Murphy, John, MP

Mr MURPHY (Reid) (17:06): I will say a few words on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Convergence Review and Other Measures) Bill 2013 and cognate bill. There was lot that I agreed with in the contribution by the member for Wentworth on this broadcasting legislation. We all support the new Australian content requirements—that is a good thing. Despite the growth of new digital services and channels, Australians still want to see more Australian content. The new Australian content transmission quota to be imposed on broadcasters is important. Also, we will get a lot of new Australian drama programs—and that is a good thing. It will also provide commercial broadcasters with the flexibility to meet their content quotas for drama, documentary and children's programs—and that is a good thing. It will give innovative programming choices. It provides a limitation on the number of commercial television licences, which must surely make the free-to-air television providers happy. There will be no fourth television network, which has been promised for such a long time. Even I understand the pressures that the commercial television providers are under—hence the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill, which provides relief to the high annual fees payable by those networks. The member for Wentworth talked about the haste of this legislation. What is contained in these bills, and in the other bills which are going to be debated through the night, has been well known for the last two or three years. There has been a hell of a lot of publicity in the media about the Finkelstein review and the convergence review. While the member for Wentworth might not like the fact that the government is determined to pass these bills in the life of this parliament, it is a fact of life. It is interesting that the member for Wentworth is of the view that newspapers may not exist in the next five to 10 years. The member for Wentworth made special reference to Mr Murdoch, who has a stranglehold on the print media in our country. Mr Murdoch has made it quite clear that he has great confidence in the future of print media. I tend to share that view, because people like to pick up a newspaper each day and read it. Many people in our country feel it is a lot easier to access news reading a newspaper than it is to sit at a computer or to access it by other means in this digital age. So I do not think the member for Wentworth is quite right when he says that there is a threat to newspapers in Australia. I do not see any evidence that Mr Murdoch, or anyone else at the moment, wants to sell his newspaper. We all support the ABC. As the member for Wentworth said, the ABC is very important to our democracy. The member for Wentworth made it quite plain that he is not going to support the part of the legislation that will allow the ABC to provide an international broadcasting service. The member for Wentworth failed to say that the public broadcaster is not driven by the commercial imperative of making a profit. The provision of an international broadcasting service is more appropriate for the public broadcaster than is extending the reach of News Limited, which will be driven by the dollar to broadcast what it sees as appropriate for its commercial objectives. So I have to disagree there with the member for Wentworth. The member for Wentworth alluded to other elements of the total package of bills, which I understand we will probably be debating here all night. I will reserve my comments for when we get to those bills, particularly those which impact on the future concentration of media ownership in our country. In short, I am pleased that the member for Wentworth has seen fit, with a couple of exceptions, to support these two bills. Let us hope that, by the time he has heard the total debate on these bills, he will support the legislation—because there has never been a better time for us to reform the media in Australia. The media are crying out for it and so are we. What worries us is the fact that all those assets might fall into fewer hands. I put on record how refreshing it was yesterday when Mr Kerry Stokes, the proprietor of Channel 7, appeared before the Joint Select Committee on Broadcasting Legislation, which is chaired by Senator Thistlethwaite. We were discussing the abolition of the 75 per cent reach rule. The various manifestations or applications that might apply to Mr Stokes' interests in Western Australia would mean that Mr Stokes would become the one dominant player in the west. He conceded that that was not in the public interest or good for our democracy. I did not see that on display when Mr Williams, the chief executive of News Limited, appeared before Senator Cameron's committee. History shows that, if you make any concessions to News Limited on the acquisition of media assets, they just want more and more. That is why I have been such a vocal, outspoken critic, particularly of that company, though not of the way they present their stories—it is their right to do that. I think it is very bad for the future of our democracy if we allow that approach to media to drown out the other voices in Australia. That would create an even more unhealthy democracy in a country where we have some of the highest concentration of media ownership. I will have more to say later tonight or early tomorrow morning—whenever we get out of this place.