The Turnbull government’s changes to media ownership rules that sparked the merger of Nine and Fairfax would mean “it was much less likely” that a major Australian media organisation will fail, communications minister Mitch Fifield has claimed.
Speaking on ABC’s Q&A program on Monday night, Fifield and Labor’s finance spokesman Jim Chalmers went head to head in a feisty but respectful debate that was heavy on policy, but also touched on the weekend byelections.
Fifield was asked by the host, Tony Jones, “if he would feel sad” if the Fairfax mastheads – the Sydney Morning Herald and the Melbourne Age – were to disappear from Australian life like the carmaker Holden.
But the minister argued that the status quo on media ownership rules was not an option.
“I think if we did nothing, if we didn’t change the law and left it as it was, then you could say to me: ‘Don’t you feel responsibility for Australian media organisations going backwards?’” Fifield said.
“What we’ve done is give a fighting chance to Australian media organisations and obviously Nine are getting together with Fairfax because they see value in the mastheads of the Sydney Morning Herald.
Are you concerned about the concentration of media ownership in Australia? @lenoretaylor @SenatorFifield & @JEChalmers respond #QandA pic.twitter.com/5aZAU7ts8g
— ABC Q&A (@QandA) July 30, 2018
“Let’s not forget there weren’t market forces at play before the media laws were changed. What we’re hoping to do through the changes that we’ve made is to help enhance the viability of Australian media organisations,” he said.
But Lenore Taylor, editor of Guardian Australia, who was also on the panel, warned that just creating larger, commercially stronger media organisations did not necessarily deliver a journalistically strong organisation.
“Nine does good journalism but it’s very different to the journalism that’s done at Fairfax and almost everybody looking at this merger and the cultures of the two organisations is very, very worried about what’s going to happen to Fairfax journalism in that environment,” she said.
The merger was against the backdrop of Australia having one of the most concentrated media markets in the world and at a time when there was a real threat to civic journalism that holds the powerful to account.
She also warned that having three big companies as competitors would make it a lot harder for smaller startups like the Guardian to compete.
Fifield raised the ABC as an important source of diversity in the new media landscape but immediately drew questions about cuts to funding.
He denied there had been an agreement with One Nation to cut the funding of the ABC, in response to an audience question suggesting such a pact.
Does the future of the ABC depend on which major party forms Government? @SenatorFifield @JEChalmers & Tony Winwood respond #QandA pic.twitter.com/4X9h5TXzb4
— ABC Q&A (@QandA) July 30, 2018
He said the recent cut of $84m paired with the latest efficiency review was a way to ensure the ABC was “the best possible steward of taxpayer dollars.”
Chalmers said that Labor would restore the $84m , signalling that this would be a major difference between the parties at the next election.
“We will invest in the ABC properly because we consider it to have a really important role to play in our democracy. And the other mob will cut it,” he said.
On the matter of the Coalition’s planned company tax cuts, Fifield resorted to attacking Labor leader Bill Shorten rather than defending the cuts.
"It's not the leader that will make the difference. It's the vision."https://t.co/Z83lKAFvHr
— ten daily (@tendailyau) July 30, 2018
“Something’s changed since Bill Shorten was the assistant treasurer. The Labor party had a view that every dollar that is earned in the Australian community belongs to government and government benevolently will sometimes let people keep a bit of it,” he said.
Chalmers responded: “We don’t support this company tax cut which will flow overwhelmingly overseas and to the big four banks.”
The issue that raised strong reactions from the audience was a question about the retirement age.
A young woman asked whether it was fair to expect people in manual jobs to continue working until they are 67, adding that her dad wanted to be there in the audience but “he’s literally exhausted from work”.
RHas the pension age been increased because it costs less to pay people Newstart? @parnellpalme @lenoretaylor & @SenatorFifield respond #QandA pic.twitter.com/QM0s1FoFZz
— ABC Q&A (@QandA) July 30, 2018
The Coalition has proposed lifting it to 70 by 2035.
Tweets rolled in: “Can’t imagine being a teacher with five periods a day at 67 or even 70.”
