Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support the comments made by the member for Throsby, and oppose the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 and accompanying bill because the government has not outlined a cogent case for change. Again we see the parliament filled with opposition members explaining to the people, via this chamber, why the government has not explained sufficiently the reason for changing the cross-media ownership laws in this country.

In fact, if you were to look at the list of speakers for these particular bills you would see that there are more than 20 opposition members compared with four government members, none of whom are frontbenchers of the government. So, you see, the government is not interested in debating the change. I have to explain to Tories in this place—I have to explain to the conservatives—that if they want to radically alter the laws of this country, their job is to explain why.

If they want to maintain the laws of this country, they may get away with not explaining themselves to the people of Australia, but when they want to radically alter very important laws that regulate media ownership in this country it is incumbent upon them to explain why. They have chosen not to come into this place long enough to do so. That is, in itself, an indictment of this government—a government that is arrogant and has no regard for this place or for the people of Australia—because, as the member for Throsby clearly indicated, this legislation does not arise from a groundswell of concern amongst community members who are suggesting we need to respond to the technological change in media. That is not the reason for the change that has been sought by the government.

This is the third occasion that I have spoken on cross-media ownership laws since being elected to this place. In 2002 and 2003 I rose in this chamber and explained why I did not support the changes that were sought by the government. Of course, the fundamental difference between then and now is that the government has a majority, with the support of Senator Fielding, in the Senate. It has managed to secure that majority and, as a result, it is seeking to ram these extreme laws through both houses of parliament. It is, unfortunately, a travesty.

I agree with all of the comments made by the members on this side of the chamber so far in this debate, but I think it is important to note that, whilst not one member of the executive government wants to enter into the debate on this, there have been comments by ministers in the past about these laws. I would like to make some reference to a couple of comments made by the member for Moreton—now a minister of this government—who is on the record as saying:

My concern is simple. I think people are best served by a diverse range of choices in the media. Diversity is not something that is guaranteed in a deregulated environment because a natural consequence of free enterprise is acquisition. My fear is that if you bring it down to two or three proprietors, you could find the next stage is two proprietors and then the next stage is one.

That was clearly a view held by the member for Moreton when he was a backbencher. We have not heard from him with respect to this bill on this occasion, and we certainly have not heard from him about why he would now hold a different view. I would also like to refer to some comments made by the Minister for Defence. When he was a backbencher, he made a number of comments with respect to these particular laws and his concerns about the concentration of media ownership. He said:

I have no concern at all about Mr Packer gaining control of Fairfax. My concern is that if he does that, without relinquishing some of his other media assets. The average Australian feels uncomfortable with the concentration of media ownership.

That was what the Minister for Defence was willing to say on the record. And he has not chosen to distance himself from those comments and tell us why there is a need for him to vote for these bills. He also said, in a column in his local newspaper the North Shore Times:

A proprietor with a considerable domestic political agenda controlling a television station and a newspaper in both Sydney and Melbourne, not to mention all the outlets for credible business commentary, is not a legacy we should wish to leave our children.

That is what the now Minister for Defence said with respect to these laws. In fact, if these laws are enacted that is exactly what could happen. A proprietor will be able to own, effectively, a newspaper in Melbourne and/or Sydney and a television station. Therefore, clearly, if the minister was correct, it would be something that we would be bequeathing future generations and it is something we should not be proud of. But, of course, we have not heard from the Minister for Defence or any of the other ministers who have been on the record opposing the concentration of the media, to explain why they will come into this place sometime soon and support the bills that we are currently debating.

It would be remiss of me if I did not mention the efforts of Senator Fielding, because Senator Fielding, unfortunately, chose to support the legislation last Wednesday. At noon on Wednesday, Senator Fielding came into the Senate chamber to justify why he would support this legislation. I would like to quote some of the comments made by Senator Fielding, because I find his reasoning questionable at best.

See this speech in context