Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I, too, would like to make a contribution to this important debate. I suppose it's not hard to take a line on the position of One Nation with respect to this debate. I've been reading newspapers for a very, very long time and there's always been a variety of views about the veracity or the backgrounding or where people are coming from. The Murdoch press has probably enjoyed either a good relationship or an infamous one with some sections of politics and the community. When a party comes into this place and attacks the ABC and SBS in such a virulent, despicable manner, it's quite surprising. I don't agree with everything the ABC reports, I don't agree with everything SBS reports—and the same with Channel Ten, Channel Nine and all of the other media organisations out there. That there is a diversity of views expressed is part of the strength of our media arena, but it doesn't seem to sit well with the One Nation party. They seem to be on a vehement crusade against organisations which traditionally have been well respected by the taxpayers of this country. In previous attacks, the ABC has been able to defend itself with things like the eight-cents-a-day campaign. Suffice to say, the One Nation Party seems to have taken up a very virulent position against the ABC and SBS, which doesn't bode well for the media sector.

Let's not forget that One Nation is only here with the numbers it has because the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull, in his wisdom, had a double dissolution, which had the effect of introducing a number of additional crossbench senators. Some would say that is democracy at work—but, pragmatically, it's a once-in-30-years event: where there's a double dissolution and the quota senators must achieve is halved. It didn't turn out that well for the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull and now, when he has any legislation with any element of contention, he has to do a number of extraordinary deals. Senators on this side of the chamber do not know the extent of these deals—we very rarely see the extent of any consultation. The government have an agenda which is anti-SBS and anti-ABC, and they're pursuing it with all of their collective strength. I don't think that bodes well for media diversity in Australia. The reality is that, in order to get legislation through this parliament and through this Senate, they have to make accommodations. The accommodations they're making in the One Nation area do not sit well with this side of the chamber. I think that's perfectly clear from the current record.

But it's not limited to the One Nation group on the crossbench. The government will have to make accommodations with the Nick Xenophon party. I have a fairly good relationship with Senator Xenophon: I have a laugh and a joke with him from time to time; I vehemently disagree with him on the odd occasion. The reality is that he is a consummate media player. I often joke in South Australia that his relationship with one particular TV station is such that, in the event of anything happening anywhere in the world, there would be a news report and the expert they bring in to deal with it would be Senator Xenophon. I distinctly recall that there was a problem with FIFA about bribery and corruption and whether Qatar had acted appropriately and whether even the Australian bid had been handled appropriately. Not recognising Senator Xenophon as a prolific sportsman or a past expert on the matter, he became their go-to person in the event that there was a bribery and corruption scandal in FIFA.

He has turned media appearances into an art form. He's turned up in the middle of the Adelaide mall in a donkey suit, and has really made an art form out of media exposure. But what's not apparent in all of this is that some of the transactions that occur with Senator Xenophon, and perhaps even with One Nation, are a quid pro quo type of arrangement. They don't actually benefit the media sector; there is a transaction involved which gives them an advantage in some other area. This is really becoming quite apparent, particularly with the Xenophon party. We know that there were massive company tax cuts in March as a result of a deal with the Xenophon party. We know that students, parents and teachers have seen cuts in school funding in June.

We know that Senator Xenophon is doing what people may well be expected to do, which is capitalise on a position of leverage in the parliament and take advantage of the fact that the Prime Minister called a double dissolution and he didn't get the result he wanted—he got a result that was less favourable—and he's now in a position where he has to dig in, dig deep, and cough up to get any of these government positions through this parliament. When they make these accommodations, I dare say sometimes they might even have to hold their breath and stop smelling for a while because they do not really sit well.

One Nation are wanting an inquiry and are supporting the changes of media laws in return for that inquiry, which has the potential to gut the operations of the ABC and SBS. I heard Senator Hanson say that people come in the chamber and try to use her popularity to get a bit of leverage by criticising her position. I think I move around the backblocks of this country as much as Senator Hanson—although, perhaps not because I don't have a plane that was donated to me by a reliable supporter or donor. But I go in a car and I do travel around, and I always rely on the ABC for the information. If I want information on news, it's the ABC. If I want information on road conditions or weather conditions, invariably your car radio will get you an ABC station. And if you stay out in those regional areas, you get Imparja and you get the ABC. That's basically what you get. There are about 600,000 people in the centre of Australia, and Imparja is the commercial station and, apart from that, it's the ABC.

In my former life, when I did have a bit of media exposure and I actively went out and sought it, I would often get calls from places as far flung as Groote Island and Ceduna from people who had heard on the ABC about some event that I'd been involved in. That is the extent of their carriage—from Groote Eylandt down to Ceduna and all the way round this great country they are supplying a wonderful service to Australian taxpayers and people who live in regional communities.

On the one hand, Senator Hanson is saying they're not spending enough money in regional areas and pointing to the fact that they must be spending too much in the city. I don't really get that, because you need to produce stuff where it's efficient to produce it and then you need to broadcast it where people can hear it. I think they do a stunningly good job of producing effective programs and broadcasting them, geographically, fantastically. I don't think there's an Australian in any regional area that doesn't have a great, deep and abiding respect for the contribution of the ABC. Certainly, The Nationals would be of this view. I find Landline one of the most informative programs that you can possibly watch. It gets out and goes into some really interesting areas and produces high-quality journalism.

You can't sit on this side of the chamber or on that side of the chamber and not feel aggrieved from time to time about the contribution of media organisations. We all have our disagreements about who is the best and most effective but, on balance, we've had a respectable outcome. But this legislation will make it worse. The print media is writing for someone who has completed grade 7 or grade 8. They've got to get the story up in the first paragraph and you've got to give little bits of information after that, with plenty of photos, short grabs and big letters.

People are getting their news from the talkback radio station at 5.30, 6.30 or 7.30. The person has read the paper, and then they start talking on the radio about the articles in the paper. People are driving to work. Very few people are even buying newspapers anymore. If you look at the circulation of newspapers in Australia, you'd be astounded at how small it is. I know that our own august journal alludes to the fact there are plenty of people reading it online, but the actual distribution numbers are not good. I know, because I go for a walk in the morning, how many people in my street get the paper delivered now. It used to be everybody, but that is no longer the case. People are waking up to Facebook, their smart phones, iPads, laptops and radio stations.

It's been very sad to notice over the last number of years the number of good journalists who have been made redundant. I saw something recently about AAAPT closing down yet another base, another operation, which used to be a good training ground for fledgling journalists. When you travel in regional Australia, you meet the journalist who does the layout for the country newspaper, sells the advertising for the country newspaper, does the stories and the photography for the country newspaper and collates all of the regional football, netball and softball results—which, in the main, is why the country regional newspaper gets read. People buy it or, if it's available for free, pick it up because they want to see who won the football and whether their handicap was exceeded in the golf section.

We really are in a difficult situation with media per se. But it's not just Australia that's in that position. We all work quite interesting hours and we're away from home a fair bit. Personally, I almost can't stand TV. As soon as I put a TV program on, they'll be putting in seven or eight ads every hour or half-hour, and I forget whether I'm watching ads or the program. The reason for that is they're so bereft of advertising revenue. These changes are not going to make anything better. The fact they've had to do these extraordinary deals with One Nation and the Xenophon party and maybe others is not a great harbinger of good times to come in the media sector.

If someone could point to anywhere where there's been increasing employment of journalists, I'd be really grateful. All we seem to be seeing is a reduction in the number of journalists, and that is an extremely bad thing. You need independently-minded, qualified, investigative reporters to hold this side of the chamber, that side of the chamber and those people on the crossbenches accountable. If we don't have the people skilled, employed and invested in doing that work, we will become less as a society. We know that true, good journalistic practices keep a decent democracy honest. We know that there have been hundreds of examples of good investigative journalism which have rewarded democracy per se. But we're not going to get it if we allow concentration. We're not going to get it if we allow the One Nation party to go on, for want of a better word, a witch-hunt or vendetta against the ABC. It won't happen. I can understand that at times they may be disgruntled about the coverage that their party gets, but that's a democracy. That's what democracies do. People are entitled to research a subject and come up with a view, and an editor will make a decision as to whether it's made public. That's simple and clear.

I can tell you, Mr Acting Deputy President O'Sullivan—probably having more grey hair than you—that I used to be a copy boy for the NT News, after school from four o'clock in the afternoon to 10 o'clock. My job was to punctuate the copy that came out of the telex machine. I did learn to punctuate it, cut it and put it on a bit of paper, and it went to the copy people. I learnt back then that the copy went in after the advertising had been put in. The advertising on the page is what paid for the operation, and what was written came second. That advertising has dried up, so guess what? There are no more opportunities to write the copy. I think that's the reality of what we have here.

Some campaigners on our side of the table suggested we do some advertising in the Adelaide Advertiser. Personally, I thought, 'Why? Who's going to read it? It would be there for a day. Maybe you should be putting your advertising on Facebook.' These are the opportunities which I'm not particularly familiar with but people say they work much better. When people are searching for a news item, a news article or a particular view on the world, up pops some advertising on their smart phone. That doesn't involve a tremendous number of journalists going around investigating and putting their point of view forward.

We are in a really difficult situation. The government says, 'Look, 1993 was the last time it changed. We've got to get this better. We've been trying to repeal two-out-of-three for the last 18 months, and we haven't been able to do so on merit.' So what's the answer? We could do a series of deals with the industry or a deal or two with One Nation and Nick Xenophon, including a grant to Fox Sports. I've seen Fox Sports. I heard Senator Singh make a very pertinent comment. I wouldn't buy it personally, and I don't know a lot of people who are getting a tremendous amount out of their Foxtel or their Fox Sports coverage. It has obviously penetrated, but the reality is that you can go on the internet nowadays and you can use all of the alternative streaming mechanisms.

Senator Fifield said that the NBN is running along swimmingly well. I know one family that has a good connection, and that's my household. When I want to stream something in my household, I know that I can get enough download speed to be able to stream whatever I want, subject perhaps to making a small payment through an iTunes account or something like that, and I don't need to go to a provider like Fox Sports to watch those things. A lot of people in Australia would argue that free-to-air, particularly in the most popular areas of sports broadcasting, is what should be maintained. This legislation probably doesn't do a lot in that area, but why would we have given $30 million to Fox Sports? Where was the documentation and the accountability in relation to that agreement? The FOI application by the ABC established there was no documentation. If that's the case, that is probably a matter that a good investigative journalist could write a story about and perhaps even get some people to read, and perhaps there would be some questions in the community as to what is happening with taxpayer money with respect to these outcomes.

The issues of diversity, ownership and control are really serious issues for Australia's voting public. There have been polls that show the majority—61 per cent of voters across every demographic—disapproves of changing the media ownership laws to allow a single company to control a newspaper, a TV network and a radio network all in the same area. That would seem to be almost common sense, but allowing that level of control would control the message. It would be against the shareholder's interest to have a radio station going on a different line to the TV station or the newspaper going on a different line to the TV station and the radio station. We know how it works. We see it in Adelaide. We're probably the most concentrated market of all. We've seen our national broadcast news produced in Melbourne and produced in Sydney. What used to be done in Adelaide is no longer done there. We are concentrated and it's not a good thing.

In the last couple of seconds I have left, I want to reiterate: it was a double dissolution that delivered this Senate and it will go down in history as not being a good decision. Part of the arrangements that are made—the transactions—will not stand up to the light of day.