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

Great coincidences occur from time to time. In his presentation last night, the member for Lowe was really concerned that the legislation relevant to media ownership, the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006, was going to immediately facilitate a massive Packer-Murdoch monopoly across the media, and there was some suggestion that every journalist so employed would knuckle their foreheads. When I spoke previously on this legislation, I pointed out that I thought that the Packer interests were more interested, for a start, in getting out of media than getting into it, because their new business direction seems to be in overseas casinos. It is amazing that, when we picked up the Financial Review this morning, we found that that is exactly what the Packer group are going to do. They are putting up half of their media properties for sale, for a very substantial amount of money, and, what is more, it is more than likely that the purchasers will be private equity people who, as we know, are very focused on business and not on influencing the country in any way. I also pointed out that the Murdoch enterprises have a few difficulties to resolve in the United States and may or may not be major participants in purchasing further media assets in Australia anyway.

So the first thing we have to understand in this business world regards the suggestion that people sit at home, as they might have once, seeking to buy media assets for the power that might apply. They have a much tougher and more business oriented approach to these things these days. I think those predictions—made quite genuinely by the member for Lowe—are unlikely to materialise. However, I have a point of agreement with him, and I am not sure if he was expounding Labor Party policy at the time: I cannot see why, in making these decisions, we continue to limit the number of commercial television stations from which people can provide a service. If spectrum is available for them to transmit their signal, I cannot see any reason why they cannot start in business. I would hope and I would think that there is not much chance that they would just regurgitate other variations of Neighbours, Desperate Housewives or whatever—notwithstanding that I presume they broadcast these things because the community wants to watch them. I would hope that there would be some true diversity in the type of programming that other media licensees might provide.

Of course, outside of the issues of spectrum, radio media is much less regulated, particularly with regard to numbers. We see new players coming in and we see overseas investors coming in, bringing new technologies and new formats, some of which have been responded to very sincerely and significantly by the listening audiences of Australia, and it really starts to smarten up other providers. Many of them do not have shock jocks and do not interfere with driving around the place, as I do, while listening to the radio. I start with ABC NewsRadio to make sure that I find out what we did yesterday, after which I go to a station in Perth that just provides music—pop music of a few years gone by—and I enjoy listening to that as I drive along; it allows me to not have to think too much. All of those options are here already. ‘The end of the world will occur tomorrow’ type arguments that will be raised in this debate have no standing.

I also made the point that I think it is a bit of an insult to the journalism profession to suggest that it will always be the media proprietor who dictates their policies. I think that a free press resides within the principles of journalism. I am aware of that sometimes in complaining about the journalistic policy, for instance, of the West Australian newspaper, more when it fails by default to put what I think are important issues into its pages. My correspondence with the board always gets the same answer: ‘That’s none of our business. We run the business, but we’re not interested particularly in what the journalists say, provided they stay within the laws of defamation et cetera.’

I might add, as an example, that I provided a press release to the West Australian newspaper in response to the Premier of Western Australia, who wanted to tell all natural gas development companies who wish to liquefy the gas and export it—because that is the most profitable marketplace—that he wants to keep 20 per cent for Western Australia. That has not been well received. I think he has now come back to 15 per cent. But if he were to promote the tides of the Kimberleys as a source of electrical generation, that would reduce by 10 per cent the amount of gas being consumed by these companies as energy to liquefy the gas they sell to foreign purchasers. It takes 100,000 tonnes of gas to produce one million tonnes of liquid gas. That electricity could be provided by a renewable resource of huge magnitude in the vicinity of these gas deposits—namely, the tides of the Kimberleys. That was treated with absolute contempt by the West Australian. They did not think that was a matter that anybody would want to read about—yet, when you see some of their front page stories, you wonder who would want to read some of the things they put there.

That is not going to change because of this legislation. That is the choice of journalists. They make the judgements as to what is interesting to the community. I think sometimes in the present environment they let people down in not challenging them on these debates. I think there is still a principle in journalism that, as long as you can get two people to say the opposite thing, you have a story. I think that some of those other matters that seem so logical are ignored accordingly.

One of these bills also provides for some improvements to the digital service. It is going to create two new digital channels which will be open for competition, I understand, from both the free-to-air providers and others. My plea is that they do not just become another means of distributing soap operas and things of that nature. There is a desperate need in my electorate for data on the world price of rural commodities, for example. I think that should be the sort of information that goes on some of these new channels. There are many other examples. There are people significantly interested in what is going on in the Stock Exchange and things of that nature. Let us hope that, when people bid for these particular new channels, those who make the final decision look at the content as well as the bid price.

I am encouraged, by the way, because I became deeply concerned that through our party room some changes not recommended by the minister were made which imposed local content provisions on all rural and regional radio stations. Some, of course, in the pursuit of customers and advertisers, do exactly that today because it attracts a listening audience. But when others, for instance, as I am advised, operate as a remote station in a network simply because their advertising revenue is $50,000 or $60,000 per annum, they clearly cannot meet the sorts of costs involved—which may be even up to $300,000—to employ journalists and others at each locality.

In fact, after we took this decision, the Macquarie Radio Network announced that they would probably close about nine regional stations. One of them is in Esperance, in the electorate of Kalgoorlie, which I have represented in the past. That was originally a radio station owned by the local people. I think I bought some shares in it at the time just to see if they got the money to get it off the ground. Katanning is in my electorate. Narrogin, Merredin and Northam are also typical. I think Merredin is in the Kalgoorlie electorate and the others are in the Pearce electorate.

Anyway, I can inform the House that there was a further amendment passed in the Senate which says that, whilst that provision applies in general, there is now a review process that allows ACMA to make some decisions about whether or not local content, to the extent recommended in the legislation, is feasible for those stations. Clearly it is not. We cannot ask people to provide a service that is in excess of their available revenue. That revenue is restricted by the businesses within the listening area. On the other hand, they value the service as much as those people who listen to them because they want the opportunity to promote their goods and services. I think we have a reasonable balance there. I was quite concerned about it. I have not experienced the difficulties that some others described in having those sorts of stations operating within my electorate.

There is generally a great improvement in this legislation in terms of media ownership. It makes it available to overseas interests. This is a global economy. In a global economy, money flows all over the place. We as Australians are investing all over the world in people’s tollways and other infrastructure programs. Australians can go and buy shares on overseas stock markets. That is all really a great improvement. I would reject any suggestion that there are negatives in this legislation. (Time expired)

Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development) Share this | Link to 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 because I have a very strong view that media diversity in a democracy is essential to that democracy’s functioning. The problem with the media ownership bill is that it lessens diversity and allows a much greater concentration of media ownership. It will result in fewer outlets and fewer media players. It will be a disaster for diversity. And it is particularly bad for regional Australia.

All countries have to deal with this issue of media diversity, because the media is not just another market for goods and services. It is also a market for ideas, for values and for culture. It is about defining us and it is about strengthening us as a democracy. We know that the media has the power to form opinions. But the truth is that, if you restrict the outlets and concentrate the ownership, you dry up the sources of those ideas and values. Diversity of media is therefore a public good, and it requires public interest tests and protections.

Labor have long understood this. We have been the champions for media diversity; we remain the only champions in this parliament. Labor are the only party to ever establish rules and policies to ensure diversity in the protection of the public interest. Our commitment to the ABC, to SBS and to community broadcasting has been strong, consistent, generous and innovative. In 1987, Labor introduced cross-media rules to prevent owners of print media also owning the electronic media. The famous expression at the time was that they could choose to be either a prince of print or a queen of the screen. This is not a policy whose time has come, yet the bill, with little debate in the parliament, abolishes the cross-media rules. It is true that the proliferation of technology and platforms means that we need to adjust our media laws, but not in a way that dilutes diversity. Labor are opposed to this bill. The cross-media laws should be retained, and we also need to strengthen other avenues to promote media diversity.

The other areas of action that I believe are required include, firstly, the introduction of a public interest test to apply to media mergers under the new laws, with the capacity for divestiture as a sanction if need be; secondly, the utilisation of both a strengthened Australian Communications and Media Authority, otherwise known as ACMA, and a strengthened Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the ACCC, to ensure that the public interest test is met; thirdly, the encouragement of new entrants through incentives, if necessary, to enter the field; fourthly, recognition of the fundamental role telecommunications policy plays in driving diversity in our media; and, fifthly, the essential requirement to, in turn, connect the whole of the nation to fast, affordable broadband access over the internet.

On the question of the public interest test, I believe that a strengthened public interest test is essential. This was a recommendation of the Productivity Commission in its report into broadcasting back in 2000. I note that over the weekend the current Chairman of the ACCC, Graeme Samuel, said that observers had ‘underestimated the impact of section 50’ of the Trade Practices Act in, essentially, safeguarding democracy and diversity. I welcome his optimism. The trouble is, I do not share it. I believe that Mr Samuel will have a huge task ahead of him assessing future mergers, given the greater capacity for more concentration. It is not only Labor that does not share his optimism—neither do the Productivity Commission. In 2000, in the report I have referred to, they found:

... the Trade Practices Act as it stands would be unable to prevent many cross media mergers or acquisitions which may reduce diversity.

The fact is the Trade Practices Act is equipped to deal only with threats to competition due to the concentration of market power. It is, if you like, an economic test. It does not have the capacity to deal with threats to our democracy and culture through the concentration of media ownership. Nor does the ACCC have the powers to preserve or enhance diversity in media content or media ownership. These are the powers which are deficient in the ACCC; it should be given those powers. Also, with the advent of media convergence, the ACCC must focus on the concentration of content rather than on looking solely at the mediums—that is, it must focus on the content, which is news, sport or music, not just the mediums by which that content is conveyed.

But this is not the only concern in responding to the media diversity question. The Productivity Commission recommended a public interest test be inserted into the Trade Practices Act to encourage competition in and entry into an increasingly convergent environment. Under that test, significant media acquisitions or mergers would not be permitted unless it could be demonstrated that the merger or acquisition was not contrary to the public interest. It would be a test that adequately addressed the public interest in promoting diversity of ownership and diversity in sources of opinion and information. Each case would be required to involve public consultation and would therefore reach out to the community and find out what their desires and needs are for media diversity.

The Productivity Commission also saw a role for the relevant communications authority in this process. At the time, the Australian Communications and Media Authority did not exist. It resulted from a merger of the Australian Broadcasting Authority and the Australian Communications Authority. But the Productivity Commission, in recommending the public interest test, recommended that the precursor of ACMA, which was then the Australian Broadcasting Authority, should be consulted by the ACCC in considering media mergers. We believe, given ACMA’s role as the independent broadcast regulator, that it should be consulted by the ACCC in applying the new public interest test. Indeed, the inquiry into media ownership by the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts strongly supported that role for ACMA of enforcing an enhanced public interest test and giving ACMA ‘stronger powers to enforce by way of injunction or divestiture orders, breaches of the provisions aimed at greater diversity’. That was what the Senate committee, including government members, recommended as part of its majority recommendations.

But there is a question as to the sanctions that ACMA or the ACCC have. At the moment, the ACCC already has many powers—including divestiture—to enforce decisions, including the power to reject proposed mergers. The problem with the TPA is that the government has not acted on the recommendations of the Dawson report and the Senate Standing Committee on Economics which found several deficiencies in the legislation back in 2004, most noticeably that the ACCC does not have the power to use the divestiture power in cases of abuse of market power—they are section 46 abuses under the act—or for ‘creeping acquisitions’. Divestiture is a sanction, but it is not a sanction for identified and proven abuses of market power. Labor believe it should be. We recognise that divestiture is a severe power, but, if we believe in the importance and value of diversity and are committed to ensuring it for the sake of democracy, we should ensure that there is an instrument in place to protect that diversity.

Divestiture is a power, I remind the House, that is available in other circumstances—a power which in its exercise does not expose the government to compensation claims. For example, it does not expose the government to compensation for section 50 breaches which relate to mergers. In the case of the Trade Practices Commission v Gillette, the courts exercised divestiture powers under section 81A for media mergers, but there was no compensation required. In my view, the question of divestiture does require some further legal advice, but it could prove an important mechanism for ensuring greater diversity, and if it does we should pursue it.

We recognise that there would need to be a code of compliance for business to ensure that they are aware of their obligations under the act. This too was supported by Labor senators in the majority report of the Senate committee inquiry. Labor have consistently called for the granting of power of divestiture of assets in cases of repeated abuse of market power. This has been so particularly since the Dawson report. The government has not embraced the recommendation, even though its own representatives on the Senate inquiry supported it.

I turn to the question of supporting and enhancing new platforms. I believe that new entrants must be encouraged and supported in both traditional and new media platforms. The digital age offers huge potential for advanced diversity in our media choices, but it should not be compromised by simply allowing the existing players to also compete for the new opportunities. Under the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill, the minister has the decision-making power to grant digital television licences. Previously this was a power that rested with the regulatory authority. The switch to the minister is bad policy. It opens up the possibility that the minister will be lobbied by the main media conglomerates, who pander to vested interests. The power to grant the digital television licences must be retained, in our view, by the independent regulator, ACMA.

But the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts involved herself in this debate in another backflip. It relates to the question of who can bid. Back in July, the minister was quite clear: existing players cannot bid for the digital television channel B licence. But that has now been reversed. Why has this decision been taken? What is the rationale for awarding it to the highest bidder and closing it to new entrants? What is the rationale for creating a new barrier to entry for new entrants? There was no explanation by the minister, and I would hope that her representative, in the summing-up of this legislation, will give us the benefit of that rationale. We believe it is bad policy; it should not be persisted with.

Given the circumstances in the Senate, we forced the government to ensure an access regime under the new spectrum, but this can only be described as a second-best option. If this is the case for more concentrated power, it will strangle diversity, it will strangle choice, it will strangle local news and it will strangle the dissemination of information—and that is a huge problem for the nation and a particular problem for regional Australia.

Back in 2000, the Productivity Commission recommended that regulatory barriers that prevent new entrants be removed and that the increased spectrum available be essentially for new broadcasters. The spirit of that recommendation has not been carried out in this legislation. It would create a more competitive atmosphere for Australian media and enable many more players to emerge and enhance the pool of possible owners with media experience.

The other problem in this legislation is that there is nothing in it to drive the early switch-over to digital. If that does not happen and the spectrum stays on analog, there will not be the opportunity for new spectrum for a new licence entrant. This bill is terribly deficient in many ways, not only in relation to the scrapping of the cross-media laws. If it is necessary we may need to consider new incentives for new players emerging in media markets. It may require particular attention in the regions, where I believe diversity is most threatened.

In a country of our size and diversity, the need for local news and information such as weather, stock prices, events and road conditions is essential—it is the local news. Concentrated media ownership threatens diversity and localism particularly severely in regional Australia. Localism has already decreased through aggregation policies and the creation of larger markets for commercial television and the consolidation of regional radio.

The National Party have not saved the day for media diversity and choice in regional Australia, nor have they effectively protected local content. They have again sold out their constituency. Despite the member for Hinkler’s strong interest in this as an advocate for diversity, he buckled at the last minute. Only Senator Joyce was prepared to be courageous enough to vote against the bill within the National Party.

The amendments that have been put forward will not and cannot prevent a massive concentration of regional media markets. There are currently up to seven independent media owners in each regional media market. Under the new laws, this could be reduced by more than a third to just four under the five-four voices test. For example, it would see a fall from seven to four in Cairns, Mackay, Nambour and Newcastle. The number of owners would fall from six to four in Ballarat, Bundaberg and Murwillumbah amongst other places, and from five to four in Grafton, Bendigo, Lismore and Tamworth. Nor will the two out of three ownership rule protect diversity in regional markets because it allows just one of those four remaining voices to dominate. The other three could be quite insignificant voices because the government determines what a voice is, not the community. The fact remains that a media company that is allowed to own a newspaper and a television station in local markets will exert an extraordinary degree of influence on regional markets.

The five-four voices test pays lip-service to protecting regional diversity. The government has not asked the people in regional Australia if four voices are acceptable to them and if they will meet their requirements. As I said before, the test gives no weighting to the relative influence of the media. It fails to guarantee that the five-four test, the local content rules, will also be enforced. It is now emerging from the industry that there is no guarantee that the government’s local content requirements on regional licences will be implemented once the government has finished a yearlong inquiry—convenient, isn’t it: an inquiry into how we implement the local content rules that reports after the next election. You have heard it all before in terms of broken and core promises. That is what the National Party have signed up to.

The ABC maintains local content and local news in radio but it is continually up against funding constraints. Likewise, SBS is restricted by funding allocation. The encouragement of community and local networks is important and we want to see encouragement of that, and in particular local content rules, become important. This could include community radio, use of online local message sharing and ensuring local government has resources through local libraries. Communities and localism are essential ingredients.

So diversity of opinion, ideas and variety of information are fundamental to our democratic principles. We need to strengthen other avenues to promote media diversity. It is vital for our social and cultural development as a nation. This bill is a disaster for media diversity in this country. Not only should the cross-media rules be retained; we need to strengthen those other avenues of activity, in particular the introduction of an enforceable public interest test to ensure that the damage that this government is doing in terms of protecting our diversity does not proceed. (Time expired)

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this afternoon to comment on the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 and cognate bill. Firstly, as members of the House and representatives of our constituency, we talk about the needs of our electorate. I want to outline some of the ways that people in my electorate see media ownership and also talk about the media outlets that are in my electorate of Maranoa. My electorate covers something like 50 per cent of the land mass of Queensland. It is an electorate that stretches from the outback of Queensland to the inner Darling Downs. There is nowhere within my electorate where there are any more than two voices in any one of those markets—in other words, if there is a newspaper in a town, the only other option for media service is the local radio. I want to talk about those issues in my contribution.

It is important that we acknowledge that in some parts of Australia the need for media ownership change in capital cities and the large provincial areas will differ from that in rural electorates like mine. There is not one centre in my electorate where we meet the minimum number of voices, and that is just a feature of the market that has been there for generations.

The only media owners with outlets in my electorate are in either newspapers or radio. Television comes via satellite in the west of my electorate through Seven Central or Imparja, which are sourced out of Alice Springs, so it is an entirely different market. Quite often people complain to me that the fact that their television is coming from Alice Springs, which covers the central part of Australia, means they certainly know what is going on in Darwin, they know what is going on in Ceduna, halfway across the Nullarbor Plain, but they have very little news content about things that are happening in western Queensland in my electorate of Maranoa. That is just a feature of the geography and the obvious difficulty in servicing very small markets. Those television services, Seven Central and Imparja, are certainly valuable and do provide some diversity in programs, although not so much in the area of news that is relevant to these communities.

I want to talk about the fact that no one size fits all. It is particularly pertinent to my electorate. I have concerns for the small radio stations of 4VL in Charleville and 4ZR in the town of Roma in relation to the minimum content for live and local and 12½ minutes of local news each day. I have spoken extensively to the journalists and owners at these two stations and they are already basically complying with that sort of provision in their own markets. They do so because they know that if they have local news and are broadcasting live and local content—sometimes it may be from down the street, or it may be from the local show, or it may be from the local football match on a Sunday—local businesses will be prepared to advertise in that market. They know that if they are not broadcasting live and local content they will not get the support of the business community for advertising. So it really is a market that works, and these owners know best how to meet that market as it exists in their communities. Radio 4VL in Charleville, a town of about 3,000 people, broadcasts to a wide area but to a very, very small market indeed. When it comes to the commercial side of that market, the owners tell me—and I understand completely—that trying to raise advertising revenue in a town like Charleville as opposed to Brisbane is like chalk and cheese; there is no comparison. The live and local and local content that they report out there is often all about the nature of roads. Whether it is in dry times or in flood times, local rainfall is always of interest to anyone in a rural community. They broadcast daily where the Royal Flying Doctor Service might be flying for the day and the clinics that will be held. That is local content and it is of local interest, and that is what is important in those markets.

I have spoken to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts about the bill and I obviously have had concerns about the implications of this bill for those small media markets where we do not even meet the minimum number of voices in those communities. They work well today, and I share the concerns of the proprietors of those two small radio stations which are vital to the community and which have become institutions in those communities. I can reflect back many years to when the local radio station of 4ZR used to broadcast live from the local debutante ball on a Saturday evening. That is the way they have held their market and you will never find that sort of live and local broadcast from a provincial city or from a capital city. So it really is horses for courses and it is a reflection of what the community needs and what the community is interested in.

Having spoken with the minister’s office, there will be a review of the live and local content—and I know that it is an amendment that we as a party and as a coalition have sought and which has been agreed to—and ACMA will do that review. I support that and it is one of the conditions that I wanted to ensure was in the bill before it had my support. I want to see ACMA come out into those rural communities—into those Charlevilles, Longreaches, Romas and the back of Bourke—to take some of their evidence as they do this inquiry. It is no good their going to the large provincial cities, the capital cities, to do that review. They must go to these communities to gain an understanding of the market and listen to the local people so that when they complete the review and bring forward their recommendations they will know whether some modifications to the elements of this bill relating to the 4½ hours of local content need to be put in place—which the minister can do by way of a disallowable instrument in the Senate.

In supporting this bill I recognise that the changes that are going to be made are, on balance, good—it is a good bill. I do have concerns as to the implications for live and local radio in these small rural markets. I certainly accept that the minister is committed to ensuring that the review, with ACMA taking evidence and having to complete the review by 30 June next year, will be able to recognise where there might be difficulties or where these local radio stations might find it impossible to comply without breaking the bank. ACMA will talk to the proprietors, talk to the journalists and talk to the local people so that they get an understanding of the difficulties that the 4½ hours of live and local content might place on the economic viability of these radio stations in my electorate.

I am looking forward to the inquiry and I certainly will be making sure that I am around in those towns when ACMA comes to town, because I know it is a very live issue for the communities out there. It means a great deal to a local community to have a local radio station that is prepared to give that vital community information—local news that is relevant to us in our local communities. Local radio has been an institution in many of these communities, and I want to ensure when the bill is passed that the review takes place. I will certainly make sure that the views of my community are known to ACMA.

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being almost 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.