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

We finally get to debate the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 and the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006, and the provisions of the Communications Legislation Amendment (Enforcement Powers) Bill 2006 and the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 2006. It has been a long time coming and a great deal of confusion has reigned over the last few days. It is a comprehensive suite of bills—very complex and highly controversial.

The media plays a fundamentally important role in Australian society. There is no way for Australia to have a healthy democracy without a vibrant, diverse and competitive media sector. The centrepiece of the government’s package is its plan to relax the media ownership provisions in the Broadcasting Services Act, the BSA.

The media ownership bill makes two key changes in this regard. Firstly, it proposes the repeal of the specific foreign ownership provisions in the BSA that relate to commercial and subscription television. The government will retain the ability to screen foreign investment in the Australian media under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 to ensure that it is in the national interest. Labor supports these provisions of the bill. There is already substantial foreign investment in radio, newspapers and television. Foreign investment offers the potential to offer new players into the market and to increase media diversity. In contrast, Labor opposes the provisions of the bill which weaken the current cross-media ownership laws, and I will move to those reasons shortly.

The digital television policies that the government has pursued to date have manifestly failed to rapidly move Australia to the point where analog broadcasts can end. According to industry data, only around 20 per cent of households have purchased the necessary equipment to receive digital free-to-air broadcasts. There are a range of factors that explain the poor level of take-up. Undoubtedly, a significant problem has been the fact that the regulatory regime has simply failed to provide consumers with significant incentives in terms of additional content.

The digital television bill contains a number of measures which relax the regulatory regime and will increase the appeal of digital television to consumers. Labor welcomes these initiatives. Nonetheless, the introduction of these bills has been a debacle from the start. These measures have almost no support from the general public, consumer groups or staff associations. It is no surprise that almost all the support for these changes came from media proprietors only. This is just another example of the Howard government’s extreme agenda, which it is determined to inflict onto the Australian people.

But perhaps we should feel sorry for Senator Coonan’s plight. After all, as Matthew Ricketson wrote in last Saturday’s Age newspaper:

Media policy usually looks like a patchwork quilt lying on top of a dead cat.

Yet Senator Coonan has shown she is prepared to anger media companies over legislation with no public support. Since the government flagged these changes, we have seen a communications minister who appears to have no understanding of the purpose of cross-media laws or the fundamental role those laws play in protecting media diversity.

The Senate inquiry into media ownership has been nothing short of farcical. The government has used its numbers to restrict the amount of time available for senators to question witnesses, and many groups missed out completely on the opportunity to give evidence on what are the biggest changes to media law in 25 years. During the hearings, the tension between some senators exploded to the surface as some coalition senators expressed doubts about the Howard government’s media reform agenda. We even witnessed one coalition senator storm out of the committee room in disgust.

Media diversity and media independence are an integral part of our democracy, and blind Freddy could see that democracy will suffer if ownership is concentrated in the hands of a few media moguls. Never has this been more important than in this age, when the government uses its executive power to reduce the scrutiny and accountability it must face. Senator Coonan’s so-called diversity test, requiring at least five voices in major cities and four voices for regional areas, will not and cannot maintain diversity. In some major cities we will see the number of separate players go from 10 down to five. In my state of New South Wales, rural and regional areas will be particularly hard hit by the changes. Dubbo, for example, will see the number of separate players reduced from six down to four. Newcastle will experience a reduction from the current seven separate players down to four and in Orange the current six separate players will be reduced to four.

Australia’s few remaining independently owned regional media networks are at grave risk. If one company were to own television, radio and print press, they would be a formidable organisation. Who does this benefit? Certainly, it does not benefit the consumer. Variety of new services, editorial independence and competition between advertisers is healthy for local democracy and local issues. The reality is, if these measures pass the Senate, there will be a concentration of media. If these independent regional media outlets are not allowed to grow but rather are merged into large conglomerates, it is highly likely that there will be significant job cuts in regional Australia.

The dominant sources of news and opinion for Australians remain those which are produced by television, radio and newspaper companies. Local content requirements on regional radio will not protect media diversity if the news just comes from the local newspaper owned by the same company. Independent Regional Radio Broadcasters, a body representing 73 commercial radio services in regional Australia, predicts that the government’s proposal could result in a single dominant media company emerging in 47 areas of rural and regional Australia. Regional media organisations will be forced to focus increasingly on the cost side of the business, and local input such as news services would be wound back or cut completely. Not only will regional Australia suffer with job losses but a lifeline of information and entertainment will be severed. This parliament should be seeking to maintain a genuinely regional media that is run by and for regional interests instead of seeking to concentrate all media in this country in only a few hands.

The government has placed blind faith in the ability of the ACCC to stop media market concentration, but the capacity of the ACCC to stop cross-media mergers has been disputed by leading law firm Phillips Fox. In its November 2005 publication Merger monitor: focus on media mergers, Phillips Fox challenged the view of the ACCC Chairman that the Trade Practices Act prohibition on anticompetitive mergers could be applied to stop cross-media mergers. As well, the Productivity Commission in its review of broadcasting regulation stated that:

It is clear that the Trade Practices Act as it stands would be unable to prevent many cross media mergers or acquisitions which may reduce diversity. It is also clear that the adoption by the ACCC of a broader definition of the media market would not adequately address the social dimensions of the policy problem, and would be open to legal challenge.

The reality is that the ACCC will have little control of media mergers. It is clear the Trade Practices Act is not strong enough in its present form and it needs changes that will give it teeth to protect consumers from anticompetitive abuses of market power. I note that this issue consumed quite a large proportion of the committee’s report, and an extended discussion of the issues around the ACCC is documented in that report.

Senator Coonan is out of touch with reality if she believes that the internet is having an impact on media diversity. Very few Australians turn to the internet for news and information as opposed to entertainment. When Australians do turn to the internet for news, they overwhelmingly go to the websites owned by the traditional media players. Studies undertaken by Roy Morgan Research show that, despite the rise of new media over the past decade, only a very small proportion of Australians rely on the internet for news and current affairs. Other findings of that research were that on average only 14 per cent of the time that Australians spend on consuming media is devoted to the internet, compared to 44 per cent on television and 32 per cent on radio. Television, newspaper and radio are the main sources of domestic news and current affairs for over 95 per cent of the population. By comparison, only three per cent of people say that the internet is their main source of domestic news and current affairs.

Around 75 per cent of the population never or rarely use the internet to obtain domestic and international news, and of the roughly 25 per cent of the population that access the internet on a reasonably regular basis for domestic news and current affairs approximately 90 per cent rely on a small collection of websites that have a close association with traditional media providers. It is estimated that as little as one per cent of Australians rely on an alternative media provider as their main source of news and current affairs. The Roy Morgan Research report is quite extensive and it provides a real insight into the use of the internet for news and current affairs sources.

But, to the extent to which internet based news and current affairs is a source of news and comment, it is more than the old media repackaged. The reality is, despite Senator Coonan’s assertions to the contrary, that new media adds virtually nothing to the diversity of news and current affairs in Australia. That is a furphy of an argument. It just does not hold up. Senator Coonan’s view that the cross-media laws are stifling growth and investment opportunities for traditional media companies is also wrong. Our media companies already invest in online businesses and pay television and have distribution deals for their content on mobile phones. During the Senate hearings, the Chairman of the ACCC said:

… the internet is simply a distribution channel. It has not shown any significant signs at this point in time of providing a greater diversity of credible information and news and commentary.

The laws at present stop one person from owning a newspaper, a radio station and a television in the same market. For the sake of the health of our democracy, it should remain that way. Even the minister’s own department has admitted one proprietor could control a local television station, a newspaper and a radio station in a regional area.

The government believes its legislation will guarantee at least five media operators in capital cities and four in rural and regional centres, but the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts admitted that the guarantee was not ironclad. Officers from the department confirmed that, if there were four players in a regional market and one player owned television, radio and newspapers and the other three players were to go out of business, there could then quite feasibly be only one remaining proprietor who would own the television, radio and newspapers. If such a scenario were to eventuate, the impact on local democracy and media diversity would be immeasurable.

The free exchange of ideas and opinions cannot be assured in a modern society if the primary forms of media are controlled by a small number of people. When media ownership is concentrated in the hands of a few proprietors, it undermines the capacity of citizens and institutions to share information and opinions and it places media proprietors in a position to exert undue influence on public opinion, on politicians and on democratic processes.

The Broadcasting Services Act 1992 is intended to guard against the risks associated with the monopolisation of media markets. This objective is achieved by placing restrictions on the concentration of ownership of the main types of media—radio, television and newspaper—in particular geographic areas, through a system of licensing. The relevant provisions of the Broadcasting Services Act can be divided into two categories—concentration of control and cross-media. The concentration of control provisions prevent a person from gaining control of a specific type of media in a market. The cross-media provisions restrict the capacity of a person to control two or more different types of media in a market. The aim of these provisions is to prevent undue concentration in media ownership so as to ensure diversity of content and opinions in the public sphere.

Despite the operation of the Broadcasting Services Act, by OECD standards the Australian media industry is already heavily concentrated. News Ltd and John Fairfax dominate capital city newspapers, controlling more than 80 per cent of the market. In capital city radio markets, four companies dominate, while three corporations control the majority of capital city and regional television audiences. Relaxation of the cross-media ownership laws will result in a further concentration of media ownership, which would have repercussions for the integrity of Australia’s democracy.

The tendency for people to rely on traditional media for news and current affairs is also more pronounced in regional areas. Thirty per cent of people in regional areas have never accessed the internet, compared with 21 per cent in capital cities. Moreover, 22 per cent of people in regional areas are heavy commercial television users compared to 18 per cent in capital cities. Similarly, there is also an 11 percentage point difference in heavy internet usage between capital cities and regional areas. These figures suggest that the diversity of information and opinions will be more negatively affected in regional areas than in capital cities if there is an increase in the concentration of media ownership as a result of changes in the regulatory framework.

These concerns are widely held in the Australian community. A Newspoll survey conducted in 1995—10 years ago—asked respondents whether they thought it important that ‘there should be a lot of different proprietors of Australia’s media’. Seventy eight per cent of respondents thought at the time that it was important, with support for this position being consistent across age groups and socioeconomic status.

Writing in the Sydney Morning Herald on 29 September 2005, former Prime Minister Paul Keating—the architect of the existing laws—said:

... policy changes of this kind are always sold on phoney arguments and an almighty sleight of hand.

It would seem—from what we have seen in this report, in the process of the Senate inquiry and from the debacle that has been represented over the last few days as the government tries to negotiate around amendments and proposals—that Paul Keating was certainly correct.

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The two bills we are debating cognately are the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 and the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006. I note that the minister has circulated the substantive set of amendments and two supplementary explanatory memoranda. I have not had time to complete my understanding of those so my remarks will refer to the bills as they are before us.

I want to start by condemning the poor process the Senate inquiry had to put up with. Although the committee benefited from a hardworking, capable secretariat and from balanced, judicious and considerate chairing from Senator Eggleston, under constrained circumstances, the inquiry process has been poor. The inquiry has been characterised by too short a time for advertising, for the writing of submissions, for senators to read all the submissions, for the hearings themselves, for questions on notice to be answered and for the writing of reports.

The short time for submissions may be less of a problem for the megamedia groups that have been lobbying the coalition and have ready material to hand. It may be less of a problem for witnesses with deep pockets and extensive resources, such as the business sector. So the big end of town was probably catered for. But this process effectively restricted the evidence that could be encouraged and adduced from academics, other interested parties and members of the public. The disagreement between Senators Joyce and Brandis during the hearing was a direct consequence of the ridiculous state of affairs whereby the six coalition members present shared 10 or so minutes per witness.

Firstly, the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 proposes new media diversity rules which would allow cross-media transactions to occur provided a minimum number of separately controlled commercial media groups were maintained in the relevant licence area. Secondly, it proposes the removal of all restrictions on foreign ownership and control of commercial television and subscription television. It will permit cross-media mergers that are currently prohibited. This is the bill that is the most contentious of the four bills that comprise the package.

The digital television bill provides for three major policy changes. The first change relates to the requirement that commercial television broadcast licensees provide a high-definition television simulcast version of their analog and standard television services. The second policy issue addressed by the bill is the moratorium on the grant of new commercial free-to-air television broadcast licences. The third issue relates to the non-broadcasting services band licences.

The Australian Democrats do not oppose media industry reform. We strongly support the modernisation and improvement of statute and regulation with respect to the media industry, predicated on the introduction of greater competition, not less competition, and meaningful diversity. Much of the technology for media delivery in the future—and that future is not far distant—will be on telecommunications platforms. That being the case, it is essential that, for telecommunications and media, we establish guaranteed, affordable services available to all but the remotest Australians and enforced through legislated customer service obligations. For the rest, the market needs to be as free and open as possible. We need to distinguish in these matters between consumer needs and political or societal needs. Consumer needs are satisfied by free rein being allowed for new technology and a maximum variety of product types. That is best guaranteed through few barriers to entry and through encouraging real competition.

The minister for communications and other government figures have tried to answer the charge that the coalition’s proposed new weak cross-media rules will result in the excessive and dangerous concentration of media power in a few hands by pointing to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission as the safeguard. Under the existing provisions of the Trade Practices Act, preserving or enhancing a democratic institution of the fourth estate, the media, is not a matter that the ACCC will concern itself with. During the hearing I asked this question:

Just so that we have it on the record, when you consider a merger proposition in the media industry in future you will not consider the issue of whether it will contribute to the health of our Australian democracy, will you?

Mr Graeme Samuel, Chairman of the ACCC, answered: ‘No, we will not.’

For any members of the public foolish enough to think that corporate self-interest and manipulated information and opinion might be uncommon in the Australian media, Mr Christopher Warren, Federal Secretary of the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, told the inquiry that about half of the journalists they had surveyed said that ‘they had been required to report in a way that favoured the corporate line of their employer’ and that one in five ‘had been required to report in a way that favoured the political line of their employer’. I would give odds that the pressure on editors and management to toe the line is much higher.

It seems very hard to find ways to combat all this. So, from the vital democratic ‘fourth estate’ perspective, the only way to protect a diversity of opinion, news gathering, information and influence is to ensure a diversity of meaningful or real voices, a diversity of media types, a diversity of journalists and owners, and by maximising competition and restricting, even reducing, cross-media ownership.

We Democrats recognise that the technological and market changes, which have occurred in the media industry over the past 10 years and in technology at increasing speed over the last five years, make it imperative that media law and regulation keep pace with the market and technology and create a sensible and effective forward-looking regulatory environment for the future. If we are to have media markets freed from oligopoly, this government must pursue policies to increase diversity of views and voices. If we are to have a fair and open society, this government must pursue policies to increase diversity of views and voices. It must improve the use of and access to new technology, such as digital and broadband; it must ensure open access to media content; it must ensure that there is an adequate level of local and Australian content; and it must protect the independence and freedom of journalists and the media. It must also contribute to the quality of the product that is put before the Australian consumer. Failure to protect diversity of viewpoints is a failure to protect the necessary public debate that makes our democracy function.

The government have no evidence to support their assertion that these reforms will not lead to a concentration of the media market. They exaggerate the beneficial market impact that the internet and new media have and will, on credible information, supply in contrast to traditional media or ‘old’ media. In November 2005 a Roy Morgan poll found that 48 per cent of Australians get their main source of information from television, 22 per cent from newspapers, 19 per cent from radio and only eight per cent from the internet. The internet market share data from ACNeilsen shows that Australian content on the internet is now more concentrated than in the ‘old’ media of newspapers, magazines, radio and TV. Clearly, an informed, professional and independent ‘traditional’ diverse media is still necessary. Again, this is what Mr Graeme Samuel, Chairman of the ACCC, told the inquiry:

We think the internet is simply a distribution channel. It has not shown any significant signs at this point in time of providing a greater diversity of credible information and news and commentary …. the primary sources of news, information and the like still are your mainstream sources: the ABC, News.com and Fairfax. They tend to be the primary sources of credible, timely news and information and discussion.

The government has tried to focus on how this package affects consumers, but more important is how it affects our democracy. Likewise, the submissions before the Senate committee from media owners overwhelmingly concentrated on their economic needs, not Australia’s need for an energetic, independent and diverse fourth estate. One witness’ body language was something to behold in his barely suppressed rage that the senators at the hearing were more concerned with fourth estate issues than media business issues and those issues that affected his self-interest.

The lesson is that media owners’ and investors’ self-interest must be tempered by the legislators—that is, us—in the national and the public interest. The freedom of the press to report whatever and however they need has long been recognised as absolutely vital to democracy, and this freedom is most effective and relevant when there are a variety of diverse views of substance. Modern concentrated media power is such that, if that power is not to be abused, it needs to be dispersed and multiplied, not concentrated further. Evidence to the inquiry showed that Australia already has one of the most concentrated media sectors in the democratic world. Mr Eric Beecher, one of the owners of Crikey.com.au, a former editor of the Sydney Morning Herald and a former editor-in-chief of the Herald and Weekly Times group, said this to the committee:

Currently in Australia most journalism of significance is in the hands of five families plus the Fairfax organisation. Let us be specific about that: in the regional areas, it is the O’Reilly family and the John B Fairfax family, and in the metropolitan areas it is the Murdoch, Packer and Stokes families and the Fairfax organisation, which used to be family owned and is now institutionally owned. So you have six unelected groups—five of them families—and they are the gatekeepers of news and opinion in this country.

He went on:

The consolidation of the media industry in this country has been going on for years. In the 1980s there were 13 daily newspapers in the five capital cities and they had nine different owners. Today there are seven daily newspapers—almost half—and they have four owners.

                 …         …           …

It is the most concentrated media ownership in the Western world. We all know that, we talk about it, and yet we are sitting here talking about concentrating it even further.

Add to that a pertinent comment from Senator Joyce, who remarked that he had not been getting any constituent calls asking him to go back to Canberra to make sure that he got more media concentration. Has anyone? What is this all about, then? What is this bill about, which will result in more media concentration?

My clear impression of many media owners is that they fear too many competitors—witness their opposition to a fourth free-to-air TV channel. Many in the community fear too few media owners. From the perspective of consumers and from our democracy, the central issue is that we need more competition, less concentration and more diversity in all media markets. Media diversity and independence are critical to the public debate that makes our democracy function well. Any concentration of the market in a few manipulative hands will reduce diversity in views and voices. It may also reduce quality and Australian content. If those were the outcomes, that would not be good for consumers or our democracy. Therefore, the starting point for revising these proposals has to be the regulators—the ACCC, whose role is to decide on mergers and acquisitions; ACMA, whose role is to apply and enforce media standards; and the Foreign Investment Review Board, whose role is to determine foreign ownership levels.

The very first requirement in any matter of industry regulation is to ensure competition is protected. It is not credible for the minister to assert that the ACCC and the minister will control any proposed media mergers adequately, because there are insufficient safeguards in our present laws. The Dawson bill—the Trade Practices Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2005, held up in the House of Representatives—will actually reduce safeguards because it allows for forum shopping and the application of different principles between the ACCC and the Australian Competition Tribunal. Without very significant strengthening of the Trade Practices Act, including section 46, and including divestiture provisions, plus the addition of a media-specific public interest test, any media market deregulation through this legislation seems bound to result in reductions in real competition and a greater concentration of media power.

I have outlined elsewhere at length the weakness of the Trade Practices Act 1974 with respect to mergers and acquisitions, such as in these remarks I made in an adjournment speech three years ago:

Balanced divestiture laws are the corollary of balanced merger laws. We do not have effective divestiture laws. It is a strange and illogical policy that can prevent mergers to maintain effective competition but cannot require divestiture also to maintain effective competition.

The non-government members of the March 2004 Senate Economics References Committee report into the effectiveness of the Trade Practices Act 1974 in protecting small business accepted the proposition that divestiture powers were essential. Even the government, which over 10 years has failed to strengthen competition laws, has accepted that the Trade Practices Act needs strengthening, although it has done nothing to translate its in-principle acceptance into legislation. The government accepted five recommendations—and three in part—of the Senate Economics References Committee, all made well over two years ago, but these are not yet law. The government seems divorced from reality. It does not even recognise that it is simply bad policy to introduce much looser media concentration rules without simultaneously introducing legislation to bolster general competition law.

The new ACMA only partly attends to the minimum competition requirements. It must be understood that ACMA’s role comes into play once you hit the ceiling of the number of voices that are determined through this legislation. When mergers are considered above that ceiling, ACMA has no part to play at all; it is the part of the ACCC to consider those matters. Nevertheless, having said that, I still agree with the Liberals’ view that ACMA’s competition role does need to be strengthened to take account of the situation when the new level of voices is to be considered.

Excessive concentration, a loss of diversity and increased abuse of media power are matters which concern society. These are values matters and political matters, requiring public interest judgements. You might think that the public are unaware mostly of what is going on right now, but later on when they find out what has happened there will be a reaction. All is not lost, provided the government does come to its senses. Mr Samuel made it clear that the ACCC would be able to deal with public interest issues if there were a law change to allow them to do so.

The Productivity Commission’s broadcasting report of March 2000 looked into a range of conflicting policy issues including convergence, media markets, protecting diversity and cultural identity. A key recommendation from the Productivity Commission was that the cross-media ownership rules should not be repealed or changed until the following had been achieved: the removal of regulatory barriers to entry, including making spectrum available for new broadcasters; the repeal of restrictions on foreign investment, ownership and control; and amending the Trade Practices Act to provide for a media-specific public interest test to apply to mergers and acquisitions.

The Productivity Commission said that the Trade Practices Act is unable to deal effectively with cross-media mergers and mergers between ‘old’ and ‘new’ media which could affect concentration and diversity in the ‘market for ideas’. They said that a media-specific public interest test should be added to the act. The Productivity Commission believed cross-media rules should be removed once a more competitive media environment is established—that is, when the media-specific public interest test is in place; foreign investment is permitted under normal guidelines; the ban on entry of new television stations is removed; and a significant amount of spectrum is available for new entry. Of those conditions, the government have picked up one in full and one partly. They have not picked up the media-specific public interest test, they have picked up that foreign investment be permitted under normal guidelines, they have not lifted the ban on entry of new television stations, and they have partly allowed for a significant amount of spectrum to be available for new entry.

In the media ownership bill, the government proposes the removal of media-specific foreign ownership and control restrictions in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and the discontinuation of newspaper-specific foreign ownership limits under Australia’s foreign investment policy. The media would be retained as a ‘sensitive sector’ under the foreign investment policy. In principle the Australian Democrats could agree with the lifting of foreign ownership restrictions to enable more competition in the market, subject to some important caveats. We do agree that it be retained as a ‘sensitive sector’ under the foreign investment policy. The fourth estate is a vital institution in democratic processes. For that reason, and that reason alone, it must be a sensitive sector.

In the foreign investment policy as it is normally applied, the last stop is the Treasurer. The Treasurer can decide whether a matter is to be approved or not. But with respect to media, the one thing that should not be allowed to continue is the Treasurer’s role. No politician should be able to secretly approve a new entrant to the media market—which is what the process allows for. It must be done independently or by the parliament. You cannot ask a politician—and I am not referring to the present Treasurer or to past treasurers; I am looking to the future—to make a decision which could influence the prospects of their party or indeed their own candidacy.

There are many issues to consider here. Firstly, if other countries close their media or parts of their media to competition from Australia, why should Australia allow those countries to buy Australian media outlets? If noncitizens in one country are prohibited from owning or operating TV stations or are subject to ownership caps or other barriers to entry, as is reported, why should non-resident foreigners from those countries be allowed to run Australian television stations or other media? The next question is one that cannot be avoided. Nationalism is an issue in Australia. Australians do not seem to concern themselves much with foreign media ownership that already exists from relatively similar countries like Canada, the USA and Great Britain. Based on what I read, see and hear, I expect they may be less comfortable with some types of ownership from other countries, but Australia cannot discriminate by race or country. If foreign ownership is to be allowed, it has to be open to all. This is well understood by some witnesses. I will quote the question I put to Mr Nicholas Falloon, Executive Chairman of Network Ten, at a committee hearing. I asked:

And your position is, isn’t it, that with respect to those issues that you might describe as nationalism they should be catered for by local content rules and rules about the coverage of news and information with respect to Australia? Is that correct?

Mr Falloon—Again, correct.

Senator MURRAY—And in principle, of course, opening the market to foreign owners means that it does not matter whether it is an owner from France, the United States, Great Britain, Canada, China, India or, indeed, Iran?

Mr Falloon—Again, correct.

(Time expired)

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens oppose the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 and the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006 because they will increase cross-media ownership and reduce diversity. This legislation is going to increase the foreign ownership of the organs which give us information and therefore are fundamental to democracy and it is going to leave Australia in a more isolated position than ever amongst like countries in having a smaller diversity of outlets and a greater concentration of proprietorial authority over what Australians get to know about and how Australians form their opinions. It is ultimately a matter of how we view democracy. As you will know, Mr Acting Deputy President Murray, information is the currency of democracy.

I have just spoken with the ambassador for North Korea. One of the things that we all know about authoritarian states like that is that there is no media diversity—people are not free to express different points of view; people are not free to hear a diversity of opinions, and so you do not have democracy. While that is not what this legislation is about to invoke, it is going, through market mechanisms, to move us further away from the ideal of a multiplicity of news-gathering and opinion-giving outlets in this rich and wonderful democracy of Australia.

On the cross-media ownership provisions the government argues that the current ownership laws are anachronistic. It wants to remove the restrictions, arguing that the emergence of new media players—such as on the internet and on pay TV, for example—will ensure the free exchange of ideas in a further deregulated media sector. However 75 per cent of Australians still rely on radio, newspapers or free-to-air TV as their source of news and current affairs, and the internet news sources that people do access for news are dominated and controlled by the traditional media. For example, ninemsn.com.au is owned by PBL, news.com.au is owned by News Ltd, smh.com.au and theage.com.au are owned by Fairfax, and the ABC obviously operates abc.net.au. These sites are the main internet sites people access for the news; and the vast majority of content is exactly the same as their print publications, or broadcast stories in the case of the ABC and PBL. So not only does new media have nowhere near the penetration of free-to-air TV and radio but it is also dominated by traditional media owners.

I put out podcasts, but I can assure you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that they are no match for the reach, access and dominance of the traditional media owners. I suppose some of them would say that that is a good thing. There is a myth that somehow new media means a whole range of alternatives beyond the reach of the dominant players, but the dominant players are right there in the box seat to keep taking the dominant role in what the majority of Australians see as genuine opinion and in what the majority of Australians receive as the important news of the day—with what is deemed by somebody other than themselves as unimportant news not reaching them.

So the basic argument which underpins these reforms—that new media players are challenging the traditional media and will ensure diversity of opinion—simply does not stack up. If diversity is what the government is seeking with this legislation, it has manifestly failed. Diversity of ownership is crucial to ensuring diversity of opinion, and any reform of cross-media laws should achieve a greater diversity of ownership in Australia, not less. That is not what this legislation will achieve. The government’s proposed changes will inevitably result in an even further concentration of media ownership and a loss of diversity of opinion for all Australians.

The proposal that we are facing here is for a five-four rule to apply to cross-media transactions, so there can be no less than five media voices in cities and no less than four in regional areas. The ACCC will separately assess the competitive impacts of transactions. But the problem with this model is that we have no clear definition of what a voice constitutes, so we have to ask: does a small community radio station count as a voice? I know that it does not actually count, but where is the line drawn? What is specified if the government says that is not the case? I know that is worrying all the people who have yet to make up their minds about some of the particular provisions. I should interpose my outrage at the process that is involved here where major amendments to this historic legislation are brought into this place this afternoon and we are debating them straight away. That has sideswiped the time-honoured role of the Senate, as a house of review, to be able to go to the populace of Australia and be informed by people’s feedback before it deals with such matters. That is the result of the government having control of the Senate and of the executive of the Howard government dictating when the Senate shall or shall not deal with such matters.

While the ACCC can ensure competition, it cannot ensure diversity of opinion. Australians living in rural and regional areas will be the biggest losers under the new laws. The Greens are very concerned about the potential for the diversity of opinion in the big cities, where 70 to 80 per cent of Australians live, to be halved under this legislation, to go from what is almost world’s worst in democracies to much worse again. In Hobart, in my home state, there are currently seven separately owned media outlets. That number could drop to four under this legislation. In Launceston there are six separately owned media outlets. That could drop to four. In Burnie the number could drop from six to four.

Mr Acting Deputy President, you will have seen the figures which show that in places like Broken Hill, Darwin, Kalgoorlie, Mildura, Mount Gambier and Mount Isa—major regional centres—the reduction in possible media ownership under these laws is two-thirds. In Melbourne it can be 60 per cent, likewise in Hobart, and it is almost that figure in Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth and Sydney: theirs can be at 55 per cent. The Communications Law Centre produced a report on this. It is a long while since I have had very close contact with this organisation; I have to go right back to 1991. I have to thank an expert from the Communications Law Centre for helping me to devise the freedom of information legislation introduced in the Tasmanian parliament and passed under a Green-Labor accord. It was at the time the strongest freedom of information legislation in the nation.

This august centre produced a report on the effect of the cross-media changes on rural and regional Australia called Content, Consolidation and Clout. This report concluded:

The ‘minimum number of players’ test proposed by the government will not work effectively as a safety-net to provide an adequate level of diversity and prevent further consolidation.

It also found:

The alternative to a ‘minimum number’ approach must be a test that recognises the difference between media outlets. In the markets we have examined, it is clear that some mergers would result in a profound disruption to the news culture of those communities. Examples of mergers that would damage the public sphere are:

• In Wollongong, the Illawarra Mercury and WIN Television
• In Toowoomba, The Chronicle and WIN or 4GR
• In Launceston, The Examiner and 7LA or WIN or Southern Cross
• In Townsville, the Bulletin and 4TO.

I quote from the conclusions of the report:

This is not to say that other mergers would not produce adverse results; but equally, it could be the case that other combinations of media assets would have minimal impact on the community. Our conclusion is based on a recognition that there is little competition and, contrary to claims by proprietors that consolidation would raise the standard, we fear that partnerships between the only real sources of local news will have the opposite result—that standards will decline. Our conclusion is that a test for diversity should identify the mergers that matter.

It added:

Before deciding on a new method of regulating media ownership, there should be public disclosure of the ACCC’s proposed new approach to media mergers. Consideration should be given now to the intersection of competition regulation and the ‘minimum number’ test proposed by the Minister, based on five companies in metropolitan markets and four companies in regional markets.

Where are the ACCC’s new powers? How are the ACCC’s current powers going to be effective here? They will not be.

A Crikey survey of Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance members, conducted by a Roy Morgan poll, found that journalists do not support the media reforms. We all have a variety of opinions about journalists. Journalism is a much maligned profession—like politics. Good and fearless journalism is fundamental to not just democracy but the way that we work, the way that we are informed about what is going on in the community and vice versa. It is absolutely pivotal to our democracy. Thank God for the journalists who work for our community by putting us to the test as often as they do. We all feel frustrated at the diversity of results from journalistic inquiry in Australia at the moment, but, for goodness sake, here we are heading for even less!

Looking at this Crikey survey, we see that more than 80 per cent of journalists believe that the changes will have a negative impact on the integrity of the reporting, and 85 per cent say the reforms will reduce diversity. Eighty-seven per cent of the experts in the field—this is the profession that is central to these media changes—are against the cross-media restrictions, 74 per cent are against the provision for foreign ownership and 70 per cent are against the limit of three free-to-air commercial TV networks. Journalists were also surveyed on how the political and commercial interests of their owners influence their work. Fifty-three per cent said they were unable to be critical of the media organisation they worked for, while 38 per cent said they had been instructed to comply with the commercial position of the company for which they work. Thirty-two per cent said they felt obliged to take into account the political views of their proprietor when writing stories.

The best way of countering this feeling amongst journalists, which does clearly impact on what they write and how they write it, is to diversify the ownership of media, to give journalists the freedom to go where they feel they are best placed. I suppose there is an analogy here with the position I have often put in this place—and I am sure you have, Mr Acting Deputy President Murray—that more parties is better than fewer parties in the political arena. Potential candidates—people wanting to represent their community in parliament—have a greater range of choices so that they can dovetail in with a party if they want to and of course go independent if they do not. It is a similar situation we are dealing with here. Effectively, what is happening here is that it is as if we are legislating to reduce the number of political parties. It is bad for democracy. Reduce the number of sources of information and opinion in the community and you are similarly truncating the ability for a full and open discussion of everything and, therefore, for the health of the democracy to prosper into the future.

The online survey of 374 journalists was conducted over the last week by the Roy Morgan centre for Crikey and the MEAA, the union representing Australian journalists. Journalists from SBS, the ABC, Fairfax, News Ltd, Rural Press and all the major TV and radio networks were represented among the respondents to the survey. The results show that most journalists are highly sceptical of plans to relax cross-media and foreign ownership restrictions and replace them with a new minimum of five significant media voices in metropolitan areas and four voices in rural areas. More than 63 per cent of journalists surveyed said they believed Australian media companies have too much influence in deciding how Australians vote, and 71.4 per cent said media owners had too much influence in determining the political agenda. This is the people at the coalface. According to that poll, if journalists were fairly represented in this chamber today, this legislation would be thrown out. It would not be proceeding. That is the profession we need to be listening to.

Alliance federal secretary Christopher Warren said the survey reveals that the people who work in the media know the truth about the government’s proposed media changes. He said:

The changes will undermine diversity, affect the integrity of journalism in Australia and further empower media owners who already have an unwelcome influence on their employees to report the news in a way that suits the owners’ political or commercial agendas ...

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

An independent source!

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There we have the vassal of the government interjecting that it is an independent source. I am making quite clear who the source is. It is the Federal Secretary of the MEAA, and it is a view that ought to be listened to.

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

An independent source!

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a professional source. That is what is important about it. It is a professional source. It is backed up—

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

Senator Ronaldson interjecting—

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I agree with you that it is an independent source. It is a source of expertise that we should be listening to.

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Address your remarks through the chair, please.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Warren said:

Globally, we are in an age of the big fish eating up the small fish. We are in an age of global media conglomerates. Australia is a small country. We have given rise to a couple of the big media players in global terms. We have lost out through the diversity of outlets and ownership of outlets that Australia has had in my lifetime. This is a matter of defending the health of democracy based on the right of all citizens to have a diversity of information, news and news analysis available to them.

The Greens will oppose this legislation. We recognise the government may have the numbers, but we will be supporting amendments to at least blunt some of the worst teeth biting into the public’s right to diversity which are built into this legislation. When it comes to the third reading, we will still be opposing this legislation but, if there are amendments—and I note those from Senator Murray—which help to improve the trajectory of this legislation away from its negative impact on Australian society, we will be supporting them as we go.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 and the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006 are extremely important in bringing Australian media law into the 21st century and discarding models for the operation of our media which are extremely outmoded and which are seriously hampering the capacity of Australian media to meet the expectations and needs of the Australian community. Arguably this area of our economy is changing so rapidly that even a framework that was created five years ago would be out of date already. But in fact Australia’s media laws were crafted nearly 20 years ago and they are certainly in need of being updated, because the Australian media is changing at a rapid pace, technology is providing opportunities which were not dreamed of only a short time ago, and the sources and means of delivery of news, of information and of entertainment are multiplying rapidly. Media policy needs to keep pace, and, frankly, it has not.

The government has had a clear policy for the better part of the last 10 years to change and update that media framework, and these bills wisely put those changes into place. I think it is important to bear in mind in the course of this debate that, although there are many points of view about who benefits from these changes, there can be no question that it is primarily the consumer of media services who will benefit from the changes this government engineers. What sorts of benefits will they gain? There will be new digital services, including free-to-air in-home digital-only channels and even television content delivered over mobile devices much like mobile phones. There could be up to 30 new channels on mobile TV and potentially eight new in-home channels. The ABC and SBS will be able to show a range of new and exciting content on their digital multichannels, ABC2 and SBS2. Free-to-air broadcasters will be permitted to provide new digital multichannels from next year and can increase the number of multichannels shown in 2009. This could mean up to eight or more multichannels from 2009 and even more multichannels once we completely switch to digital.

Some may argue that those changes are going to happen anyway. I would say no. I would say that it is very important to bear in mind that we need to change the basis on which industry delivers these sorts of services in order to achieve those benefits. The package is not divisible in that sense. You cannot pick and choose benefits without also understanding that we need to create more flexibility and greater capacity to reorganise within the Australian media industry.

The media industry itself has changed very substantially since those last media reforms nearly 20 years ago. We have pay television, we have digital TV, and the internet is creating new players and more choices for consumers and it is undercutting the revenues of traditional media. Computers were once only seen as an office tool; today they are used for watching movies, listening to the radio and reading newspapers. We need to take account of those changes in the way that the law is framed. Current media laws have become, arguably, obsolete and risk preventing necessary mergers, the creation of economies of scale and the entry of new players. In other words, there is a risk that the current laws stifle the ability of the market to work its magic, as it does in other industries.

Of course, the government has provided safeguards in this package to protect the public interest. Indeed, those safeguards have been strengthened only today. Although the government favours a less regulated market, it is not arguing for an unregulated market. It is not advocating open slather. The test of five voices in metropolitan markets and four in regional markets, as well as looking at local content rules, is about making sure that Australians are guaranteed a minimum amount of diversity and choice.

Let me touch on some of the issues that have been raised in the course of debate and comment on how they will likely impact in this community. This community—the Australian Capital Territory—for example, is classed under these changes as a regional market and will therefore be able to have a minimum of four so-called voices as part of that market. Fears have been expressed that the number of media owners here and in other regional markets could shrink under the changes that have been announced. But I think those comments fail to understand that the focus on ownership of media is too narrow a focus. There is an issue here also of quality in the marketplace. The separation of media interests—that is, for example, not allowing the television station owner to operate a newspaper or a radio station—can perpetuate some problems in the quality of our media. A former editor of the Canberra Times, Crispin Hull, put that very well recently when he wrote about these reforms:

The pitiful fodder which passes as broadcast news in some regional markets could be improved with the support of newspaper newsrooms, as they did before the present rules came in 20 years ago.

Indeed, a newsroom providing vision, sound and the written word makes a lot of sense in a world of converging digital technology and an increasingly powerful internet.

That makes the very important point that this assumption that the consolidation means less diversity underestimates the capacity of media outlets in Australia to deliver higher quality services where they are able to rationalise the basis on which they operate. In a media release, my Senate colleague Senator Lundy expressed great misgivings about the possibility that the number of media owners in the ACT could decrease from six to four. Whether that happens or not is a matter we can speculate about, but there are a couple of important points that she and others in this debate have overlooked.

First of all, we need to understand what we mean when we talk about four or five voices. There are some people who are assuming that those voices refer to all the possible sources of information or news available to individuals in a particular community. But those four or five voices do not count a range of other sources of information and news to the community. In any given marketplace, for example, it does not count the ABC in all of its forms—that is, ABC television, ABC radio in all its variety of forms and ABC online. It does not count SBS, with its equivalent number of outlets. It does not count community television—let Senator Bob Brown be clear about that. It does not count community radio. It does not count national newspapers, such as the Australian and the Financial Review. It does not count newspapers that are published less than four times a week in a particular marketplace or electorate. It does not count out-of-zone or out-of-region newspapers like, for example, the Sydney Morning Herald in Canberra. It does not count pay television, and of course it does not count the internet.

Even if you were to abolish the voices we are talking about, if you were not to have any of those four voices in this regional marketplace—you abolished them altogether and you only had the other voices—you have already got so many voices that you would almost call it a cacophony of points of view, of sources of information available in this marketplace, and of course in others all over Australia, from which citizens can obtain points of view, information, access to news and so on. It is on top of that platform, that variety of voices, that we are adding this requirement for a regulated four or five voices as a minimum. Those who enter this debate and talk about those voices as if they are all that people are going to be able to access must understand that.

The other point is that the four voices in the case of this particular regional marketplace is a minimum. Senator Murray described it as a ceiling, but I think it is better to describe it as a floor. It is a minimum. Of course many marketplaces will have more than that. There is no requirement that people have to get rid of the number of voices in a marketplace in excess of that minimum number. And, if for some reason a particular marketplace does have four voices or moves to four voices, it is perfectly possible for new voices to enter that marketplace in certain circumstances and enlarge that number at any point in the future. For example, there is no regulation on who can start a newspaper in this country. If there is a marketplace with four or five voices and someone wishes to start a new newspaper, they can go ahead and you will have an enlargement of that number of voices in that particular community.

It is important to bear in mind just what will change in marketplaces around Australia. Let us assume that every consolidation that this four- or five-voices test allows does actually occur, that there is a race to the bottom and that this floor is reached very quickly. What would it mean in marketplaces across Australia? First of all, under the four-voices test no mergers could take place in 63 per cent of regional markets across Australia—that is, in the overwhelming majority of regions, almost two out of three marketplaces in Australia, no mergers can take place because the mandated minimum for voices is already what that community or marketplace enjoys. You have no change in that respect. In fact, you could only get an enlargement of that number rather than a reduction in the number of voices in that particular marketplace.

In a further 18 per cent of regional markets, we have an existing five voices and, therefore, only one merger could possibly occur—hardly a doomsday scenario. So we have a total of 81 per cent of regional markets in this country where either no mergers could occur or, at most, only one could occur. There are 19 regional markets which presently have six or seven voices and where, theoretically, you could have two or three mergers occurring in order to reach that minimum. But again, even if that is possible in a particular marketplace, it does not mean it is going to happen. Apart from the question of whether existing media interests wish to sell out to other existing media interests in that marketplace, there is the question of whether or not such mergers would be permitted by either ACMA or the ACCC. Having seen the work of the ACCC over a number of years, I have a little more faith than some others do in its capacity—and that of the Communications and Media Authority—to be able to see a bad move for a particular community when it recognises one.

The other point to make is that the existing restrictions preclude one player owning more than one television station in a marketplace or one player owning more than two radio stations in a marketplace. That will not change either. So, again, there are further layers on that four- or five-voices test which guarantee a minimum level of diversity. The minister has announced today that on top of all of this there will be the maintenance of the two out of three test, which I will come back to and speak about in a minute.

The other important point that has been overlooked in Senator Lundy’s statement and in a number of other contributions to this debate is that there is a key player in the media in Australia with access to news, information and entertainment which is going to radically alter the way in which Australians access those things in the future—that is, the internet. To quote Senator Lundy’s website, ‘the future’s in the net’, and indeed it is. It is that element that will undercut any argument that freeing up those traditional sources of media will somehow reduce the available access to news and information.

The internet will radically change the way in which Australians obtain that information, as it has already done. It has already undermined the concept of the mass audience by enabling consumers to read newspapers and listen to radio stations from across the globe. It has encouraged countless numbers of individuals to create websites and blogs which challenge the views expressed in the mainstream media. If someone finds their views are not being expressed in the mainstream media, the odds are they will be able to find them on the internet. Other contributors to this debate have made reference to Crikey. I do not have a lot of time for Crikey—it tends to raise my blood pressure rather more than I want it to—but the fact is it is an example of the kind of diversity in media we are going to see increasingly relied upon by Australians in the future. It represents the future of Australian access to news and information.

Minister Coonan herself made the point in an address last week:

... those that dismiss the impact of blogs and online communities as a source of diversity miss the point. Their illegitimacy is their strength. The mass market for media is changing and the cost of not adapting will mean a generation lost to the internet.

There are a number of major advantages the internet currently provides over traditional media. It is a truly global medium. Someone living in Canberra can access a newspaper article in Paris or a blog in the United States and so on. It is easily able to access niche audiences—that is, through things like narrowcasting. The cost of setting up entry to the internet, such as through a website, is vastly cheaper than producing a newspaper or running a television station, and thousands upon thousands of Australians already use the internet in that way. Internet consumers are able to access news and entertainment on demand and the information is up to date. They can now make the media revolve around their schedules rather than the other way around.

So the model that we are used to at this point, of the typical citizen of our country walking out to their front lawn to pick up the rolled up newspaper and going inside to read it, is less likely to be the model of access to news that we will see in the next generation of Australians and certainly in the one after that. They will be logging on first thing in the morning and checking out news or information on the internet because it is up to date, it is global and it contains much greater access to in-depth analysis or sources of knowledge that simply cannot be provided by a newspaper or even, for that matter, television or radio.

I welcome the lifting of restrictions on multichannelling which these changes entail. They will significantly drive a number of things, including take-up of digital television, and will have major significance to the way in which Australians view those sources of media. I also welcome the changes to the foreign ownership laws. People in this debate have again decried the lack of diverse sources of media ownership, but they overlook the fact that by relaxing foreign ownership rules we have the capacity for people from outside Australia to enter the marketplace and to provide a new range of points of view to the extent that those ownerships reflect themselves in the views of media outlets. I think that has also been exaggerated very considerably.

I want to make reference as well to the changes to the antisiphoning regime. That is extremely important, giving Australians access to a range of sporting events which simply have been outside their capacity to enjoy because there are so many important sporting events which fall into the crack between those available on free-to-air television and those available on pay television. We simply have to change that system, and I welcome the minister’s commitment to the reform of that area.

I will close by making reference to the fact that there has been a great deal of exaggeration in this debate about elements of this government’s package. There have been a great many assumptions made by opponents which simply are not true: the assumption that some consolidation of media ownership will be an entirely bad thing—of course it will not; the assumption that the four or five voices referred to in the legislation are the only voices in this debate in any marketplace—of course they are not; the assumption that all possible consolidations in a marketplace will occur as permitted by the legislation—that is not true; the assumption that there will be a massive change even if it did occur in the landscape of the Australian media—that is also not true; and the assumption that somehow the use by Australians of the internet is a static phenomenon and will not continue to change—of course it will.

I commend the minister for her perseverance, her negotiating skills and her courage in driving this package to the point where it is being debated and, I am confident, will be passed by this Senate. They are important developments that put Australian media laws into the 21st century and provide us with the chance to have very exciting change and development in the way Australians view news, information and entertainment.

Debate (on motion by Senator Colbeck) adjourned.