|
representatives vote 2016-11-30#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2016-12-09 07:03:06
|
Title
Bills — Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Reform) Bill 2016; Consideration in Detail- Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Reform) Bill 2016; Consideration in Detail
Description
<p class="speaker">Michelle Rowland</p><p>by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) together:</p><p class="italic">(1)   Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2, column 1), omit “Schedules 1 and 2”, substitute “Schedule 1”.</p>- The majority voted against [amendments](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/debates/?id=2016-11-30.111.1) introduced by Labor MP [Michelle Rowland](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/greenway/michelle_rowland), which means they were unsuccessful.
- The amendments would have deleted [schedule 2](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1617a/17bd013#_Toc461781502) from the bill, which would have gotten rid of:
- > *the two out of three cross-media control rule which ... prohibits a person controlling more than two out of three regulated media platforms (that is, a commercial television broadcasting licence, a commercial radio broadcasting licence and an associated newspaper) in any one commercial radio licence area.*
- ### What does this bill do?
- The bill will get rid of certain media ownership, control and diversity laws, like the ‘75% audience reach rule’, which stops commercial television broadcasting licensees from controlling licences if the combined licence area has a population over 75% of Australia' population. It also gets rid of the ‘2 out of 3 cross-media control rule’, which "[prohibits control over more than two out of three regulated media platforms in any one commercial radio licence area](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r5674)".
- Read more in the [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1617a/17bd013).
- ### Amendment text
- > *(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2, column 1), omit “Schedules 1 and 2”, substitute “Schedule 1”.*
- > *(2) Schedule 2, page 4 (line 1) to page 5 (line 14), omit the Schedule.*
<p class="italic">(2)   Schedule 2, page 4 (line 1) to page 5 (line 14), omit the Schedule.</p><p>It is possible for this parliament to rise and be able to say that we have put through something that is a positive result for regional broadcasters—I am talking about the repeal of the 75 per cent reach rule. This amendment encapsulates Labor's well-articulated position on this issue. We certainly support repeal of these provisions; we recommended this when in government. Not a single speaker who has spoken on this bill—very few from the other side have contributed to the second reading debate—has disputed the fact that the 75 per cent reach rule should go. The fact that we have the word 'reform' in this bill and we are still dealing with the repeal of the 75 per cent reach rule simply indicates what a farce this entire bill is. In fact, you could have put through this provision in one of those many statute stocktakes or red-tape repeal days, and it would have gone through with, probably, very little debate. I note that the few members opposite—including the minister who did the summing up—who actually bothered to contribute to the second reading debate probably needed some updated speaking notes, because they seemed quite unaware that on Monday the Minister for Communications and the Arts did one of many backflips to adopt Labor's position on this bill. An article in <i>The Australian</i>says that the Turnbull government is now trying 'to win industry support and deliver genuine reform of decades-old ownership and control laws'—I stress 'genuine reform'. Ipso facto, there is nothing genuine about any reform in this bill. The article goes on:</p><p class="italic">Free-to-air network television licence fees are also expected to be addressed in conjunction with the media reform bill as Communications Minister Mitch Fifield adopts a rejigged approach amid resistance to the current proposal.</p><p>What has Labor been advocating since the election on this bill? We have been advocating that a holistic approach be taken on this issue. I am happy to help. Imitation certainly is one of the better forms of flattery, so I am happy to assist the minister here. He has thrown in the towel. This is a minister who has thrown in the towel, and what do you expect, when you get commentary in <i>The Australian</i><i>The Australian</i>!<i></i>awarding you the title of most ineffective politician in Australia and likening you to Homer Simpson. What do you expect from this kind of minister? The minister has thrown in the towel on this matter. Minister Fifield 'conceded the government is unlikely to mobilise the necessary support this year.' The article continues:</p><p class="italic">Labor and Seven West Media oppose the reforms while Nine Entertainment wants to see the bill deferred until licence fee cuts are tackled.</p><p>That really does not correlate with what we heard the minister at the table, the Minister for Urban Infrastructure, saying a short time earlier, when he was trying to indicate that somehow there was broad support for this. I note the headline in <i>The West Australian</i> from last week—again, maybe some updated speaking notes would have been appropriate for those opposite—'Media law reforms put on the backburner'. The article says:</p><p class="italic">A proposed overhaul of media ownership laws has been shelved until next year as the Federal Government battles to woo crossbench support.</p><p>Here is a minister who refuses to be pragmatic for the benefit of regional communities. We have the now Prime Minister, formerly the communications minister, indicating on some occasions that he was open to making sure that at least the 75 per cent reach rule was repealed, but this current minister is being obstinate and clearly he does not understand his brief. The article goes on:</p><p class="italic">Senator Fifield maintained that he would not split the package into two Bills so the Government could chalk up a win on the abolition of the reach rule.</p><p>What kind of a minister would not want to go into the new year with a bipartisan position on something that everyone recognises needs to go. The minister at the table, as we just saw in his summing up, is totally unaware of the latest evidence that has come in today, of all days, from the regulator—the ACMA communications report was tabled today. These people who take the 'because of the internet' argument are simply putting this blanket argument that we do not need cross-media rules any more, everything is hunky-dory. They should have a look at the latest statistics. I quote from the ACMA communications report— <i>(Time expired)</i></p> <p class="speaker">Paul Fletcher</p><p>I am pleased to speak on the amendments moved by the shadow minister, the member for Greenway, and to indicate that the government will be opposing them. The effect of the amendments would be to remove the second schedule of the bill, which is the schedule which gives effect to the government's policy intention to remove the two-out-of-three rule. Of course that forms one of the key limbs of the integrated package of policy measures in this bill, with the other key limb being the removal of the 75 per cent reach rule.</p><p>It does seem that Labor is rather conflicted as to what their approach is in relation to legislation in this area. On the one hand we have the shadow minister in her contribution to the debate earlier today criticising this as piecemeal reform. The Labor Party is proposing with the amendments the House is presently considering the removal of one very substantial component of this integrated package of reforms. On the one hand she says it is piecemeal; on the other hand her plan is to make it even more piecemeal. This is not a logical approach; it is not an approach that the government is prepared to agree to. What we have in the bill before the House is an integrated package of reforms in the regulation of media in this country.</p><p>Let me remind the House that much of the legislative framework governing broadcast media in this country was developed at a time when there were only three principal media platforms—newspapers, TV and radio. It was well before smartphones, well before social media, well before streaming services. One key element of a legislative framework which was developed in a different time was the two-out-of-three rule, and that rule, which continues to have effect on the statute books today, prevents a person from controlling more than two out of three regulated media platforms—commercial television, commercial radio and associated newspapers in any commercial radio licence area. That is a rule that needs to be analysed and assessed in terms of its impact today on Australian media companies, employing Australians, with Australian investors—important Australian businesses. You have one set of businesses which are subject to this restrictive and prescriptive set of rules but at the same time you have other unregulated platforms owned by businesses all around the world, freely available to Australian consumers. Of course the increase in media diversity is a good thing, the increase in choice is a good thing, the increase in the options available to all Australian media consumers, thanks to the extraordinary development of the internet, is a good thing. But the parliament of Australia needs to be cognisant of the economic impact of fundamental technological transformation, and in turn fundamental economic translation, on Australian businesses. The reality is that from a consumer perspective online media is no longer viewed as something distinct from more traditional media platforms. Audiences in Australia and overseas now use multiple sources.</p><p>I do want to remind the House that changes to this rule would have a material impact only in capital city markets, and here I exclude Darwin and Hobart, and in a limited number of larger regional licence areas where for the most part sources of news and information are multiple and widespread and the maintenance of diversity is not generally an issue. In most regional and remote markets the removal of the two-out-of-three rule would have minimal impact. I also remind the House that media transitions would still be subject to general competition laws as administered by the ACCC.</p><p>This amendment moved by the shadow minister is not one that the government will support. It is ill thought through and it would undermine what is a comprehensive package of reforms.</p> <p class="speaker">Bob Katter</p><p>We have been advised that if this legislation is passed one entity could own all of the media in Australia. I ask the minister whether that is correct.</p> <p class="speaker">Paul Fletcher</p><p>If I understand the member for Kennedy's question, he is asking me if the measures in this bill were to pass would that allow one entity to own all media outlets in Australia. The answer is no, for a host of reasons. First of all, the existing competition law provisions would prevail, and there will continue to be other safeguards. I believe I am right in saying that the four-out-of-five rule would continue to apply.</p> <p class="speaker">Steve Georganas</p><p>Just before I call the minister, can I ask the member for Kennedy to speak and at the end we will get the minister to respond if wishes to respond.</p> <p class="speaker">Bob Katter</p><p>We were told this when the parliament deregulated the milk industry—that there are protections and there is the ACCC. The milk price to farmers was slashed from 60c to 40c because there was a monopoly. We were told this in the sugar industry, where the price that we get for by-products has been reduced to nothing and we cannot live with the price we are getting. We were told this in the tobacco industry, where you had two or three players. We have no tobacco industry in Australia now. We were given assurances that the ACCC would protect us all. I am very familiar with Mr Sims at the ACCC. They have very limited resources, and I do not think that they could take on the might of Rupert Murdoch, nor do I think they could take on the might of a Gina Rinehart.</p><p>We live in a country now where it is available to the rich and powerful to take over all the media outlets in this country. When I was young, that was one of the hallmarks of a communist regime—all the media outlets were owned by a single entity. In that case, it was the government. We could say, 'Well, it wasn't a very democratic government.' Well, there is going to be no democracy here at all. It will be 'He who has got the biggest chequebook can decide what you think in this country.' Obviously, the minister missed out a bit on his education because, if he had read <i>Nineteen Eighty-Four</i> or <i>Brave New World</i>, he would be looking into the gun barrel of the sort of society which he is creating.</p><p>When this was proposed, it was when I first came into this place, there were six members of parliament that were going to cross the floor on it. One of them was Joe Hockey and one of them was Christopher Pyne. That was in the media. These men had principle and they were not prepared to allow a monopoly in the media in Australia. Obviously, they have modified their opinions in the years since. Whether or not there is a corrupting influence in this place, I do not know. All I know is that they have changed their positions. It was said that three National Party members would have crossed the floor. I do not know if that was ever the case, but, most certainly, I would have crossed the floor on it.</p><p>This is a historic moment because control of the media—control of what people think in this country—can now reside in the hands of one person. The Liberals think they are very clever because the two contenders are very positive towards the Liberal Party. But my experience is that it has a funny way of turning around and biting you when you think you are going to do something for your own benefit. I profoundly believe that it is for your benefit. Is it for the benefit of the country that every media outlet in this country is owned by a single entity? I hate to say this, but the minister's name will go down in infamy in the history of this country. Billy Hughes decided that we would have conscription, and an extra 100,000 Australians died. In this case, the minister is putting the muzzle on free speech in this country because there is no way that you can get a licence to operate a television venue in Australia. That is not the real world. The ACCC will not give me a television licence; they are not authorised to. Are we going to open up a newspaper and compete against Rupert Murdoch? Is that what the minister is saying? I wish him well if he opens up the <i>Betoota Advocate</i> on the outskirts of Sydney, because that might be our best hope. I am going to go and talk to my mates there. It might be the best hope that we have of getting our point of view across.</p><p>These people think they are very clever with their industrial legislation. They took to the Australian people the proposition that we abolish the Arbitration Commission. Even though the newspapers and the media in Australia were almost unanimous in support of this proposition, they got annihilated. They have never said, 'We want to sell the assets.' It was only the LNP that was stupid enough to say that and get themselves annihilated, but the other mob over here— <i>(Time expired)</i></p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|