This inquiry was established in the wake of more than half a million Australians signing a petition started by former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd calling for the establishment of a Royal Commission into Australian media.
The failure of the majority report is that it believes it is the responsibility of Parliament to censor Australia’s media. They disguise this censorship using terms such as ‘sufficiently diverse, in ownership and in opinion, to maintain a vigorous democracy’.
As many submitters and witnesses to this committee noted, ours is not the first inquiry into the concentration of media ownership and the convergence media platforms in Australia and their consequences for democracy. I suspect given the ideologically-driven grievances outlined in the majority report—it won’t be the last.
There is no case for a judicial inquiry
There is no case for a judicial inquiry. Any such move would set an unhealthy precedent. It would be a waste of taxpayer funds and a huge dent in resources to waste tens of millions of dollars on a Royal Commission when it is looking at regulation and media ownership.
It appears on the surface that those who were most vocal in their criticism of media outlets were also, superficially at least, in an ideological war with media who failed to ‘rubber stamp their views’.
To have a judicial inquiry into the media would be to effectively brow beat them to ensure the point of view expressed in the media is aligned with an ideological view and it will have the exact opposite effect of diminishing diversity.
We may not like how the media reports us as politicians specifically however, the gap between media regulation and censorship is small and Australia’s press deserve all the freedoms they have.
It is equally disturbing that an Australian media outlet was censored by foreign owned entities. This should not be allowed to occur and features in the recommendations of this report.
This dissenting report recommends that the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) be given expanded powers over the ABC and SBS and its ability to confer penalties for breaches.
It is clear the media landscape would be better if the ACMA had greater oversight of the ABC and SBS.
Media Diversity in Regional and Remote Australia
This dissenting report recommends that media diversity in regional and remote Australia is critical. In many instances the major source of information is the ABC and the views of the ABC do not always align with the views of regional and remote Australians. It is the view of this dissenting report that incentives, not dissimilar to incentives in other industries like resources and agriculture, be offered to ensure commercial media diversity in these areas.
Recommendations
Recommendation
Reject the proposed judicial inquiry, with Royal Commission powers, to determine whether the existing system of media regulation is fit‑for‑purpose and to investigate the concentration of media ownership in Australia.
The suggestion to spend tens of millions of taxpayer dollars on a judicial inquiry to investigate regulatory reforms would be an abject waste of public monies. Regulatory reform can be completed without such an expensive vehicle that will turn into a political witch hunt aimed at stifling a free press. There is a distinct balance between regulatory reform and press censorship and a judicial inquiry will not aid that balance.
Recommendation
The Commonwealth should continue to actively encourage and ensure media diversity in remote and regional Australia by providing similar incentives to those made available to other industries.
The media diversity in regional and remote Australia must be maintained and actively expanded. In many instances the only source of media information is the ABC, and its reporting does not always align with the broader view or the contextual relativity of regional and remote Australians. Different industries like resources and agriculture receive incentives to operate and maintain a presence and a mechanism should be made available to encourage media diversity as well.
Recommendation
The Australian Communications and Media Authority should be given a stronger role of regulating the ABC and SBS.
Recommendation
The Australian Communications and Media Authority should be given the ability to apply penalties to media organisations found breaching the code.
The ACMA has only a limited role when a complaint is made to them on alleged breaches of the relevant Codes of Conduct. It rarely imposes sanctions or penalties. It should be given stronger powers and as outlined in Recommendation 3 with respect to the ABC and SBS.
Recommendation
Internet and Social Media platforms such as Facebook, YouTube and Google should be prevented from censoring mainstream Australian media and news content.
Foreign entities, regardless of their alleged content provider contracts, should not have the ability to censor any Australian media or news content. An expanded ACMA should be able to act on such content. Social media platforms have already taken to putting notices on content advising them to check the veracity of statements made—specifically around the pandemic. Australia has a free press and the freedom of the press should not be subject to decisions of foreign owned social media entities.
Recommendation
ABC complaints handling process should be reformed to allow more accountability.
The ABC’s complaints process among other things offers a too narrow window for thoughtful complaints to be made. A Four Corners episode could be a twisted tale which could take weeks to unravel to formalise a complaint that is not easily dismissed, yet the window for complaining is only open for six weeks. This places the broader community at a distinct disadvantage and the public broadcaster at a distinct advantage. To avoid such a position the ABC should come under enhanced scrutiny of the ACMA as per Recommendation 3.
Senator Sam McMahon
Committee member