Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Reconciliation and the Arts) Share this | Hansard source

It is 13 hours since the beginning of my speech on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006 and Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 was interrupted because the parliament had to close down for the evening. But, in the 13 hours since I spoke, we have already seen the consequences of the minister’s legislation after its likely passage through this House—what will now become one of the biggest feeding frenzies on the Australian media landscape that we have witnessed and which, critically, offers up the prospect of a diminution in the diversity of voices, a diminution of the capacity of the media and journalists to fully inform Australians about what is going on in their country. It reflects, I think, very clearly the concerns that Labor members have been raising in this House.

Furthermore, this morning—notwithstanding that the front pages of the newspapers are dominated by items on the likely impact of these changes and the takeovers that are being mooted—we are also, facing, yet again, the government gagging debate. So, shamefully, there will be Labor members on this side of the House who will be prevented from expressing their views. The government not only brings legislation of this kind into the House but also does not give us the opportunity, as our constituents and the people of Australia would very much require, to speak to the issues fully.

In 1999 the Howard government asked the Productivity Commission to advise them on the practical courses of action to improve competition, efficiency and the interests of consumers in broadcasting services. The commission’s report, published in 2000, recommended the repeal of the cross-media ownership laws under certain conditions, including the removal of regulatory barriers, with a corresponding provision of spectrum for new broadcasters; the abolition of the foreign ownership rules; and the provision of a media-specific public interest test.

Following the Productivity Commission report, the government introduced a bill in 2002 to remove foreign ownership restrictions and grant exemptions to the cross-media rules. A number of amendments were accepted from the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, but the bill lapsed at that time because the government decided that putting legislation like that through the House in the lead-up to the 2004 election was electorally unpalatable. But now, 12 months out from the next election, the judgement of the government apparently is that there is enough time for them to finesse what actually happens with these changes.

The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts brought legislation in here that she argues is needed because traditional media services are challenged by new digital technologies, resulting in the emergence of new players, new content, new services and new platforms. Nothing could be further from the truth. The minister’s discussion paper, Meeting the digital challenge: reforming Australia’s media in the digital age, missed the point that the transition to digital should open up the possibilities for new entrants into the market, not restrict diversity of ownership. As Elizabeth Knight remarked in this morning’s Sydney Morning Herald, the digital revolution called on by the minister seems to be nothing more than a ‘red herring to allow consolidation’ in the traditional media markets. The demise of the fourth free-to-air network, which has now gone into space, is to the detriment of those of us in this country who believe that a diverse media is absolutely essential to our political health.

This broadcasting services amendment bill sets out the new conditions under which media companies can purchase licences. The government has decided that there are to be at least five commercial voices in metropolitan markets and four in regional markets. The arbitrary nature of this decision means how it was decided is not clear, but if the government believes that halving the number of voices in a market like Sydney, where there are currently 12, is acceptable or in Newcastle, where the number will be reduced as well, then they are not listening to the people that I am listening to when I talk to them about the kind of media that they want to see in this country.

The National Party describes the two out of three proposal in the bill—the so-called safeguards—as a big win, but I have to say it is unclear how it is going to encourage real diversity in regional markets such as Wagga Wagga, where there are currently only five voices, as the member for Richmond and others have pointed out. The vitality and health of community media and local media—hearing local voices—requires much more than has been provided for under this legislation.

The other competition measure the government stipulated was a role for the ACCC to examine proposed mergers. This is all well and good, and the ACCC is required to take into account the effect on competition and market power. But the problem that has been pointed out by Labor consistently is that the ACCC does not have the capacity to take into consideration issues regarding the public interest. While the ACCC has a responsibility to ensure there is no anti-competitive behaviour by media organisations, its role does not include examining diversity—and diversity clearly does have implications for the public interest. So it is critical when legislation like this comes through that the public interest is not left behind, and yet it has been in this legislation, which is why we oppose it.

Previously, the Prime Minister stated he was unwilling to waste political capital on media reform. So why are these changes here now? Is it an attempt to pay off National Party figures with promises of local content requirements and reviews which will go who knows where? Perhaps. But the effect for the average consumer of media in both metropolitan and regional areas—and that represents a substantial proportion of people in this country—is they will be worse off. And they recognise this.

Roy Morgan published a poll in August this year which found that 52 per cent of respondents opposed the relaxation of the cross-media rules. Thirty-five per cent thought the changes would reduce diversity. For journalists, the concerns are high. Eighty-two per cent of journalists polled in a survey published by Crikey—which some members here do read—believe that the changes would have a negative impact on reporting, and 85 per cent thought the changes would reduce diversity. Journalists are concerned about the likely impact that it will have on the media because they have already seen what happens when consolidations of this kind take place. There is a sharing of resources and a need to increase the margins particularly given the high prices that are likely to be paid in the bidding frenzies, and it is content-driven important media journalism in particular—journalism that is expensive—that will be under threat.

Claims by the government that these changes to the media laws are essential to ‘meet the digital challenge’ are simply spurious. The government’s record on digital television take-up is poor. Despite the fact that we have digital free-to-air television available to 85 per cent of households, current estimates put digital take-up at around 15 per cent. Many Australians are unaware of digital television at all so for the minister to trumpet these changes and for this legislation to in some way provide backing for the claims from the government that we are going to enter the digital revolution is a complete furphy. It could not be further from the truth. There is more for the government to do in this digital area now that the switchover has been slated for somewhere between 2010 and 2012. It keeps going backwards but these media changes are on us right now.

I note that under the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006 the genre restrictions on the ABC and SBS multichannels will be lifted, and clearly this is a move which we support. It will give viewers more diversity of content by lifting the restrictions on drama and current affairs programs shown on these digital channels. But that is no compensation for the likely narrowing down of representation of diversity and reviews that will come as a consequence of this legislation.

I note additionally the impact that these media reforms will have on community broadcasting. It is a matter of some concern to me that the community broadcasting sector, which is a critical sector in Australia—a sector which attracts an accumulative monthly audience of more than three million—is not subsidised by the federal government. It is also a sector which is a real driver of diverse Australian content but still does not have digital spectrum. Minister Alston promised action in 1998. We are looking at significant media reforms—backward reforms, we would say—in 2006 and community broadcasting has been left behind altogether.

Democracies like Australia depend on a diversity of comment from their media organisations for their vitality and health, so a concentration of media voices, which clearly will be the result of these changes and has been identified not only by speakers but by commentators and media experts, academics and others, can only pose a threat to the democracy which we hold so dear. In particular the concentration of power in the already influential sectors of the media including the daily national newspapers, radio talkback programs and the television news and current affairs programs is a concern. Such concentration and a narrowing down of views will often mean that Australians do not get an opportunity to hear fully about what is going on in their country, and the government’s argument that citizens are getting information from new platforms including websites and blogs ignores the fact that the news sites that attract the most hits are still owned by the traditional media companies. As Jock Given has pointed out:

Cross-media limits have not stopped Big Brother integrating elements of television, radio, print, mobile telephony, and the Web ...

It is not simply a consequence of media diversity that you provide a reduction in a diversity and argue that from the other non-traditional media you will get the information or access to material. Activities and services can come together without actually converging ownership.

Members of the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance have raised legitimate concerns that the quality of journalism will suffer, and their professional concerns have been ignored, I think, by this government. The concern has always been that as a consequence of these changes we would see a number of ructions including sell-offs—and we have already seen that in the pages of the newspapers today—and the targeting of so-called low-hanging assets including Southern Cross Broadcasting, Fairfax and Network Ten. Mr Stokes has already announced his intentions. And in this context I also raise the question of the future of the Austereo network, a network which I would much prefer to see remain in Australian hands given the necessary commitment to Australian music. As well, it is required if we are to have a healthy and an open media.

The media environment that we live in under the Howard government means that we have got a reduction in voices in our country because of the laws that are coming through the House. The capitulation of Senator Joyce and Senator Fielding means that democracy is weakened. Diversity of opinion is curtailed when you have the concentration of media ownership—all of which is happening at the public expense and all of which we are experiencing as these laws are pushed through this House and this parliament today. We oppose these bills. We recognise that the diversity of opinion and view that needs to be heard in a free and open society like Australia is being constricted in a way which raises fears about the likely health of our democracy into the future. The fact that the Howard government, supposedly, is not a position to do anything about it yet has forced these changes through is unacceptable. (Time expired)

See this speech in context