It doesn't take much imagination to recognise how vital ABC services have been in the last few weeks as bushfires have raged through our northern rainforests and rural and regional communities from Humpty Doo and Dundee, on the outskirts of Darwin, through to Queensland and northern New South Wales. For the community that I represent, and the many volunteers who have travelled north to assist, it is really easy to imagine how reliant people are on their local ABC news service at this time.

I know only too well, because, while the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury are not often considered regional, we have all the characteristics of regional areas. ABC 702 was our local natural disaster station during the October 2013 bushfires six years ago. It was Richard Glover who told me that my suburb was under attack. We monitored 702 constantly during the drive back to the Blue Mountains, in between texting our son and neighbours and following Facebook and Twitter, to piece together the enormity of what was happening. It wasn't just on the day when mine and so many other homes were lost but it was the days that followed. Keep in mind that had the power and mobile phone systems not been working, as was the case recently for Bilpin and many other areas, 702 on a battery operated radio would have been our only source of information. So I get that it's important. That's why I don't think it was going too far when I saw the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance media release last year warning that cuts to the ABC were 'dangerous and irresponsible' in the wake of the 2018 budget announcements by this government. Of all the issues around a strong and independent public broadcaster that this government, with its supposed representation of regional and rural Australia, should be thinking about, it's an absolute joke that this is the bill we're seeing.

I don't think that those opposite, who have been speaking about the importance of the ABC to their regional communities—and I absolutely agree with them about that, how important it is—have read this bill, because this bill is not going to improve the service that their regional communities receive one bit. We have many reasons to oppose this bill and move an amendment. For a start, it is completely unwarranted and it duplicates things that are already in place, and basically provides more work for already stretched ABC people and no more resources. Importantly, it will do nothing extra for rural and regional Australia. Like much of this government's legislation, the words of the media release are never quite achieved by the actual piece of legislation that we see in this parliament. This also fails to act on the recommendations of the ACCC Digital Platforms Inquiry on the ABC. For all its claims of supporting rural and regional Australia, this government has absolutely failed to put any money where its mouth is for the ABC and rural and regional Australia.

Let's talk about these issues in a little bit more detail—first, the duplication. There are proposed charter amendments. This is supposedly going to make things better somehow for rural and regional Australians as they turn on their ABC service. But there is actually no evidence provided by this government of any shortcomings in the charter for the ABC with respect to rural and regional Australia. The current charter already creates obligations for the ABC to serve rural and regional Australians, and most people will tell you, and those opposite have told us, how effectively the ABC is delivering on that charter. So you've got to question why we need something extra when the charter is there.

To the extent that there could be improvements in the coverage amounts or frequency of local news in rural and regional Australia, neither of those problems are going to be solved with a change to the ABC Act. Funding is much more in play there. Let's look at the establishment of a regional advisory council. This council is supposedly going to ensure that the board will take into account the unique views and needs of regional areas in making any significant changes to its broadcasting services and the way that they impact regional audiences. Again, this is total duplication, particularly as the ABC's resources are already stretched in service provision. We're spending more money on advice. I think that, if you ask anyone at the ABC, they know exactly how to improve services, and that is by providing more funding. We don't need more advice.

The third bit is around the ABC board's connection to regional Australia—again, completely unnecessary. The bill is all about ensuring there are two non-executive directors with a substantial connection to or substantial experience in a regional area through business, industry or community involvement. The minister already has the discretion to appoint people to the board if he or she feels there is a gap, so again it is completely unnecessary. As for the additional reporting obligations, yes, that's what everybody needs—more red tape! So that's the duplication issue. On that basis alone, there is really no necessity for this bill, and I cannot see what it adds.

Let's get clear about the funding cuts that have occurred to the ABC. Since 2013, the Liberals have cut $360 million from the ABC's budget. Those are not my figures; those are their figures. That was after the then prime ministerial candidate Tony Abbott said 'no cuts to the ABC', which we all remember, on the eve of the 2013 election. As a consequence, 800 jobs have gone from the ABC to free up funds for Australian content, educational resources and regional communities.
In spite of those cuts, the words I've heard from just about every speaker in this debate are that the ABC still demonstrates a strong commitment to rural and regional Australia. The ABC already allocates around a third of its budget for the one-third of Australians who live in rural and regional areas and, since 2017, has increased regional investment by $15 million a year, creating 80 new content jobs across the country. The ABC also works really hard to bring rural and regional issues to the city. Country Hour, Landline, Back Roads and initiatives like Heywire are all happening already, without the need for this piece of legislation.

The thing that is really stopping greater commitment to rural and regional Australia isn't the lack of new rules and extra reporting; it's funding. As the MEAA told the Senate inquiry into a previous version of this bill—and this was highlighted by Labor senators in their dissenting report:

Traditional regional and rural media voices—across print, broadcast television and radio have been in decline for some time and this trend shows no sign of abating.

I have been one of those regional and rural voices as a rural reporter in commercial radio for the 2UE network in the 1980s, broadcasting the news from parliament to farmers and producers around the country. That was a position funded by the 2UE network, and it meant that issues that might relate to just one small part of Australia were given a run. Those types of journalist positions have drastically declined in the commercial world. As the MEAA says, the issue:

… is far greater than the ABC's role and contribution. Diversity and local content are rapidly diminishing … as funds dry up in both commercial and public media organisations.

Trying to address this broad issue solely through the ABC is ridiculous, especially without additional funding. To quote the MEAA:
The reorganisation of regional services has occurred on several occasions in the last decade or so. These reorganisations are always attended … by supportive words and some new deeds; they cannot, however, mask the slow deterioration in the ABC's actual presence in regional communities.

In spite of that, we still all feel they're doing a pretty good job.

That takes me to the recommendations of the ACCC's digital platforms inquiry. Not a skerrick of the recommendations is reflected in this legislation—what a missed opportunity there! One of the issues that the review looked at is the disruption of Australian media and the risk of underinvestment in journalism—and journalism is what rural and regional communities want. All of us want to hear local stories about our own local communities. Between 2008 and 2019, the ACCC found that 106 local and regional newspaper titles closed across Australia. That represents a 15 per cent decrease. These closures have left 21 local government areas without coverage from a single local newspaper—not just a print newspaper but a print or online publication—and 16 of those areas are in regional Australia. That's a big reduction in the reporting of local and regional affairs that the ACCC says likely reflects the consequences of the fragmentation of advertising across multiple platforms—even when you take into account the emergence of new digital production.

So, there are fewer journalists on fewer publications and, as the ACCC says, there may not be a large audience for some of the reporting, although I would beg to differ. In my community the local newspapers are very well read, but local government and regional reporting perform a really important role in exposing corruption, holding governments, corporations and individuals to account. The ACCC's recommendation is that there be stable and adequate funding to the ABC and SBS, and their conclusion about the current situation is that our public broadcasters are not currently resourced to fully compensate for the decline in local reporting previously produced by traditional commercial publishers. The ACCC is clear. Along with better funding for the ABC and SBS, it recommends a new program of direct grants targeted at local reporting and tax settings to encourage philanthropic support for journalism.

But that's not what this Liberal government is doing. Instead, we get this bill, which basically says how terrible it is that there aren't more services in regional and rural Australia. But can we just follow the logic here? The Liberals cut the funding. The ABC tightens its belt, and then the Liberals and Nationals complain that the ABC isn't spending enough on them. There's really got to be a better way. This bill won't mean more funds for emergency broadcasting. It won't mean more journalists. It won't mean more local Australian content. It won't mean that regional and rural listeners will get their Radio National music programs back. It won't bring back short wave. It won't mean any improvements in services. It makes no difference to the things that actually matter to viewers and listeners. And if that's the best this government can come up with, then they'd be better off just taking their bat and ball and going home.

I have noted that a few of my colleagues this evening have also taken the opportunity, on speaking of the ABC, to speak about Mick Millett, who has been such a fighter for the ABC in the past decade and whom we recently lost. I first worked with Mick about 30 years ago, when we were both young journalists in the press gallery. He was a few years ahead of me in seniority and, unlike some of my professional colleagues, he was very willing to fill in details and talk through the history of an issue—and all this in the age before Google. I remember him as someone who didn't push his way forward into the discussions and conversations, but when he did share a view it was absolutely worth listening to. It has been a delight in these past few years to engage with Mick again in his ABC role, with his quiet thoughtfulness and his dete