Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in this cognate debate on the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 and the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006 on behalf of the Labor Party and representing my shadow ministerial colleague Senator Conroy, the shadow minister for communications.

These bills implement the most significant changes to media law in 20 years. The government would like the public to believe that this legislation is about media reform, but the government’s media plan does not deserve that description. Unlike some commentators, Labor is not prepared to allow the government to slap the label of ‘reform’ onto any old set of changes. The word ‘reform’ requires more than just change. The essence of the word is the notion of improvement in public policy, improvement for the Australian community. The government’s media ownership bill will reduce media diversity, reduce competition and reduce consumer choice. Legislation that facilitates such an outcome cannot be described as reform, and it certainly cannot be described as good public policy.

While the abolition of the cross-media laws may potentially benefit media owners, it offers nothing for the Australian public. The government knows that it is hard to sell increased media concentration as good public policy. This legislation represents the third time in the last decade that the Prime Minister has tried to force these changes through the parliament. This time around the government has tried to sugar coat the plan to repeal the cross-media laws by trying to link it to the new digital television services. In truth, there is no connection between the two.

Australia does not need to sacrifice media diversity in order to enjoy the benefits of the digital age. Countries like the United Kingdom and the United States are rapidly moving to embrace digital broadcasting. Both these countries have strong cross-media laws to promote diversity of opinion. But, in Australia, the Howard government maintains the benefits of digital can only be attained if incumbent media players receive a quid pro quo in the form of the repeal of the cross-media ownership laws. Labor completely rejects this trade-off.

This legislation is being rammed through parliament so that the government plans are subject to only minimal scrutiny and debate. Before I get to the detail of the legislation and its flaws, some comment needs to be made about the process which has preceded this debate, because it says so much about this government’s attitude to media reform. The bills before the House were the subject of more than 12 months consultation by the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Coonan, with the media and the media industry. The government was determined to get a package that accommodated the industry’s interests. In contrast, the interests of consumers, viewers, listeners and readers have been just an afterthought.

For example, the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts was given just three weeks to conduct its inquiry into the legislation. The public had just one week to make submissions on the four bills in the package. The Senate communications committee was able to conduct just two days of hearings—more than 30 witnesses were crammed into this truncated timetable. For most witnesses, the opposition senators had just 10 minutes to ask questions. The government’s rush job on this package continued last week in the Senate, where more than 100 pages of amendments and explanatory materials were released during the debate as the government sought to fix drafting errors and appease the concerns of dissidents in its own party room. Debate in the Senate was gagged last Thursday. Many amendments could not even be discussed before the guillotine was applied in the Senate. Members of this House may not necessarily get any better treatment. This is how parliamentary democracy and scrutiny operates under the Howard government.

When you examine the bills in detail, it becomes entirely clear why the government does not want a lengthy debate. The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 in particular is a deeply flawed piece of legislation. I now turn to the detail of that bill. The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill makes two key changes to the media ownership laws. Firstly, it repeals the specific foreign ownership provisions in the Broadcasting Services Act that relate to commercial and subscription television. Secondly, it repeals the current cross-media laws and inserts new provisions which are described by the government as diversity safeguards. As I will outline in a moment, these safeguards are weak and ineffective.

The key principle that underlines Labor’s approach on media ownership regulation is the need to promote diversity of opinion in the marketplace for ideas. In a democracy, it is important to prevent a concentration of power to influence public opinion. There is no doubt that free and open discussion of ideas and opinions is the lifeblood of a democracy. The point was powerfully made by the Productivity Commission in its review of broadcasting legislation. The Productivity Commission stated:

… the likelihood that a proprietor’s business and editorial interests will influence the content and opinion of their media outlets is of major significance. The public interest in ensuring diversity of information and opinion … leads to a strong preference for more media proprietors rather than fewer. This is particularly important given the wide business interests of some media proprietors.

History shows that media companies have been ruthless in pursuing their commercial interests using their media power. A recent survey of journalists, for example, conducted by Roy Morgan and Crikey clearly demonstrates the capacity of ownership to influence the content produced by media companies: some 48 per cent of journalists, nearly half those surveyed, said they have felt obliged to take into account the commercial position of their employer, 38 per cent said that they have been instructed to toe the commercial line of their employer, 32 per cent said that they feel obliged to take into account their employer’s political position and 16 per cent said they had been instructed to so do. These figures demonstrate why maintaining a diversity of ownership of the most influential media is so fundamental.

For Labor, the principle of promoting diversity of opinion dictates a different policy response in relation to cross- and foreign media ownership restrictions. Labor supports the changes to the foreign ownership rules that are contained in the bill. This is a position that the Labor opposition has consistently maintained since 2002. There is already substantial foreign investment in radio, newspapers and television. Foreign investment offers the potential to introduce new players into the market and increase media diversity. In contrast, the bill’s proposal to repeal the cross-media laws will facilitate a massive concentration of media ownership.

Of course, the government claims that it understands the need to protect diversity. It argues that its package does contain safeguards to prevent excessive concentration of ownership. But any close analysis of these safeguards shows them to be completely inadequate. Let me start with the so-called voices test. Under this test, a media merger will not be allowed to occur unless there will remain a minimum of five media voices in metropolitan markets and four in regional Australia. For the purposes of this test, a voice is a commercial television licence, a commercial radio licence or a newspaper that is sold in the relevant area at least four days a week. It also includes a media group that has a combination of those assets.

The government has never provided any satisfactory explanation as to why it thinks that five and four are acceptable numbers, other than that it wants to allow scope for firms to reap economies of scale—in other words, the voices test is designed to facilitate media mergers. It is not intended to prevent a substantial consolidation of the industry. To appreciate this fact, it needs to be remembered that there are currently 12 owners of the major commercial media in Sydney. There are 11 owners of the major commercial media in Melbourne, 10 owners in Brisbane, eight in Perth and seven in Adelaide. In 19 major cities in regional Australia, there are six or seven owners.

The so-called five-four rule is, frankly, just a recipe for increased concentration and less diversity. This fact became so obvious that last week the minister was compelled to announce that the five-four test would be supplemented by a two out of three rule. The two out of three rule would prevent proprietors from owning newspaper, radio and television assets in the same market. While some members of the government have claimed this as a great concession, in reality it offers little additional protection for media diversity.

In both metropolitan and regional markets, a person in control of a newspaper and a television station would still be able to exercise an unhealthy degree of influence. For example, in my home state of Western Australia, in its capital city of Perth, a person who owns Channel 7 and the West Australian would have a tremendous capacity to influence the political debate. Under the two out of three rule, it would still be possible for the number of owners to fall from six to four in regional markets and five in the state capitals. The proposal does nothing to protect diversity in the 17 regional markets where there are only five commercial voices.

It is important to note that the voices test takes absolutely no account of the relative influence of a media organisation. Under the voices test, a media conglomerate composed of Channel 9 and the Sydney Morning Herald counts as one voice, as does a small radio station like 2KY. A music or TAB station is given the same weight as Channel 9. This is plainly absurd. The voices test does not represent a serious attempt to prevent a concentration of ownership of the most influential media assets.

The other claimed safeguard in the package is the ACCC’s power to examine media mergers to determine if they substantially lessen competition under section 50 of the Trade Practices Act. However, both the Productivity Commission and leading competition lawyers have cast doubt on this claim. The question of whether a merger breaches the Trade Practices Act is critically dependent on the definition of the relevant market. Historically, the ACCC took the view that the print and electronic media operate in separate markets. For this reason, it argued that the merger of newspaper and television assets would not give rise to competition issues.

More recently, the current Chairman of the ACCC stated his belief that there is now a broader media market and that section 50 could apply to cross-media mergers. Mr Samuel’s view has, however, been challenged by the leading law firm Phillips Fox. Last November, Phillips Fox stated:

... commercial television, newspaper and radio are not likely to be in the same market for merger analysis ...

The firm went on to state:

No competition cases in Australia or in the rest of the world (where technology is often more advanced than Australia) have yet accepted that the traditional market definitions should change ...

Other lawyers have questioned the capacity of the ACCC to identify a market for news and opinion, given that these services are typically not priced. Peter Armitage, the competition partner at Blake Dawson Waldron, has described the ACCC’s approach to defining news markets as ‘fairly speculative, brave new world territory’.

Ultimately, it will be up to the Federal Court to decide the issue. As we saw in the case of AGL’s purchase of Loy Yang Power, it is quite possible for the Federal Court to approve a merger that the ACCC believes is anticompetitive. As well, in its report on broadcasting, the Productivity Commission stated:

It is clear that the Trade Practices Act as it stands would be unable to prevent many cross-media mergers or acquisitions which may reduce diversity. It is also clear that the adoption by the ACCC of a broader definition of the media market would not adequately address the social dimensions of the policy problem, and would be open to legal challenge.

This view remains compelling. Labor believes the preservation of media diversity in this country should remain the responsibility of this parliament rather than the courts. So it is clear that the so-called diversity safeguards that the government has talked about—the voices test, the two out of three rule and the ACCC scrutiny—are all deeply flawed.

This House should be in no doubt about what will happen if the government’s cross-media ownership laws are passed. Merchant bankers, stock brokers and equity markets are already salivating over the prospect that the parliament will unleash a takeover frenzy. There will be a massive concentration in the ownership of the most influential media in Australia. It will become harder for diverse voices to be heard. There will be fewer journalists to report on stories of local interest. There will be fewer investigative journalists to hold members of parliament and industry to account.

There is no logical basis for the changes that the government has proposed. Even the explanatory memorandum to the bill states plainly that the benefits of cross-media ownership reform are ‘unclear’. During the consideration in detail stage, Labor will seek to amend the bill to prevent the repeal of the cross-media ownership laws, and I will circulate amendments to that effect in due course. This will provide this House with one last opportunity to protect media diversity in this country.

Before I move on to discuss the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006, I want to spend a few moments dealing with the arguments that the cross-media laws are out of date or that they are holding back our media companies or our media industry. We have often heard in this debate that with the emergence of new technology, like the internet and 3G phones, the cross-media laws do not matter anymore. This simplistic argument confuses diversity of platforms with diversity of content. As James Hooke of Fairfax told the Senate committee, the mere fact that someone can watch Dancing with the Stars on a mobile device is not diversity.

The traditional media players have moved quickly to dominate the new media. Sites owned by News Ltd, PBL, Fairfax and the ABC account for 85 per cent of the hits on Australian news websites. While the minister was running around last week saying that the emergence of YouTube demonstrated the need to change media ownership laws, the ACCC has delivered a more sober assessment. Mr Samuel told the Senate committee:

... the internet is simply a distribution channel. It has not shown any significant signs at this point in time of providing a greater diversity of credible information and news and commentary.

It is important to remember that the legislation restricting cross-media ownership is not something that is unique to Australia. I recently read the report of one analyst who said that the cross-media provisions were an ‘anachronism’ and that ‘Australia needs to catch up with the rest of the world’.

The fact is that the previous Labor government did not invent the idea. A range of countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Japan, Germany, Austria, Slovakia, Korea and the Netherlands, have all seen fit to implement restrictions on cross-media ownership to protect their media diversity. It should be noted that many of these countries have media markets that are far more diverse than our own.

Another claim we regularly hear is that the cross-media laws are holding back innovation or investment. In fact, it is just the opposite. As leading academic Jock Given has noted, the cross-media laws are driving diversity, not constraining it. Fairfax is not stuck in print. Its website offers video news, bulletins and podcasts of journalists like Alan Kohler. Radio stations like 2GB offer transcripts, video news and audio downloads. Channel 9 is not stuck in TV. Through the Ninemsn website it offers plenty of text and audio.

The argument that the industry cannot grow without media mergers just has no foundation. The Australian media industry is tremendously profitable. There is no suggestion that the sector requires the ability to enter into cross-media mergers to remain viable. Mr Beecher, one of the owners of Crikey, for example, told the Senate committee:

In the past year, profits in the media industry were higher than ever before. This is a booming industry.

The average profit margin of public companies in this country is around 15 to 17 per cent—that is, $15 to $17 in every $100 of revenue is profit. The media industry average is 24 per cent.

Contrary to the claims of the government, there is also no basis to believe that the cross-media laws are in any way inhibiting investment or innovation in the Australian media. To even a casual observer of the media landscape, it is apparent that the cross-media laws have not prevented traditional media companies from investing in a range of new media opportunities including the internet, subscription TV and mobile phones.

I would now like to briefly address the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006. Back in 2000 the government set a target to achieve switchover to digital broadcasting by the end of 2008. It has been clear for some time that there is no way that this target will be met. The policies that the government has pursued for the last five years have clearly failed to rapidly drive take-up. According to industry data, only around 20 per cent of households have purchased the necessary equipment to receive digital free-to-air broadcasts. The minister has been forced to postpone the start of digital switchover to some time between 2010 and 2012.

The slow take-up of digital is an important issue for consumers and the Australian economy. When we reach the point that analog broadcasting can be switched off, huge amounts of valuable spectrum will become available for other uses like new TV stations or wireless broadband. At present the government spends $50 million a year paying for the analog broadcasts of the ABC and SBS. This is clearly money that could be better spent on programming and content.

The digital television bill contains a number of measures which relax the current regulatory regime. Labor welcomes the measures in the bill that will increase the appeal of digital television to consumers. Measures like lifting the genre restrictions on the ABC and SBS and the decision to allow some form of commercial multichannelling should stimulate consumer interest. However, the regulatory regime for digital television remains very restrictive. No sport that is on the antisiphoning list will be permitted to be shown on commercial multichannels. For two years commercial broadcasters will only be able to multichannel in high definition. The new channel A will offer such a narrow range of programming that there are strong doubts about whether it will be viable. The new channel B is most likely to be used for mobile TV and consequently will have no impact on take-up in the home.

Under the government’s proposal, free-to-air broadcasters have little or no incentive to aggressively drive the transition to digital. Labor will support the digital television bill because it does contain several measures that over time will increase the effectiveness of digital television for consumers. However, Labor is not convinced that the government has come up with a model that will allow Australia to begin to switch off by 2012. This should have been the real focus of the media reform debate. In this respect, Labor will announce further measures to address this issue in the run-up to the next election.

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was an interesting announcement in relation to further measures to switch off the analog system in this debate on the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 and the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006. That will be interesting to see when it comes out. We are an interesting society these days. When you talk to the educators in this country, they will tell you that we are a country that is information rich but knowledge poor. What they are really saying is that there is plenty of opportunity and plenty of information available from a wide range of sources, but in fact there is so much that people cannot take it up. Therefore, they cannot play it back. It is very interesting: the way that media is going in this country, although there is the demand for more and more channels, it is probably going to have less and less take-up because there is just too much of it. I cannot see some of these channels being viable, I have to say. But the government will make the opportunity available. If broadcasters can see that they can use that opportunity then they will take it up in a commercial way.

The member for Perth said that government policies had failed in relation to digital take-up. I do not think that is right. I think what has actually happened is that the consumers have decided not to take up digital at the rate that was expected. You cannot really make a viewer change from analog to digital if they do not want to—you just cannot. It does not matter what legislation you put in place. Other than switching off the analog transmitters, you cannot make a person change. Many of us who have been in the industry have long known and understood that, when it comes to television, if the picture moves and talks, no matter how horrible the picture might be, people are happy. They do not understand the benefits of going to digital television, not only in relation to picture and sound clarity but also in relation to the provision of additional services. They do not understand that. As long as they can sit down in their chair and the picture moves, they are basically happy, so they do not move to digital.

As a person who has been in this industry for a long time, I have seen a number of changes. I have seen some changes that have not been for the best in the country and I have seen other changes that have been very well received. For example, when local news on regional television began to disappear a couple of colleagues and I got quite animated about that and we made it very clear to the government that we wanted local news to be back on our local channels. That has been achieved and local viewers very much appreciate what the government did to achieve that. That is why the priority given to local content of radio in the bill before the House tonight is so important.

Some would argue that we have too many radio services. In Townsville we have got 12 radio stations. We have perhaps two or three main stations and the rest have a handful of listeners. The diversity is certainly there but the listeners are not. That is why I guess it is important to make it clear that the government wants to see local content on local radio and not just a network station out of a major capital city. I have heard some of the broadcasters say, ‘This is the end of some of the radio stations.’ I judge that an ambit claim. They will find a way to provide the local content which we are mandating in the bill before the parliament tonight.

The minister has been sensible about this. The minister has said that there will be a review done before this is implemented. There will be a review of local content on existing radio stations and then the minister will have the power given under this bill to adjust the local content requirements according to local circumstances. This is sensible. The minister will make a decision that will suit the local circumstances and I think that the radio stations certainly should be happy with that.

I know that it is very important in my area in relation to emergencies such as cyclones that the local radio station be local when it is needed to be local. Certainly in the past our local radio stations have discharged their responsibilities towards their community and have been on the ball when they needed to be broadcasting local information to the local community in times of emergency. I know that some would say, ‘Why should the government be mandating local content?’ The answer is very simple. The spectrum that they use is not free. It is a scarce public good. It belongs to the people of Australia and if a particular company is given a right to use that spectrum then there should be an obligation that attaches to that. That obligation generally takes the form of local content.

I think that radio stations that were very progressive stations attuned to the local community would embrace without regulation or legislation local content in their programming. That is the way you attract listeners: by being live and local. Some of the smaller radio stations may find it a bit more difficult but, in my area, 4GC in Charters Towers, with a listening audience of only about 8,000 people, still manages live and local. There is no reason why stations in a bigger market should not do that.

In relation to television and media in general, the kind of media that is available these days is just extraordinary. Today, for example, I was at the Telstra demonstration of the Next G system. I was able to watch pictures, with sound if needed, coming live from a property in the bush in south-west Queensland. You could control the cameras to look at whatever you wanted to look at. You could control the pumps on a local dam and troughs providing water for the stock. From your homestead you could even look at the back gate of the property 50 kilometres away. This particular homestead was having problems with people nicking in the back gate and pinching the stock. They just wired up the gate to the new media so that when somebody opened the gate it immediately sent an alarm to the homestead and took a picture of whoever was at the gate. It was absolutely fascinating. More than that, that kind of visual and aural information was available anywhere in the world instantaneously. It was also available on your mobile phone if you wanted it. That was an amazing demonstration to see. In digital television there are all sorts of opportunities. Removing the current genre restrictions on multichannelling by the national broadcasters will allow the national broadcasters to provide a broader range of digital services. I think that the ABC in particular will be very pleased to see that decision.

In relation to high-definition television there have been some changes about what is mandated and what is not. We are giving the industry more flexibility to decide what they are going to broadcast. I think that high-definition TV is here to stay. I think that stations who broadcast in HD will do so because there is a market demand to have better quality pictures, particularly for things like sporting events.

In relation to the antisiphoning system, all of us have probably had a number of campaign emails from a site called Save My Sport. I have certainly responded very directly to anyone who has sent me an email and said that I am a strong supporter of sporting events of national importance appearing on free-to-air television. As far as the government are concerned that is our intention. We will stick by that. But it is also interesting that some of the free-to-air stations have not played the game. They have had the availability of nationally important sport and have not used it—have not broadcast it—when it could have been broadcast by other media. We will also introduce what is called a ‘use it or lose it’ scheme. That will work very well because the free-to-airs will know that if they are not going to use a nationally important sporting program then they will lose the rights to that particular program.

I am not concerned about the concentration of media ownership. I think—and I have said this publicly—that in my area we will get more media owners coming into our city. The two out of three rule was very important; I certainly supported that. As media readjusts around the country, some owners will divest themselves of some of their stations and move into other markets. I think that is a healthy thing. I think in Townsville we are going to see a different array of media owners than we have at the moment. We will have a wider array of media owners, and that can only add to diversity and be good for the listeners, the viewers and the readers.

So I am not concerned about that and I have supported this particular suite of bills. I pay tribute to Helen Coonan. I have never seen so much consultation on a suite of bills in the 11 years I have been in the parliament. The minister has consulted very widely and very intelligently. There have been a lot of changes along the way; they have improved the bills. And that is why I will be supporting them in the parliament.

John Murphy (Lowe, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will start my contribution to this debate on the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 and the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006 by saying what a disgraceful and venal government the Howard government is. Last week it rammed the bills through the Senate in the most venal manner and handed our democracy to the two giant media companies News Ltd and Publishing and Broadcasting Ltd. This morning we woke up to learn from both the electronic and print media of a new, unedifying and disgraceful attack on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation by the Howard government under the aegis of its servile agents—namely, the Howard government stacked ABC board.

What double standards, hypocrisy and dishonesty for the Howard government to cut the throat of Australia’s democracy by gagging debate on this bill in the Senate last Thursday and then ramming it through the Senate to the cheers of James Packer, Rupert Murdoch and their executives. And today they are venally employing those very servile agents to put the public broadcaster in the dock on trumped-up charges alleging bias and failure by the ABC to present more diverse opinions. What breathtaking hypocrisy, dishonesty and double standards indeed. What a disgraceful and venal government Australia has. The Howard government must be voted out of office at the next election and Kim Beazley must become our next Prime Minister to save our democracy. The Howard government cannot be allowed to strangle and suffocate diversity of news, information and public opinion in Australia with this bill. The Howard government cannot be allowed to crucify the ABC.

Our democracy is at stake, right here, this very night. The right of every citizen to have his or her voice heard is at stake here tonight. Free speech is on the line, right here, tonight. Might is not right. When Australian citizens cast their votes at the last federal election they did not vote for Kerry Packer. They did not vote for Rupert Murdoch. They voted for a party that would put Australia first. They voted for a leader who would put Australia first. They voted for a candidate or a member who would put Australia first. What a betrayal of our country we are witnessing here tonight.

And how did we end up in this state? Let me take you back to last week, Mr Deputy Speaker. Last Tuesday, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Helen Coonan, fearing that she could not trust Senator Barnaby Joyce and that he would vote against the bill, organised for her chief of staff to contact Family First senator Steve Fielding and arrange a private meeting. At the very time this meeting was scheduled, on Tuesday evening, Senator Coonan was wheeling and dealing with Senator Joyce and the member for Hinkler. In the dead of night further telephone calls were made, and Senator Fielding met with Senator Coonan on Wednesday morning. Disgracefully, Senator Fielding surrendered his vote to the Howard government and the media moguls and at high noon went into the chamber to tell the Senate:

Family First is not persuaded that the arguments against this legislation are so significant as to justify rejecting it and, therefore, we will support it.

Tonight I ask: why? The current cross-media ownership laws prevent the common ownership of newspapers, free-to-air television and radio licences in the same market. The public interest principle underpinning these laws is obvious. Diversity in the media is central to the free flow of information in a participatory democracy. Diversity in news, current affairs and journalistic commentary is critical to ensure the people of Australia are made fully aware of all views and opinions so that they can make up their own minds, draw their own conclusions and make their own judgements on any issue, and not have News Ltd and PBL manufacture consent for them. It follows that we need a free and sceptical media that can promote a real plurality of opinions—that is good for democracy. The cornerstone of any media law should be to promote diversity and pluralism. This has not escaped even the Prime Minister, who, while making exalted references to Australia’s proud democratic traditions, said:

... the strength and vitality of Australian democracy rests on three great institutional pillars: our parliament with its tradition of robust debate; the rule of law upheld by an independent and admirably incorruptible judiciary; and a free and sceptical press ...

Those are the Prime Minister’s words; that is what he said. I could not agree more. Why then has the Prime Minister slammed a wrecking ball into one of those three Australian institutional pillars, felling the pillar of a free and sceptical media? What worth will an institutional pillar supporting our democracy be if it is overwhelmingly owned and controlled by two media companies? Will journalists be able to freely dissect and report the serious issues of the day? Will a journalist risk their job to write an editorial contrary to their boss’s opinion? They have not in relation to Rupert Murdoch’s support for the coalition of the willing.

Is the Howard government or indeed Senator Fielding naive enough to believe that it is mere coincidence that all of Mr Murdoch’s newspapers in North America, the United Kingdom and Australia showed uniform editorial support for the war in Iraq? That is 170-plus newspapers. You might have thought that somewhere in the United Kingdom, Australia or even North America an editor working for News Ltd would have come out and challenged the position of his or her boss. Of course they did not do that. What about PBL? May we ask the honourable member for Calare about how Kerry Packer used to interfere in newsrooms when Peter Andren worked for the Packer family? To suggest we can so easily delineate media ownership from political commentary is a fallacy of the worst kind.

I want to place on record that I have been contacted by three journalists who privately suggest that there is some merit to the old adage: he who pays the piper calls the tune. That those three journalists, two from News Ltd—one a very senior one—and another from Fairfax, are unable to say publicly what they said to me without fear of recrimination is an indictment on the concentration of media ownership in Australia. Two of those journalists, as I said, work for News Ltd and the other for Fairfax. I am waiting for a call from someone from PBL; I have not had one yet.

Further concentrating our media in Australia is a road which must be left untravelled. Australia already has a very high concentration of media ownership. We have already one of the greatest concentrations of media ownership of any country that calls itself a democracy. News Ltd and Fairfax currently control over 80 per cent of Australia’s metropolitan newspapers; Publishing and Broadcasting Ltd, owners of Channel 9, currently have television coverage reaching 52 per cent of Australia’s population and a 40 per cent market share of Australia’s top-selling magazines. This is not to mention News Ltd’s and Publishing and Broadcasting Ltd’s 25 per cent share each in Australia’s monopoly pay television network, Foxtel; 33 per cent share in Sky News and interest in Australian Associated Press.

Is it any wonder that the association Reporters sans Frontieres has relegated Australia to No. 41 on the index of world press freedom. Quite astonishingly, Australia lags behind developing nations as well as old Soviet bloc republics. Our embarrassingly low press freedom ranking must have something to do with the fact that the lack of diversity in media ownership provides an opportunity for Australia’s media tycoons to exploit their vast media assets in a manner that suits their interests, not Australia’s. Our embarrassingly low press freedom ranking must also have something to do with the Howard government’s capitulation to our media proprietors who have been pushing for these changes for 15 years.

While Australians have become used to successive communications ministers’ sophistry and venal behaviour since 2001, it is appalling that the bill has found support from a senator who was elected to put the family first. That Senator Fielding can sit back and allow the Howard government to run roughshod over our democracy with the patronage of the Packer and Murdoch families while displaying no insight into the duty he holds to his constituency is a catastrophe for our democracy. Senator Fielding’s superficial contribution to the debate in the Senate shows that he knows not what he has done.

For the benefit of Senator Fielding and the complicit members of the Howard government, I will explain what this bill will allow News Ltd and PBL to own. This is the government’s definition of diversity: PBL and News Ltd will 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; monopoly pay television Foxtel; and more than 70 per cent of the news and information sites on the internet—all against the background that the government will not allow a fourth free-to-air TV licence or a second pay television network to new competitors, which would provide some real competition to the might of the two big media companies. Imagine how devastating a giant media company could be in the Howard government’s new media ownership age.

I trust Senator Fielding and those sitting opposite are aware of the alleged plot by the chief executive of PBL to broadcast a news story on Channel 9 attacking Kerry Stokes, apparently in retaliation for an unflattering news story on Channel 7 about James Packer’s involvement in the failed One.Tel venture. With its unlimited print and electronic opportunities, what hope is there for the ordinary citizen in fighting those who seek to manufacture consent? What is to stop a media proprietor from unconscionably trading favourable and highly influential commentary across a broad range of print and electronic media with a government that is willing to meet his or her personal interests?

We have seen headlines in Australia such as ‘Murdoch flies in to dine with PM’ and ‘PM risks Packer’s ire’ as well as headlines in the US such as ‘Murdoch’s election play may win him a TV station’. When looked at in isolation, there is perhaps nothing more to be said about these headlines except: what about our democracy? When viewed in the context that at every juncture of media policy the government has navigated a dangerous path which seeks to appease entrenched segments of the media industry—including Messrs Packer and Murdoch—some serious questions have to be asked.

Serious questions have to be asked about the future health of Australia’s democracy if we walk a path that gives one citizen even more power to potentially intimidate an elected government or an opposition. We must ask serious questions about a piece of legislation that may hand down to future generations a parliament that is handicapped by the influence of vested interests. A parliament, media industry and democracy which will be paralysed by the vested interests of media proprietors is a disgrace.

This is not the Australia that I want. This is the not the Australia that the electors of Lowe, who voted for me, want. This is not the Australia that the people of Dunedoo, where I was born, want. And it is clearly not the Australia that most fair-minded Australians would want for themselves, their children or their grandchildren. It is contemptuous that, with few exceptions, no-one from the government is asking these hard questions. We are talking about a matter that goes to the heart of the plurality of news information and public opinion in Australia, a matter that goes to the very heart of freedom of speech and a matter that goes to the heart of Australia’s democracy. Yet the members of the Howard government are complicit, washing their hands like Pontius Pilate in a disgraceful display of apathy. Indeed, the responses of the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts to my innumerable questions over the last six years have been nothing short of arrogant, with a reckless disregard for the public interest. They are responses that are significant not because of the substance of the answers provided but because of the scornful and cynical manner in which they were given. They are the answers expected of a minister who has long since caved in to the media moguls—the display of a Clayton’s communications minister who knowingly and wilfully allows the media barons to call the tune. Never was this more apparent than when the minister gave the public five weeks to make submissions to the government’s media reform discussion paper and then had that disgraceful shotgun Senate inquiry a couple of weeks ago.

This cynical, expedient government has never explained how the ownership by two big media companies of all Australia’s newspapers, countless magazines, internet news sites, Sky News, two of the three commercial free-to-air television networks and a monopoly on pay television assists the public interest. The Howard government has never explained how reducing the number of media competitors in a market like Sydney from 12 to five—where the people I represent in the electorate of Lowe in Sydney’s inner west live—is good for my constituents, is good for the people of the inner west of Sydney, is good for the people of Sydney, is good for the people of New South Wales or, indeed, is good for the people of Australia. The Howard government has never explained how concentrating media ownership in the hands of so few, with the power to influence public opinion and to make or break governments or oppositions, is a good thing for our democracy. The government should hang its head in shame.

The best the minister can do to justify her venal behaviour is to make rhetorical and superficial references to nebulous and innocuous concepts such as ‘the need for greater flexibility’. Never have I seen an explanatory memorandum so short on justifications to overturn such a critical piece of public policy in Australia. Pity those poor individuals who had to draft it. Perhaps they too now realise that weakening cross-media ownership laws weakens the health of our country. Perhaps they too realise the diabolical consequences of further concentrating media ownership in Australia.

Australia’s media should not merely be seen as a commodity that can simply be bought and sold for the purposes of reaching economies of scale or economies of scope. We are not just talking about any commodity but something that strikes at the heart of our democracy. The minister even has the hide to suggest that she is ‘in it for the consumers’. That beggars belief. Even the big media companies would be splitting their sides laughing at those statements. It is not good enough that Minister Coonan launches an assault on our democracy. Senator Coonan assaults our intelligence. The Productivity Commission’s statement said:

... the likelihood that a proprietor’s business and editorial interests will influence the content and opinion of their media outlets is of major significance.

The Productivity Commission’s statement is spot on. This bill will result in an unacceptable concentration of power and diminution of opinion.

The keys to Australia’s democracy do not belong to our two biggest media moguls. Indeed, the keys to Australia’s democracy belong to the people. I have long lived in hope that members of the government would show the courage and leadership to stand up for their principles rather than abandon our country. While the allure of political support from media companies may be seductive, the future of Australia’s democracy is far more important than any short-term political gain. The public interest, and the future of our democracy, demands more than a short-sighted view to obtain favourable editorial coverage from the media. It demands a far-sighted view to maintain a free and sceptical press of the sort that has given our democracy the strength and vitality that makes it one of the most revered around the world. The past two weeks have shown that the Howard government is venal when it comes to media reform. Either way, media consumers and Australia’s democracy will be flogged if this bill becomes law.

Australians have long asked who the Howard government is honestly representing on issues concerning the media landscape. They are asking who really is running our country. They are also entitled to ask questions of Senator Fielding and the Family First Party. Before I finish, I have a duty on behalf of our precious democracy to rename the Family First Party the Packer Family First Party or, alternatively, the Murdoch Family First Party. I have been informed by an impeccable source that, in the knowledge that Senator Coonan could not trust Senator Joyce, the Liberal Party bribed Senator Fielding for his vote with the promise of preferences to the Family First Party at the coming election. I tell the House tonight that Senator Fielding reached for his 30 pieces of silver.

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think that should be withdrawn. I think that is a direct reflection on a member of another house. You cannot say what the Liberal Party thinks about an allegation without the other party—

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member will withdraw.

John Murphy (Lowe, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I meant what I said but I withdraw.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member will withdraw without qualification.

John Murphy (Lowe, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw. I invite the Liberal Party to come out and deny that it has not offered this sleazy and disgraceful preference deal. I invite Senator Coonan to tell the parliament that she has no knowledge of this sleazy and disgraceful deal.

Like the Howard government, the Family First Party stand condemned. How can the people of Australia trust a government that has done this to our country? How can the people of Australia trust a government that betrays one of its own and purchases the tainted vote of a non-government member? How can the people of Australia who voted for Senator Fielding ever vote for him again or trust him again? Indeed, how can they ever trust the Howard government again? The Howard government stands condemned for slaughtering our democracy. If any members of the government have any principles or any guts, they will cross the floor and stand against this assault on our democracy.

The people of Australia are looking to Kim Beazley and the Labor Party to save our democracy. I can foreshadow tonight that we will do so, because we are not going to lie down and accept this disgraceful assault on our democracy. I have been speaking out on this issue for more than six years, since it was first raised in 2001. I have asked innumerable questions of successive Ministers Coonan, Williams and Alston and all they have ever done is throw sand in my eyes. The day of reckoning has arrived in the House of Representatives tonight because, as I said earlier in my contribution, our democracy is at stake. We cannot hand over the parliament to James Packer and Rupert Murdoch. We might as well shut down the place if this bill goes through and put out a how-to-vote card, ‘One, Packer; two, Murdoch,’ and we will only have to worry about the donkey vote. (Time expired)

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a personal friendship with the member for Lowe, but I have never heard such a misguided speech in my life. The media, which he suggests is totally dominated by a couple of owners, has been telling us this very day that Mr Packer is, more than likely, going to be a vendor, not a buyer. He has decided that Asian casinos are a much better investment in this day and age, and he is probably right. The member for Lowe has come to the conclusion that Mr Murdoch wants to come back here and buy up big. I cannot say he will not, but I think he is more concerned with Mr Malone over there in America, who has 16 per cent or thereabouts of his business. Mr Murdoch has been working every aspect he can find to try to get rid of him.

It is just evidence that the member for Lowe and too many of his colleagues think Australian media is a big target for these people. One of the reasons that Mr Murdoch has his problems with Mr Malone is that he foolishly abandoned the Australian stock market and went over to make himself a big name in America. In the deflation of his share price, Mr Malone slipped in and got 16 per cent of Mr Murdoch’s business. When you go and play in that big market you have all sorts of problems.

The member for Lowe actually questioned me and I welcomed it. I thought it was a great aspect of the operation of the other place here, the—

John Murphy (Lowe, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Senate.

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, do not worry about the Senate—you know what your former boss, I mean Paul Keating, said about that—I am talking about our second chamber. We have an opportunity in the Main Committee to question, and I was delighted when the member for Lowe challenged me there—excuse me for getting myself lost for a minute—about the ravages of the Murdoch empire.

You never want to make enemies with someone. Think back to the great icon of the Labor Party, Mr Whitlam, and do not make promises to media moguls which you are not going to keep. It is a matter of history—well recorded in that dreadful media!—that in pursuit of government the Whitlam opposition promised Mr Murdoch, at a time when I guess the duty on newsprint was of some interest to the Murdoch organisation—it would be miniscule in their operating costs today—that they would let him import newsprint duty free. Having been consulted, the unions at a later date told Labor that it could not do that, so it did not. I think to a degree the Murdoch press, or Mr Murdoch, took revenge, and it has been an icon of anger within the Labor Party since.

I remember voting with Labor over the two-airline policy. My view was that Western Australians got screwed by the two-airline policy and that we did not need it. That was the example given by the member for Lowe when he asked, ‘Why not more TV stations?’ I agree with him entirely on that issue but we were fighting against the two-airline policy when the Labor Party wanted revenge on Rupert Murdoch as half-owner of Ansett. There were a few of us—not many; not enough. I think we lost by one vote against Malcolm Fraser’s government at the time. You can have policy for good reason or you can get carried away with ridiculous arguments such as that James Packer wants to come in and dominate the media here. I do not think there is that much money in it and I think his new partnerships in casinos are much more attractive—and someone else will buy.

Maybe Murdoch has been a bit dominant, but the average journalist would be insulted to be told by the member for Lowe that the journalist responds to his boss. I think that is yesterday’s issue. My problem is that we have not won enough journalists but then, as was brought to the attention of the House today, there are a few problems for journalists—such as they cannot get into a Labor Party conference without a union ticket. If you want to get passionate in this place about defending the democracy you had better start by letting the journalists in the door.

It is a bit rough that you come in here and beat your chest and say, ‘I’m for democracy but not if it’s not by my rules.’ We have to be a bit fair about those sorts of things. This is about business. I agree with the member for Lowe: if you are concerned about consolidation do not have limits on the number of TV licences. We do not have limits on the number of newspapers and magazines. Someone starts a new magazine every five minutes and I am not sure who reads them or who has their political interests changed by what they read therein.

I am a bit concerned, as I said, that the journalist profession, which I think dominates the media, is a bit anti us because they hold less conservative views than we do, but one of the more pleasant aspects of my day in this place is having an argument with them out there at the doorstop. Occasionally the Leader of the Opposition gives me a bit of a chance to have a debate with him that he would not offer me in this place. I treat journalists like other people but I do not treat them with either respect or distaste, I just argue with them and that is the best part of my day. I do not think we should denigrate them by saying they will be the slaves of a media mogul. As I replied to the member for Lowe in the Main Committee, I think the media unfortunately is too busy trying to find out what it thinks the public wants to know and telling it.

Debate interrupted.