Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Communication, Senator Fifield. I refer to reports that the government is in negotiations behind closed doors with media proprietors to abolish the rules protecting media diversity. In one of the most highly-concentrated media markets of any democracy, why is the government even contemplating removing the last protections that exist for media diversity?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government is, as the senator would be aware, closely examining the media ownership rules as part of its deregulation agenda, which is aimed at boosting productivity and reducing unnecessary red tape. Digital technologies are forcing rapid structural change in the media landscape. I think we all know the internet has significantly lowered barriers to entry for new media outlets providing more and more avenues for competition. However, the media industry remains subject to extensive regulation, much of which was developed in the pre-digital age. This includes a number of ownership rules that only apply to the traditional media platforms of commercial television, commercial radio and newspapers.

While no decisions on media ownership reform have been made, the government is sympathetic to arguments being made by industry leaders that this regulation is increasingly outdated and unnecessary. This includes the 75 per cent audience reach rule which operates to prevent a person from controlling commercial television broadcasting licences that reach more than 75 per cent of the Australian population. The 75 per cent reach rule is one element of the current ownership rules. The repeal of the reach rule was one of the recommendations made last year by members of the Joint Select Committee on Broadcasting Legislation. Of late, some commentators have suggested that repeal of this rule would threaten local content on television in regional areas. I would like to make it clear that this is not the case. The reach rule does not protect local content. In fact this rule is completely separate to local content obligations that require minimum levels of local content to be broadcast in the major regional licence areas. These local content obligations would not be affected by any changes to the media ownership rules. A report was recently released into local content conducted by the ACMA which shows that the existing these existing rules operate effectively. (Time expired)

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. If this government does succeed in abolishing the laws protecting media diversity, will you guarantee now to the Senate that free-to-air broadcasting of sports, including AFL games, will not simply disappear on to pay television?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have outlined for the senator the government's general approach to the issue of media ownership laws and, if there is anything additional that I can provide to the senator, I will certainly do that.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a bit of a worry. Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Does the minister recognise that if the so-called reach rule protecting broadcasting diversity is lifted at the same time as the government attacks funding to the ABC that the big losers in this so-called reform process will be regional Australians as regional broadcasters are absorbed into the big metropolitan media companies?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not surprised at all that Senator Ludlam is endeavouring to scaremonger at this point in time. It is something that the Australian Greens sought to do over the full term of the previous Tasmanian parliament and it did not stand them in terribly good stead, as the results of the weekend would testify. So I simply urge the senator not to engage in such scaremongering activities.