Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee for inquiry and report by 8 August 2006:

The impact of proposed changes to cross media laws outlined in the Government’s media reform options paper, with particular reference to:

(a)

the likely effect of the changes on media diversity in urban and regional media markets;

(b)

whether the safeguards proposed by the Government are adequate to prevent an excessive concentration of media ownership;

(c)

whether editorial separation, or a so-called two-out-of-three rule, would effectively protect media diversity; and

(d)

the impact of the proposed changes on the advertising market, particularly for small business.

Two weeks ago Senator Coonan unveiled an options paper canvassing the most significant changes to media law that this country has seen in 20 years. The release of the paper came after nearly 12 months of closed door consultations between the minister and the media moguls. It is quite clear that the purpose of these negotiations was to work out what changes were acceptable to the big players. The Prime Minister and Senator Coonan stated explicitly that they wanted ‘broad industry consensus’ before they would proceed. While talks with the incumbents took place, the consumers of the media in this country—the readers, the viewers and the listeners—did not have a seat at the table.

Earlier this month the minister belatedly announced a public consultation process on the government’s plans for media reform. Shamefully, however, the time she is allowing the public to consider and comment on the proposals is ridiculously short. The moguls were given more than a year to lobby the government. In contrast, the Australian public has been given just one month to have its say. For Senator Coonan, consumer consultation is just an afterthought. It is something to be done for the sake of appearances. Well, Labor does not believe that this is acceptable. The issues at stake are too important. Labor is moving today to establish a Senate inquiry to redress this situation. The inquiry that Labor is supporting would focus on the proposals that are of most concern to the public. Without a doubt this is a plan to effectively abolish the cross-media laws which prevent the common ownership of a free-to-air television station, a commercial radio station or an associated newspaper in the same market.

This parliament needs to ensure that ownership laws protect and promote media diversity. A diverse media which gives expression to a wide range of views is fundamental to a healthy democracy. Australia needs to have a vibrant marketplace for ideas. This is the only way to ensure informed debate about public policy issues and good outcomes for the community. The diversity of ownership of media interests is important because the media is not just a form of entertainment. In our society, the media plays a vital role in informing citizens about key issues affecting the nation and their lives. Media proprietors occupy a powerful position in our society. History shows that they have been ruthless in using their media power to pursue their business objectives. This is why the media ownership rules are so important. This is something that is well understood in the Australian community. Research shows that 80 per cent of Australians oppose any further concentration of media ownership. They understand that in a democracy it is not healthy to allow too much power to go into the hands of just a few proprietors. They also understand that a diverse media is essential if governments are to be held accountable. To work effectively, democracies need an independent media that is prepared to rigorously scrutinise matters of public interest.

We already have one of the most concentrated media markets in the world. Under the minister’s plan, the number of owners of major commercial media in Sydney and Melbourne could halve. That is right: halve. In Brisbane and Perth the number of owners could fall from eight to five. In Adelaide two owners could disappear, leaving the city with just five owners. Under Senator Coonan’s proposal, Hobart could be left with just four owners of the major commercial media.

Despite the minister’s claims to the contrary, this is not just an issue for the state capitals. Senator Coonan’s proposals have the potential to gut media diversity in regional Australia, and I welcome the fact that Senator Boswell has stayed in the chamber. I hope to hear you contribute to this debate, Senator Boswell, because I know it is dear to your heart. I know you have been having discussions that I have seen reported in the press.

Yesterday in question time the minister was unable to deny that under her plan the number of media owners could fall from six to four in many regional markets. These markets included places like Albury, Wodonga, Ballarat, Bundaberg, Dubbo, Gladstone, the Gold Coast, Mackay, Maryborough, Mildura, Nambour, Newcastle, Orange, Rockhampton, Shepparton, Toowoomba, Townsville and Warwick. That is right—all of those towns face the prospect of a greater concentration of media ownership. Independent Regional Radio Broadcasters, a body representing 73 commercial radio services in regional Australia, predicts that the government’s proposal will result in a single, dominant media company emerging in 47 areas of rural and regional Australia.

Senator Coonan claims that the big players must be able to merge in order to generate economies of scale. What will this mean in practice? Will newsrooms be merged? Will local reporters be sacked? What will happen to local content, particularly in regional Australia? What guarantee is there that dissenting voices will be able to be heard? Now that the National Party has been publicly expressing concerns about these issues, Mr Neville, the member for Hinkler and chair of the coalition’s backbench communications committee, told the ABC’s AM program yesterday that under the minister’s plan:

Someone could effectively dominate a regional market by owning the local newspaper, perhaps the best two radio stations and perhaps even the pre-aggregation television stations that still have the local news service. That would create, I think, a very unhealthy concentration of media in one ownership.

Mr Neville is dead right. He went on:

One thing is absolutely certain. In its raw form, there’s more potential for abuse in this system than there is in the current system of radio, television and newspaper.

Senator Joyce has also raised concerns that, in concentrated regional media markets, small businesses may not be able to get access to affordable advertising. Senator Boswell has expressed fears about the effect of media mergers in the Cairns market. Cairns currently has seven independent media owners. This could fall to just four if Senator Coonan has her way. I congratulate Mr Neville, Senator Joyce and Senator Boswell for speaking out on this issue. They have correctly identified some of the real dangers inherent in Senator Coonan’s plan. However it is not enough for the National Party to just talk tough. If they want to do something for the people that they claim to represent, they need to act. I do hope, though, that the media reform debate will not mirror what we saw in the Telstra debate.

In that case The Nationals talked the talk but ultimately failed to deliver and sold out the people who voted for them. With the Telstra sale we saw a lot of posturing and threats to cross the floor but ultimately when it came to the vote the National Party did not have the ticker to stand up to the Liberal Party. It is no wonder Senator McGauran walked. No wonder he says that there is no difference, that he may as well join the Liberal Party. Barnaby backed down, Ron rolled over and Fiona folded. And, after that, Julian jumped. Senator McGauran decided that he would rather give the orders as a member of the Liberal Party rather than be a member of a subservient and cowed National Party. How does it feel, Senator Boswell, to take orders from Senator McGauran now?

Today Labor is not asking Senator Boswell and Senator Nash to cross the floor and defeat a government bill. Today all they have to do is say: ‘Wait a minute, Minister. We have serious concerns and we want the media ownership proposals properly examined by open and transparent Senate inquiry. We want to hear what the people of Australia have to say.’ Senator Boswell, that is all you have to say. The government is proposing major changes to the media laws. They have significant implications for how our democracy operates. They have the potential to gut the amount of local content that is received by the people that the National Party claim to represent.

Some Nationals have put forward ideas for additional safeguards like editorial separation, where merged media companies would be required to have separate newsrooms. Another suggestion that has been made is the introduction of a rule where proprietors are only permitted to have two out of the three of the traditional media, namely TV, radio and print. Calls have also been made to put local content requirements on regional radio operators. If The Nationals are serious about any of these proposals, they should support Labor’s plan to establish this inquiry so that they can be properly examined.

Of course, the minister claims to be interested in protecting diversity. Senator Coonan says that her plan contains safeguards. Labor believes that the inquiry should closely examine the safeguards proposed by the minister. The government has claimed that we can rely on the scrutiny of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to prevent excessive concentration in media markets. There are serious doubts, however, about how the ACCC will perform this task. The Productivity Commission is on the record expressing reservations about the ability of the Trade Practices Act to protect media diversity. Ultimately, regardless of the approach taken by the ACCC, the fact is that it does not make the law. The courts will interpret the Trade Practices Act.

If the ACCC frustrates the ambitions of powerful media interests, the matter is sure to end up before the High Court. The ACCC has itself conceded that there are difficulties defining news and information markets. Last November in Senate estimates, I asked Graeme Samuel if the prohibition on anti-competitive mergers in the Trade Practices Act would operate to stop the two giants of the Australian media, News Ltd and PBL, from merging if the cross-media rules were removed. Mr Samuel was not able to rule out that possibility. How can the minister pretend that the ACCC is able to safeguard media diversity if there is no guarantee that it would be able to stop the two giants of the Australian media landscape from getting together?

The ACCC has talked about issuing guidelines on its approach to media mergers. Parliament should be given the opportunity to scrutinise its thinking. If the minister is confident in her claims that the ACCC can protect media diversity, she should have no objection to allowing the Senate committee to question the ACCC.

The other claim made by the minister is that in this age of the internet the media ownership rules do not matter. It is claimed that the internet has opened up a universe of diverse content. There is no doubt the internet has added a great deal of diversity in terms of international news and entertainment. It is fantastic that Australians are now able to access services like the BBC, CNN and the New York Times for coverage of international events, but for local and national news the traditional media remain the most influential.

Every night nearly 2.5 million Australians watch the news on Channel 7 or Channel 9. Every day more than 1.6 million people read the Herald Sun. Over 700,000 people read the Age. The No. 1 broadcaster in Sydney, Alan Jones, has an audience of 182,000 listeners every morning. In contrast, the leading new internet source of news and opinion, crikey.com.au, has around 9,000 subscribers. There are thousands of blogs on the web, but it is just silly to compare their influence on public opinion with that of a major media operation like Channel 9 or the Herald Sun.

It is true that Australians are turning to the internet to keep themselves informed. However, when Australians turn to the internet for news they overwhelmingly turn to the sites operated by the giants of the so-called old media. Nearly 90 per cent of the hits on Australian news websites are on sites owned by Fairfax, News Ltd, PBL or the ABC. The minister’s claim that the rise of the internet means that we do not have to worry about increasing media concentration really does need some close examination.

I am sure that the government will argue that this inquiry that Labor is moving today is premature. I look forward to hearing the debate. It will argue that the government has only released a discussion paper and that the Senate should wait for media reform legislation to be introduced into the parliament. I would caution senators, however, that the government’s form since taking control of the Senate means that this is a dangerous path to follow. Time and again on contentious issues, it has used its numbers to ram legislation through. The government has not allowed the Senate and its committees to perform their constitutional role of scrutinising government legislation.

Senators should cast their minds back to the farce that was the committee process on the Telstra sale bill and the new telecommunications regulatory regime. Upon the introduction of the legislation, the government allowed only one day of scrutiny of five extremely complex bills. The terms of reference of the Telstra inquiry excluded any discussion on the question of privatisation. Only one day of hearings was permitted. Hearings were restricted to Canberra. The public were given only 24 hours notice to come and have their say. The opposition was given just 12 minutes to question key witnesses like the ACCC. This is not how the parliament, the Senate, is meant to operate.

The industrial relations legislation was another case which exposed the government’s determination to avoid scrutiny by Senate committees. Major aspects of the legislation, such as ending unfair dismissal for firms with fewer than 100 employees—not the 20 that was the election promise—were not included in the terms of reference. The committee had just five days to question 105 witnesses and to process more than 5,000 submissions. The committee then had just one day to prepare a report at the conclusion of the hearings.

With that sort of track record, the Senate cannot afford to wait until we see the legislation before scrutinising the government’s plans. These are the most significant reform proposals for the media in 20 years. They should be rigorously examined by this chamber. They should be considered by each and every senator before the vote is put. The public must have an opportunity to be heard. I urge the Senate to support Labor’s call for the communications committee to be able to examine the impact of the government’s plans for media ownership. Stand up and be counted today, National Party. You talk a big fight, but when it comes to a vote in this chamber you roll over to the Liberal Party and the vested interests, and you sell your supporters down the drain every time you do it.