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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (Senator Coonan) to questions without notice asked today.

What a demonstration in the last 24 hours of the arrogance and out-of-touch behaviour of a 10-year-long government. I am hoping Senator Eggleston will stay and join in this debate because he has a crucial role to play in the next few weeks. Yesterday we saw Senator Coonan on behalf of Senator Eggleston announce the date and the timing of a Senate committee. There was no consultation whatsoever with members of the committee, including Senator Eggleston. I am willing to bet that the first Senator Eggleston knew about the deadline was when he read it in the press release. What an extraordinary abuse of process. Senator Ronaldson is on this committee and I bet he did not know anything about this deadline either. As we have seen in documents circulated today, the Senate is going to be allowed a grand total of three days of hearings in Canberra. Originally, it was said that there would be some meetings around the country, but no: three days in Canberra—nothing more. What has Senator Barnaby Joyce got to say about this? What has Senator Ron Boswell got to say about this? What has Senator Fiona Nash got to say about this? What has Senator Eggleston got to say about this?

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Heffernan interjecting—

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

They can all read and write, Senator Heffernan. They are on our committee. What we have here is another smash and grab, another situation where the government is simply going to say: ‘We don’t care what the parliament thinks. We don’t care what the people of Australia think. We are just going to ram this through as fast as we can because we’ve got the numbers.’ Ten long years and the arrogance is shining brightly. The Prime Minister promised there would not be abuses of the Senate. The Prime Minister really has changed since he got control of both chambers. He has tossed all the promises out—no surprise to those of us on this side: just tossed them away. We are going to have a whitewash of a committee and a whitewash of a report, rushed through with no genuine consideration and no genuine interest whatsoever. It is not surprising because the scam that the government is trying to pull on the Australian public is to deliver Australia one of the most concentrated media industries in the world. Only probably North Korea is going to have a more concentrated media than we are going to have after this. North Korea or maybe Lebanon, I do not know.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Albania.

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

I think I am being unfair to Lebanon, Senator Ferguson. But in Sydney and Melbourne the number of owners could halve. In places like Albury, Dubbo and Bundaberg the number of owners could fall from six to four. These changes will undermine media diversity. Newsrooms will be merged, reporters will be sacked and local content will be reduced. Radio and TV news will just become a rip and read of the local newspaper. In regional Australia, local stories will be squeezed out by cheaper content from the big cities. These changes are demonstrably not in the public interest. To give credit, there is at least one member of the government on whom what is going on here is slowly dawning. It is, in fact, Mr Paul Neville, the chairman of the backbench communications committee of the government. This morning he went on radio and he said that, philosophically, his position is very similar to Paul Keating’s. He said, ‘We have to start considering why we are doing this.’ That is the trick. Why are we doing this?

He went on to say that you could not argue that there was not the potential for an interventionist proprietor or for a zealot editor to run a totally single stream point of view in a particular community. That is what he told ABC Radio. I think that I have almost unanimous support from National Party members and rural Liberals on this issue. I do not think there would be one who would disagree with me that we need to have a more vibrant local media and more vibrant local programming. As Stephen Bartholomeusz said in the Age today:

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

(Time expired)

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I welcome back, Senator Conroy. It is nice to have him back as a spokesperson again for today at least. I find it quite extraordinary that five months after Senator Coonan first announced these reforms, the day the legislation is to be introduced, the day the committee is meeting, we did not hear one word of policy from the Labor Party apart from some nefarious commentary on regional Australia, which Senator Conroy would have absolutely no idea about because he is, at best, an infrequent visitor. There has not been one discussion about where the Labor Party stands on media reform. They are the dinosaurs of communication reform in this country. The last time the Australian Labor Party talked about media reform was 20 years ago—the internet was the domain of academics, pay TV was in its infancy, there was no framework for digital radio, IP TV had not been thought of, let alone 3G, video ipods or television mobile devices.

This reform package is predominantly directed at one group of people in this great country, and that is the consumers. The Australian Labor Party have a very big decision to make over the next four weeks on this issue. Are they prepared to support—

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Ronaldson. A couple of us have formed the view that your microphone does not seem to be working properly, but we can still hear you in spite of that. Just be careful about the way you are facing, because I do not think you are feeding into the microphone.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very grateful to you, Mr Deputy President, because I get unfairly accused of speaking too loudly in this chamber and I am very grateful for your support in this regard. I will face the right direction. Senator Sterle, you should take note of the Deputy President’s comments too.

This reform package is about delivering to consumers in this country a modern telecommunications system and a modern media ownership system that will allow the Australian people to get the benefits that will flow from media reform, such as investment in communications in this country, which has been sadly lacking for a long time. It is incumbent upon the Australian Labor Party to state where they stand on this. Five months after Senator Coonan floated these reforms in some detail, we have not heard one policy position from the Australian Labor Party. Is it fair that, because of the intransigence of the Australian Labor Party, Australian consumers are going to miss out on new services that are restricted now because of the lack of investment?

The big winners under this reform package will be consumers. It would take me some time to go through the full benefits to consumers of these reforms, but I will just go through some of them very quickly. In doing so, I will talk about the new services. Obviously, the new services will be digital services. The two channels, A and B, will be auctioned as separate national licences. Both licences will be issued for 10 years, with the possibility of a further five-year renewal. Consistent with the government’s intention that these channels be used for new and innovative digital services for consumers rather than replicating traditional television services, neither channel A nor B will be permitted to be used for traditional commercial free-to-air services or subscription TV services to fixed in-home receivers. The Australian Labor Party has got to tell the Australian public now, today, whether they are going to support them or continue to deny them modern telecommunications and a modern media ownership system. Today is the day for them to tell us where they stand. Are they anti-consumer or pro-consumer?

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Science and Water) Share this | Link to 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.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was pleased that Senator Conroy referred in his speech to Mr Paul Keating’s interview on Lateline last night. I, too, watched Mr Paul Keating’s interview on Lateline and all the memories came flooding back as I saw Mr Keating—a bit greyer than he was, his face a bit hollower than it was, and his voice a bit thicker than we remember it from the days of the Keating government. No doubt that air of ennui reflects 10 years of schadenfreude at the prospects of the Australian Labor Party and federal politics since the fall of the Keating government in 1996. And I couldn’t help thinking, ‘Is this what the Australian Labor Party has come to in their media policy?’

You see, I was second to none in being a critic of Mr Keating and the 17 per cent interest rates that he gave us. But there were certain aspects of public policy—it cannot be doubted—in which Mr Keating was ahead of the game, and he kept a reluctant, mulish, recalcitrant, pervicacious Australian Labor Party ahead of the game in reforming certain sectors of our economy. In particular, we remember financial deregulation. And my side of politics has always given full credit to Mr Keating for his achievements in that field. They were achievements which, as the journalist George Megalogenis recently wrote in his very good book The Longest Decade, were the precursors of the fuller reforms that the Howard government has undertaken.

But sadly that reforming zeal, which in some respects marked Mr Keating’s approach to certain sectors of the Australian economy, has been completely lost both on him and on the party he once led when it comes to cross-media laws. We have the sorry spectacle of the opposition in this country, engaged in a debate of national importance about media policy, saddled with a policy that was written before the digital revolution, and represented in this place—though you would not know it, so seldom is he given the opportunity even to ask questions about policy at question time; today was an exception—with a spokesman on communications, Senator Stephen Conroy, of whom we know from Mr Latham’s diaries, when offered the portfolio of communications after the last federal election by Mr Latham, his then leader, said, ‘I don’t want to be the shadow minister for communications because I’m not interested in the area. I know nothing about it. I’m not interested in it; let me do something else. It has no appeal for me.’

Nevertheless, Senator Stephen Conroy did end up being the shadow minister for communications and, my goodness, hasn’t his lack of interest or knowledge in the area been on embarrassing display for the whole of the Australian people in the two years or so since? That is a fact not lost, I might say, on Mr Lindsay Tanner, the member for Melbourne, who one might think really was the shadow spokesman for communications. So, Senator Conroy, I say to you, through the chair: it does not matter how abusive your language, it does not matter how inflammatory your rhetoric, it does not matter how confected your outrage, it does not matter how sesquipedalian your language and it does not matter how ideological your intent—none of the political theatre in which you engage matters one iota. It does not camouflage from the Australian people your lack of interest in this area of policy. Nor does it camouflage from the Australian people that the Australian Labor Party’s attitude to cross-media ownership laws predates pay TV, predates the digital revolution and predates the further internationalisation of the telecommunications sector of the Australian economy.

To this day—not more than a year before the next federal election, after 10½ years of policy laziness and being asleep at the wheel on this, as on so many other areas of public policy—the Australian Labor Party still cannot find a consistent, coherent, understandable, modern position on cross-media ownership laws. What a lamentable failure. What a disgrace, Senator Forshaw. What a disgrace. (Time expired)

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I listened to the speech of Senator Brandis, and I have to say that the emasculation of the English language that we have just heard from Senator Brandis suggests to me that a number of members of the government benches today have swallowed a thesaurus. But let’s get away from the literary game that is being played over there—the number of big words you can get into a five-minute speech. Let’s go to a member of the government who understands this issue, a person whom I have the very highest regard for, and that is Mr Paul Neville, a National Party member from Queensland—a member of the National Party who, unlike most of the rest of that fast-fading rump, makes a contribution to debates in this parliament.

Mr Neville is the chair of the backbench communications committee of the government. How did he describe the proposals put forward by Senator Coonan, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts? He stated that they are:

… the exact opposite of competition. It’s centralising and consolidating regional markets, it’s not creating a more vibrant and competitive market.

He went on to say:

If you can’t stand your ground on issues like this, you may as well not be here.

What a condemnation of all of the other members of the government parties, toadying along on these proposals to destroy the cross-media ownership laws. Mr Neville is on the money on this one. Mr Neville and those other few people on the government benches hopefully will continue to stand up against these outrageous proposals put forward by the minister, Senator Coonan.

Senator Ronaldson started his contribution by claiming that the Labor Party did not have any policies. Let me remind Senator Ronaldson that on the issue of media ownership the Labor Party has had a consistent policy for years and years, going back to the days when we were in government. It is a pro-consumer policy. It is an anti-media-monopoly policy. It is a policy which is pro media diversity. It is a policy that is anti the concentration of media ownership.

It was very instructive and indeed enjoyable last night to watch Paul Keating interviewed on the Lateline program, because if ever any member of the parliament in those years of the Labor governments took on the issue of protecting the cross-media ownership laws it was the former Prime Minister, Paul Keating. And he was right. The policy of the Labor Party is to maintain the cross-media ownership laws so that we maintain diversity in this country, so that we prevent the two large media organisations, the Packer empire and the Murdoch empire, from effectively taking control of the print media, the television media and the multimedia in this country—both free-to-air and pay TV.

The minister today, in answer to the first question from the opposition, said that the government had no plans to weaken the media laws. I think Senator Coonan may actually believe that, because the minister does not know. This policy of destroying the cross-media ownership laws is not being run by Senator Coonan. This is being run straight out of the Prime Minister’s office, because he has always wanted to do this. Now that they have control of the Senate, they believe they can achieve it. It was always the Senate that prevented them from destroying the cross-media ownership laws.

If you think that the scandals that surrounded the cash for comment saga, which the Prime Minister’s pet journalist and commentator, Alan Jones, was involved in, then you have not seen anything yet. When it comes to what will happen once the two media organisations gain virtually total control of the media in this country, it will be a scandal and it will lead to far less diversity and far less accountability. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

(Quorum formed)