Helen Coonan (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts) Share this | Hansard source

I thought it was worth very briefly placing on record why the government has not been persuaded that anything is added by some sort of qualitative test. Of course, working out how to attribute points or to exclude certain commercial licensees from being included in the objective test really does not assist.

The fundamental problem of a qualitative mechanism, such as media-specific public interest tests, really relates to its very subjectivity. We have seen the way in which a subjective approach to media can be seriously twisted and misrepresented, and it has bedevilled other jurisdictions around the world who have tried to grapple with something like media-specific public interest tests. Having subjective tests for media influence has two significant concerns. First of all, it creates great uncertainty for an industry that obviously has to plan, invest and operate within very stringent controls anyway—and will still do so should this legislation pass—as the outcome of the test and its consequences for mergers and acquisitions would be dependent on entirely subjective factors. No-one would know when they would ever be able to move or invest. Public confidence in the objectivity and the efficiency—‘efficacy’ is probably a better word—of media diversity protections would be dependent on the subjective judgement of the regulator or perhaps the minister. I do not want to do this. I certainly do not want to be making those kinds of subjective decisions.

Quite frankly, I think perceptions that assessments are dependent on subjective decisions erode public confidence in the objectivity and transparency of such a system. I am quite sure that my friend Senator Conroy would be in here two seconds after I approved any media mergers, complaining about influence and complaining about mates. Can you imagine that situation?

There are no generally accepted methods for measuring diversity or plurality or related parameters such as media concentration or share of voice across different markets. As a result, the criteria that would be used in assessing the public interest impact of a media merger would inevitably require a high degree of subjective judgement and would involve the potential for allegations of all sorts of political interference. There would be a subjective judgement by a single individual or a group of individuals, the regulator, the relevant minister, some other relevant legal framework or the judiciary.

Some submissions to the discussion paper Meeting the digital challenge: reforming Australia’s media in the digital age, which I released earlier, suggested that a voices test such as the proposed five-four test that is part of this package would not be adequate protection for diversity, because all operators would be treated as being equivalent regardless of size or perceived influence, which is the point raised by Senator Joyce and those on the opposition benches and crossbenches. The current framework actually takes the same approach and regulates entities according to licence type, not individual ratings. Therefore, all commercial television and radio licences are treated the same under the current rules.

The influence of an individual broadcaster cannot be measured directly by ratings, which certainly change over time. Some media may rate poorly but add significantly to diversity by providing audiences with the choices to access alternative viewpoints. No-one as yet, so far as I can tell, has devised a credible way of measuring the different levels of influences of newspapers, radio and television or, for example, for talk versus music formats in radio. A lot of young people really do enjoy radio, and I do not think we should be disparaging of the ways in which young people access news and talkback. I do not think the intention is to be disparaging. But I think it would be unwise and difficult to base media policy on such an uncertain and intangible quality.