John Murphy (Lowe, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

With great respect to my colleague and friends the member for Lindsay and the member for Hinkler, they are acutely aware of my keen interest in the government’s media policy. My contribution today, for the benefit of the member for Hinkler and the member for Lindsay, is not directed personally at them, because I know their intentions in a very narrow field in relation to the lack of uptake on digital TV are sincere. But I will argue that the government is accountable for that.

I approached the inquiry of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Information, Technology and the Arts into the paltry uptake of digital television in Australia with the naïve hope that the government would come to the long overdue realisation that Australians are sick of the vice-like grip of media fat cats over media policy in our country. The inordinately slow adoption rate of digital television should be of major concern to the government. It is estimated that fewer than 500,000 of Australia’s 7.8 million households—or a feeble penetration rate of five per cent—have adopted digital television. This is compared with figures of around 70 per cent penetration of the United Kingdom market.

There can be absolutely no doubt that this monumental failure to convince Australians to take up digital technology before the scheduled termination of analog transmission in 2008 lies squarely at the feet of the Howard government’s media policy, which continues to sell out our democracy and the public interest to the incumbent media players, as I have been saying in this House for the last five years.

I am disappointed that this inquiry’s background discussion paper continues the government’s tradition of attempting to off-load the responsibility for its failures by attempting to muddy the waters of responsibility. I have not been misled by such ‘key points’ as whether the retail sector has failed to embrace digital television technology or whether the industry can further facilitate the uptake of digital television. Neither have the Australian people.

There are many submissions in the possession of this inquiry which contain a common theme of disenchantment with laws that have clearly been purpose built for this country’s media moguls. I will paraphrase from but a few of such submissions. John White believes Australians are not taking up digital television because people do not perceive any additional benefits such as multichannelling. Steve Ulrich and Paul Macknamara believe that digital television does not offer enough additional programming or content to provide incentive for consumers to upgrade. Erik Fenna questions the value of upgrading to digital television and is rightly sceptical of its benefits. These are the thoughts that are common among many submissions, and they are conclusions that have been confirmed by the report of a study commissioned by the Australian Communications and Media Authority in 2005 titled Digital media in Australian homes.

It is sad that the likes of Erik Fenna should remain sceptical about the inherent value of digital television technology. It is sadder still that such scepticism should exist because of the actions and policies of the Howard government. In my view, the advent of digital television in 2001 should have been a major milestone for the television industry. However, due to the government’s poor handling of its implementation, digital television has become nothing more than a pale imitation of analog transmission.

With the exception of the SBS and the ABC, the government’s Broadcasting Services Act does not allow broadcasters to take full advantage of the technology of digital TV by offering services such as multichannelling and unrestricted datacasting, despite the public’s clear demands for greater diversity in TV programming.

The obvious question must arise: why is the government withholding a superior product from the Australian people by dogmatically grasping its flawed policies on datacasting and multichannelling? Some insight may be sought from the comments by the previous Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston where, inter alia, he said:

… the Government does not want datacasters to be able to provide the same kinds of programs as we already get on television.

Just why it is so abhorrent for datacasters to compete with existing networks has never been clearly articulated by the government. Indeed, the government has often refused to tell the Australian people the real agenda of its policies, which are designed in the main, as I have been saying for the last five years, to benefit Australia’s major media owners—Mr Murdoch and now Mr James Packer—further concentrating media ownership in Australia and doing irreparable damage to the public interest and Australia’s democracy. But I will come to that later.

The former minister’s comments merely scratch the surface. The government’s refusal to allow new entrants into the media industry knows no bounds. What is most problematic about the approach to digital television in Australia is this government’s track record of deviating from a commitment to providing a diverse range of services offering entertainment, education, news and information. It seems more willing to do all it can to further concentrate media ownership in Australia, even if it is at the expense of the future of digital television. That is the view that I sincerely hold. At every juncture of digital TV policy, the government has navigated a dangerous path which seeks to appease entrenched segments of the television and pay television industry, including Messrs Packer and Murdoch. Tell me if I am wrong?

The government has successfully regulated the content that datacasters may broadcast to prevent them from becoming alternative sources of news and information to the mass market through what should have been the digital revolution. In 1998 the government shamefully amended the Broadcasting Services Act to outlaw the allocation of commercial television licences to new entrants, despite the increased spectrum that would conceivably become available through the advent of digital television.

Most galling of all, the government is blindly adopting the Packer and Murdoch doctrine of abolishing cross-media ownership laws. If it were not so damaging to our democracy, it would almost be comical that the government could consider removing cross-media protections before removing the present regulatory barriers to entry, of which I have just spoken. It is unconscionable that new entrants are presently forbidden from acquiring a television licence so as to allow incumbent and more powerful media proprietors the opportunity to challenge for the same licences upon the repeal of cross-media laws.

In his Australia Day address to the National Press Club, the Prime Minister made several exalting references to Australia’s proud democratic traditions: ‘There can be no doubt that a fiercely independent media, strengthened by industry diversity, has contributed to these democratic traditions.’ That is what he said. Why then is the Howard government hell-bent on reducing opportunities provided by digital television to increase the diversity of services, while simultaneously abolishing cross-media ownership laws, and all the while putting more power and influence in the hands of unelected media proprietors?

This government is not interested in the opportunities for digital TV in datacasting, in my view. It is not interested in the opportunities for digital TV in multichanelling. It is not interested in ensuring that there are more rather than fewer media proprietors in Australia. It is seemingly only interested in dispensing threats posed to the two biggest media players. In a report published in 2000, the Productivity Commission reported that the total value of television licences in Australia was $3 billion as at June 1998. They are not in need of protection.

It is time that this government began to represent the Australian people on the issues of digital TV and media diversity, not the media fat cats to whom it appears to be so beholden. If the government is serious about increasing the uptake of digital TV and honouring the laudable objectives of the Broadcasting Services Act, it must recognise that it has failed to capitalise on the many technological advantages of digital television and, as a result, provided little if no incentive for consumers to adopt digital television.

In conclusion, and with great respect to my colleagues opposite, I am sending a message to the government through them—because I know they are sincere members of parliament and look after their electorates—it must take a greater and genuine interest in datacasting, multichannelling and abolishing the restriction of new free-to-air television entrants if it is to overcome its abject failure in stimulating digital television adoption. I do not think there can be a more serious threat to the public interest in our democracy than the agenda of the government concentrating media ownership. Kowtowing to the two biggest players is very un-Australian.

See this speech in context