Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Coonan, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Has the minister seen the submission by Rupert Murdoch’s News Limited on her media reform discussion paper? Is the minister aware that News Limited has described her plan as a selective and discriminatory approach to deregulation which entrenches protection for free-to-air television broadcasters and deprives consumers of choice? Does the minister accept News Limited’s claim that her plan favours free-to-air broadcasters at the expense of consumers? In view of these comments, is the government now prepared to consider News Limited’s call for the allocation of new free-to-air television licences?

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

Thank you to Senator Wortley for the question. As she would be aware, the purpose of having a discussion paper in the first place is to give all interested parties, including consumers, an opportunity to comment. I think it is perfectly understandable that a range of views is expressed. She asked specifically about News Limited’s submission. Whilst I do not think it is appropriate that I give a running commentary on each submitter to the paper, what I can say, based on public statements that have been made by News this morning, is that their submission appears to be based on a very clear misapprehension of what is contained in the package. Let me give some examples to Senator Wortley and to the Senate more broadly.

The concern appears to be that the government said that there will not be a fourth free-to-air terrestrial licence allocated for television. In fact, what the government said is that the spectrum will be used for the allocation of two new licences and for new and innovative services, rather than just another look-alike free-to-air station or indeed a pay station of the kind that currently exists. The government would be looking to provide something for consumers, something that consumers would enjoy, in the line of some new and innovative services. The News submission appears to be incorrect in assuming that to start with. Another is that the free-to-airs will not be able to bid for this new spectrum. That also appears to be a fundamental misapprehension, at least by the commentator this morning on the AM show. There certainly will be competitive pressures on the free-to-airs in the allocation of new spectrum—and that certainly seemed to be exercising the commentator, Mr Baxter, this morning.

The other thing that he appeared to not quite have straight was that the government was proposing unlimited multichannelling. That is not the case at all. The government has accepted—as Mr Baxter has urged the government—that it should look at high quality, high definition. You cannot, under current compression and standard arrangements, have both multichannelling and the highest of high definition. The government has never at any stage proposed that there would be full multichannelling. I think there is an exception that one channel will be allowed in digital only. Of course, at the moment, there is not a high take-up of digital, so it is unlikely to be a big competitive pressure to News or indeed anyone else.

The important point about the paper is that it is critical that people can make their views known. The anti-siphoning list is of course set until 2010 and there will be a review in 2009. In fact there is now monitoring of the list and the government has proposed, as part of the package, that there be a use-it or lose-it that would operate until there can be a review. I look forward to discussing what appear to be, as I say, some misapprehensions on the part of News, or at least those advising News, as to what the package contains. The important point about this—and I make no apology for it—is that we are absolutely determined that we are going to provide new services for consumers and that we are going to have an arrangement to transition from the old industry settings to the new digital world, or else we will become a dinosaur, as Senator Wortley would appreciate. Whilst I certainly welcome all contributors to the paper, obviously it is a matter where we will pull together the proposals and get this enacted. (Time expired)

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Does the minister recall stating that media reform would only occur with broad industry support? Is the minister aware that Australia’s largest media owner, News Limited, has stated that it does not support her plan to relax the cross-media ownership laws? Can the minister now indicate whether the government remains committed to introducing legislation to change the media ownership laws this year?

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

Thank you to Senator Wortley. The situation is that the cross and media laws are certainly not the centrepiece of this package. The centrepiece of the package is the move to digital and the switching off of the analog signal, which will enable Australia to actually participate in what the rest of the world is moving to, which is digital. But these are important adjuncts to the proposal. Based on the fact that News said that their opposition to cross and foreign is based on a number of matters that I have talked about or misapprehensions as to how this package works, the answer is that of course the government will continue to consider the appropriateness of cross and foreign reforms.