Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Senator Fifield. Can the minister outline why the Turnbull government's media reform package is so important in a transitioning economy?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I think all colleagues know, the media laws that we currently have, which date back to 1987, have not been significantly changed since that time. In contrast, the media landscape has changed dramatically. Both technology and consumer choice bit by bit have been rendering the existing media laws redundant, which is why the government is proposing to remove what is known as the 75 per cent reach rule and the two-out-of-three rule.

If we get rid of these media rules it will not only allow Australian media organisations to configure themselves in ways that best suit them but also put them in a good position to remain viable and to serve consumers. This is important because it is part of the government managing an economy in transition. Communications can be of assistance to people as they manage the transitioning economy, but the media sector itself is also in transition. So it is entirely appropriate that we make sure that our media laws are fit for purpose and that they reflect the world that we currently live in.

It is very much my hope that my colleagues across the chamber will recognise that the time has come to remove these two outdated media laws. They might have made sense in 1987 when Kylie Minogue was still a resident at Ramsay Street and she was still singing TheLocomotion. It was the year that I was finishing university, so 1987 might not seem long ago but it is indeed a long time ago. It is time our media laws changed.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister advise the Senate why it is critical that the two-out-of-three rule be abolished?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One of the reasons it is important to abolish the two-out-of-three rule is that the two-out-of-three rule does not recognise that the internet exists. The two-out-of-three rule is predicated on there being only three media platforms: commercial radio, print and TV. It would be self-evident, I think, that that is not actually the world that we live in today. We do not want to see our own Australian media organisations shackled by rules that do not apply to Netflix, Google, Facebook or Apple.

There is no justification for the two-out-of-three rule. Even without the two-out-of-three rule there will be adequate rules still in place to ensure diversity. There will still be ACCC requirements. I do not think lack of diversity in media is something that we need have a fear of.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Is the minister aware of any opposition to the removal of the two-out-of-three rule?

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not, and I do not think my colleagues on this side of the chamber, actually believe in media bogeymen. There is a fear I have that there may still be some in this place who might. We are essentially ownership agnostic on this side of the chamber. I know there are some on the other side who have what you might call an emotional response to the proposed changes in media law. Let me quote Jason Clare, my counterpart from the other place, who says, 'If you make decisions based on one media company or another then you're not doing your job properly.' I think 'hear, hear' to Mr Clare. He sees things very clearly and very crisply. It is important that when looking at these sorts of issues we do not jump at media bogeymen, we do not decide emotionally and we look at the facts and try and determine good policy.