Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I have come in to make a contribution to this debate and I have to say it is really, truly incredible for the opposition to suggest that the Labor Party is limiting free speech in Australia. I made this point a number of times after question time in taking note today, and yet again we have heard from the contributions this afternoon that that is exactly what the coalition are trying to say here in the chamber this afternoon. So let's ignore the hyperbole and the half-truths spread by those opposite me and focus on the actual content of the reforms the government is putting forward.

Much of the criticism that has been directed at the government has concerned the proposed changes to media ownership, and it is these changes that I want to focus on more closely. The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (News Media Diversity) Bill 2013 makes important changes to limit media concentration. It achieves this by instituting a public interest test which will be applied to mergers and acquisitions of media sources. There is no grand conspiracy. I cannot be more clear on this point. The aim is to protect media diversity and make sure there is no substantial lessening of diversity or control when it comes to media voices. Linked to this is the Public Interest Media Advocate Bill 2013. The advocate will be an independent statutory recognised officer just like the Ombudsman or the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and will be responsible for deciding whether a particular transaction involving the news media may proceed.

I am not sure the opposition have read these bills or even attempted to understand how they work. I think this is all part of their hysterical campaigns that are only too frequent in this chamber, particularly during this year. As the minister has pointed out on several occasions, the coalition's response to the proposed media reform package has been nothing short of hysterical. The reason they are opposed to this package is not any principled defence of freedom of speech. The coalition has one principle aim: to protect the media wing of the Liberal Party known to most of us as News Ltd.

The fashion in which this news organisation—in particular, the Australian newspaper—has gone after the Rudd and Gillard governments is unprecedented. The Liberal Party therefore has a vested interest in making sure that News Limited continues to dominate Australia's media landscape. Rather than engage in a sensible and mature discussion of media reforms the coalition and News Limited have lowered the tone of public debate considerably and have treated the Australian public as idiots. We all know about the Daily Telegraph's front page featuring Minister Conroy with pictures of some of the world's most famous dictators, including Stalin and Mao. Journalist Gemma Jones described the minister as 'Julia Gillard's henchman'. Then we have the CEO of the Liberal Party's media arm, Kim Williams, claiming that the government is the first, outside of wartime, to introduce government sanctioned journalism. The coverage would be amusing if it were not such a serious issue. Unfortunately for the Liberal Party and their attack dogs at News Limited, none of this is accurate. Perhaps the Liberal Party should take a closer look at the convergence review and the Finkelstein review. Matthew Ricketson, who assisted the Finkelstein inquiry, has said:

The most recent and persuasive case study showing why there is an urgent need to reform regulation of the news media has been provided by the news media itself. And it's been provided in the way they have reported on the Independent Media Inquiry. What they have done is under-report a lot of what was presented to the Independent Media Inquiry late last year, and to either misreport the inquiry's findings or to ignore large parts of the report altogether.

The reforms are necessary because of what we have learnt during these reviews: Australia's media ownership laws are in need of significant reform.

We know that, under the Howard government, the cross-media regulations were weakened considerably. Most recently, in 2007, the coalition introduced the 'two out of three' rule, which meant that companies are now allowed to own up to two media outlets—television, radio and newspaper—in a single area. This change was made in the dying days of the Howard era even though Australian media ownership is amongst the most concentrated in the world. The test we are introducing is one that allows for the public media interest advocate to block a merger if it would result in a substantial lessening of diversity. That is all it is.

This reform is necessary because the government believes that, in a democracy, a diversity of voices within the media is essential. I know those opposite do not agree with that principle, but it is one that we on this side of the chamber firmly believe in. That very principle is under serious threat in Australia. It is a simple fact that we should be alarmed about. Australians have far fewer voices to draw upon to make informed decisions about the policies and events that affect them more than almost any other place in the free world. When challenged on this point, the coalition has suggested that, since traditional media services are being challenged by new digital technologies such as blogs and the like, the concentration of mainstream media is not of real concern anymore. But the notion that mass media diversity does not matter, and that new players are threatening traditional sources, has been grossly exaggerated. One prominent blogger from the Nation, John Nichols, visited Australia several years ago and noted that, despite new content and platforms, people have never received less information and less of it from alternative sources.

Several studies to emerge from the United States, which is also struggling to maintain a diversity of media ownership, are especially revealing. One 2010 study from the Pew Centre of Journalism published a report which found that people still got most of their information from traditional media sources. An analysis of independent media, such as blogs, showed that 96 per cent of stories simply came from recycling stories found in the mainstream press. There is, of course, a very important place for independent, non-mainstream media, but we still rely substantially on traditional news sources. Many people, particularly those less adept at digital technologies, rely completely on mainstream media services and they deserve a diversity of choice just like everyone else.

Mainstream media still matters and, sadly for Australia, News Limited looms over every other media owner. As managing director of Independent Australia, David Donovan, has noted:

Australian mass media is concentrated into the hands of a very small number of proprietors. For example, 11 of the 12 major newspapers in Australia are owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation …

Donovan goes on:

… Murdoch bestrides the Australian media landscape like a colossus—NewsCorp … also dominate the regional and suburban newspaper publishing industry, as well as owning a major slice of Foxtel.

Realistically, we are not that far away from a mainstream media that is 100 per cent News Limited owned and run. What is particularly concerning is that News Limited newspapers such as the Australian have decided they are there not only to critique policy but also to dictate policy shifts and harass the government into locking step with the coalition. It does not matter what the issue is; they have an agenda and they will stick to it. Take the most important matters of the day to face Australia, such as climate change, asylum seekers, the National Broadband Network: the focus is on hounding the government, not reporting on facts. Once they decided to launch their vindictive actions against Labor there was no turning back.

One point they have also conveniently ignored is that the package we are introducing here in Australia follows similar reforms in other countries, countries where governments are concerned about media concentration and the standard of the press generally. The United Kingdom introduced laws several years ago aimed at ensuring a greater diversity of media ownership. These laws enabled the UK's Secretary of State to issue an intervention notice if they believe that a merger raises public interest concerns. We have closely studied the United Kingdom model and believe that the presence of the public interest media advocate in the Australian model represents a significant improvement. It ensures that decision making is kept at arm's length from government and streamlines the application and decision making process. This government—unlike those opposite—believes that it is essential in a democracy to have a diversity of voices within the media. We are therefore following the example of other advanced democracies that are willing to confront the problems of concentrated media.

As I said, we have looked at the United States. Their regulators, the Federal Communications Commission, assesses whether media or telecommunication mergers would potentially endanger the public interest. I also note that diversity protections have been introduced in a range of jurisdictions, including in Germany and Canada. (Time expired)