Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

It doesn't look as though there are any other colleagues who wish to contribute to this debate, so I might close it with the will of my colleagues around this place, and I'm very pleased to do so. Usually, when it comes to procedural motions, I'm a stickler for focusing on the fact that it is purely a procedural motion, but, given the latitude of Senator Wong, I might speak a little more broadly than I usually do on procedural debates.

The first point to make is that Senator Wong spoke to the history of media reform legislation. She's quite right that we did introduce into the last parliament a package of legislation that sought to remove the two-out-of-three rule and the 75 per cent audience reach rule. There is an extremely good reason why we did not get to vote on that, and it's twofold. Let me tell you the first element of it: the Australian Labor Party referred that legislation to a Senate committee of many, many months duration. As all colleagues know, when something is before a committee of the Senate, this chamber is unable to touch it. What happened shortly thereafter was an election was called. We all know what happens to legislation that is on the books during a double-dissolution election.

Not surprisingly, because getting rid of 75 per cent audience reach and two-out-of-three was our policy, when we won the election we reintroduced the legislation. There are no prizes for guessing what happened next. The Australian Labor Party referred that legislation to a committee for many, many months. During the time that that legislation was before a committee of the Senate, talking to the media industry, I thought, 'Let's come forward with a proposal that not only has those two elements—getting rid of the 75 per cent audience reach and the two-out-of-three rule—but also has industry consensus on media reform.' And so the government set about coming up with a media reform package that benefited the entire media industry: print, radio and TV.

As you know, Mr Acting Deputy President Williams—particularly from your role representing people in regional New South Wales—regional media, like metropolitan media, is under great pressure because there is massive competition from online platforms and over-the-top platforms, which wasn't previously conceived at the time when radio, print and TV were essentially the only forms of media.

I'm very pleased, as colleagues on this side know, that we were able to reach agreement on a media reform package which is supported by Seven, Nine, Ten, WIN, Prime, Southern Cross Austereo, Fairfax, News Ltd, Free TV, Commercial Radio Australia, Foxtel and ASTRA, which is the subscription TV representative body. Now, for one, I thought it was a good thing that we had the entire Australian media industry on the one page. That is something that historically has not happened. I commend the leaders of Australia's media organisations who were able to look beyond their own legitimate organisational interests to the wider interests of Australian media.

We, on this side of the chamber and a number of crossbenchers, want to see strong Australian media voices. That is what our package is all about—strong Australian media voices. We have a number of elements to the package. Regional TV, in particular, is calling for the abolition of the 75 per cent audience reach rule. Commercial radio stations, which are small, medium and large, want to see licence fee reductions. Commercial TV, both metropolitan and regional, want to see licence fee reductions. We also want to free up some of the media ownership laws which were created in the 1980s before the internet existed. Australian media companies want the opportunity to configure themselves in ways that best support their viability. So that is what we're seeking to do, and Senator Wong is quite right: we are endeavouring to get in this place 50 per cent plus one. That's the way this place works and that's the way every political forum works. It's 50 per cent plus one. So that is our objective, which will secure the passage of this legislation. I want to pay credit to the crossbenchers, who have been very positive in their engagement. It is not for me to speak for individual Senate crossbenchers. They declare their own positions, and a number have done so, but I want to acknowledge that they have been prepared to positively engage.

The one group in this place which hasn't been prepared to positively engage is the Australian Labor Party. Ms Rowland from the other place, when interviewed by Kieran Gilbert on Sky News, answered a question of his. Kieran said to Ms Rowland, 'Why aren't you prepared to support this package? This is a package which has the support of Seven, Nine, Ten, WIN, Prime, Southern Cross Austereo, Fairfax, News Limited, Commercial Radio Australia, Free TV, Foxtel and Astra. Surely that says to you that this must be something that's in the interests of Australian news organisations.' Ms Rowland's response to Kieran Gilbert was, 'Australia's media organisations are only supporting this package because there's something in it for all of them.' Precisely. There is something in this for all of them. But, for the Australian Labor Party, that's a reason not to support something. Labor doesn't want to support a package that has the universal support of the industry, that will be to the benefit of strong Australian media voices and that will see journalists continue to be employed. None of us in this chamber necessarily likes what our friends in the media gallery will print, broadcast, write, blog or post. But, putting that aside, we all recognise that they, and their scrutiny, are one of the important underpinnings of a democracy, and we want to see good, strong Australian media organisations.

I can't help but touch briefly on Senator Wong's raising of the issue of the ABC. I can give all colleagues a guarantee that the government won't support anything that is to the detriment of the ABC. In fact, those things that we have reached agreement on with some crossbench colleagues are all intended to support and enhance the work that the ABC does. In particular, I want to point out some of the measures proposed by Senator McKenzie, which include a guarantee that there will always be two members of the ABC board from regional and rural Australia. Through the appointments that we have made to the ABC board, we've already done that without legislation, but we're very happy for that to be legislated. We're also very happy to put before this chamber that rural and regional matters be specifically recognised in the charter of the ABC. We think that's a good thing. We also think it's a good thing that there be constituted an ABC regional advisory committee, which would have to be consulted on any decisions that the ABC took that had a material effect on rural and regional Australia. We think that's a good thing.

We also think that it's a good and positive thing to include in the ABC Act the words 'fair' and 'balanced'. I know there were some who got quite excited by that, but let me provide reassurance to you. Chapter 4 of the ABC's own editorial guidelines, which talks about the existing legislative requirement to be impartial and accurate, state words to the effect that the ABC should be fair and balanced in its news and current affairs. It talks about balance in terms of the weight of evidence. So, if we don't have an issue with the current ABC editorial guidelines talking about being fair and balanced, we shouldn't have any issue with that being legislated.