Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Hansard source

In summing up the position of the government and thanking the speakers from both sides of the House in relation to the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006 and the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006, I want to proceed on three fronts. The first is to put these bills into the global context of the technological changes which have revolutionised communications platforms over the last 20 years. The second is to address, in that context, the three great principles for reform which we take forward: choice, microeconomic reform and the protection of diversity. The third is to address the specific issues raised by our friends on the other side of the chamber.

The first point I wish to raise is the global context of the legislation. Over the last 20 years we have seen a movement from three traditional platforms in relation to public communications. The traditional platforms have been newspapers, radio and television. We now move to a situation of having six platforms within the communications world. The additional platforms are the mature technologies of the internet and pay television and the still developing technology of mobile devices: 3G, handheld telephony and mobile television. In particular, the digital television bill helps to address a way for the last of these six platforms to evolve and develop and helps to create a full and broad set of six platforms for communications on a mass scale and on a targeted scale within our society. That is the historic shift against which these bills must be viewed—that we have a situation in which the traditional media operators face three new platforms with which they must work and must compete and against which everything must be viewed.

It has been the greatest proliferation of media sources and media platforms in the history of communications. That is a function of technological development, of liberalisation in democratic environments and of all of the different moves in the availability of capital, content and platform. The sources and range of communications are greater than they have ever been. They pose challenges for a structure which has been set in stone for over 20 years and lacks the flexibility that comes from microeconomic reform—which has been available and in which we have seen progress in other areas of our economy.

That leads me to my second point, which is the principles that govern these bills. There are three fundamental principles. The first of those principles is choice. In particular, the digital television bill expands dramatically the range of choices which will be available to ordinary Australians in their own homes and on the streets. It does this, firstly, by allowing up to 15 new digital television channels, in addition to the five major stations, to be available by the commencement of 2009. It does this by allowing, at the point of switch-over from analog to digital television, upwards of 25 channels on a free-to-air basis to be available to ordinary consumers in their own homes.

Secondly, it deals with the fact that the allocation of channel A for datacasting will provide a range of new specific material, often for groups that are not catered for by generalised broadcasting. It is material that will be available in the home to groups that may be disadvantaged and that may not ordinarily qualify, so it is a democratisation of information in a tremendously important way. That democratisation will allow for narrowcasting and datacasting and will do so against the background that digital television will open up over the coming years to 25 new free-to-air channels within the existing structure of the five major stations. The legislation also, through the activity of channel B, allows for an encouragement of new devices in the form of mobile television, in whatever way that technology may mature, to be available. So it provides the opportunity, the encouragement and the certainty necessary to allow this sixth great platform of communications to develop.

The next principle, after choice, is reform. These reforms come, firstly, on the basis that we think that the media ownership changes will help to introduce capital into our three existing traditional platforms. Secondly, they will help to introduce synergies into the way in which these different platforms interact. Thirdly, they will provide media operators with flexibility and the capacity to take those synergies and to operate in a new environment in which, inevitably, the six platforms must overlap in different ways. That is the future, and we make no apologies for choosing the future as opposed to staying with a set in stone, set in concrete, past which will restrict Australia and which compares unfavourably with changes that are happening around the world.

The third of the principles is that with these changes, firstly in terms of choice and secondly in terms of microeconomic reform—something which was once embraced by our friends on the other side of the chamber—there come fundamental protections. The protections proceed on a basis that may easily be understood through a countdown. Six combinations of media groups, as a minimum, are guaranteed for Melbourne and Sydney. There must be, under the legislation, a minimum of five different media groupings across the three traditional platforms in our major cities. There must be a minimum of four major groups across the different platforms in our regional areas. No group can hold more than two out of three platforms in any media area, and no group can hold more than two radio licences. All of these ownership relationships, restrictions and protections are twinned with the provisions that have been set forth in the bills for protection and, in particular, promotion of local content, a measure that is aimed directly at assisting rural Australia to maintain its identity, maintain its voice and maintain specific local jobs.

So those are the principles: choice, reform and protection of diversity. Against those principles, we have seen a series of issues raised during this debate. I want to deal briefly with what I regard as being the five major concerns raised by the opposition, and I hope that I do them justice in addressing them. The first of those is that many other countries have cross-media rules. There is this perception that Australia is somehow embarking upon a set of reforms which would place us at odds with the democratic and liberal market countries of the world. Wrong. Let me give four examples. The United Kingdom, Canada, Germany and New Zealand all take not just a similar approach to cross-media mergers to the one in the current Australian restrictions but a more liberal approach. That may in fact be an argument for going further, but we have set the line to which we are willing to proceed at this point in time. It is important to note that those four countries, whose markets all have great analogies to the Australian market, take a more liberal approach than Australia.

The second of the areas of criticism is that there are no actual benefits, that this is done to help large players. Wrong. The fundamental principle of microeconomic reform is that it helps create an efficient economy, which helps allocate the resources, which helps create the jobs, which means that we are not carrying a dead weight. We do this unashamedly. The three great benefits are: firstly, it introduces capital into our system; secondly, as I said, it introduces synergies across the different platforms; and, thirdly, it provides flexibility in moving forwards.

The third of the criticisms is a suggestion that we should remove foreign ownership restrictions but not cross-media restrictions. If you wanted to do something to harm existing Australian players, you could not devise a better combination, because that would favour foreign companies over Australian companies. It is an absurd proposition and one which would absolutely damage Australian companies. It would not give them the flexibility to move but allow them to be picked off.

The fourth of the claims put forward by the opposition is the notion that the requirements for local content are not genuine. What they have done—with the greatest of respect—is overlook the fact that section 43B of the amended act will require that merged or sole regional radio licensees maintain their local presence, quite apart from local content obligations. This is twinned with the prescribed level of local content of 4½ hours a day for all regional radio licensees and the fact that this can only be changed by a disallowable instrument before the parliament. So not only are there protections but some would argue that in fact this is promoting a much greater level of local content than has previously been the case.

Finally, there has been a game around antisiphoning and a view that sports should be allowed to premiere on multichannels. It is not a widespread view that has been put forward, but it has been put forward by some. This in effect would mean that people who currently rely on free-to-air analog channels would risk the possibility that major sporting events could be premiered on digital TV, and the majority of Australians who at this point in time rely on analog television could be denied the right and the opportunity to see the most popular and the most favoured sporting events. So it is a muddle-headed provision and a muddle-headed approach, precisely because it would achieve the opposite of what is intended. It would be denying ordinary Australians the opportunity to see their most popular and most desired events.

(Quorum formed) I thank the Chief Opposition Whip for the audience. In summing up on the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 and the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006, the principles that we set out were clear—they were principles of choice, reform and protection, and they come against the background of the most dramatic change ever in the availability of communications platforms for contact with the broader public, as we move from three platforms to six. These bills recognise that environment, respond to that environment and allow us to prepare for a future which gives all Australians more access to media, greater access to information and more control over how they access that information over the coming decade. I thank the minister, Senator Helen Coonan, the officers in her department and the members of her office. I am delighted to commend the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 and the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006 to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

See this speech in context