David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017. The premise underlying broadcasting ownership laws—that government can decide who can and who can't own sections of the media—is little more than nanny state nonsense. It reminds me of countries that don't believe in free speech and where there is no right to hear points of view that are not approved. On top of that is aunty state nonsense, in which the government owns and operates multiple TV, radio and online media behemoths itself. These cost taxpayers a lot of money and compete with the commercial sector, making it less viable.

This bill reduces restrictions on commercial broadcasting ownership so that the nanny state is a little less intrusive and, hopefully, the commercial sector is better able to withstand the marauding aunty. Probably more significantly, the changes mean that some of the artificial restraints on traditional Australian media that have left them at a competitive disadvantage compared with international internet based businesses such as Google and Facebook will be removed. Global internet based media are expected to attract $4 billion to $5 billion worth of advertising revenue next year. This represents 35 to 40 per cent of the Australian advertising market, and this is only expected to rise, eroding ad revenue available to traditional media faster than any overall advertising growth.

The bill abolishes the two-out-of-three rule. This rule prevents someone from controlling a television station, radio station and non-national newspaper in the same region. Abolishing the rule would allow someone to control all three platforms in the region. This change is supported by most of the media and was specifically requested by the Ten Network in the face of major losses, because declining market share due to online competition has placed them under strain. We now see Ten will be taken over by the US company CBS, because local businesses are unable to do so because of the current legislation.

While I have no concerns about foreign investment in our media sector, I wonder whether those who have held up this legislation, in particular, Senators Xenophon and Hanson, believe they have done the right thing. Yes, some of the smaller and less efficient media organisations will be swallowed up by larger and more efficient companies, but that is how markets are supposed to work. Takeovers and bankruptcies are the means of selection in the commercial world. Survival depends on offering the cheapest, best value or greatest range to the benefit of consumers. Capitalism without bankruptcy is like Christianity without hell. Why be good if there is no consequence from doing otherwise?

Some oppose the reduction in ownership restrictions based on a view that wicked media barons might somehow take over our news and turn us into brain-washed zombies. This reflects a dated view of news and information. Tradition free-to-air television, radio and print media no longer control our access to news and entertainment because more and more of us are getting this from a wide range of sources on the internet. Media barons already own commercial broadcasting in Australia, so if media barons are a threat to our democracy, that threat exists as much under the current law as under this bill. Whenever people raise fears about media barons determining the news and controlling our minds, they fail to mention the continuing presence of the ABC and SBS. Zombies, indeed.

The bill will also amend the reach rule by removing the ban on owning licences that cover more than 75 per cent of Australia's population. The 75 per cent reach rule is generally regarded as redundant by the industry, given the availability of online content, which transcends geographic boundaries. These reforms are aimed at allowing Australian television, radio and newspaper companies to operate across more media platforms. However, the bill also inserts a requirement on anyone with more than 75 per cent coverage to air more regional and local content than they are currently required to do. Arguments that the relaxation of ownership laws will hurt Australians in our regions and that regional and local content rules are required to protect precious local content are a complete furphy.

The simple question is: which would you rather watch? A media conference by the Prime Minister or self-promotion by the local, political blowhard? The State of Origin match or amateur hour at West Wyalong school hall? A gripping US drama or an interminable fishing show about the local waterhole, where hardly anyone ever catches any fish? India versus Australia in the cricket or an interview with a crazy cat lady who lives in a dump bin at the edge of town? The latest movie blockbuster or a drawn-out tourist promo on the world's second largest ball of string? Just because you live in a regional area doesn't mean you are only interested in trivial local issues and want to be left in a low-budget, fly-blown, regional time warp.

Fortunately, the increased content rules in this bill are a mere blemish in an otherwise laudable bill. Not only does the bill reduce ownership restrictions, but it also changes the so-called antisiphoning rules that prevent pay television from bidding for certain sporting events, unless the event is also to be broadcast on free-to-air or the event starts within the next three months. The bill will allow pay television bids, where the event starts in the next six months, and delists all golf, some rugby league, soccer, rugby union, cricket, tennis, netball and motor sport. The effect of the antisiphoning rules is to reduce access to sports by pay TV. This depresses the prices paid for broadcasting rights, which, in turn, hurts sportsmen and women from the affected sports. It also hurts the sports fans who prefer pay TV, which can often offer a better, less interrupted viewing experience. If pay TV were able to bid for more sports, the pay TV market in Australia could expand, facilitating further improvements in the quality of viewing on offer. Expanding the pay TV market could even support the competition for Foxtel in subscription-based sports broadcasting.

We, in the Liberal Democrats, would like to go further than this bill; we would like to see an end to all restrictions on commercial media ownership, the abolition of local content rules, the abolition of restrictions on what pay TV can bid for and the privatisation of the ABC and SBS dinosaurs to boot. This is because the bottom line is that it is not the business of government to say who owns what and who broadcasts what. Both nannies and aunties are private matters, not matters for the government. However, insofar as this bill is a step in the right direction, I will be supporting it.