Jennie George (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Environment and Heritage) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to be able to participate in this cognate debate on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006 and Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006. As a member of parliament, I am really surprised that I am debating a bill where the rationale for the changes that have been introduced, particularly in the media ownership bill, has not come to this parliament based on any clamour by the community nor on any empirical evidence which would suggest that the carriage of this legislation would be in the national interest. It seems to me that no-one—other than a handful of media owners—has asked for the changes that we are debating. There is no remotely discernible demand from the Australian people—nor from the people whom I represent—for this parliament to now be debating a change to the existing cross-media rules, nor is there any independent evidence to show that the passage of this legislation is in our national interest. It is quite to the contrary. In the comments I make tonight, I want to show precisely why these changes are not in our national interest.

The government and the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts have failed to advance any convincing justification for why they are pursuing these changes, save to satisfy the interests of some of our noted media moguls. I have heard two arguments advanced in support of the changes. The minister argues that the media ownership bill is designed to allow media companies to realise economies of scale. One might ask: to whose benefit would that be? The media sector in this country, as we know, is highly profitable and it certainly does not require mergers to remain viable. The only result that you could contemplate from these economies of scale, in my view, is a loss of journalists’ jobs in the industry and putting localism at risk.

The other argument that I have heard is that our current cross-media regulation is anachronistic; we are told that the so-called ‘new media’ is rapidly assuming dominance over old media forms. This argument is absolute rubbish. The arrival of websites, the internet and blogs are minute blips on the information radar compared with the influence of traditional media outlets. Labor is not opposing these bills for the sake of opposition. There have been changes in media form and content in this country, but if we were genuine about media reform I think there would be principles that would underpin the changes that we would bring to the parliament rather than just a pandering to the media moguls.

There are several principles that would guide our view of media reform, and I will outline those which I think would be important. First of all, Labor, as a government, would want to promote and protect diversity of opinion by preventing an excessive concentration of ownership. Secondly, we would want to enhance consumer choice and competition in media services. Very importantly, into the future, we would want to provide the industry with a platform to grow and with the capacity to deliver the full benefits of digital technology to Australian consumers across the board.

In all respects, the bills before us fail these fundamental tests of principle. The government argues that diversity is being driven by the proliferation of new media sources and it is using this as a justification for weakening our existing cross-media laws. The concept of diversity, as we have known it in our community, has been refashioned by the government. Traditionally, diversity has been seen in terms of structural regulation of media ownership through cross-media rules, but the government now argues that the concentration of ownership argument is of lesser concern because news and information are more freely available. It is true that media information and news are available more freely elsewhere, and certainly the younger generation, unlike me, avail themselves of these new forms of communication and information gathering. However, that is not to suggest that we should be conflating the issue of content choice with the diversity of viewpoints available to the community at large.

I think a lot of this current debate is really about the refashioning of the use of the word ‘diversity’. I found a quote, which I think sums up the debate we are having on this bill quite effectively. It states:

Some argue for mechanisms to increase content diversity as a trade-off for more relaxed media ownership regulation. In recent debate, this definition of diversity based on content choice has been conflated with the more traditional understanding of diversity based on ensuring a range of opinions and viewpoints in media output. There is certainly a need for mechanisms that promote a diversity of cultural content ... however this is a different policy objective from the promotion of diversity in news, views and opinion through a plurality of ownership and control of the more influential media forms.

In my view, and in the view of those who have participated in the debate already in this House, the issue of Australia’s media concentration is well known. We know for a fact that Australia has one of the highest levels of media concentration among comparable developed democratic countries. The importance of our current cross-media rules is in the number of media outlets which have the power to influence the public debate. The substantial ‘media of influence’ in our country remain the daily newspapers, which set the news agenda, publish editorials, run campaigns and are highly influential in our communities, together with a handful of TV current affairs and radio talkback programs. Any reduction in the number of owners of these important outlets will of course concentrate power in even fewer hands. In November last year a poll conducted by Roy Morgan found that, in the Australian community, 48 per cent of Australians use television as their main source of information, 22 per cent use newspapers, 19 per cent use radio and only eight per cent get information from the internet—so much for the argument that the new forms of media are making our existing cross-media laws redundant.

I am particularly concerned about the impact of these changes on the community that I represent, the Illawarra. We know also from the evidence that regional media in Australia is already highly concentrated. In mid-2005, four companies controlled all but seven of our 36 regional daily newspapers, three regional TV networks held all but four of the 39 non-metropolitan commercial TV licences, and three networks accounted for 61 per cent of our regional commercial radio licences. That is the situation today, where in regions like mine we already have very high levels of concentration.

The bill before us abolishes the existing cross-media rules and replaces them with new tests. But, unfortunately, these tests would allow an even further concentration of ownership. The tests are commonly referred to as the five-four and the two out of three rules. Let us take the first rule—the diversity of voices test. We are told that this will protect diversity by establishing that at least five media groups in the capital cities and four in the regional centres can operate and that no media group, under the two out of three rule, will be able to own more than two out of the three platforms. But it is a very simplistic test which will inevitably restrict diversity and impact on localism in regions like mine.

Let us look at the nature and the effects of these possible mergers under these new tests. I take two hypothetical scenarios. In Sydney, for example, a merger of Channel 9 and the Sydney Morning Herald, while still meeting the five-four voices test, would be given exactly the same weight as a voice as the owners holding the licence for radio station 2KY. You do not have to be a genius to know which merger and which owner would have the decided influence in shaping public opinion, especially political opinion. In my own region, for example, a merger between WIN TV—the only existing television station that produces a nightly news report—and our daily newspaper, the Illawarra Mercury, would hypothetically have the same weight as the radio station, WAVE FM, that operates in our region.

So you can see—and I am really surprised that the Nationals have fallen for this—that these tests will not protect diversity. In fact, they will see a greater concentration that will restrict the variety of opinions and voices we hear locally. They will have a significant impact on the way that the media operates and they will no doubt lead to a reduction in quality journalism. The greatest limitation of the new diversity test, the five-four rule, is that it gives no weighting to the relative influence of various media players. I think that just in those two hypothetical examples you can see that a simplistic five-four rule does not deal with the real issue of diversity.

On top of that, we are told by the minister and the government that the ACCC can act as an additional safeguard against excessive concentration. I have to say that that is open to debate and conjecture and, as we know from earlier proceedings, decisions in the Federal Court. From what I understand of the tests that apply, the relevant market has traditionally been defined as print and TV operating in separate markets. Under the Trade Practices Act, the ACCC is tasked with protecting competition. The commission has no responsibility today for the protection of diversity in media markets. It is not able to take public interest consideration into account in assessing the impact of mergers under section 50 of the Trade Practices Act. This point has been made previously by the inquiry conducted by the Productivity Commission, and I think it has been commented on in much greater detail in earlier contributions both by the member for Hotham and by the member for Hunter.

I am opposed to the weakening of cross-media rules. I do not believe, as the Prime Minister has said, that somehow it is a second order issue. I think it is a vital issue to the functioning of an open and vibrant market for ideas, which underpins a healthy democratic system. The function of media ownership regulation has until now been the promotion of free expression of a diverse range of views. Let me quote the words of the Australian Press Council, which in its submission to the Senate said:

For the effective functioning of Australian democracy, there must be sufficient and sufficiently diverse sources of news and comment to ensure that members of the public are always promptly and well enough informed to make their own judgements about governance, regulation, sport, entertainment or other matters.

The great danger of the bills before us is that the government’s changes to cross-media rules will have the potential to give even more power to some of the most powerful people in Australia. Media diversity is too important to be left to chance. We believe that preservation of media diversity should remain the responsibility of the parliament and its elected members, rather than living in hope that somehow the ACCC or the courts will define that problem for us. People want and need a variety of views and opinions—and the public understand the importance of this issue. In all the surveys I have read, Australians oppose further concentration of media ownership. The owners of the most influential media in our country are in a very unique position to influence public debate and even election outcomes by controlling what people see, hear and watch. These bills are not in the national interest. It is simply not possible to maintain a healthy democratic system without a vibrant, diverse and competitive media sector.

Let me now deal with the argument that the existing laws are anachronistic. I acknowledge that there has been a huge change in modes of communication in this sector but, even so, we know the traditional media forms remain the most significant source of local and national news and political commentary. Today, for example, more than one million people will read the Daily Telegraph and more than 800,000 of them will watch the news on Channel 7 or Channel 9 tonight.

The same companies that control TV and newspapers also dominate the major internet websites. The internet is overwhelmingly a way to source news from known and trusted media companies, so it is not surprising to find that of those who have used the internet 57 per cent visited ninemsn.com, 51 per cent went to the Sydney Morning Herald website, 31 per cent used a News Ltd site and only two per cent visited new media sites like Crikey or Google for their news. So the justification for relaxing existing cross-media rules on the basis that these new media forms are providing the diversity is shown to be a sham by all the evidence before us.

In the time I have left, I want to make a few points about the transition to digital TV. One of the most disappointing aspects of these so-called reforms is the deferring of the difficult digital decisions—postponing the switch-off of analog broadcasting from the end of 2008 until 2010-12. Achieving analog switch-off is a very important public policy issue that has not been given the priority it deserves. One might say that, in all the changes proposed, it seems that the major winners have been the proprietors of the free-to-air programs, who will be able to sit on their spectrum waiting for the analog switch-off, which, on some estimates, might not occur until 2015. They are absolutely terrified of the possibility that new free-to-air players might enter the market.

Australia has made very disappointing progress towards digital conversion, because consumers have not been provided with significant incentives in terms of additional content. The decision to lift the restrictions on ABC and SBS digital channels is very welcome, but we all know that the ABC and SBS both need greater investment of resources and funding so that they can create new content and do what the BBC has managed to do in the UK, where the government has given it the task of building digital Britain. Extra channels and interactive services offered by the BBC in Britain have made an important contribution in generating consumer demand for digital services.

Unfortunately, the new rules contained in this bill continue to limit consumer choice and stifle the development of new digital services. It is a very disappointing and tardy response. Unfortunately, the networks, too, have shown little interest in showcasing the benefits of digital by offering interactive services. These services have largely been quarantined to pay TV. The blow-out in the time frame for achieving analog switch-off provides the existing free-to-air players with the opportunity to rest on their laurels and to have protection from the possibility of a new free-to-air service player.

Relaxing the media ownership laws in the way proposed by the bill not only will have the effect of increasing concentration of ownership but will also lead to a sharp concentration in the ownership of the most influential news and opinion content accessed by Australians in terms of the old media and on the new media platforms. This will harm our democracy. The removal of our existing cross-media rules will result in fewer owners of the media that determine and set the national agenda.

By consolidating political and societal power in the hands of a tiny number of individuals, this bill will see public debate in this country curtailed, thus making our country less democratic. The laws will create an unprecedented threat to the fabric of serious journalism, and the role of the media as the scrutineer of government will also be weakened in this process.

It is for these reasons that I have come to the conclusions that the legislation is not in the national interest and should be opposed. And I urge the government, and particularly the members of the National Party, to reconsider their position and to think seriously about the implications of this legislation, and hopefully support the opposition move to oppose the legislation.

See this speech in context