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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am opposed to the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 and will vote against it with my Labor colleagues this day. This is the most disgraceful piece of chicanery we have seen introduced to this parliament since 1901 and behind it is the dirtiest, grubbiest deal we have ever seen between an Australian prime minister and a media organisation in this country. Prime Minister Howard did a deal with Mr Packer senior in 1995—which he denied of course—which he has attempted to put into action three times in the past 10 years. That deal was to destroy the cross-media ownership laws introduced into this parliament by my former boss, the former member for Blaxland, the Treasurer and then Prime Minister, Paul Keating.

The cross-media ownership laws that Keating introduced in the late 1980s were right and correct. They ensured at least some diversity in Australia’s media. They ensured that up to this point in time the Fairfax organisation, once it was released from the grip of young Warwick, could, with its mastheads the Australian Financial Review, the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age, be at least one place in Australia where it was possible for Australian journalists to have a bit of their say, a bit of expansion of a different point of view from the views of the News Corporation, owned by Rupert Murdoch, or Publishing and Broadcasting Limited, owned by the Packers.

This legislation is not just about creating a duopoly—we are almost back to that situation here—this disgraceful piece of work is about creating the most concentrated level of media ownership in Australia’s history. It is about power and control. It is also about subverting almost all of the fundamental laws of the Commonwealth of Australia to take one private company and put it in a position where having stripped away all of Australia’ controls in terms of the ability of foreign entities to buy into Australia’s media those entities would buy for good or for ill. The purpose of it is not to allow companies from one end of world to the other to come in and bid for Australian media interests. The purpose of this is very simple: it is to allow the deep concentration of media ownership in this country to be further embedded.

This situation did not happen overnight. It has been done by design, behind closed doors, in secret meetings away from the eyes of the Australian public by the Prime Minister of this country, the Treasurer and the communications minister. They should stand condemned from this day forward for bringing it into the Senate and getting it passed through every means available to them. As the member for Lowe indicated at the end of his speech: there is nothing that this government would not do to put these media laws into play.

Who is to benefit—the Australian people? The answer to that is no. Who is to benefit: a public company at the moment that is going private again. It will become a private equity company again, not just an Australian company but one that will do a deal, as has been demonstrated in the last two days. Before I read the Financial Review, these questions occurred to me: why would PBL be acting in the way they are in response to these media laws? They never do anything except by design. It is well thought through, well crafted, well engineered and then executed as well as they can. Why just a week ago did James Packer as the chair indicate that there had been lots of long discussions? He was pretty happy with the way in which this legislation was ramping up. Why? I called for a stake in the sand in relation to this set of laws and that we should be looking in the future at divestiture if the tests under the current laws—our cross-media laws—were to be trammelled by what was introduced in this House and by what is done in the future. The reaction to that was largely this: ‘Don’t worry too much about that because the speculation is that PBL is not really interested in media any more; it is interested in gambling and casinos.’

James Packer is currently in Singapore bidding for a $3.5 billion casino licence. He is more interested in that. Mr Deputy Speaker, I tell you something: he is interested in the casino that they have got in Burswood in Perth, he is interested in the casino licence that they have got in Melbourne and he is interested in the Star City Casino in Sydney. Twenty-five per cent to 50 per cent control of PBL media assets in Australia means control of any Australian government that is run by the coalition—any Australian government that has not got the backbone to stand up to those media operators and say: ‘You cannot run this country from one end to the other. You cannot exercise power and control—that is the government’s job. It is our job to regulate what happens in here. It is our job to try to run this place in a democratic way.’

We do not want in a modern Australian democracy to descend to the level of the 1930s—in fact, in the twenties initially—when in Italy the corporate state was developed: lo stato corporativo. We do not want to descend to the situation where that idea was taken up and brutally made real under the fascists in Germany, where individuals had their rights crushed under an iron heel and a society was completely atomised. People lost control over their lives because the churches were destroyed, the trade unions were destroyed and people’s capacity to fight for their rights at work was destroyed. The power in the country went to two central points: one political party that dominated the country and, secondly, those who were in league with them, the major corporations.

This bill gives enormous power to Australia’s media interest. This bill will ensure that the level of pressure that publishing and broadcasting has been able to exert on Australian governments will continue to be exerted so that its monopoly interest in casinos in Perth, Melbourne and Sydney can be assured into the future.

The deal that has been done is quite remarkable. Would you think that any Australian company would seek to do a deal with the Gordon Gekkos of the American private equity market not just where they are preyed on by them but also where they would then seek to prey on every Australian media or gambling interest that is up for stake? Watch out, Tabcorp in Victoria, because the money to pay to take your holding is right there. Watch out, Fairfax Media and those journalists who are part of what are some of the greatest newspapers that the world has seen, because the voices of diversity in those media empires and those parts will be crushed out of the system.

It is believed that the deal has been put together with complete foreknowledge. The only way in which it can be done is to take advantage of laws crafted not just by the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts in the other place but also in hiding, in secret and behind closed doors between PBL and those very people. What we have are laws that are designer made to allow PBL to break free of the shackles of having to do what they do in Australia. The foreign ownership restriction being taken away allows them to do deals with Newbridge Capital and the other two entities that seemingly are a part of this to say, ‘What we are going to do is sell off part of our interest—50 per cent or so of those interests—and we will have a new media company.’

What is in it? ACP Magazines, the Nine Network, ninemsn, 25 per cent of Foxtel, 27 per cent of SEEK, 50 per cent of Hoyts and further consolidation opportunities such as Fairfax and Western Australian Newspapers. Are PBL still interested in media? You bet your life they are. Are PBL interested in being able to buy up the advertising list that Fairfax has? You bet your life they are. Do PBL know that under the existing rules they cannot do it? Of course they do. That is why they want them completely destroyed. Do PBL know that under the Trade Practices Act, having what they have in SEEK and also attempting to take over the whole of carsales.com.au would put them in a position where they would not be able to take up Fairfax?

We have a government that connives with those private companies and private interests to bring this piece of chicanery into this House and introduces legislation which says that it is okay to subvert virtually all of our laws to gain what Publishing and Broadcasting wants. What we have here is very simple. In allowing them to go overseas to sell off half of their interest into this new vehicle, PBL can argue and say: ‘It is very simple. We have a diluted interest in this entity. Firstly, it is foreign owned. Secondly, our interest is diluted. We only have a maximum of 50 per cent of our current holdings.’ You do not need 50 per cent to control anything. Kerry Packer proved on his own—before a Senate committee, in fact—that 15 per cent allowed you full control.

This brings me to a bit of history. What does this really look like? I was thinking about it the other day and had a talk to a couple of people—someone from the library and a couple of other people I know—and I asked, ‘What does this really look like?’, before we got the Financial Review and the Sydney Morning Herald rolling out what it was. Do you know what it looked like? It looked like the Tourang consortium. Who was in the Tourang consortium? Conrad Black, Kerry Packer and Trevor Kennedy. They rolled up to the government of the day—a Labor government—and said, ‘We’re here to help. We are going to put this deal together and change the way in which the assets of Publishing and Broadcasting are put together.’ That would have succeeded if the very key question in Tourang had not been answered. Kerry Packer had 15 per cent of Tourang. He also had absolute control of it. He put together a device which the Labor government at the time rubbed out and said he was not going to get away with it.

What do we have instead under this vile shambles of a government? We have Australia’s capacity to govern itself being sold away. We have a situation where this government thinks that it can benefit from continued support from the major media companies. This government thinks that it can, in darkened places, come to these deals which inevitably mean that media is so concentrated and venality so embedded in this country that you can get a result like this. I think it is gangsterism. It reminds me of the twenties and thirties in the United States. It is also reminiscent of the period from 1860 to the 1890s in the United States. That was the period of the great robber barons in the oil and media industries where—untrammelled—companies could exercise monopoly capitalism, with governments doing nothing to stop them. It almost destroyed the United States of America and foreshortened its rise to power and great significance.

One thing the Americans learnt out of that was that untrammelled monopoly capitalism will destroy modern democracies. The United States, for all its faults, actually has governments that believe in governing. Our cross-media laws came from the example in the United States. The United States understands that if you have a cabal—a group of companies joining together in order to control markets—you need to break it and smash it. We have the example of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. We have the example of what they did to AT&T and the Bell Telephone Company where these entities, which were monopoly organisations, were broken into small pieces or ‘baby Bells’. What do we have here in Australia? It is supposedly a modern democracy but it is rapidly moving towards an advanced form that is different from a modern democracy. If you give control to companies in this way, you are on the road to fascism, pure and simple.

What we face here is a very simple situation. By handing control of so much of Australia’s central communications infrastructure to PBL, by allowing it to do what it is doing, by allowing it to double its capacity, it will be able to create a war chest of between $4½ billion and $4¾ billion—or possibly, as one of the papers stated, $6 billion—to buy more casino assets and to dominate media interests. Casinos from one end of the world to the other have a number of functions. So many people, poor common punters from my electorate and elsewhere, have had their capacity to live a normal life ripped away because of their addiction to gambling. But we also know that casinos worldwide are places where money is laundered by criminal interests. We know that it is unhealthy to actually encourage it. What we have got here is an empire built (1) on casino interests and (2) on dominating media interests. The one continuing public company in the gun sights here is Fairfax. This legislation will mean that it will be destroyed.

At the same time, we have got a government that has taken a public monopoly in Telstra and is turning it into a private monopoly with the sale of T3. This is a complete and utter disgrace, and it is monopoly capitalism, which almost destroyed the United States, on the road to destroying this country as well. You cannot simply argue that Australia is so big that you have to have a monopoly in every industry. This is disgraceful work that is being done. It is really hard to undo. What should this Australian government be doing? It should be doing the sort of thing that is in Labor’s broadband policy. Instead of flogging Telstra off in the way it has, it should have enforced the fundamental responsibility for Telstra to provide Australia’s backbone and network for communications. Instead, Telstra has been allowed to have its own private monopolies in that area. This is a complete and utter disgrace.

These bills on media ownership really do put a flag into the ground. They create a dividing line between what was a relatively naive past and what will be a deepening and darkening future for the Australian people and for this parliament. This legislation is unconscionable. It puts private interests above every public interest in this country. It is the dirtiest of deals one could imagine. What is the play on this? A bloke coming out of Cranbrook School with Lachlan Murdoch started One.Tel—what a genius piece of work that was—and had a series of other ideas. This is being hailed by a number of people as a stroke of genius—completely brilliant and marvellous.

The only way this deal could be put together was for this company to deliberately connive with this government to subvert the laws of the Commonwealth for its own private interests. The great difficulty we will have is: how do we pull this to pieces? I have tried to do something, as others have. Labor has strongly said how significant the cross-media ownership rules are, how much we support them and how much we support diversity. The government want to smash them out completely because they simply want to create one state in which they control the lot through what they have done in concert with their corporate buddies—those that they think will stick with them.

I see nothing here that is positive. All the talk about voices is simply ludicrous. The Nationals have sold Australia’s national interest down the drain. This legislation will be gagged very shortly. I am glad that at least I have had the opportunity to have one single, solitary say about how devilish, nasty, vicious and fascist this legislation is. This is a dark and terrible day for our country. I am completely against this atrocity. (Time expired)

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006 and the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006. I support the comments made by my colleague the member for Blaxland regarding the gagging of this bill. Having had the gag used against me on several occasions, depriving the electorate of Newcastle some representation, I also condemn the government for not allowing full speaking rights to all members of this parliament on such important legislation.

I oppose these proposed new laws because they will lead to a massive concentration of media ownership in both metropolitan and regional Australia. They will also reduce competition and consumer choice and, perhaps most importantly, they are a direct threat to the free and open discussion of ideas and opinions that is the lifeblood of our democracy. This legislation will no doubt work well for media moguls who cherish the thought of some serious retail shopping therapy ahead, but it offers the Australian people nothing in return—just the ‘shop until someone else drops’ approach.

Media diversity is not simply about media ownership. It is about making sure that multiple voices, views, opinions and a whole range of experiences and interests—including those of culturally and linguistically diverse communities—are given room for expression in our media. Without diversity in media ownership, you can be sure that fewer voices will be heard on an ever-diminishing range of issues. This is no basis for a healthy democracy and it is certainly not a reflection of the communities in which we live.

Hot on the heels of the Howard government’s sedition laws, these new media ownership laws will further restrict the capacity for free and open discussion in Australia. This will have a devastating impact on our arts community in particular, and it will almost certainly redefine the nature of political life in Australia. Make no mistake: these proposed changes are extreme. Contrary to government rhetoric, they are designed to facilitate media mergers which, in turn, minimise opportunities for diverse views and opinions to be heard.

Other democracies, like the US, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Korea and the Netherlands, have cross-media laws. These countries appreciate the protection to democracy such laws afford. The Howard government evidently does not share the concerns of these other democracies. It has no qualms about legislating to allow for a massive concentration of media ownership in Australia. This is the Howard government’s third attempt in the last 10 years to scrap the cross-media ownership laws, so let us not be fooled by the Prime Minister pretending that it is not a priority for him. Of course it is. What we have before the House today is a package of legislation that very clearly looks after the interests of media moguls—certainly not media consumers.

The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 is one of four pieces of legislation currently before the parliament to implement the government’s so-called media reform package. This bill, the centrepiece of the government’s package, repeals the current cross-media rules that prevent the common ownership of newspaper, radio and television assets all in the same market. Instead, media mergers will now be subject to the so-called five-four voices test, the Howard government’s alleged safeguard to prevent excessive concentration. Under this test a media merger will not be allowed to occur unless a minimum of five media voices remain in metropolitan markets and four remain 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 these assets.

The government has provided no satisfactory explanation as to why it thinks that five and four are acceptable numbers. Indeed, these numbers appear to be completely arbitrary, serving no purpose other than to pave the way for companies to reap the financial benefits of acquisitions, mergers and so-called economies of scale. Far from acting as a safeguard, the new five-four test is designed to facilitate those mergers. There are currently 12 owners of the major commercial media in Sydney, 11 in Melbourne, 10 in Brisbane, eight in Perth and seven in Adelaide. In 19 major cities in regional Australia, cities like Newcastle, in my electorate, Cairns and Bundaberg, there are six or seven owners, so the five-four rule is just a recipe for increased concentration, less diversity and fewer voices.

This fact became so obvious last week that the minister was compelled to announce that the five-four test will now be supplemented by a two out of three rule—an absurd game of numbers unfolds. The so-called two out of three rule will prevent proprietors from owning newspapers, radio and television assets in the same market. While some members of the National Party have claimed that this is a great concession, in reality it offers little additional protection for media diversity. The proposal does nothing to protect diversity in the 17 regional markets where there are only five major media voices. Let us be clear: the five-four test or the two out of three rule is absolutely no safeguard against media concentration.

In Newcastle, the media ownership bill means that we will almost certainly see a reduction in diversity. Currently we have a daily newspaper owned by Fairfax. Also counted for the Newcastle region under the new laws is the Maitland Mercury, which is owned by Rural Press. We have four commercial radio stations, two each of which are owned by the Macquarie-Austereo consortium and the Broadcast Operations Group respectively. We also have three different television stations, Prime, Ten and NBN, so that is seven owners in the Newcastle area. The current legislated minimum is six. The Howard government’s latest legislation reduces the new minimum number of owners to four. Let us look at these local voices a little closer and see how much diversity we will be getting under the new rules.

The real test of diversity is how many different places people can get their news and other local content from. Starting with TV, I note that in the Newcastle area there is only one nightly local news bulletin, the one on NBN. Prime and Southern Cross-Ten do provide local content in the form of local news updates—which are very brief—but since Prime cut its local nightly news in 2001 there has been only one locally produced nightly news bulletin in Newcastle. This means that, for the purposes of in-depth local television news, there really is currently only one voice.

When we look at newspapers, we have the Maitland Mercury and the Newcastle Herald. For the purposes of my constituents in the city of Newcastle, you can cut out the Maitland Mercury, which, while a fine newspaper, serves a completely different area. So that leaves us with one voice in newspapers, that of Fairfax’s Newcastle Herald. In radio, we have the four commercial stations split between two large owners—so two voices there. That means we really only have four voices serving the city of Newcastle: NBN, the Herald and the two radio groups. Thank goodness for 1233 ABC Newcastle radio.

This may seem adequate: a local paper, a local nightly TV news program and two local commercial radio newsrooms. Perhaps it is. However, under the Howard government’s new laws we could see much of this diversity disappear, giving one owner enormous power over the local news received by the people of Newcastle—the sixth-largest city in Australia. It would also mean cost pressures on the groups to merge their newsrooms, so that a single newsroom could be producing the same news across TV, radio and print. We all know that when the media moguls go shopping the first things they look for are ways to save, save, save.

Merging newsrooms is an excellent way for them to make these cost savings. This will inevitably result in even less diversity and journalistic quality, with people receiving the same news no matter whether they are watching TV, listening to the radio or reading the newspaper. When newsrooms merge, jobs are lost, and that really is a terrible thing to do to regional Australia. Regional newsrooms are wonderful training grounds for young journalists in particular. There are many highly respected journalists who got their start in Newcastle—one, in fact, was John Laws—and many who have had long and distinguished careers within our city.

We have an excellent communications degree at the University of Newcastle. A diverse local media environment is essential for its students while they are studying and when they graduate. The worst-case scenario is only four different voices in our region and that is exactly what is possible under this legislation. In fact, it is highly likely. We have already seen shares in PBL put on hold pending an announcement that it may divest itself of its media assets, and we have seen Kerry Stokes showing an interest in buying Western Australian print media. We have seen speculation that Fairfax’s regional papers, which include the Newcastle Herald, could be a target for Rural Press. In fact, regional newspapers are the fastest growing media sector in Australia, so they will no doubt be highly attractive and contested assets.

The key players are circling each other, and the Howard government’s claim that it would not lead to a rush of buying and selling looks absolutely laughable. We do have a vibrant local media scene in Newcastle. Clearly I do not always agree with what gets broadcast and published, but I do feel that Newcastle’s current media organisations provide a very good service for our community. Newcastle people are extremely well informed. They are always questioning and seeking answers on public issues when they contact my office. They contribute to debate in an intelligent way in the letters pages and on radio talkback.

It is not just in news and editorial content that our local media organisations contribute to the life of our community. Through sponsorship and involvement in community and charity events, local media organisations can use their reach to raise awareness of and support for local causes. Fewer owners mean fewer opportunities for our local organisations to find a media outlet to lend support to them through sponsorship or publicity. So this legislation simply does not stack up for the Newcastle community, and certainly not for the rest of Australia. It will lead to a loss of diversity for no apparent reason.

In providing a local approach, community broadcasting is also something that needs support. Currently, I am making representations on behalf of TIN Radio, a local organisation which broadcasts on the internet and on temporary frequency during special events. Such special events include the This Is Not Art Festival—the TINA Festival—which is held in Newcastle every October long weekend. TINA brings in more than 4,000 visitors to Newcastle and makes a vibrant contribution to our city, particularly for young people, our students and our artistic community. TINA is an important national festival—actually, it is the largest youth festival in Australia—that reminds us of the importance of free speech, dissent and creative thinking and passion.

I was proud to speak at the opening of this year’s festival and to stay for a provocative panel discussion on the Howard government’s new sedition laws. That this debate on one of our big national issues took place in Newcastle, with participants and an audience made up of mostly young people from all over the country, inspires me with confidence for the future of our democracy—even if the sedition laws and these cross-media laws do not.

During this festival, TIN Radio has access to a temporary broadcast frequency for the duration. However, I understand that this frequency—100.5FM, from Sugarloaf Range near Newcastle—is now being made available by the Australian Communications and Media Authority on a permanent basis. But there is some indication that the licence for this frequency may be awarded to a group to rebroadcast to Newcastle programming from Sydney. I understand that the group concerned, Radio for the Print Handicapped, does good work; however, when there is a clear demand for a licence and capacity to deliver programming from a local group like TIN Radio, this surely would be more relevant to the people of Newcastle and to serving localism, particularly when it would be the only local media outlet specifically focused on youth.

It would be a terrible loss if TIN Radio were not to be awarded that. We have a high teenage unemployment rate in Newcastle, and TIN Radio provides one of a number of excellent local forums in which young people can learn and gain skills. Over 100 volunteers have participated in the TIN Radio project in the past year. This is a great local contribution, and at the very least ACMA should consider TIN Radio’s proposal as part of an open and transparent allocation process for any frequency being made available for community use in Newcastle. I am certainly calling for them to do so and I bring this issue to the minister’s attention.

The Hunter Community Television group, Novacast, have also made a submission to the current House committee inquiry into community broadcasting, pointing out that our region has no terrestrial free-to-air community TV service. Novacast have previously sought access from ACMA to channel 31 spectrum but have been unsuccessful. I hope the committee considers the group’s submission carefully. I also hope the committee thinks about the importance of community and public broadcasting under the regime to be created by this legislation. In the face of rapid technological change and the advent of new enabling technologies like IPTV and very high speed broadband—to name just two—much of this government’s so-called media reform package could be obsolete within the next five years.

The technology driving this new media landscape is digital, and these changes will happen very quickly. Curiously, however, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts does not have a serious digital plan for Australia—no plan for the future. With a switch-on date that now looks like it could push out as far as 2015 for digital TV, there are no incentives for consumers to switch to digital. We should be doing much more to prepare for digital. It increases access to global information networks via the internet and would generate renewed interest and place greater emphasis on the need for local content in our media. We need to make sure that we protect, resource and, indeed, strengthen Australian cultural and media icons like the ABC and SBS. The role of the ABC and SBS in maintaining local content and local news, in spite of their ongoing struggles against funding constraints, will become increasing important in a world that has such access.

So what checks and balances are there in these new media ownership laws? The Howard government has tried to make much of the so-called powers of the ACCC to examine cross-media mergers to see if they substantially lessen competition. But as the Productivity Commission has made clear:

... 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 that the Trade Practices Act is equipped to deal only with threats to competition due to the concentration of market power. The ACCC is a competition regulator which has consistently failed, in my view, to protect small- to medium-sized businesses and operators across a range of sectors.

Significantly, the ACCC has no responsibility for protecting diversity or the powers to enhance diversity in media content or media ownership. It does not have the capacity to deal with threats to our democracy and culture through the concentration of media ownership. Those are the powers which are deficient within the ACCC. It should be given those powers. If we are to be serious, there should be a serious public interest test as well. 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 to say, it must focus on the content of news, sports and arts, for example, not just the mediums by which that content is conveyed or who owns them.

But this is not the only concern I have in responding to the issue of media diversity. 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. Obviously that public interest in regional areas must include localism and the real respect of local interests. 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 needs and desires are for media diversity. Currently, however, the ACCC is not able to take public interest consideration into account when assessing the impact of mergers under section 50 of the Trade Practices Act—and this legislation does nothing to rectify this glaring omission.

Labor’s approach to the issue of media ownership is based on the principle that regulation should promote the free expression of a diverse range of views. There is no doubt that free and open discussion of ideas and opinions is the lifeblood of democracy. The case for cross-media laws which restrict media companies to owning newspapers or radio or television assets in any one market remains as valid today as it did in 1987 when the laws were first introduced. I again refer to the Productivity Commission report, which spelt out clearly why diversity of ownership is so important in a democracy. 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.

Diversity of opinion, ideas and a variety of lived experiences and information are fundamental to our democratic principles. We need to strengthen avenues to promote those rather than curtail media diversity in Australia. It is vital for our social and cultural development as a nation. It is vital to our collective health and wellbeing. This bill will be a disaster for media diversity in this country. It is a disaster for our democracy and clearly fails to meet that much-needed public interest test. Not only should the cross-media rules be retained; we need to ensure the introduction of an enforceable public interest test to prevent the ongoing efforts of the Howard government to concentrate media ownership into the hands of just a few already very powerful media moguls. As today’s headline ‘Stokes joins media frenzy’ demonstrates, these laws present little more than a tremendous opportunity for some serious ‘retail therapy’ at the big end of town. I oppose these cross-media ownership laws in the interests of diversity, democracy and the public interest.

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

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

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

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

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

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

That was consultation.

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

The view on the other side of this House of consultation means, ‘Discuss it with the big end of town but don’t discuss it with the community.’ Let us talk about what has happened in the last couple of weeks with consultation, since it has been raised by the other side of this House. The Senate Standing Committee on the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts was given three weeks to conduct an inquiry into this legislation—this incredibly important piece of legislation—and the public had one week to make its submissions on the four bills of the package. The Senate communications committee was able to conduct just two days of hearings into which were crammed more than 30 witnesses. For most witnesses, the opposition had 10 minutes to ask questions.

The government’s rush job continued in the Senate, with amendments raining down like confetti. More than 100 pages of amendments and explanatory material were released during the debate, which again was gagged with unseemly haste, and again today we see the government gagging debate on this bill. This is not a bill that they want consultation on; this is a bill that they want to get through this House with as little attention as possible and as quickly as possible. I have to say that if I were the Prime Minister I would not want this bill to be scrutinised either. The government knows this is an unpopular bill. It knows that you cannot sell increased media concentration as good public policy. Nobody is buying it; nobody bought it the last time the government tried to introduce it or the time before that. And, yes, this is the third attempt. This time of course they have the numbers, but it was bad policy the first time, it was bad policy the second time and it is bad policy the third time.

The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill is deeply flawed. It makes two main changes to the media ownership laws: (1) it repeals the specific foreign ownership provisions in the Broadcasting Services Act that relate to commercial and subscription television—

Alex Somlyay (Fairfax, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier today, I call the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage.

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