Chapter 2Views on the bill
2.1This chapter discusses submitters' views about the need for an inquiry into Australia's media landscape, issues for consideration by the proposed Murdoch Media Commission of Inquiry (Media Commission) and other matters relating to the Murdoch Media Inquiry Bill 2023 (the bill).
2.2The chapter then provides an overview of measures being implemented to support a robust media in Australia and areas for further development, developments since this inquiry commenced, and concludes with the committee's views and recommendation.
Views on an inquiry into Australia's media diversity
The need for an inquiry
2.3Submitters to the inquiry were overwhelmingly in favour of an inquiry into the current state of media diversity, the conduct of media outlets in Australia and their impact on our democracy, with a particular focus on the Murdoch media.
2.4The Centre for Advancing Journalism at the University of Melbourne strongly supported the bill, arguing that the media should be held to account and that an inquiry would be 'an assertion of parliamentary authority' in the face of media power.
2.5Australians for a Murdoch Royal Commission supported the bill, submitting:
… the inquiry as proposed would have a profound impact on Australia's broken media landscape and … such an inquiry would be in a strong position to make the media reform recommendations our society so urgently needs.
2.6The bill also received support from the Local and Independent News Association (LINA); however, it warned that an inquiry should not slow down the implementation of measures to support local media:
LINA shares the Commonwealth's objectives to reduce news deserts and strengthen public interest news services for communities across Australia. From that perspective, LINA supports the rationale behind the Murdoch Media Inquiry Bill, but notes that it should not delay already overdue actions to curb the closure of local newsrooms and the reduction of journalism skills in regions. This work is urgent and the proposed Inquiry should inform further steps and not slow down work already underway.
Matters for inquiry
2.7Many submitters bolstered their call for an inquiry into media diversity by drawing the committee's attention to areas where they consider change essential.
2.8It was widely recognised by submitters that 'quality news and public interest journalism play an important role in the functioning of Australian society and democracy', including through the development of trust and social cohesion, and by holding people and institutions to account. The Law Society of NSW Young Lawyers noted specifically 'the capacity of citizens to exercise this constitutional right [to a free and informed vote] depends, in part, on the availability of relevant, trustworthy and diverse information'.
2.9Further, submitters acknowledged that media outlets in regional and remote areas provide an essential information sharing and community building service locally, 'providing accurate and relevant information to local communities'.
2.10In contrast, other submitters drew attention to the negative impacts of reporting which is biased and unethical, lacks diversity and does not report on diverse views, and spreads dis and misinformation. For example, Croakey Health Media submitted:
The current regulatory environment for media in Australia is insufficient, resulting in media concentration and lack of diversity in the mainstream media sector, which hampers the functioning of democracy and is unresponsive to community interests.
2.11Mr Aaron Lim concluded that when public trust in the media is lost, people turn to other, potentially less reliable sources of information.
2.12The Victorian Trades Hall Council highlighted the impact of biased reporting, which it said 'emboldens' extremist far-right groups and has provided 'a huge platform to racist perspectives within mainstream political debate'.
2.13The Law Society of NSW Young Lawyers pointed to the impacts of media concentration on democracy:
Specifically, concentration in media ownership impacts democracy by reducing the democratic distribution of communicative power, eroding democratic safeguards of accountability and discourse (whether in optics or in practice), and thirdly by centring profitability, which may result in reduced investment in journalism overall.
2.14Specific advocacy groups, including those advocating for gender diversity, public health and climate action, highlighted the impacts of negative and discriminatory reporting—particularly by Murdoch-owned media outlets—on communities and individuals. For example, the South Australian Rainbow Advocacy Alliance stated:
the impact this [reporting] has, particularly on young people is devastating and without doubt contributes to the well documented poorer mental health outcomes that are prevalent in our community.
2.15The Wilderness Society advised of wider impacts:
Rather than engaging with scientific evidence, these networks project the issue through a political lens. This tactic is seen in messages that portray climate change as a vehicle for a radical government agenda, suggest climate action would harm the economy, and label concern about the crisis as hysteria. These messages, along with false arguments and attacks on climate advocates, not only contribute to disinformation and hinder meaningful discourse on urgent climate issues, but pose a direct threat to public health and safety.
2.16A number of submitters discussed the concentration of media ownership in Australia and provided data to support their conclusions about concentration of ownership. Overwhelmingly, submitters felt media ownership is too concentrated because of inadequate government regulation and industry self‑regulation, changing business models and consumption trends including the impact of global online platforms, and the commercialisation and monetisation of reporting.
2.17The Law Society NSW Young Lawyers drew the committee's attention to 2017 amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, which loosened ownership rules and, they contended, 'contributed to an increase in concentration of ownership'. The Young Lawyers further suggested that the capacity of the regulator to consider public interest factors when assessing market competitiveness was negatively impacted.
2.18Further, the committee was advised that existing regulatory arrangements 'which are a mixture of self-regulation and delegated statutory authority mainly exercised by the Australian Communications and Media Authority' (ACMA) are not sufficiently robust. The Australian Press Council 'sets standards and responds to complaints about material in Australian newspapers and magazines, as well as a growing number of online-only publications'. The Council was also found wanting, given the 'inherent limitations of an industry self-regulator that draws members and funding from the same organisations it criticises'.
2.19When considering media concentration and diversity, several submitters referenced the need for greater content diversity—not just diversity of ownership. The Law Society NSW Young Lawyers submitted 'a modern approach would [also] consider diversity in the range of topics covered, the perspectives presented, and the sources of information used'.
Changing environment
2.20The committee heard that Australians are increasingly accessing news and current affairs from digital sources, with recent trends showing growing consumption of news from news websites, social media, podcasts and news aggregator sites. Media business models are likewise increasingly based on digital delivery and changing advertising and revenue arrangements.
2.21Submitters, such as Croakey Health Media and the Centre for Advancing Journalism, maintained that powerful, profit-driven, multi-national digital media platforms driven by algorithms—including Facebook, Google, Meta, News Corp and X—have weakened public interest reporting and led to 'a narrowly focussed and biased media environment' and an increase in mis and disinformation. Croakey further suggested that 'significant policy measures to date, such as the News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code [discussed later in this chapter], have undermined media diversity'.
2.22Commercialisation and monetisation of news and current affairs reporting—combined with lack of robust journalistic culture, ethics and practices—was seen as an additional factor in declining rates of public interest reporting. Submitters suggested that 'substantive public service journalism, while important, was likely to be ignored and replaced with clickbait journalism and sensationalist reporting with a higher potential of attracting clicks and subscriptions'.
2.23Several submitters pointed to current challenges to the sustainability of local and independent news reporting. The LINA noted media concentration, audience moves to digital consumption, and 'the weakening of business models sustained by advertising and user-fees on a global scale' as key changes. It contended that scarce resources, socioeconomic pressures on both audiences and advertisers, and the localised impact of smaller community news outlets create further barriers to media sustainability.
2.24Given the changing environment and the acknowledged speed of change, the sponsor of the bill, Senator Hanson-Young, called for a reframing of the emphasis for 'some type of independent Commission' to look at the regulation of all media outlets equally, including major tech platforms.
2.25Senator Hanson-Young stated that compared to unregulated social media platforms, Murdoch media could be considered a 'trusted' news provider:
Upon reflection, I think the community, while they're upset and they distrust the Murdoch media, they're increasingly looking at other players and going 'you know, this needs a clean up across the board'.
2.26Senator Hanson-Young raised concerns about the platforms, including their use of algorithms, monetisation of people's data, and amplification of extreme views and hatred. She argued for better overarching regulation of all news media providers to limit harm and ensure the availability of trusted news to restore community trust and platforms' social licence to operate, as well as build informed democracy.
2.27In particular, Senator Hanson-Young called for social media platforms to be designated to pay for news content, but also platforms 'need to be designated to carry news in the public interest, because otherwise it will just be a platform of mis and disinformation that can never be debunked by you, me, an individual user or an organisation'. The Australian Government has introduced further measures to address these issues, as discussed later in this chapter.
Petition for a Royal Commission
2.28Several submitters referenced the high public interest in the previous Senate inquiry into media diversity—an inquiry which attracted over 5000 submissions—and the petition calling for a Royal Commission into media diversity. The petition, received by the House of Representatives on 9 November 2020, received 501 876 signatures of support, and was claimed to be Australian Parliament's most signed petition.
2.29The then Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts, the Hon Paul Fletcher MP, responded to the petition in late January 2021 advising that work was already being done to improve media diversity and sustainability, highlighting that:
existing rules already supported a diverse media sector; and
the Australian Government had already put measures in place to support media businesses, including by investing in regional journalism, releasing the Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund, providing tax and short‑term red tape release, supporting Australian screen content, releasing a media reform green paper for consultation, and the development of the News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Code.
2.30A subsequent petition calling for a Royal Commission, signed by 108 petitioners, was presented on 30 November 2020. Minister Fletcher made a similar response to that petition.
2.31Most of the areas identified in the petition for further inquiry are covered by the proposed Media Commission's terms of reference.
Commentary on the nature of the inquiry
2.32Although several submitters called for a Royal Commission into Australia's media, there were no specific objections to the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry as opposed to a Royal Commission and the committee acknowledges the wide-ranging powers of the Commission powers, as proposed by the bill.
Terms of reference
2.33Several submitters suggested extending the proposed Media Commission's terms of reference, to include the following explicit areas of inquiry:
labelling—'clear and prominent labelling' of media stories, for example, as opinion, advice or promotional, and the identification of any sponsors;
mandatory Code of conduct—implementation of an enforceable media Code of conduct with an independent enforcement body;
ethics and populism in the media—ethics and the monetisation and sensationalism of news reporting;
reporting on climatechange—an explicit term of reference to explore 'the role of Murdoch-owned media outlets in the denial and denigration of climate science' and the impacts of climate change reporting on public discourse and policy;
defamation laws—the impact of current laws on investigative reporting;
corruption and whistleblower protections—including the adequacy of current measures; and
tax affairs—the tax affairs of Murdoch-owned media—in particular, 'the purported low rate of tax' paid in Australia'.
Turning minds to potential solutions
2.34As well as commenting on the terms of reference and nature of the proposed Media Commission, some submitters discussed potential solutions to improve media diversity in Australia:
modernisation of regulations and the regulator—with updated provisions to include diversity of content, perspective, and information sources in addition to diversity of media ownership; requirements for truth in reporting and political advertising with appropriate penalties; improvements to the regulatory system including a stronger independent regulator; and, better regulation of digital media;
changes to defamation and whistleblower laws—including rebalancing of current defamation laws to help protect free press and the open exchange of ideas;
amendments to media ownership and competition laws—including reinstating the 'fit and proper person' test in broadcasting legislation, consideration of public interest when considering media ownership, and market competitiveness;
implementation of an industry Code of conduct—to establish ethics responsibilities;
broader taxation relief and other support for industry—including to address high newsroom costs and for not-for-profit and public interest media organisations;
increased government spending on advertising—as part of the 'role of government in supporting a viable and diverse public interest journalism sector', including legislated government advertising spend ratios; and
improved media literacy—to address mis and disinformation and improve informed decision-making and inclusion in Australian society.
Measures currently underway
2.35The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts (the department) described a number of measures aimed at improving media diversity—discussed below—which are already in the process of being developed and implemented.
2.36The News Media Assistance Program (News MAP) aims to 'establish a robust evidence base and clear principles to guide future policy interventions that support public interest journalism and safeguard media diversity'. It will gather data and measure news diversity to inform and guide the development of longer‑term policy measures to foster public interest journalism and media diversity. Public consultation on News MAP, including on policy and regulatory objectives, the role for the public versus private sector, government support and incentives, measuring media diversity, and improving news and media literacy closed in late February 2024. No further details about the consultation have been released to date.
2.37As part of News MAP, the ACMA is implementing the Media Diversity Measurement Framework to measure news diversity. In December 2023, the ACMA published advice it provided to the Australian Government on implementing the News Map including the results of public consultation and an updated framework. The updated framework includes key indicators for measuring diversity across source, content and exposure domains, with the framework intended to be reviewed and updated over time.
2.38The advice was accepted by the Australian Government, which included that the ACMA develop a regular report series examining the state of the Australian news market from the end of 2024 (and every two years thereafter). At the same time the Government announced $10.5 million over four years for the implementation of the framework.
2.39In June 2024, the ACMA indicated it was 'moving towards fleshing out that [Media Diversity Measurement] framework, with the intent to provide a report to the government by the end of this year of what we've found and the datasets that we can access to really dig into the media diversity landscape of today, as opposed to the media landscape of 10 to 15 years ago'.
News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code
2.40In 2021, the News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code (the Code) came into effect. The Code 'aims to help support the sustainability of the Australian news media sector by addressing bargaining power imbalances between digital platforms and Australian news businesses'. It does this by providing incentives and mechanisms 'to ensure that digital platforms remunerate news businesses for the news content distributed on digital platform services, thereby helping to sustain public interest journalism in Australia'.
2.41A 2022 Treasury review of the Code found it 'has been a success to date' with over 30 agreements made with Google and Meta and a range of news businesses. This conclusion was reached despite some stakeholders raising 'concerns about the Code's impact on competition and media diversity'. The review made five recommendations for improvement—all of which were agreed by the Australian Government—including that:
the Government consider directing the ACCC [Australian Competition and Consumer Commission] to prepare periodic reports on extending the Code to other platforms;
the Government consider the need for additional ACCC information gathering powers in relation to agreements between platforms and news businesses, in the context of its response to the ACCC's recent proposed major digital platforms reforms; and
the Government consider Commissioning another review of the Code after it has operated for 4 years.
2.42This inquiry also received evidence raising concerns about the 'processes and outcomes of the Code' and its public policy effectiveness, as well as evidence on whether the Code has addressed the impact of global platforms on news sharing in Australia.
Operation of the Code
2.43The news media environment in Australia is rapidly changing, with the rising use of news content by artificial intelligence applications, as well as reports that digital platforms are 'reluctant' to renew news content contracts on expiry and that news content is significantly devalued prior to commercial negotiation.
2.44The Department noted that 'while the parties have chosen to announce these agreements, they have generally not released details of the publications or services covered by the deals, remuneration, or other related matters'. Reporting in the Australian Financial Review indicated that since March 2021, more than $200 million has been paid from Google and Meta to publishers, with another source suggesting that contracts with the various media companies are estimated at $250 million annually.
2.45Google has indicated it will negotiate new deals with media publishers. However, outlets have reported Meta's concerns with the Code, which it described as 'an untidy and short-term compromise', and its questioning of publishers' use of revenue from the commercial arrangements. In March 2024, Meta confirmed it would not be renewing commercial deals with Australian news media companies when its contracts expire. At the time, the ABC reported that Meta would not block news content after the contracts expire but that it would shut down Facebook News software feature as news distribution is not a priority. Publishers stand to lose millions of dollars in funding.
2.46The Minister for Communications, the Hon Michelle Rowland MP, and the Assistant Treasurer, the Hon Stephen Jones MP, indicated the Government had been clear in its expectations that 'we expect publishers and social media platforms who are parties to existing agreements to knuckle down and negotiate in good faith'. On news of Meta's decision, they responded:
Meta's decision to no longer pay for news content in a number of jurisdictions represents a dereliction of its commitment to the sustainability of Australian news media.
The Government has made its expectations clear.
The decision removes a significant source of revenue for Australian news media businesses. Australian news publishers deserve fair compensation for the content they provide.
The Australian Government is committed to the News Media Bargaining Code and is seeking advice from Treasury and the ACCC on next steps.
2.47The Minister for Communications advised that the Australian Government was deciding whether to designate a platform under the Code and force them into mediation (or risk fines). This process would involve data gathering and analysis to determine whether there is a significant bargaining power imbalance between the platform and an Australia news business, and whether the platform has made a significant contribution to the sustainability of the Australia news industry.
2.48Meta contended that news consumption on its platforms has dropped significantly, while others have suggested that Meta has changed its algorithms behind the scenes to make news less visible on its platform. This makes it difficult to assess real demand for news content on the platform. The Australian Government has also sought feedback from publishers on their views about designations, as well as considering events in other jurisdictions around the world.
2.49News publishers have warned that Meta may remove news from its platforms if it is designated, as it did in Canada. The Australian Government advised in June 2024 that the ACCC had provided advice to the Assistant Treasurer on the implementation of the Code, in particular 'whether there is a significant bargaining power imbalance between Australian news businesses and the platforms'. At the same time, Treasury indicated the Government was both seeking and providing advice on a range of issues, including potential 'must carry' rules to force Meta to retain news on its platforms, the extent to which taxation powers could be used to encourage platforms to comply, and the enforcement of any changes on a global tech company.
Disinformation and misinformation
2.50In 2019, the Australian Government asked major digital platforms to develop a voluntary Code of practice to address online disinformation, misinformation and news quality concerns. The voluntary Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation (the Dis-Misinformation Code) was launched by the Digital Industry Group Inc (DIGI) in February 2021. The Dis‑Misinformation Code has been adopted by Adobe, Apple, Meta, Google, Legitimate, Microsoft, Redbubble, TikTok and Twitch.
2.51In June 2021, the ACMA provided the inaugural report to the Australian Government on the adequacy of digital platforms' disinformation and news quality measures. It found that mis- and disinformation was being spread via online platforms, was causing harm, and most Australians wanted to see it better addressed.
2.52The ACMA's second transparency report, released in July 2023, found that Australians were increasingly concerned about the spread of dis- and misinformation, and that there had been some improvements to the Dis‑Misinformation Code and its administration. However, the ACMA also highlighted that the industry needed to take further steps to review and make the Dis‑Misinformation Code more responsive to technology and other developments, provide better reporting and transparency over the ways in which they are tackling dis- and misinformation, and improve complaints handling and Code administration.
2.53In September 2024, the ACMA released its third report on the operation of the Dis-Misinformation Code. The report concluded that more Australians than ever are concerned about dis- and misinformation on digital platforms. It also found that while some reporting had improved, 'reports are inconsistent, data is patchy and Australians cannot be confident that platforms are delivering on Code commitments'. In the report the ACMA indicated it was progressing work on a Code measurement framework for future implementation, particularly given lack of progress on development of key, industry-wide key performance measures.
2.54Ms Nerida O'Loughlin, Chair of the ACMA, appearing before the Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society, reported 'we think there is a very urgent need for the [signatories to the Dis-Misinformation Code] to improve the level of transparency about the measures they have in place and the actions they're taking', as well as 'significant improvements' required to that Code.
Other media reform measures
2.55More broadly, the Department anticipated further regulatory reform in relation to media—informed by several previous reviews of Australia's media regulatory framework. It advised that the Australian Government is 'committed to a program of media reform to modernise media regulations and fulfil the legitimate expectations of citizens and consumers and industry for consistency and equity in our regulatory environment'.
2.56The ACMA and the Australian Government are progressing a range of other measures aimed at improving media diversity and addressing dis- and misinformation, including:
ongoing cross-agency engagement through the Digital Platform Regulators Forum (DP-REG), comprising the ACCC, the ACMA, the eSafety Commissioner, and the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. Key priorities for 2024–26 include building regulatory coherence, increased collaboration and information sharing, and building understanding and responses to emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence;
the ACCC's five-year inquiry into digital platforms services, anticompetitive and unfair conduct, and including the latest report which examined developments in general search services, including the impact of artificial intelligence;
plans to introduce legislation requiring age verification for children to access social media, before the end of 2024;
modernisation of the National Classification Scheme, including amendments to 'improve the capacity of the National Classification Scheme to classify growing volumes of content, promote industry compliance and reduce classification timeframes and costs' and the addition of new classifications for gambling-like content in video games;
consultation on implementing Australia's new TV prominence framework to make it easier to 'find and access free-to-air services and apps';
strengthening of the Anti-siphoning Scheme which aims to 'promote the free availability to audiences throughout Australia of television coverage of events of national importance and cultural significance', by extending the scheme to regulate online streaming services; and
progressing Australian content requirements for streaming platforms.
2.57As part of this agenda, and in recognition of the harm caused by dis- and misinformation on digital platforms, in September 2024, the Government introduced the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024. The bill aims to improve transparency and accountability, and help 'protect Australians from seriously harmful online mis- and disinformation', while providing 'protections for freedom of expression'. The bill intends to:
impose obligations on digital communications platform providers in relation to the dissemination of content on a digital communications platform that contains information that is reasonably verifiable as false, misleading or deceptive, and is reasonably likely to cause or contribute to serious harm of a specified type (misinformation and disinformation);
expand the Australian Communications and Media Authority's compliance and enforcement powers in relation to misinformation and disinformation; and
make consequential amendments [including to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and other Acts].
2.58At the time of tabling this report, the bill had been referred to this committee for further inquiry, with a report due to be tabled in the Senate by 25 November 2024. The inquiry has already generated significant public interest.
2.59The Australian Government also established the Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society which is inquiring into the influence and impacts of social media on Australian society. The committee's final report is due to be tabled by 18 November 2024.
Support for industry
2.60Various incentives and support schemes have been introduced by recent governments to address short-term challenges (such as the COVID-19 pandemic) and longer-term structural issues (such as increased consumption of digital media and reductions in traditional media's advertising revenue). Support measures include:
Public Interest Journalism Initiative (PIJI)—over $1 million in government funding to PIJI—a not-for-profit company which produces the Australian News Data Report—to support data projects associated with those which assess public interest news and media diversity, including data projects.
Local and independent news funding—government funding of $1.5 million has been allocated to LINA to collect data and evidence and assist local and community news publishers to build capacity and increase diversity.
The Australian Associated Press (AAP) was provided an additional $6 million in December 2023 'given the fundamental role the newswire service plays in supporting public interest journalism and media diversity, including in regional communities'.
The Regional and Small Publishers Jobs and Innovation program—which allocated $64.4 million over three years to the Innovation Fund, cadetships and scholarships from 2018.
Regional and Local Newspapers Publishers Program—including $15 million over 2022–23 to help offset rising print costs.
The Public Interest News Gathering program—which allocated $50 million to increase public interest journalism in regional Australia and provide relief to publishers and broadcasters during the COVID–19 pandemic (2020‑22);
The Journalist Fund assistance—including $5 million in 2022–23 to assist regional and First Nations news businesses to hire cadets and produce local news content.
Public broadcasting funding—in 2023 the Government moved the ABC and SBS to five-year funding terms to provide greater funding certainty and stability. Over the five years to mid-2028 the ABC will receive $6 billion and the SBS will receive $1.8 billion, while in 2023 the government provided $1.4 billion to the ABC and SBS 'in part to support their role as trusted sources of news to all Australians', including to regional Australians. Over $20 million per annum was set aside from 2023–24 for the Community Broadcasting Program to foster local capability development.
Recent commitments
2.61The 2024 Budget contained a number of measures designed to support media sustainability and diversity, including:
$43.2 million over 2024–25 to 2029–30 (and $7.4 million annually ongoing) to support the delivery of 'communications priorities', including 'digital inclusion and communications resilience';
$22.6 million over five years (and $1.5 million annually ongoing) to support the modernisation of media regulation;
$12 million in 2024–25 to support the Australian Associated Press;
$2.5 million over two years for media literacy. This includes initiatives in culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities, in conjunction with community organisations and support for media literacy tools in schools through the Alannah and Madeline Foundation; and
support for public broadcasters and news organisations (as discussed above) which already undertake work to improve media literacy.
Committee view
2.62The committee acknowledges the rapidly changing face of Australia's media ecosystem, including widespread changes in where and how Australians consume their news and receive information (especially on digital platforms), the impact of technological changes on traditional media business models, the rise of populist and political journalism, and the value of public interest journalism to democracy. Through this and other inquiries, the committee has seen that a healthy democracy and inclusive society in Australia depends on the free and open exchange of ideas and information, and informed decision-making.
2.63Australia is not alone in the challenges it is facing. Democracies around the world are challenged by where and how people are obtaining news and information, and the dissemination and amplification of mis- and disinformation, exacerbated by the global pandemic.
2.64Recently the ACMA found that 75 per cent of Australians themselves are concerned about misinformation, particularly online. In 2023, 82 per cent of people surveyed had been exposed to misinformation online, and 52 per cent thought it was government's responsibility to reduce exposure to harmful content.
2.65The committee thanks submitters and witnesses to the inquiry who conveyed their thoughts on Australia's media diversity and the impact of current media diversity on their families and communities.
2.66As illustrated by evidence received by this inquiry—as well as other current and previous inquiries—the issues impacting Australia's media diversity are evolving rapidly, but are generally clearly identified and well understood.
2.67The committee shares the widespread view that more needs to be done—by digital platforms, by government, by parents, and by media consumers themselves—to prevent the spread of dis- and misinformation, and to help ensure that Australia's media is independent, principled, diverse and well‑resourced. The committee recognises that there are a number of ways to achieve this.
2.68Consultation with industry and the public has already been undertaken by the Australian Government on the most effective approaches, and there will be further consultations as solutions are developed and put in place.
2.69The Australian Government is implementing measures to benefit all Australians—by helping to ensure Australia's media is diverse, that dis- and misinformation on digital platforms is minimised and freedom of speech protections are strengthened, that digital platforms be more transparent about how they manage content and complaints, that standards and regulatory powers are fit for purpose, and that children are protected from the worst harms.
2.70Further, in recognition of the value of Australians being able to make free, informed and personal decisions about what information they consume and where they consume it from, the Australian Government has supported media literacy programs, particularly for vulnerable CALD communities.
2.71Given these developments, the committee considers the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry is not the most appropriate mechanism for addressing the challenges facing Australia's media landscape, especially since a significant range of measures to address the issues have already been initiated.
2.72The committee recommends that the bill not be passed.
Senator Karen Grogan
Chair
Labor Senator for South Australia