Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Coonan, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Has the minister seen comments by the chair of the coalition’s backbench communications committee, Mr Paul Neville, that her media proposals are ‘the exact opposite of competition’ and would centralise and consolidate regional markets? Can the minister confirm that under this proposal the number of major media owners in Cairns could fall from seven to four and from six to four in Townsville, Rockhampton and Toowoomba? Why does the minister expect her colleagues Senator Boswell and Senator Joyce to support a proposal that will inevitably result in less media diversity and less real local content in regional Queensland? Why is the minister putting the interests of aspiring media moguls, like the Macquarie Bank, ahead of the people of regional Australia?

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

Thank you to Senator Moore for the question. I am aware of Mr Neville’s comments. In fact, I have had a very extensive meeting with Mr Neville, and my understanding of his position is that he is very supportive of the media package. He is very supportive indeed, subject to preserving appropriate arrangements for local content and for diversity in regional areas, which is a perfectly reasonable position for him to take. He has raised issues that are being appropriately worked through.

Throughout the process of this whole media reform package, I have said that I am fully committed to comprehensive consultation both with Mr Neville and with others on concerns they might have with options and the best way of securing the ongoing environment for media in this country. We do need a transition to new and innovative ways of doing things; we cannot just sit in the past, block out new technology and assume that Australia will not become some sort of media backwater. The situation is, with the approach to analog, that a lot of proprietors have told me that they have to buy extra analog equipment so they can cannibalise it for spare parts because it is not going to be manufactured much longer. That suggests to me that we do not have forever to sit around and that we have to get our heads around how to do this.

I have said publicly on many occasions that regional issues in media reform are a key consideration in any proposals put forward by the government, and we do remain committed to ensuring that Australians in regional markets will continue to have access to locally relevant news and information programming, regardless of any ownership changes that might take place between media outlets in their market. The package sets out in the discussion paper a range of measures to help ensure that regional diversity and localism are protected, which was precisely Mr Neville’s point. These include diversity measures and a floor of four separate media groups in regional markets, compared to five in mainland state capitals, and the floor in relation to mergers would prevent a significant reduction in media diversity in smaller regional markets.

It is important to remember that, in addition to traditional commercial media, Australians would continue to have access to a large number of other sources of news, opinion and entertainment, including the ever-expanding internet, the wide range of ABC and SBS TV—and of course that is very important in regional areas—radio services, community broadcasters, narrowcasters, national newspapers and, of course, pay television. Of course, there are new digital technologies that also add to the diversity.

In addition to limitations on cross-media mergers provided by the floor that I have just described, the ACCC will continue to play a key role in ensuring that potential media transactions are carefully assessed for their impact on competition in regional markets. Neither Mr Neville nor indeed anybody taking an interest in these matters need have any concern that this government is not alive to the issues and concerned to work through the issues. And that is what we will patiently do, because it is terribly important for the future of media in Australia that we get it right and that we formulate a framework for the future.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister confirm reports today that the Seven Network has now joined News Limited in opposing her plan to relax cross-media ownership laws? Does the minister now accept that this proposal does not have broad industry support? Given the minister’s comments yesterday that changes to cross-media laws are not the centrepiece of her media reforms, will the minister now dump her proposal from the government’s media package?

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

The answer to that is no. The media package always had alternatives as to two time frames when media changes might be introduced on cross and foreign. I have consistently said in about every speech that I have made on this matter that the centrepiece of the package is digital, but cross and foreign are important parts of the media package. They certainly will not be dumped, and every media proprietor is very interested in working through these issues, as indeed every consumer should be interested that that is the government’s interest in ensuring that there are new services for consumers and a proper media framework for the future.

Nick Minchin (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance and Administration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.