine faith in the media and where opinion masquerades as fact. We know the issues that plague Australia's media landscape and what we need is to deliver policy solutions to rectify them. Instead of spending millions re-establishing the facts, let's put that money to work in all the areas that have been raised here in this chamber by you and those that I've touched on, including media literacy.

A great example of our government already taking action, as the member for Pearce referred to, is the Regional and Local Newspaper Publishers Program. Small and diverse media organisations are facing rising printing and distribution costs. This is a major issue facing local, cultural and community press outlets across the country. Let there be no doubt about our appetite for action on media diversity in Australia. In my first speech only a few weeks ago, I made particular mention of my desire to see a cantankerous press void of influence from government and vested interests. A judicial inquiry or a judicial inquiry with the powers of a royal commission—or even a royal commission—would end up identifying the same issues. We would find ourselves in the same position, needing a government and a minister with the resolve to do the hard policy work and make a difference in relation to each of these issues that we are all aware of. The communications minister is on record as saying:

… it's time to implement a program of work that is principles-based, evidence-informed, expert-led and consultative—one which delivers.

I support that and I invite all members to contribute to that work. I'm sure the government will welcome the input of the crossbench in that work which will take many years and which has already started.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.