Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

In September 1993 Rupert Murdoch gave a speech from London that was broadcast via satellite to analysts and investors at various locations around the world. In the speech he announced for the first time that his business would expand to the internet, offering 'endless data and information', even electronic newspapers, to anyone in the world with the necessary equipment to receive it. He said:

Technology is racing ahead so rapidly, news and entertainment sources are proliferating at such a rate, that the media moghul has been replaced …

…   …   …

The consumer is in the saddle, driving the telecommunications industry. The technology is galloping over the old regulatory machinery.

The parliament finds itself today debating how the regulatory machinery can catch up. It's no small irony that Mr Murdoch, still a media mogul, has championed this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2021.

The next year brought the first mention of the internet in this chamber. In August 1994, Senator John Tierney reported, 'I recently returned from a study tour to the United States where I looked at the information super highway, its implications for Australian industry and society and its implications for the parliament in terms of the regulatory framework that we establish and modify to assist the development of this new stage of the industrial revolution.'

From the very beginning it was widely understood that the internet would have a profound effect on our society. Over the decades speeches given to this have chartered the internet's development. The first mention of Google in Hansard was in 2001, the first mention of YouTube in Hansard was in October 2006, the first mention of Facebook in Hansard was in April 2008, and the first mention of Twitter in Hansard was in May 2009. There is no record that I could find of a mention of Myspace.

The optimism of the early 1990s has given way to a certain grimmer reality. There are deep concerns about the privacy of consumers, concerns about the power of internet companies and concerns about the democratic principles at stake, particularly after the 2016 election in the United States. Those concerns wrote to specific forms of power that the large tech companies have acquired through a cycle of accumulation described as surveillance capitalism—that is, the capacity to collect large amounts of data and the ability to process that data through sophisticated algorithms to build a profile of users that can predict what they will do so they can sell advertising based upon that information.

Importantly, the cycle of accumulation leads the tech giants to accumulate ever greater amounts of data and engage in ever-intensifying behaviour modification. This power has created immense wealth for the global tech giants. Rarely did these companies, nor senators in this chamber, pre-empt the dark implications of this new power. Rarer still were the attempts to substantially regulate them. The power of these platforms has grown mostly unchallenged, particularly as platforms began to take on the role of a fundamental public service. That power was nakedly on display last week when Facebook denied access to Australian news sites to millions of their Australian users. Facebook's actions were not only a disgraceful response to a matter of public debate but a risk to public safety, including by blocking resources for domestic violence victims, blocking the Bureau of Meteorology potentially during an emergency and blocking government health advice during the global pandemic.

The University of Canberra's Digital news report: Australia 2020 found that during the COVID-19 outbreak 49 per cent of respondents used Facebook as their only source of news about the coronavirus. A vital public service that informs millions of Australians about a deadly pandemic was held ransom to the political will of a large multinational company. As I speak in this chamber, Facebook continues to block Australian citizens from consuming news on their platform. It is an extraordinary situation, and so we do debate this bill with the eyes of the world upon the chamber.

Labor will indeed support this legislation. We have some reservations about some aspects of the legislation that will be the subject of amendments, I imagine, tomorrow morning. And there has been some debate in the community about the bill and whether or not the bill prefers the interests of one set of global media giants over another. I say to this place: this should not be the last time we consider these issues. We've got to look past the interests of global media giants and see the interests of ordinary people—the citizens of the country. We've got to be determined and carefully watch developments, particularly in the US, where the last congress and the new Biden administration appear to be developing an approach to antitrust legislation. We should carefully consider our approach and our response as those global developments occur.

It remains to be seen whether the government's code is workable and how big a difference it will make. The code has exposed a large number of Australian businesses to uncertainty. It doesn't guarantee any particular outcomes for media organisations, journalists, citizens or consumers. It's not clear how the money raised will be directed towards public interest journalism; in particular, regional journalism, where 150 titles have closed over the life of this government; investigative journalism, which was referred to in the last contribution; and news wire services, such as AAP.

It is indeed heavily weighted to the large media interests. Australia has one of the most heavily concentrated media markets in the world, and the bill contributes very little to enhancing our media diversity. It doesn't deal with the parlous state of employment in journalism, and it's unclear how the code would affect future funding arrangements for the ABC and SBS. It's not clear that the code is the most efficient or effective way of directing resources from the tech giants to support journalism. It is only one of the ACCC's recommendations to support public interest journalism. Other recommendations include genuine media reform, stable and adequate funding for public broadcasters, adequate direct funding, and tax incentives and philanthropic measures.

The Morrison government is yet to explain what is going on and what this means for Australians, but it is indeed a start. It is a first step for this place and for Australia in dealing with regulation for this very important sector of our economy. I look forward to seeing a focus—noting some of the other contributions—on the tax paid by some of these global giants, and some proper, effective regulation. I suspect that some of the answers lie in what this parliament does, some of the answers lie in what legislatures overseas do, and some of the answers lie in global cooperation, in the interest of citizens, to make sure that we don't see abuses of market power and the misuse of the power of information around the world.

Google has now signed deals with 50 Australian publishers, amongst them Seven West, The Guardian Australia, Nine, Australian Community Media, Schwartz Media and Junkee. The world-leading nature of this legislation does rekindle Australia's role as a social laboratory. In the early 20th century, Australia led the world in social reform such as the minimum wage, unemployment benefits and the age pension. There were democratic experiments as well: the secret ballot, mandatory voting, women's suffrage. At the same time, Australia should be a place where we develop novel approaches to regulation for technology companies. Australians are early adopters of these technologies. Rarely disconnected from our phones, we are enthusiastic users of smartphone technology. We should be paying attention to these issues here. It has made Australia a place where there are soft launches of apps and features. It was in Australia, I'm less than pleased to report, that we first had access to the wonderful features of Pokemon GO. It was a big feature of my kids' lives. It did mean that I could observe them playing Pokemon GO in places all over Sydney. Despite the fact that they were very connected to their telephones, it did mean they got a bit of exercise and got out in the sun a little bit more than they otherwise might have. I am reliably informed that Senator Duniam, who is in the chamber, can be found at various locations around Tasmania clocking in, or whatever it is you do on Pokemon GO.

Senator Duniam interjecting—

That's it. Do they have branches in Tasmania?