Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006 and the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 with a heavy heart. I believe that the legislation that we are considering in the parliament today is a retrograde step. I believe it has the ability to influence and impact on our democracy here in Australia. I also seriously believe that it will lead to less diversity and remove from media the role that I believe it has traditionally played. I believe that media is about informing the community and engendering debate and discussion. I believe that these laws have the potential to operate in the opposite way.

These bills are the centrepiece of the government’s so-called media reforms. They will implement the most significant changes to media laws in 20 years. The government would like the people of Australia to believe that the legislation is really all about media reform, but the government’s plan does not deserve that description. It is not about reform, as I have already indicated. It is definitely a retrograde step.

The legislation repeals the current cross-media rules, which prevent the common ownership of newspaper, radio and television assets in the same market. Media mergers will be subject to a requirement that at least six commercial media voices remain in Sydney and Melbourne, five in the other cities and four in regional Australia. Mergers will also be subject to the scrutiny of the ACCC—later in my contribution I will indicate that I have some concerns about the power of the ACCC to actually oversee this in a proper way.

In the region that I represent in this parliament, the Newcastle-Hunter region, the current number of owners is seven. Under the new media plan that can be reduced to four. Previously we had Prime Television working out of the Hunter. Since they stopped operating and broadcasting in the Hunter, I have noticed a significant change in the media in our local area. The media is not quite as vigilant as it previously was, because of the lack of competition. Prime has resumed a skeleton type of service in the Hunter, but I have noticed the difference with just that small change. I believe that the reduction from seven to four, which can happen without too much trouble at all, will not benefit the region that I represent and the people that live in my electorate.

The other part of my electorate is on the Central Coast. It is very difficult to really pinpoint the number of media owners that currently operate out of that area. One could say there are channels 7, 9 and 10 and radio stations CFM, which is Macquarie; Star FM; and 2GO. But it is not quite that simple. Channels 7, 9 and 10 operate out of Sydney, so I would be much more comfortable being conservative about it and saying that currently there are five media outlets and that that number will go to four. But the impact already of the Sydney market on the Central Coast is very apparent. The comparison between the local coverage that you get in the Hunter and the Central Coast is, I think, very stark. That example, to me, only reinforces the concerns that I have.

The legislation also abolishes foreign ownership and control provisions in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 relating to commercial television and subscription television. Foreign ownership will continue to be subject to the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 and the Treasurer will be able to block transactions not in the national interest. The bill seeks to address concerns about the loss of local content from regional television and radio by strengthening licensing conditions. The proposed changes have the potential to impact very significantly, as I have already indicated, on the media diversity in regional Australia.

We in this parliament owe some thanks to the National Party that there is now to be the two out of three limit placed on media ownership—although if that is all they can deliver, it does not say much for them. That would never have happened if it had been left to the government. They were quite happy to just go along with their original provisions; it concerns me greatly that the government were prepared to allow investment under such restrictions on the ownership of media. The cross-media rules that limit owners to newspaper, television and radio assets in one market are repealed by the bill, and that is where the two out of three limit comes into play.

The bill inserts new rules whereby media mergers, including cross-media mergers, will be permitted under the BSA as long as at least five voices remain in the mainland state capitals, four voices in regional areas and, as I mentioned, six in Melbourne and Sydney. The bill should be amended to delete the changes to cross-media ownership. They just do not quite work. It has the potential to halve the number of owners of the major media in our biggest cities and reduce the number of owners by a third in many regional areas. There is the likelihood that proprietors’ business and editorial interests will influence the content and opinion of their media outlets, which is of major significance in a democracy.

At the start of my comments in this debate, I said that one of my greatest concerns about this legislation is the way it may impact on how democracy operates in this country. A true democracy is not one where you hear just one side of the story or where what you hear is influenced by your relationship with a particular media owner or media magnate. Democracy is about presenting the true picture, the whole picture—not half a picture. True democracy is about putting the facts before the people and allowing them to make a decision based on all the facts, not just the facts that have been coloured by the influence of the media bosses, where restricted information is being given and there is editorial interference in the information being provided to the people of Australia.

The government’s media ownership bill will definitely reduce media diversity, reduce competition and reduce consumer choice. The abolition of the existing cross-media ownership laws has the potential to benefit media owners, but it offers nothing to the Australian people. All it offers the Australian people is less choice. Day after day, I sit in this parliament and I listen to the Prime Minister and members on the other side talk about choice. Well, where are they now? Why aren’t they standing up in this parliament and arguing for greater choice? They are not. They are silent when it comes to the cross-media laws because, I believe, they are quite beholden to some of the media bosses.

This is the third time that the Prime Minister has tried to ram these changes through the parliament, and I do not think that it does him any credit whatsoever. Australia does not need to sacrifice media diversity in order to benefit from the digital age, but that is going to happen. These laws will do absolutely nothing to ensure that we benefit in that way. The UK and the US are rapidly moving to embrace digital broadcasting, yet they have strong cross-media ownership laws to promote diversity of opinion. Why are the government scared of a diversity of opinion? Why won’t they embrace it and why won’t they ensure that people are able to access the information that they need to make an informed choice?

The Howard government maintain that the benefit of digital TV can be obtained only if the incumbent media players receive a quid pro quo in the form of a repeal of the cross-media ownership laws. I completely reject that. We on this side of the House completely reject that. I think the facts speak for themselves: there is absolutely nothing there to support that. The legislation is being rammed through this parliament so the government’s plans are subject to only minimal scrutiny and debate.

We on this side of the House are very used to that happening. Legislation is introduced here and pushed through the parliament, and quite often the debate is guillotined, although not in this case. The government does not like legislation to be scrutinised. It does not like to be accountable. It likes to just ram legislation through without debate. I think that the Australian people are beginning to recognise this for what it is: arrogance—blatant arrogance. The government is so determined to get a package that accommodates the industry’s interests that many amendments that would have been quite useful were not considered because debate was guillotined in the Senate, just as I mentioned a moment ago. This government guillotines debate on legislation all the time, preventing proper scrutiny.

The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 makes two key changes to the media ownership laws. First, it repeals the significant foreign ownership provision in the Broadcasting Services Act that relates to commercial and subscription television. In a democracy it is important, as I have already stated, to prevent a concentration in the power to influence public opinion. But this is what these laws will do; they will lead to a concentration of power. I am not naive enough to discount the possibility that this is one of the benefits the government seeks through this legislation. The proposal does nothing to protect diversity in the 17 regional markets.

There is no doubt what will happen if the government’s cross-media ownership laws are passed: a takeover frenzy will be unleashed and there will be a massive concentration in the ownership of the most influential media in Australia. It will make it harder for diverse voices to be heard, much harder. It will be harder for people to get the information that they need to form opinions. Fewer journalists will report on stories of local interest and hold members of parliament and industry to account—and that is the role of the media. The role of the media is to hold all of us in this parliament to account, as well as industry. But if they become the lap-dogs of the government then that is something that we as a nation will lose. There is absolutely no logical basis for the changes that the government has proposed. Even the explanatory memoranda to the bill plainly state that the benefits of cross-media ownership reform are ‘unclear’.

Australia’s democracy and freedom of speech are really at stake with this legislation. Diversity in news and current affairs, and in journalistic commentary, is critical to Australian people being aware of all the different opinions on a matter and being able to draw their own conclusions, to make their own judgements, as I have already said.

Second, this legislation allows for 4.5 hours per day of local content. On the face of it, that does not sound like a bad deal. But this local content provision will not apply until 2008. It is also going to be reviewed by ACMA, which could lead to them signing up for fewer hours. Following the review, ACMA could come back and say that 4.5 hours was excessive and recommend that maybe two hours is more appropriate.

This is an interesting aspect: the minister has the power to override the 4.5 hours of local content aspect of this legislation. It can be overwritten by regulation. There is no need whatsoever to bring it back to the parliament. It means that if there is a decision to lower the number of hours of local content it can be done at the minister’s behest without any debate in this House. I believe that the minister threw that in to placate the National Party and she feels that following the review, given that it is not due to be introduced until 2008, it is not something she has to deal with immediately.

I have real fears that if the government wins the next election—and that is something I hope, in the interests of the Australian people, that they do not do—that the 4.5 hours per day of local content will be reduced. So we have an election, ACMA completes its review, the 4.5 hours are not due to be implemented until 2008 and the government reneges by not even bringing it back to parliament—this is the way of the Howard government. The way of the Howard government is to arrogantly push its legislation through. The way of the Howard government is to disregard public comment, and this legislation will enable it to have more freedom to do this. It will cater to the media bosses. The Howard government will be subservient to them. They will have complete disregard for democracy, and everything will be about the Howard government’s agenda.

I believe the government are quite frightened of the media. One of the reasons I think that this legislation has been supported so readily and embraced by the government is their fear of the media. They want to embrace the media and get it on side so it will support them and say the right things about them and help the government in the lead-up to the next election. The government’s distortion of events and coloured vision of the world are the messages being put to the Australian people.

This is bad legislation. It is not reforming legislation; it is legislation that is about concentration of media ownership and restriction of information to the Australian people. It is about less democracy, not more democracy. I believe that the House should vote against this legislation, because it is not in the interests of the Australian people.

See this speech in context