Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Great coincidences occur from time to time. In his presentation last night, the member for Lowe was really concerned that the legislation relevant to media ownership, the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006, was going to immediately facilitate a massive Packer-Murdoch monopoly across the media, and there was some suggestion that every journalist so employed would knuckle their foreheads. When I spoke previously on this legislation, I pointed out that I thought that the Packer interests were more interested, for a start, in getting out of media than getting into it, because their new business direction seems to be in overseas casinos. It is amazing that, when we picked up the Financial Review this morning, we found that that is exactly what the Packer group are going to do. They are putting up half of their media properties for sale, for a very substantial amount of money, and, what is more, it is more than likely that the purchasers will be private equity people who, as we know, are very focused on business and not on influencing the country in any way. I also pointed out that the Murdoch enterprises have a few difficulties to resolve in the United States and may or may not be major participants in purchasing further media assets in Australia anyway.

So the first thing we have to understand in this business world regards the suggestion that people sit at home, as they might have once, seeking to buy media assets for the power that might apply. They have a much tougher and more business oriented approach to these things these days. I think those predictions—made quite genuinely by the member for Lowe—are unlikely to materialise. However, I have a point of agreement with him, and I am not sure if he was expounding Labor Party policy at the time: I cannot see why, in making these decisions, we continue to limit the number of commercial television stations from which people can provide a service. If spectrum is available for them to transmit their signal, I cannot see any reason why they cannot start in business. I would hope and I would think that there is not much chance that they would just regurgitate other variations of Neighbours, Desperate Housewives or whatever—notwithstanding that I presume they broadcast these things because the community wants to watch them. I would hope that there would be some true diversity in the type of programming that other media licensees might provide.

Of course, outside of the issues of spectrum, radio media is much less regulated, particularly with regard to numbers. We see new players coming in and we see overseas investors coming in, bringing new technologies and new formats, some of which have been responded to very sincerely and significantly by the listening audiences of Australia, and it really starts to smarten up other providers. Many of them do not have shock jocks and do not interfere with driving around the place, as I do, while listening to the radio. I start with ABC NewsRadio to make sure that I find out what we did yesterday, after which I go to a station in Perth that just provides music—pop music of a few years gone by—and I enjoy listening to that as I drive along; it allows me to not have to think too much. All of those options are here already. ‘The end of the world will occur tomorrow’ type arguments that will be raised in this debate have no standing.

I also made the point that I think it is a bit of an insult to the journalism profession to suggest that it will always be the media proprietor who dictates their policies. I think that a free press resides within the principles of journalism. I am aware of that sometimes in complaining about the journalistic policy, for instance, of the West Australian newspaper, more when it fails by default to put what I think are important issues into its pages. My correspondence with the board always gets the same answer: ‘That’s none of our business. We run the business, but we’re not interested particularly in what the journalists say, provided they stay within the laws of defamation et cetera.’

I might add, as an example, that I provided a press release to the West Australian newspaper in response to the Premier of Western Australia, who wanted to tell all natural gas development companies who wish to liquefy the gas and export it—because that is the most profitable marketplace—that he wants to keep 20 per cent for Western Australia. That has not been well received. I think he has now come back to 15 per cent. But if he were to promote the tides of the Kimberleys as a source of electrical generation, that would reduce by 10 per cent the amount of gas being consumed by these companies as energy to liquefy the gas they sell to foreign purchasers. It takes 100,000 tonnes of gas to produce one million tonnes of liquid gas. That electricity could be provided by a renewable resource of huge magnitude in the vicinity of these gas deposits—namely, the tides of the Kimberleys. That was treated with absolute contempt by the West Australian. They did not think that was a matter that anybody would want to read about—yet, when you see some of their front page stories, you wonder who would want to read some of the things they put there.

That is not going to change because of this legislation. That is the choice of journalists. They make the judgements as to what is interesting to the community. I think sometimes in the present environment they let people down in not challenging them on these debates. I think there is still a principle in journalism that, as long as you can get two people to say the opposite thing, you have a story. I think that some of those other matters that seem so logical are ignored accordingly.

One of these bills also provides for some improvements to the digital service. It is going to create two new digital channels which will be open for competition, I understand, from both the free-to-air providers and others. My plea is that they do not just become another means of distributing soap operas and things of that nature. There is a desperate need in my electorate for data on the world price of rural commodities, for example. I think that should be the sort of information that goes on some of these new channels. There are many other examples. There are people significantly interested in what is going on in the Stock Exchange and things of that nature. Let us hope that, when people bid for these particular new channels, those who make the final decision look at the content as well as the bid price.

I am encouraged, by the way, because I became deeply concerned that through our party room some changes not recommended by the minister were made which imposed local content provisions on all rural and regional radio stations. Some, of course, in the pursuit of customers and advertisers, do exactly that today because it attracts a listening audience. But when others, for instance, as I am advised, operate as a remote station in a network simply because their advertising revenue is $50,000 or $60,000 per annum, they clearly cannot meet the sorts of costs involved—which may be even up to $300,000—to employ journalists and others at each locality.

In fact, after we took this decision, the Macquarie Radio Network announced that they would probably close about nine regional stations. One of them is in Esperance, in the electorate of Kalgoorlie, which I have represented in the past. That was originally a radio station owned by the local people. I think I bought some shares in it at the time just to see if they got the money to get it off the ground. Katanning is in my electorate. Narrogin, Merredin and Northam are also typical. I think Merredin is in the Kalgoorlie electorate and the others are in the Pearce electorate.

Anyway, I can inform the House that there was a further amendment passed in the Senate which says that, whilst that provision applies in general, there is now a review process that allows ACMA to make some decisions about whether or not local content, to the extent recommended in the legislation, is feasible for those stations. Clearly it is not. We cannot ask people to provide a service that is in excess of their available revenue. That revenue is restricted by the businesses within the listening area. On the other hand, they value the service as much as those people who listen to them because they want the opportunity to promote their goods and services. I think we have a reasonable balance there. I was quite concerned about it. I have not experienced the difficulties that some others described in having those sorts of stations operating within my electorate.

There is generally a great improvement in this legislation in terms of media ownership. It makes it available to overseas interests. This is a global economy. In a global economy, money flows all over the place. We as Australians are investing all over the world in people’s tollways and other infrastructure programs. Australians can go and buy shares on overseas stock markets. That is all really a great improvement. I would reject any suggestion that there are negatives in this legislation. (Time expired)

See this speech in context