Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Science and Water) Share this | Hansard source

I also rise to take note of the answers given by Senator Coonan. We all know that this media package introduced today is complex; it is multilayered. We have heard some comments this afternoon by senators about the television aspect of these bills, but I would like to address my remarks to the question that I asked of Senator Coonan, which was really about the concentration of media ownership in rural and regional Australia.

It would be very sensible to remind ourselves of something that was said in this chamber in 2003 by former Senator Brian Harradine who, when we were talking about this very issue, said:

Those who own or run media organisations are in a position of privilege and influence. They are members of an unelected elite which is not effectively accountable to the Australian people. It is our job as elected legislators to ensure not only that there are reasonable parameters set for the running of successful media businesses but, much more importantly, that these parameters serve the Australian people.

He also said:

The people do not want further concentration of power in the major players in the media.

It is very clear from the explanatory memorandum that rural and regional Australians will be the big losers, particularly in relation to local content issues. I asked the minister quite specifically about that and she regurgitated the second reading speech that comes with the bill, talking about local content licence conditions and local content plans.

I would like to draw senators’ attention to what is in the explanatory memorandum about this. For example, in relation to the issue of local news it says that there must be a minimum service standard for local news, that bulletins must be broadcast on different days of the week, and that bulletins must be broadcast during prime time and must adequately reflect matters of local significance. I wonder if you can guess the minimum number of news bulletins that is going to be required. Can you guess, I wonder? It is five bulletins—that is, a requirement for less than one news bulletin a day would be incorporated in this legislation.

And we have a guarantee from the minister about local community service announcements. Can you imagine what the minimum standard is for local community service announcements? The requirement is for one per day. This is what we are going to be reduced to when we have regional services amalgamated under this regime.

Already in Australia we have a concentration of ownership that is a problem. Fifteen of the 28 regional dailies are owned by large media companies such as Rural Press and APN. And most regional radio stations are owned by a few networks such as Macquarie Radio and ARN Clear Channel. The locally owned regional newspaper and radio station is very much a thing of the past.

So Senator Coonan’s so-called media reform proposal does nothing more than extend the existing oligopoly that the networks are enjoying. There has been no explanation from Senator Coonan about assurances that local news services will not have local content if these radio stations become part of a cross-media group. There is a simple explanation for that: Senator Coonan cannot give any guarantees that local news and radio services will not be cut in the bush. She could not outline what the so-called minimum standards would be—although I found them eventually in the memorandum—and she certainly could not give any comfort to her National Party colleagues who are very concerned about what is happening here.

Steven Bartholomeusz, writing in today’s Age, said:

Unless there are new entrants, new competitors and new and compelling content, where is the trade-off for less diversity of ownership and content?

The obvious answer is that there is no trade-off and the communications minister is treading on very dangerous ground. Terry McCann, considering this matter today said:

The reforms are all about ownership and nothing to do with the dynamic development of media.

It really is a huge issue that we are confronting and, as Senator Conroy so rightly said, the consultation process by the committee is a disgrace.