Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I feel compelled to make a contribution to the debate on the Communications Legislation Amendment (Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund) Bill 2017, because of the importance of public interest journalism. This is an issue with which I've had some involvement as the chair of the Senate Select Committee on the Future of Public Interest Journalism and, as chair, I put a significant amount of work into preparing the committee's final report which I tabled in the Senate in February this year. Through the 75 written submissions that were received by the committee and the seven public hearings that were held, the committee learned that public interest journalism in Australia is in crisis.

Accurate, quality in-depth investigative journalism is under threat from digital disruption and the news media faces significant challenges in the transition to online news delivery. The revenue of traditional media outlets has crashed, and this has led to the shutting down and restructuring of many media outlets. Despite overall growth in advertising revenue between 2013 and 2017, digital advertising is growing rapidly and sucking up revenue that used to go to traditional media. According to standard media index figures, the total advertising spend in Australia over this period increased by 11 per cent. However, digital advertising experienced an 87 per cent increase compared to a slight decline, about five per cent, in television advertising. Print advertising, however, has suffered a sharp decline, with advertising revenues in newspapers and magazines falling a massive 46 per cent. Newspapers are struggling to arrest this decline and make up revenue through subscriptions. This loss of revenue has translated to the loss of around 3,000 journalism positions in the last five years or roughly a quarter of the journalism positions in Australia.

There have been two perverse outcomes from the decline of newspaper revenues. The first is the pressure on maintaining journalistic values as newspapers fight to claw back their declining market share. Newspapers are now more averse to upsetting their advertisers and, in an effort to sell more papers, some are substituting stories that are in the public interest for entertainment and sensationalism. The second outcome is the loss of investment in quality journalism itself. Having to produce more column inches in a shorter period of time means that journalists have fewer resources for in-depth stories, the kind of stories that really hold our powerful public and private institutions to account.

A number of negative effects of the disruption to the traditional media business model were explored through the future of public interest journalism inquiry. For example, there was evidence given by Deakin University that rural and regional areas had fewer reliable sources of local news, particularly when the news was produced hundreds of kilometres away from the towns to which they were broadcast. Evidence was also given about the decline in reporting on public health issues, a function which in the past has led to scrutiny of the effects of dangerous substances such as tobacco and asbestos. And contributors to the inquiry talked about the decline in services aimed at broadcasting to and promoting the interests of minority groups such as Indigenous Australians and Australians from culturally and linguistically diverse groups.

A great deal of evidence was received by the inquiry regarding the overall decline in quality of news leading the public to lose trust in journalists and mainstream media. This problem is exacerbated by the modern media's 24-hour news cycle, which is placing pressure on journalists and publishers to break stories early with little time to check the accuracy of their facts.

Public-interest journalism serves an important democratic function, and a great example of how the crisis in public-interest journalism has threatened democracy was given to the inquiry by the editor of The Conversation, Misha Ketchell, who told one of the inquiry's public hearings:

My view is that the role of journalists for a long period of time, before this digital disruption we're talking about, was being almost a cop on the beat in the public sphere—'This information is unreliable and shouldn't be published; this information is reliable and should be published.' Part of what's happened with the collapse of the business models is there's no-one to pay the cop on the beat anymore. That role has been diminished, and what you have instead is a free-for-all of hyperpartisan debate, where everybody says everybody's lying, everybody can accuse everybody of fake news, and it's hard to know what you can trust.

So, when public interest journalism is in crisis, it's not just the media industry but also our democracy that's under threat.

The crisis in public interest journalism has been unfolding for quite some time now. It was unfolding while Labor was in government, and that's why we initiated the Convergence review and the Finkelstein inquiry. It has continued to unfold under the Abbott and Turnbull Liberal governments, yet those opposite haven't lifted a finger to tackle the crisis. Not only have those opposite been negligent in confronting this crisis; they've actually made it worse. A key plank in the government's assault on public interest journalism has been their savage cuts to the ABC and the SBS. The impact of the cuts to the ABC were outlined in detail by the journalists union, the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance, in their submission to the inquiry. The MEAA's submission said:

Constant cuts are also negatively affecting the ABC's ability to fund public interest journalism and local newsrooms. Budget cuts in 2014 saw the elimination of the local Friday edition 7.30 program (formerly called Stateline) from eight states and territories, diminishing the in‐depth coverage of state politics, health, education and environmental issues.

Deep cuts to reporting staff, field crews, travel budgets and other current affairs programs have also occurred across capital city newsrooms over the last three years. This month the state issues TV program Australia Wide, has been eliminated, and plans to downsize influential radio shows AM, PM and The World Today look likely. International bureaus have also been downscaled over the last decade following the cancellation of Australia Network – with many overseas bureaus manned by single‐person video‐journalists.

Another key plank in the Turnbull government's attack on public interest journalism has been their repeal of the two-out-of-three cross-media control rule, a move which threatens the diversity of voices in Australia's media landscape. I will come back to this issue in more detail a bit later on in my contribution, but before that I want to turn to the provisions of the bill.

The bill sets up the regional and small publishers innovation fund, a $50 million fund delivered over the next three years which will help regional and small publishers and other entities to transition, compete and innovate more successfully in a changing media environment. The fund is specifically aimed at promoting civic journalism in Australia, and the purpose of civic journalism is to investigate and explain public policies and issues of public interest or significance. It aims to engage citizens in public debate and inform democratic decision-making. If passed, this bill would amend the Broadcasting Services Act to give the Australian Communications and Media Authority, ACMA, the authority to disburse grants from the fund. Some of the activities that could be eligible for grant funding include things such as the purchase of a particular piece of technology or equipment, supporting a program or initiative that is intended to promote civic journalism, the development of an application for the delivery of news and other media related content services, training and upskilling of staff, and efforts to increase revenue and readership. The bill would also allow the Minister for Communications to establish an advisory committee to provide advice to the ACMA on the disbursement of these grants.

So this bill goes some small way in addressing the crisis in public interest journalism and, as such, Labor will not oppose it. Unfortunately, though, it's come too late for innovative publications such as Crinkling News, which was Australia's only newspaper dedicated to news for children. It sadly announced its closure shortly before I presented the report of the inquiry on the future of public interest journalism.

While Labor is supporting this legislation, let's recognise why the Turnbull government are pursuing it. Is it because they're concerned about the crisis in public interest journalism? I don't think so. Is it because they want to support innovation in small and regional publications? I doubt it's that either. The only reason the government are pursuing this bill is because of a deal they've stitched up with former senator Nick Xenophon in exchange for his party's support for the repeal of the two-out-of-three cross-media control rule. If the then Nick Xenophon Team, now the Centre Alliance, were trying to address the crisis in public interest journalism, they failed dismally with this deal.

I will tell you the reasons I think it's such a big deal: firstly, the fund is temporary, whereas the repeal of the two-out-of-three rule is permanent. Secondly, whatever small benefits arise from the establishment of this fund will be far outweighed by the devastating impact the repeal of the two-out-of-three rule will have on public interest journalism. Until the Turnbull government repealed the two-out-of-three rule last year, it served as an important tool for maintaining a diversity of voices in Australia's media landscape. The rule provided that no person or company could control more than two out of three media platforms—commercial radio, commercial TV and newspaper—in the same radio licence area. The government has managed to enact this repeal at a time when Australia already has one of the most concentrated media markets in the developed world.

The rise in online media I referred to earlier was the government's justification for pursuing this misguided obsession. However, as I said in my speech on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Reform Bill) 2016 last year, there is still a large number of Australians who rely on those traditional forms of media for their news and current affairs. We know, for example, that over half of Australian media consumers get their news from television, radio and newspapers. That figure is even higher in the older age cohorts. So, contrary to what those advocating the repeal of the two-out-of-three rule will tell you, digital disruption is not necessarily leading to a diversity of voices in the media landscape. In fact, the majority of the most popular news websites accessed by Australians are directly or jointly owned by traditional media platforms.

The repeal of this rule is a threat to informed democratic debate, as it allows a single person or organisation to control how local news is reported. This potentially gives one person a lot of power in a market where big media players are already wielding a great deal of power. When the government tried previously to repeal the two-out-of-three rule in a 2016 bill, that bill was referred to an inquiry. Labor's dissenting report quoted eminent academics who argued for the retention of the two-out-of-three rule. While I used these quotes in my speech on the government's 2016 bill, I think a couple of them are worth repeating. Professor Michael Fraser from the University of Technology, Sydney said:

It is notorious, in terms of news and current affairs, that we, among the democracies, have the least diversity in our newspapers and have very little in television.

Professor Rodney Tiffen from the University of Sydney said:

Media concentration in Australia is amongst the highest in the world. Our daily press is the most concentrated in the world … Our pay TV industry is the most concentrated in the world …

I wanted to give those couple of examples of how concentrated Australia's media market really is.

The Finkelstein inquiry, which was conducted under the former Labor government, observed that Australia was the only country in the world where the leading newspaper companies account for more than half of daily circulation. Australia's top two newspaper companies combined have an 86 per cent share of the newspaper market. The government's own department of communications pointed out in its submission to the inquiry into the government's 2016 broadcasting bill that the internet has given existing media companies a vehicle to increase their influence. A situation where standards of journalism are declining but the big media companies are extending their influence is a dangerous combination that does not augur well for Australian democracy.

Centre Alliance, former Senator Xenophon's team, have basically sold the farm and they've got a few peanuts in return—the fund established with the bill will not even come close to making up for the media diversity safeguards that have been traded away. I've mentioned two reasons why Central Alliance's deal was such a dud deal for the Australian public, but there is a third reason: the many flaws in the design of this fund. It's not just the fact that the government has only committed to the fund for three years but also that the fund is so limited in its scope. The government has excluded a range of publishers, including those with foreign based parent companies, and, funnily enough, those affiliated with a superannuation fund. So it seems somewhat hypocritical to exclude innovative publishers like The Guardian, which has a foreign based parent company, when the same publishers can access the government's proposed journalism cadetship and scholarship program. It's especially hypocritical considering this government gave a massive $30 million to Fox Sports to cover underrepresented sports. I'm a strong believer in training and skills development, but I have to ask: what's the point of cadetship and scholarship programs in a declining market for journalism jobs; and does the industry need to train more journalists when there are not enough jobs for existing journalists? They are just a couple of questions thrown out there. And that situation, by the way, is no doubt going to get worse with the repeal of the two-out-of-three rule.

While I say this is an awful deal for the Australian public, I think that is true of any deal that involves agreeing to the government's repeal of the two-out-of-three rule. There is very little that the government can offer in return that would undo the enormous damage that this repeal would cause to media diversity in Australia. Having said that, Central Alliance really was sold a pup, considering how little they extracted in exchange for supporting the government's ideological push for further media concentration. Public interest journalism needs more than this paltry side deal.

The Senate's Future of public interest journalism report contains a number of useful recommendations, such as the recommendation relating to tax-deductible contributions to not-for-profit publications that subscribe to standards of public interest journalism, or the recommendation about reviewing the laws affecting the work of journalists who report on issues relating to border protection and national security.

What would also be of great help, particularly for rural and regional areas, would be lobbying for decent broadband so that publishers and broadcasters can compete effectively in the digital age. Unfortunately, the deal with Central Alliance was not the only dirty deal the government did to secure support for its broadcasting bill last year. Even worse than their deal with Central Alliance was their deal with One Nation to change the ABC charter, a deal which is clearly aimed at undermining the integrity of the ABC. As one of One Nation's senators has admitted publicly, this deal is absolutely aimed at giving a platform for fringe groupers such as anti-vaxxers. The ABC is an important contributor to quality current affairs coverage in Australia, and this grubby deal between the Turnbull government and One Nation simply serves to further undermine public interest journalism in Australia.

As I said at the beginning of my contribution on this bill, public interest journalism is a key pillar in a healthy democracy. While this bill on its own appears to be a good initiative, when we look back in the years to come at the broadcasting bill and the grubby deals that were made to pass it we will see it as a dark chapter in Australia's history. The Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund will be a distant memory that barely caused a blip on the radar of Australia's media landscape. At the same time, we could have an ABC that is forced by its charter to give as much weight to radical fringe groups as it does to detailed analysis and informed opinion, stymieing its ability to contribute to constructive public debate. In return, our media market, which is one of the most concentrated in the world, will become even more concentrated and the Turnbull government's continued failure to address the crisis in public interest journalism will mean that we have a media reduced to delivering entertainment and sensationalism, and that barely has the resources to invest in proper investigative journalism and to hold powerful interests to account.

Labor will not oppose this bill, but we maintain that it does precious little to fill the void left by the repeal of the two-out-of-three-cross-media control rule.