Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak against the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006 and the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006. I note at the outset that I will be gagged in about six minutes—another demonstration of the contempt that this government has both for this parliament and for the community that it claims to represent. I, along with several other speakers who wished to follow me, will not have the opportunity to speak fully on behalf of my constituents on what is one of the most important bills that this House has seen. The Prime Minister might describe media reform as a second order agenda, but nobody who cares about the character of a nation, the ideas, memories and dreams that we as a people share and the exchange of ideas and the empowering of its individuals could ever call media ownership a second order issue.

Media at its heart is about the way we communicate with each other and the way we share information. It supports our film industry; it supports music, creative arts and the development of opinion leaders within our community; and it supports the telling of our own stories. Importantly, it also supports the democratic process, facilitating the flow of information that allows for the creation of views and opinions throughout the community. Nobody who understood the important role of media in our community, not just within the commercial media sector, would have put this bill before the House, and they certainly would not have been pushing it through in the unseemly way that we have seen this government behave in the last week. It is absolutely a first order issue, an important issue central to the functioning of our society, the healthy functioning of our democracy, the development of our national character, the way we view ourselves and what we know of ourselves and our world.

Labor’s approach on media ownership regulation is founded in the need to promote diversity of opinion in the marketplace for ideas. In a democracy it is incredibly important to prevent a concentration of power that would influence public opinion. It is important to keep a range of views out there flowing through our community so that people can make their own decisions and so that there is open and free discussion of ideas and opinions, which is the lifeblood of a democracy. But what is the policy objective of this government with this bill? To get it done as quickly as possible and as silently as possible—to push it through with very little community consultation and get it out of the light as quickly as possible. There can be only one principle underlying media policy, and that is a not negotiable policy objective when it comes to media policy—that is, to have openness, range and diversity of views and to have a media landscape across a range of commercial, public and community media that provides for open exchange in the community, that encourages a range of views and that is inclusive of many views.

This government’s media ownership bill we are debating today will not increase diversity. It will not open up the spaces in which our community works through its views and concerns. In the name of almighty competition, an ideology that places competition above all—before cooperation, compassion and community—this bill will reduce media diversity, it will reduce the social value of our media and it will stifle debate and community engagement. Ironically, as so often is the case in highly non-competitive markets such as this one, defined by its nature by limited spectrum, opening up the market to increased competition is more likely to reduce competition and, ultimately, consumer choice. This is legislation that reduces the level of service to the community and as such is not worthy of being called reform. It is a retrograde step, poorly thought through, with little real community or stakeholder consultation and pushed through this House, after so much incompetent dithering, with unseemly haste. The abolition—

See this speech in context