Annette Ellis (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today as well to speak on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006 and the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006. Like my colleagues, I am strongly opposed to the legislation which will repeal the current cross-media ownership rules. Currently, companies can only control a newspaper, a commercial television licence or a radio licence in any one market. The media ownership bill will repeal these rules. This will most likely lead to a massive concentration of media ownership in both the metropolitan and the regional areas of Australia.

Before I go to the reasons for opposing these particular changes, I would like to raise the question as to why the Howard government has introduced them. I ask: does the concentration of media ownership benefit the public in any way? Does it improve our democracy in any way? The answer to these questions has to be no. These changes are not in any public interest. So what arguments has the government used to justify the introduction of these changes? It argues that the current media rules are too prescriptive and that they create an inflexible regulatory framework which does not account for changes in the media industry, such as the emergence of new media on the market. It also argues that lifting restrictions on cross-media ownership will allow companies to be more efficient and will help them compete in the rise of the new media. Clearly, the changes are not going to benefit the general public at all. They are going to benefit large media corporations and they are, in my opinion, the antithesis of good democracy.

Australia already has a concentrated media market by world standards. News Ltd and Fairfax currently control over 80 per cent of Australia’s metropolitan newspapers. Publishing and Broadcasting Ltd, PBL, which currently own Channel 9—as of this evening; the news broadcaster is telling us something may be changing—have television coverage of 52 per cent of Australia’s population and a 40 per cent market share of Australia’s top selling magazines; again, as of now. We are not quite sure what will happen in that area tomorrow. As the previous speaker, the member for Ballarat, said, it is already starting to happen. These are just a few examples. Now our media market will become even more concentrated. It is outrageous, in my opinion, that the Prime Minister is planning to give even more power to some of the most powerful people in our country. These changes have the potential to halve the number of owners of the major media in our bigger cities and reduce the numbers of owners by one-third in many regional areas—for example, the current number of media owners in Sydney can go from 12 to six; in Brisbane, from 10 to five; and in Newcastle, from seven to four.

Let us look at some hypotheticals that have been outlined by previous speakers in this debate. I fear that not many of these are really hypothetical. PBL and News Ltd would, for example, be able to own every major metropolitan newspaper under this legislation; most suburban newspapers; virtually every magazine; Channel 9 and Channel 10; Sky News; Australian Associated Press, AAP; monopoly pay television Foxtel; and more than 70 per cent of the news and information sites on the internet. Thanks to the Prime Minister, we will be living in a brave new world, perhaps a little like that described by George Orwell in Nineteen Eighty-Four. I would love to get his opinion right now on what he would see as our democratic processes.

I have no doubt that these changes are a major threat to our basic democracy and freedom. It is only logical that, if there is a higher concentration of media ownership, free and open speech will be limited accordingly. The government is treating our media like a standard business without taking into account its vital role in influencing the information flow in our society and, therefore, public opinion. In their book, Manufacturing Consent, Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman state the following:

The mass media serve as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace. It is their function to amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society. In a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts of class interest, to fulfill this role requires systematic propaganda.

Having a concentrated media market makes systematic propaganda so much easier. True democracy requires true media diversity.

Those who argue in support of these changes say that people can access their information from a whole range of sources in today’s high-tech society. So, they argue, concentration of media ownership does not threaten free speech at all. They argue that it does not threaten diversity of information in our society. I have some major problems with this argument. First of all, the ‘new media’, which are supposed to provide diversity of sources and opinion, are controlled by the traditional media. For example, the only significant new Australian news service provided by pay television is Sky News Australia, which is owned by the networks Seven and Nine and British Sky Broadcasting.

Research by Roy Morgan shows that the most popular internet news sites are controlled by existing media operators, including Fairfax, News Ltd, Channel 9 and the Australian Broadcasting Commission. The reality is that most people are busy getting on with their lives, trying to manage their jobs, paying off their mortgages and looking after their children. They do not generally use the new media or alternative news sources as their major information source. Some may do so but, in general terms, most do not. A Morgan poll has shown that, for information about general events in Australia, 56 per cent of people use free-to-air television, 18 per cent turn to the radio and 11 per cent rely on newspapers. That is a total of 85 per cent. In relation to political news and analysis, 41 per cent turn to free-to-air television, 27 per cent turn to newspapers and 13 per cent rely on the radio. That is a total of 81 per cent. An ACNielsen poll shows that the top four most used internet news and advertising sites account for 85 per cent of hits. What are they? They are: Fairfax, 33 per cent; News Ltd, 24 per cent; ABC, 14 per cent; and PBL, 13 per cent.

Clearly most people turn to traditional media sources for current affairs information and analysis. Many do not have the time or the resources to find those alternative information sources. I note very carefully that it has been very easy for some commentators to claim that the internet or these other sources of news can provide a diversity of views. In other words, why get hot under the collar about these changes, because there are other alternatives? I have two problems with this argument. Firstly, not everyone has the luxury of access to a computer in their home or at work—many do, but not everyone does. Those who are disadvantaged and who should have access to objective analytical information are least likely to have it. Secondly, information on the internet is not always credible, so it cannot always be relied on to provide accurate information.

I want to refer briefly to something that happened a few years ago nationally when there were changes to the way some of the networks were deciding to provide local news. From memory, it was early in 2002 when the ABA held a series of inquiries around the country, seeking the views of the public as to how they felt about local news content and the diversity of that local news content and availability within their own communities. It had become evident that in certain areas of the country—and they did it here in Canberra—some of the major TV networks were going to close down their local news broadcasts and rely on taking up their news from Sydney. There was a series of public inquiries held here in Canberra, which I went to. I listened very carefully to the very high number of people who represented themselves at those public hearings—in some cases, there were small sporting clubs and community organisations. What was very clear was the degree of value these members of the community put on the local content of news, the local content of sporting news and the diversity of being able to go to more than one source to get the news. The people were very anxious and very upset to see a major television broadcaster remove that local news service from their community. They did not like it at all, and they were not at all enamoured of the fact that this was going to be the brave new world of news. That happened in 2002. The local news services I am referring to were removed but I was impressed by the very broad number of people from the community who took the trouble to go to those hearings and make their views known. It was a very high number.

I wonder how they are going to feel about these particular changes. How are those same people, and more, going to feel about not having diversity and access to a wide range of news broadcasts and solid, strong information available to them? Some people obviously are going to say that we are acting like Chicken Little, running around and saying that the sky is going to fall. The sky may not fall tomorrow, but this legislation is certainly going to have a dramatic effect on the dissemination of information in this country. It is going to change dramatically the way information and news is available to people.

People rely on television news, radio news and the newspapers, and there are those who are able to access the internet, but at the end of the day it is going to be owned by a small number of very powerful owners. As I said, half an hour ago I was watching a news broadcast on the television in my office here. We do not quite know what PBL is up to but if the predictions on the news wires tonight are true, they are going to make an enormous amount of money before the bill has even gone through this place.

The previous speaker mentioned—and I agree with her—that we have not even passed the legislation and yet dramatic shifts and changes are already occurring in the media landscape of this country. I worry about that. I take our free, wide expression of speech, information and news in this country very seriously and I worry very much about exactly what is going to happen in the future.

The member for Ballarat also made reference to Senator Fielding, and I want to endorse what she said. My understanding also is that he naively believes that maybe there is a bit of a stretch of distance between ownership of broad media in this country and content within the media. I fear for his naivety because that is not quite how it always works. One of the most important things that we should value and hold onto in this country is that breadth of diversity and opinion. I am seriously concerned for what is going to happen in the future as a result of this legislation.

I also object very strongly to these bills. Obviously, on numbers, they are going to be passed in this House but it is incumbent on people on this side of the chamber to make the views of those who hold another opinion very widely known in relation to these bills. I am not hesitating at all to do that here this evening. I object very strongly to this legislation and I would like to see, by some miracle, a change to it.

See this speech in context