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

I thought that Senator Webber was next to speak, and I am sure it is purely coincidence that she is not here. I am sure there would not have been any intention on the part of the opposition to collapse the debate before dinner. I am sure that would be a very cynical view of what might have happened here. I was actually due to speak after dinner, but I am very happy to speak for the next nine minutes. That might even give Senator Webber—if she is watching, I send her my very best—the opportunity to speak after dinner. I am sure there is some good reason why she could not get down here.

There were a number of us on the Senate committee that met on Thursday and Friday a week ago. We heard exhaustive evidence from a large number of participants. If my memory serves me—and you were there, Mr Acting Deputy President Brandis—we started at about 8.30 on Thursday morning, went through to about nine or 10 o’clock that evening and started early the next morning. While there was a level of self-interest, as there always is with these things, I thought nevertheless there was constructive input from a large range of people into that Senate inquiry. What was quite clear from the evidence given to the committee was that the Australian Labor Party’s view of life in relation to this is not shared by anyone else except possibly the Greens, who in this debate, as in other debates, are totally irrelevant.

I would have thought that the Australian Labor Party, which pretends to be the alternative government, could have had some constructive input into this matter. However, without breaching the confidence of committee discussions, it was very clear that from day one, from the moment we started this process, that the Australian Labor Party would vote against these bills.

Cross-media and foreign ownership, as the majority committee report says, was not an issue for this committee. Several matters were raised. One was raised by your good self, Mr Acting Deputy President Brandis, and will be the subject, I understand, of an amendment in relation to the powers of ACMA. However, there has been some confusion, particularly from the Australian Labor Party, because it is simply not interested in a sensible debate in relation to this matter, despite the fact that a succession, a plethora of spokespeople have dabbled at the edges of this. Stephen Smith has been one of them; Lindsay Tanner has been another. The shadow shadow shadow minister, Senator Conroy, who might actually now be the shadow shadow shadow shadow minister—whichever it is—has also dabbled with this.

If the Australian Labor Party bothered to read this bill and its amendments, they would know that ACMA has responsibility for diversity. What concerns me is that, despite two days of committee hearings, despite these bills and despite the amendments, I do not think the Australian Labor Party even now understands this matter. Your good self, Mr Acting Deputy President Brandis, quite rightly alerted the other committee members to this fact. It was duly noted by the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Coonan, who I think has done an absolutely magnificent job with these bills. She has had the guts to do what the Australian Labor Party has never had the guts to do. With this government, she has been prepared to accept that, as we know it at the moment, the media in this country in 2006 is not very relevant, in 2007 it most certainly will not be very relevant, in 2010 it will be less relevant and in 2015 it will be totally irrelevant. She has got this policy right. You are a policy-free zone over there. You are destructive, not constructive. (Quorum formed)

The shadow minister was so appalled at the calling of a quorum that he came in to support the government—and quite rightly. Senator Conroy, you are quite rightly appalled that the opposition would pull a stunt like this and I thank you most sincerely for finally doing something constructive in relation to this debate. It is very generous of you.

As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted, an attempt was made to collapse this debate and then, again to waste time, there was a ridiculous call by Senator Sterle for a quorum to be formed. I will go back to what I said before. This government has addressed an issue that needed addressing. This government knows, as I said this morning somewhere else, that this nation is on the cusp of a digital revolution. One political party is prepared to make the changes that will take this nation from where we are towards that digital revolution and another political party is not prepared in any way to assist this nation in its drive forwards towards that digital revolution.

I was making some comments before dinner. It is terrific to see Senator Webber down here. I know that I speak on behalf of all my colleagues when I say how appalled we were at the treatment of Senator Webber over the weekend by the Western Australian division of the Labor Party. Senator Webber is a contributor in this place, and for her to be treated like that is absolutely appalling.

I was speaking before about the government’s intentions in relation to these bills. I thought it would be useful to talk about some of the proposed amendments that came out of the Senate committee inquiry in relation to these bills. I will go through these in some depth in the time that is left available to me.

In relation to the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 there was a recommendation by the majority of the committee—Senator Eggleston, Senator Brandis, Senator Ian Macdonald and me—about the two out of three rule. That has been taken up by the government and I am very pleased about that. This is an additional safeguard against undue media concentration, and the government will amend the bill to include a two out of three rule for media mergers in metropolitan and regional areas. This means that media mergers will still be permitted subject to the floor of four voices in regional areas and five in metropolitan areas, but mergers will only be permitted between two of the three regulated platforms in a licence area—that is, commercial TV, commercial radio and associated newspapers. In other words, this rule will prevent three-way mergers between commercial TV, commercial radio and an associated newspaper in a licence area.

The Senate committee report recommended that this rule be introduced in regional areas. However, the government decided that it was appropriate to extend this additional safeguard to all licence areas. This means, firstly, that industry will still benefit from the increased flexibility that the relaxation of the cross-media ownership laws will bring and, secondly—but equally importantly—consumers can be confident that diversity will continue to be protected through the range of safeguards the government is including in the bill.

I want to turn now to the local content licence conditions for regional radio. In recognition of concerns expressed about the provision of live, locally produced and locally relevant content, the government will amend the bill to require ACMA to have in place for all regional radio licensees, from a specified date, a requirement for at least 4.5 hours of local content each day. This will be similar to the proposed new section 43A in the bill, which requires ACMA to have local content licence conditions in place for regional television.

Prior to the requirement coming into effect, ACMA will be directed by the minister, under section 171 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, to investigate the current levels of local content in regional radio, the impact of the proposed minimum level on licensees and how different types of regional broadcasters—such as licensees in smaller licence areas—would be affected by the requirement. Once the outcome of the review is known, the minister will have the power to adjust the level or apply the requirement differently across different classes of licence if appropriate. The adjustment would be a disallowable instrument that would need to be tabled in parliament. If there is no adjustment the level specified in the act would remain.

There are other protections as well. They revolve around local news and weather requirements. As a further protection for local content in regional areas, regional radio licensees will be required to meet a number of additional content requirements in relation to local news and weather. A minimum of 12.5 minutes per day of local news is to be broadcast on at least five days a week. Repeats of news bulletins will not count towards the minimum number. A minimum of five weather bulletins per week will be required and regional commercial radio licensees that have a local content plan in force will be required to report annually to ACMA on compliance with their LCP—their local content plan.

Regional communities have a legitimate expectation that their local media will cover events and provide content of relevance to their communities. These requirements will establish realistic minimum levels of local content that licensees will be required to provide.

I want to turn now to the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill and, particularly, access arrangements for channel B. As honourable senators will know, the government majority Senate report discussed the matter of access arrangements for channel B. I know I speak for my colleagues when I say that we are very pleased that our requests to the government in that regard have been taken up. In that report we recommended that the government consider whether access arrangements for channel B would be appropriate in order to maximise the opportunities for a diverse range of players to provide content on this service. The government considered this recommendation and has decided that access arrangements would be appropriate.

The ACCC will be required to develop criteria relating to access undertakings by licence holders of the channel B licence for access by content service providers. The criteria would be a legislative instrument. A person wishing to bid for the channel B licence will be required to submit an access undertaking to the ACCC which the ACCC will consider against the criteria. They will be eligible to bid if the ACCC accepts the undertaking.

Adherence to the terms of an undertaking will be a condition of the channel B licence. The undertaking will remain in force for the duration of the licence and is transferred if the licence is transferred. However, undertakings may be varied, with the agreement of the ACCC. This arrangement will strike a balance between permitting the holder of the channel B to offer some exclusive services to its customers if it wishes to do so and if it fits their business model, but will also ensure that other content providers will have the ability to seek access to the service on clear terms.

Madam Acting Deputy President, I am sure you are aware, as other honourable senators would be, that some of my colleagues who were participating members of that committee—my National Party colleagues—were very concerned about these local content areas. I am very pleased that Senator Joyce on Steve Price tonight seemed to indicate that the government’s moves and amendments in relation to local content are satisfying his requirements and Senator Nash’s. I have no doubt that Mr Neville, from the other place, is very pleased that the two out of three rule has been put in place as well. This is just another example of a government that listens and acts, which of course is totally different to those opposite, who quite simply do not have a policy in relation to this matter.

It has always been something that caucus has driven and it has always been the Left that has stymied any real reform in relation to this area. Some have tried, but they have failed. The shining light in all this, of course, has been Lindsay Tanner.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thought you said Left.

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

The Left have a warrior in Lindsay, but even the Left put the Left out of action in relation to this particular matter. The Left did the Left and Lindsay has moved on. He has been replaced by a number of people ever since. Let us have a look at what was said to Jason Koutsoukis in the Age on Wednesday, 9 June 2004: ‘Labor drafts media shake-up’. I want to quote Lindsay Tanner. Senator Carr was laughing, regrettably, at his colleague in the Left, who at least tried. Unfortunately, Mr Tanner has been done by Senator Carr and others in the Left, who are determined to stymie any media reform in this country at all. But I will give Mr Tanner his dues. As he said to Jason Koutsoukis:

I am in favour of less regulation and greater liberalisation in the sector and one thing I am very happy to be put to the test on is that when our final position comes out it will be aiming for a net substantial liberalisation.

He held radio up as the prime example of the benefits liberalisation can achieve:

I think the Australian radio sector is a very good illustration of what competition can do. The statistics on radio are quite impressive. We have 60 per cent more commercial radio stations today than we had in the early ’90s; our population has grown by 11 or 12 per cent, yet revenue in the sector has grown by 80 per cent and profits have more than doubled. I don’t think there is any doubt the sector, commercial, community and public, is substantially better than it was.

He went on to say in relation to foreign ownership:

… it is still my view that foreign ownership restrictions … should be lifted.

In the Australian Financial Review on 9 June, in an article titled ‘Markets need bigger doses of competition’ by Lindsay Tanner, he even went on and attacked the government for ‘dithering about prospective liberalisation of television broadcasting’. He attacked the government, and what did we have in 2005? What have we got in 2006? In 2004 we had Lindsay Tanner, who was prepared to address these matters, and in 2006 we have the Australian Labor Party, which again is back to the early nineties. Why would that be?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Because we want some diversity!

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

I think what it might be is the fact that in the other place the person who dragged their feet the most in the early nineties was none other than Mr Beazley, and Mr Beazley is clearly again driving the inactivity, the policy-free zone, of the Australian Labor Party—I am sure aided and abetted by Senator Carr, who does not share the views of his colleague Lindsay Tanner and who, quite frankly, does not want to change media in this country at all. As Tom Burton in the Sydney Morning Herald wrote on 29 June 1991 about Mr Beazley:

As the rest of the world prepares for a deluge of services, Australia remains saddled with legislation whose philosophical and technological underpinnings remain fairly anchored in the 1950s. Much of the blame for the impasse has to lie at the feet of the communication minister, Mr Beazley.

(Time expired)

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did not expect my time in the chair this evening to be so entertaining, actually.

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like previous speakers, I rise today to speak on the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 and the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006. Before commencing my remarks, I must pause to thank Senator Ronaldson for his kind remarks earlier but also to correct the record a bit—I gather he alluded to my lack of presence in the chamber earlier this evening—to say that the Labor Party, unlike the minister and the National Party, was ready to debate this legislation yesterday, as indeed was I. I had presumed when organising my week that I would have made this contribution already, so I beg your indulgence for having to rearrange the speakers list. But, as we stand, we are finally here. We finally actually have the debate that the committee had to have a hurried hearing into, report in record time and then wait until some internal negotiations took place. So finally being here must mean that the Liberal Party has browbeaten the National Party into a deal that will do little for media diversity, particularly media diversity in the bush.

The contempt in which the coalition holds this Senate has rarely amazed me, so the events of the last couple of days are just another pitiful low for the Howard government, a government which claims professionalism while really being the parliamentary equivalent of ‘Dodgy Dave’s Builders’, a government which will ram any piece of shoddy legislative workmanship it can through this place and never mind the consequences for the country. Dodgy workmanship never lasts long, however, and I am sure that those of us on this side, the Labor Party, will be along soon enough to clean up the disasters that the government is leaving behind.

As I understand it, we are finally here debating this legislation because the National Party have caved in yet again. In caving in, The Nationals have sold out the bush, yet again. Their lack of respect for media diversity is directly correlated with their lack of respect for their own constituents. Significant concerns with the original format of these bills have been raised by a number of my constituents living in rural and regional Western Australia. I sincerely doubt that this new version will appease any of them. We do not need this legislation, because most of us want a diverse and varied Australian media.

As you may know, Madam Acting Deputy President Crossin, there already exists a dearth of media voices in Western Australia, especially in the north-west. I have often taken a stand for the people of the north-west of WA in this chamber and, as such, I will concentrate my remarks on how this legislation will affect them. The simple fact is that the vast majority of WA’s regional centres already have fewer than four media players. Clearly, then, there is a need to expand diversity in these areas, not create a ceiling which currently does not exist for them. Obviously this situation applies to many parts of rural and regional Australia, not just Western Australia.

The Western Australian newspaper market is dominated by West Australian Newspapers; Rural Press, which is owned by Fairfax; and Community News, which is half owned by News Ltd. Most commercial radio stations in country WA are affiliated with the Macquarie Regional Radioworks and owned by Redwave Media. Redwave Media is in turn owned by the West Australian Newspapers group. So, as you can see, massive concentration already exists in the Western Australian media market. Diversity is lacking and many stations rely on eastern states content. There is therefore an evident need to ensure that local content that is relevant to the area is provided and that regional news services have access to programs airing in the state’s capital, Perth.

While some of these concerns may have been addressed in the deal that has been conjured up between the minister and the National Party, as a member of the opposition I am not privy to the detail of that yet and have not had time to read the extensive package of amendments that the minister has tabled, nor the amended explanatory memorandum, so most of my comments will be addressed to the original bill—the original bill that the Senate inquired into and that was actually, as I say, timetabled for debate yesterday rather than today.

As I say, people need access to regional news services that have access to programs airing in our state’s capital, Perth, especially as, particularly in the north-west, the only state-wide daily newspaper arrives around lunchtime at the earliest. Strengthening provisions for local content will probably be welcomed but will be hard to police if implemented in this legislation. Certain stations in Western Australia play the John Laws program, for example. Whilst I have nothing against the John Laws program, and people should feel free to listen to it if that is what they wish, people who live in Newman, Port Hedland or Kununurra, for example, have a choice between their local ABC station and John Laws in the morning—hardly diverse, hardly relevant local content, and hardly giving them the information that they need to work out what is happening in the area around them. I would contend that listeners in those areas may prefer to listen to a locally or a state based program.

The local content conditions in this legislation, in my view, pay little more than lip-service to the notion that local content is an important principle. The original explanatory memorandum states:

These conditions will establish minimum standards for local news and weather bulletins, local community service announcements, emergency warnings and minimum service standards for other types of local content, if specified by the Minister by legislative instrument.

Further, it says:

• bulletins must be broadcast on different days during the week;
• bulletins must be broadcast during prime-time hours (between 6am and 10am, unless different times are prescribed by regulation); and
• bulletins must adequately reflect matters of local significance.

The number of required bulletins is either the local news target, or if the broadcaster provides a greater number of bulletins than the local news target on average, the greater number. The local news target is five bulletins, unless the Minister determines a higher number by legislative instrument ...

And the original explanatory memorandum goes on:

A “local news and weather bulletin” may be a bulletin that incorporates news other than local news. In addition, new section 61CC provides for the ACMA to define the term “local” by legislative instrument.

And further:

New subsection 61CE(3) provides that the “minimum service standards for local community service announcements” are met during a particular week if, during that week, the licensee broadcasts at least the community service target number.

The community service target number is one, unless a greater number is determined by the Minister by legislative instrument (new subsection 61CE(4)).

So that is five bulletins between 6 am and 10 am on different days of the week, and then the news could be from Timbuktu for all this government cares about people in regional Western Australia.

So, unless there is some kind of emergency, this government could not care less whether people know what is going on in regional WA. There is no requirement for local talkback or even that the news needs to be produced by locals for locals, as far as I can see. We are talking about merely minutes a day of local content here, not hours or days a week, because of the lack of diversity in Western Australia—mere minutes.

No wonder people in regional WA are frightened by this bill. A target of one community service announcement does nothing to strengthen those communities. That this announcement and the news could be produced in a state capital or even another state’s capital as long as they address issues in the broadcast licence area shows the depth of this government’s commitment to local content.

This bill in its original form squanders a valuable opportunity for this parliament to show its commitment to local voices in our media. Even with the changes announced after the Nationals caved in on this legislation a mere few hours ago, we now only get 4½ hours of live and local content. I imagine that ACMA’s view of what constitutes ‘local’ and a regional listener’s view of what constitutes ‘local’ may at times be quite different. So I pose these questions. Can ACMA be trusted to ensure that local content is truly local, given the circumstances I have already outlined that occur in regional Western Australia? Will ACMA police the local content provisions in this legislation vigorously, or will they back commercial cost-cutting given the circumstances I have already described that are not part of the package that has been put together with the National Party? Will ACMA seek to weaken the definition of ‘local’ down the track to help commercial stations cut costs? If this legislation passes, only time will tell.

In time the Nationals may come to wish they had not caved on this bill. I feel that Australians, particularly regional Australians, deserve better. It would appear, then, as a licence holder in regional Australia, that outside the hours of 6 am and 10 am my content could come from absolutely anywhere. We already have the situation in the Pilbara and Kimberley that listeners get John Laws speaking about issues that affect his east coast listeners, and I cannot see how this legislation will address the current lack of local content. I appreciate the commercial imperative for station owners to reduce their costs, but the sad fact for listeners in rural and regional markets is that this imperative will continue to lead to managers broadcasting programs from the eastern states, which have the cheapest rights. I also feel that eventually it will lead to regional newsrooms being downgraded or closed.

This legislation does nothing to prevent these things from occurring. I believe that, if we are serious about this issue, encouraging regional radio stations to play programs from their state’s capital is worth looking at. This would overcome the problem I have outlined already whereby Western Australia’s daily newspaper can take half a day to arrive in some centres. This legislation states that local content bulletins must be broadcast between 6 am and 10 am but it does not necessarily include the news from Perth. This is of high importance to regional listeners in Western Australia, including Western Australia’s large number of fly-in fly-out workers.

Commercial radio and country Western Australia present this bill with a conundrum. Most commercial radio stations in Western Australia are part of the Spirit or Hot FM groups. These groups are owned by Redwave Media which, in turn, is owned by the West Australian Newspapers group. It is typical for one company to run the only two commercial licences operating out of a regional centre—one on the AM band and one on the FM band. In turn, most of the commercial stations operating out of regional centres are also affiliated with Macquarie Regional Radioworks. As such, they take some programs straight from the east coast for rebroadcasting. Further, it is my understanding that the bulk of the programming for many radio stations in country Western Australia is actually produced in Perth so, if we are serious about providing local voices on country radio, we do need to mandate a minimum content that is produced by staff working in the licence area. Otherwise we will continue to see a concentration of country media being produced in state capitals.

Clearly there is already a huge concentration of commercial radio in country Western Australia. We need a bill to encourage diversity not further stifle it. This bill offers people in regional Australia absolutely nothing. In country Western Australia people already suffer from a dearth of media voices. The market is already heavily concentrated. It is no wonder that Prime Minister Howard will not explain to Western Australians why he wants to entrench this even further. Nothing in the scant detail that I have received on The Nationals’ deal with Minister Coonan changes any of this. Those of us who truly believe in media diversity for country Western Australians will be voting against this bill.

There is a proposal now for a two out of three rule from the Nationals, but consider this proposal in detail and it still delivers an unhealthy degree of influence to media owners. In many Western Australian towns we already have media owners with controlling interests in two out of three mediums or worse. In Karratha, for example, a three out of four situation exists. Western Australian Newspapers, by extension, runs the local paper, delivers the state daily and runs two commercial radio stations. While this bill would require new players to enter the market before all further mergers could occur in regional Western Australia I am sure that the market dominance currently enjoyed by media owners in Western Australia would make life very difficult for a fledgling media company.

Away from the commercial sphere, national broadcasters have a large role to play in alleviating this lack of media diversity. ABC Radio is highly valued in country Western Australia and must continue to be supported to alleviate the effects of the changes to media ownership proposed in this bill.

The provisions in these bills covering future television broadcasting are also of concern. While it seems clear that increasing the diversity of content on the multicast channels of the national broadcasters will play a large role in the take-up of digital television in regional Australia, it must be kept in mind that the cost of infrastructure to deliver HDTV in particular may require government subsidies to ensure that some country areas are not left in the dark when the proposed analog switch-off occurs in 2011-12.

The widest spread problem of equitable access to this new technology is as relevant to country people, if not more so, as it is to those in our metropolitan areas. The idea that people in Australia’s most remote areas are ready, willing and able to rush off and buy set-top boxes and wide-screen television is laughable at best. If we are serious about switching off the analog signal in 2011, we need to start thinking creatively about how we face these problems; otherwise, HDTV in regional areas is probably dead in the water already.

Given the public’s proven unwillingness to rapidly embrace the technology, and this has been evidenced across the globe, I imagine the likely response of regional broadcasters to the lifting of HDTV quotas will be to abolish transmission of HDTV altogether. A country person’s only access to HDTV in the future might come from internet downloads, legal or otherwise. But, given the Howard government’s commitment to broadband infrastructure, I would not be holding my breath there either.

Some people have run the argument that the internet might make cross-media laws obsolete. I think those people are missing a few essential points. The first is that the most popular websites in Australia, as mentioned previously in this debate, are already owned by the largest media companies. The second is that, in order to access a greater diversity of content than will be available under these new laws, Australians may increasingly find themselves breaking the law to download content which is unavailable on Australian television or radio.

The internet will continue to present great challenges and opportunities for media companies, but we cannot lose sight of the fact that traditional forms of media will continue to be those that most Australians access, particularly in Western Australia. When most of the northern suburbs of Perth are still black spot areas for broadband access—never mind outside the metropolitan area—and one has only to travel 200 kilometres north-east to be out of mobile phone range, access to modern technology is a challenge that this government has not yet met.

These bills talk a lot about the national interest, but they clearly fail the national interest. Even with the scant detail of the shoddy deals that the Nationals have done on this legislation, the Senate should reject this legislation. It is not in Australia’s, particularly regional Western Australia’s, best interests.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to have heard the contribution by Senator Webber on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006 and the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006, because it demonstrates the difference between the parties in this place. One party believes in socialism and regulation and that ‘big brother knows best’, while the other party, the Liberal Party, believes that the market is the best place to determine what is right.

I do not have a disregard for country people. I think country people are clever enough to know what they want from commercial radio, and they will express that by either turning on or off the particular local commercial radio station. If the radio station is not providing the content that the listeners want, the listeners will turn off. If the listeners turn off, the advertisers will turn off. If the advertisers turn off, the radio station will go into liquidation, and it will no longer be. That is why I passionately believe that the Liberal way is the best way; it allows the market to determine—that is, it allows the country listeners to determine—what they want from their radio station. Senator Webber’s address clearly highlights the difference between a socialist, regulated approach and an approach—that is, the Liberal free enterprise approach—that has served this country so well. It gives country people credit for knowing what they want.

I want to start my address by congratulating Senator Coonan, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, on getting as far as she has with this legislation. For Senator Coonan and the government it has been a long-term goal. Senator Coonan and her department have worked exceedingly hard over many years to get this package to where it is now. By and large, most people in Australia will accept that the package is heading in the right direction and that it is a good package.

The Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts looked at the legislation in a two-day hearing last Thursday and Friday. I have to express my disappointment at the very rushed nature of that inquiry. I attended the inquiry as a full member, on the basis that I would try to understand what the issues were all about, I would listen intently to the very significant number of witnesses who gave evidence and I would try to question them to examine whether we had got this legislation absolutely right. I think it is very important for government members to do that in a situation where the government has control of the Senate. It throws an additional onus on government senators to look carefully at proposed legislation and to make sure that it is going to achieve what is best for Australia and what is in line with the government’s intentions and goals.

The committee had a very intense two days. I will digress by congratulating my colleague Senator Eggleston, who, as chairman of the committee, did an exceptionally good job in quite difficult circumstances. Everybody—that is, witnesses and senators—wanted more time to question people, to question each other and to make comments, but we were on a very restricted time frame. The chairman, as a chairman should do, ensured that we kept going and that all senators had an equal and fair opportunity to put their points. The chairman was very courteous but firm to the witnesses. Senator Eggleston did a very good job in very difficult circumstances. Half of Senator Eggleston’s difficulties in chairmanship came from his own colleagues and not from the Labor Party, who were pretty ordinary all the way through the inquiry.

I do not want to go into the detail of the major package, except to say that cross-media ownership, foreign investment and many of the other proposals contained in it will bring Australia’s broadcasting legislation into the 21st century. It is supported by the majority of the committee. At the hearing, we heard evidence from a great number of witnesses—I do not know how many there were; perhaps Senator Eggleston could help me out here—and most of them had no real opposition to the main thrust of the proposals.

As I say, the legislation will allow for the huge increases in technology that have occurred in recent years. And we should take into account that technology in the communications area is moving so rapidly that what we decide on today will probably be different tomorrow. That is why the legislation had to be broad, had to look forward and had to try to set a framework that will be as relevant in five years time as in five minutes time. By and large the committee has supported the legislation.

However, there were a small number of issues where I had some concern and which I want to address. In addressing these, I do have a little advantage over the Labor Party, because I have some notes on what is proposed. The legislation is still being drafted and it is difficult for me—as it is for all senators—to be precise about what exactly the legislation will look like, but I want to make some comments on my understanding of what is proposed.

First of all, I want to make some comments about the two out of three rule. That is a proposal that many of us in country Australia considered. I again emphasise that the committee consisted of the Labor Party senators, who I think were all from the city; four Liberal Party senators, three of whom are regionally based; and, in addition to that, some participating senators who also participated in the hearings. We were persuaded—fairly easily, I might say, because, as regional senators, we had come to this conclusion. I acknowledge that Mr Paul Neville, a regional member of the House of Representatives, and an acknowledged expert in these matters, had been talking about this and had raised the issue. As a regionally based senator living in a small country town in North Queensland, and as one who regularly travels to remote parts of North Queensland, western Queensland and Central Queensland, I was easily able to urge the government to accept a two out of three rule for regional Australia. I congratulate the committee on the recommendations it made in that regard.

I have to say that the committee’s focus was on country and regional radio. As senators would probably know, the two out of three rule, as I understand it, is now to apply not only to regional and rural media but to all media in Australia. The two out of three rule means that someone can own a newspaper and a radio station but not a newspaper, radio and television station; someone can own a TV and a radio station, but not the print media as well; or they can own print media and TV but not the radio. The two out of three rule will ensure diversity. I think that it is a good approach. That is all within the framework of a minimum of four voices in country areas. And, as I understand it, the five voices in metropolitan areas will remain. I am delighted that the government has accepted the committee’s recommendation in that regard and I thank the minister for doing that.

I will come back to the local content that Senator Webber was talking about and that I have already briefly mentioned, but before I do that I want to refer to the access arrangements for the B channel of the additional spectrum that is being allocated. Again, I am not absolutely certain of the precise arrangements that are going to apply, because the committee did not have legislation before it. The committee had a paper, as I understand it—a set of proposals—but no legislation.

I have been concerned—I have been persuaded by people who are very interested in this issue—that the B channel should not end up in the hands of one proprietor who could have a monopoly on that and exclude others. There was a concern expressed to me—one which I thought made a bit of sense—that, if an existing free-to-air or pay TV owner were to buy the B channel and have the B channel exclusively, they may not develop it because it may compete with their existing interests in free-to-air or pay TV. The B channel, simply explained, as I understand it, would be principally for mobile TV. As I understand that, it is mobile TV addressed to your mobile phone or some other receptacle. I was a bit persuaded that we had to be very careful about that.

In the end, I was not persuaded enough to exclude the free-to-airs and pay TV from bidding for the B channel, but I was impressed with an argument that you could split the B channel spectrum into several bits and then perhaps auction off individual bits. I confess that I am not technically literate in these areas and I was relying on others. Many of the witnesses said that that was simply not possible. The committee’s recommendation, the Senate might recall, was simply that the government have a look at this whole issue to decide what the appropriate access arrangements would be. As a result of the committee’s urgings, the government is having a look at that and has decided that the ACCC will be required to develop criteria relating to access undertakings by licence holders of the B channel licence for access by content service providers.

These criteria are going to be a legislative instrument, which I assume can be set aside by either house of parliament. A person wishing to bid for the B channel licence will be required to submit an access undertaking to the ACCC which the ACCC will consider against the criteria. They will be eligible to bid if the ACCC accepts the undertaking. Adherence to the terms of the undertaking will be a condition of the B channel licence. The undertaking will remain in force for the duration of the licence.

This arrangement will strike a balance between permitting the holder of the B channel licence to offer some exclusive services to its customers if it wishes to do so and ensuring that the other content providers will have the ability to seek access to the service on clear terms. Reading my notes I see the words ‘and if it fits their business model’; that is, that of the owner of the B channel. It will ensure ‘content providers will have the ability to seek access’. On close reading of that, I am not sure that I am altogether happy with that. It will mean that we will have to very carefully scrutinise in the committee stages of this bill just what exactly turns up in the legislation. The minister’s advisers might give some thought to that and perhaps give me some information that might explain that to me, because I do want to take part in the committee stages of this bill and I want to look at that very carefully. I think it is essential that not one owner can control the B channel.

With my time being limited, I want to return to the point where I started when I accused Senator Webber of talking about the old socialist proposal where Big Brother and governments know better than anyone else, so they are going to regulate that you have got to have 12½ minutes of local news and you have got to have 4½ hours of local production. I am all in favour of localism but it is my understanding that in fact this applies only to radio. I make the point that this sort of precise regulation does not apply to TV—there is already some light-touch regulation of TV—and does not apply to the print media but for some reason we are going to apply it to commercial radio. I am concerned about that.

I wonder what happens if there is a bit of a shortage of news one day and they only give 12¼ minutes of news, rather than 12½ minutes of news. Are they going to lose their licence? Who is actually going to work out that they have only given 12¼ minutes of local news? And what is local news? We will have an army of bureaucrats sitting there determining what I in a country area of Australia can actually listen to—‘It’s got to be precisely this.’ And we are going to have 4½ hours of local content each day. Even though it might be rubbish local content, it is going to be foisted upon those of us in the country because some bureaucrat in Canberra or—heaven forbid, even worse—some politicians have said that you have got to have 4½ hours of local content.

If I am a listener—and I am a listener—of commercial radio in country Australia and I do not like what they are producing and they do not have local news and they do not have the local content that I want, I will not listen to that radio station. If I do not listen to that radio station, the advertisers are going to say, ‘Why am I buying advertising space on this radio station when I know that Ian Macdonald and another 20,000 people like him are not listening so I am not going to be getting value for my advertising dollar?’ I as a listener and every other person in regional Australia—as they are clever enough; in fact I think they are cleverer than city people—will tell the radio station what they want. We have had anecdotal evidence that a lot of country people have rung up and said, ‘Get rid of that useless local stuff in this area as it is not much chop at all. We want to listen to John Laws.’ Why you would want to listen to John Laws I am not quite sure, but many people in country Australia do and I accept that; I accept that his is a very popular program. People should be entitled to do that if that is what they want. Having bureaucrats and politicians sitting in Canberra telling me in a country part of Australia what I should listen to I think is appalling.

These are the arguments that have been made. I have to say at the Senate committee hearing I was appalled to find that no-one in commercial radio had been consulted about these issues, and this is not just the big corporate radio stations—the Macquarie News, the Macquarie Radios, the DMGs and all of them—it went right across the spectrum from those big corporate radio stations with big chains right down to the individual family owned radio stations in country Australia. All were totally opposed to this. They were distraught and insulted that they had been singled out, and nearly all of them said they provided this local stuff.

I live up in North Queensland and I do a lot on commercial radio in Rockhampton, Mackay, Townsville, Cairns, Innisfail, Mareeba, Mount Isa, Longreach and Emerald. I know that all of these places have local content and then switch—many of them do; some of them do not—to other networks for programs from elsewhere. To single them out in the way that is being proposed is, I think, quite wrong.

What the minister has proposed to try and address this is to firstly say, ‘Look, we’ll include these very prescriptive areas, these 4½ hours and these 12.5 minutes and all of these news bulletins.’ I want to interpose here that when there is a calamity around—and I know this personally—such as a cyclone in North Queensland, commercial radio stations stay on air 24 hours a day. They feel obliged to do that and they also know that their listeners and advertisers want that, so they do it. But what is being proposed is that this will be included in the bill, as I understand it, and in the meantime the ACMA will have an inquiry into what is appropriate and whether this is fair or not and will make a recommendation to the minister. The minister can then accept or reject the recommendation and will then be able to alter those hours and minutes of various things, and if the minister does alter them it will become a disallowable instrument. But if the minister decides to do nothing, then the 12½ minutes and the 4½ hours will stay as a default provision. I am quite concerned about that, and I want to investigate and explore that much more closely in the committee stage of this bill. I put these issues because I am from the country— (Time expired)

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to speak on the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 this evening. As you are aware, we have waited nearly two days to debate this bill. Despite what Senator Ian Macdonald has said, I think that, if you look at the actions of the coalition since they gathered control of the Senate in the last 12 months or so, it is their side that is consumed by ideology. We have seen it in the introduction of the Work Choices legislation; we have seen it in the introduction of Welfare to Work; we have seen the changes to the electoral laws; and we have seen the changes to the committee system. All this has happened in the last 12 months since the government gained control. That is what concerns us on this side about the contents of the bill and, in addition to that, the conduct of where we have got to at this stage.

Senator Ian Macdonald was a competent minister and has continued to be a competent parliamentarian. I listened to his contribution this evening and he highlighted a number of difficulties that he has with the bill that he has indicated to us that he will be raising in the committee stage when we get to that. I think that not only reflects on Senator Macdonald’s character but also indicates to us at least that there is still some disquiet or some difficulties not just within the National Party but also within the Liberal Party about the progress of this bill.

But one has to compliment Senator Macdonald because he at least has the courage to come into this place and put his position. Senator Macdonald is a known coalitionist. In the end, despite his misgivings about what may be said and the difficulties he has highlighted, he will no doubt continue to support the government line. But, as I said, Senator Macdonald is here this evening and has spoken.

But where is Senator Barnaby Joyce? Where is Senator Fiona Nash? You can get them to make a contribution in the vicinity of the parliament if you go out and get a doorstop from 7.30 to about a quarter to nine every morning. I saw Senator Joyce this evening, all sweaty after a run around the paddock, giving the people of Australia, through the ABC and the other media outlets, the opportunity to hear what he thought. I went and checked just then, and I cannot see Senator Joyce’s name on the speakers list this evening so that Senator Joyce could at least outline to us, as he does in his media grabs, what he has been able to blackmail out of the government in this legislation. Where is he?

Where is Senator Fiona Nash? She is the person who follows him around now. Equally she now seems to be an anticoalitionist. Where is she? What did she blackmail out of the government? At least I have not seen Senator Nash do the 30-second grabs out the front here between 7.30 and a quarter to nine every morning. Maybe it is Senator Nash’s turn tomorrow. Why aren’t Senator Nash and Senator Joyce in here this evening explaining to the Senate what they had difficulties with in relation to this legislation and what they blackmailed out of the government?

At least Senator Ian Macdonald has outlined his concerns, which he will raise in the committee stage. But will we hear from Senator Joyce or Senator Nash in the committee stage? I doubt it very much, because this has all been done secretly, except for the grabs out the front here and the odd television appearance. These two members of the Senate have been able to extract some major concession from a hapless minister about what is going to be involved in this legislation. So what did they get out of it? We know the two to three rule, but I have looked and we now have the list of amendments that we are going to be expected to consider this week. I am not sure when these arrived but they have now been presented.

I am sure Senator Nash and Senator Joyce have had their opportunity to speak to that hapless minister, Senator Coonan. I am not sure if in the end Senator Coonan conceded and decided to meet them collectively rather than individually. Maybe she did. But, in the end, the deal has been done. Listening to the Liberal people making their contributions, these anticoalitionists have now got you by the short and curlies. Despite the misgivings of Senator Ian Macdonald, which he has outlined this evening, they are not in here explaining that to us. I do not know what they explained to their joint party room this morning. Maybe they did that as well. But, in the end, they have screwed a concession out of the government. They have blackmailed a hapless minister into making concessions that we will have the opportunity over the next 24 hours to look at and make our own determinations on. That is what we have seen this afternoon and in the last few days.

I agree with Senator Ian Macdonald in relation to this rushed hearing. With the complexity that is being asked of parliamentarians and the complexity of this legislation, how does two days suffice? In the end, the government have the numbers—well, you would have thought so with Senator Joyce and Senator Nash joining the coalition ranks last year—and so the government should be able to come into this place and be able to execute their legislation. But, of course, they have not had an opportunity because they have been blackmailed by these blackguards, as people might call them. That is what has happened and that is where we are at at this stage.

These reforms are the most significant since the cross-media laws were introduced in 1987. They were put in place to protect the diversity of Australia’s media and to give Australians access to a wide range of opinions, news gathering and entertainment. They make sure that the controlling interest of radio and television is also not the controlling interest of a newspaper in the same capital city. This makes sense. It is logical for the Australian people to expect that when they read a newspaper, tune into their radios or switch on the television news the copy is not all written by the same hand or spoken by the same voice.

True enough, the media landscape is a different one to the one when the cross-media laws were introduced nearly two decades ago. The prevalence of the internet as a popular medium for news and entertainment was not on the agenda of policymakers then. Mobile phones were not jangling around in people’s pockets and bags back then. However, the foundation argument remains—we are entitled to a diversity of opinion in our media.

Let us have a look at the current face of the media. There are 12 owners of major media in Sydney, 11 in Melbourne, 10 in Brisbane, eight in Perth and seven in Adelaide. In the regional markets we are looking at six or seven major media owners. In places like Bathurst or Gosford, there are five groups. In Lithgow, there are only four. Oh, good, Senator Joyce is going to join the debate. This level of concentration is also one of the highest in the world. This bill seeks to make it easier for the big players in the industry to grow bigger and sounds the death knell for the smaller media organisations. This is particularly important for regionally based media, but its significance to suburban consumers should not be overlooked. When people open their local newspapers, they want to see local news. When people listen to their local radio stations, they do want to hear about topical, local issues. The vibrancy and connectedness of many communities relies greatly on the interaction they have through their local media. The letters pages and the local talkback are all part of the networks communities tap into.

The government’s original plan, however, would have seen a reduction of media voices down to minimums of less than half in some cases, as I understand, of the organisations that are now operating. Some of these remarks of mine are predicated on the facts of the original bill. The proposal is for minimums of five voices in metropolitan media and four in regional Australia. With an open slather market it will be a race to acquire the most prized and most influential media organisations. A minimum of five voices in a capital city can mean a major print organisation acquiring a leading radio station and leading television station in one market, marginalising its competition but still being able to fulfil the five voices regulation.

As radio group DMG noted in its submission to the Senate inquiry:

It is unrealistic, for example, to suggest that a mega media conglomerate with one daily newspaper, one free to air television station and two radio stations in one market should be counted as a voice just the same as one small stand alone radio station in that market with an insignificant number of listeners. This belies reality.

DMG makes a very valid point that is lost on the thin rationale behind the five/four voices plan. Fairfax in its submission to the inquiry highlighted the example of the Newcastle market, where there are seven media organisations, but the prevalence of only a handful of outlets already dilutes the diversity and does not bode well for the market post the abolition of the cross-media ownership laws. Fairfax representatives told the inquiry:

If you asked the lord mayor of Newcastle how many media players there were in Newcastle, I think he would be amazed to find there were seven. If he puts out a press release, probably only our newsroom, NBN’s newsroom and maybe one of the local radio stations will contact him. The notion that there are seven independent voices in Newcastle is probably mathematically correct and statistically true, but it is substantively false. I think there are concerns in regional Australia, which are expressed to our regional editors in the markets in which we participate, that further consolidation in those markets will further diminish diversity of content in those markets.

Exposure is the jewel in the crown for a media organisation. Mergers, if they occur, will be designed to garner the most exposure for a media organisation. They will be designed to grab the largest number of readers, listeners and viewers to maximise profits through advertising revenue and to likely minimise the cost of centralising production. Taking away the protection of diversity enshrined in the existing cross-media laws is a strong signal from the government that it values the profiteering of big media rather than the service it delivers to consumers. Advertising is the driving force behind any successful media organisation. The larger an organisation grows, the more advertising it attracts. The two have a very close relationship that is sometimes too close.

In my local area, in Penrith, where I have an office, in my duty electorate of Lindsay, there was this week reported an issue about Work Choices. It related to a local real estate agent, Mr Jim Aitken. Mr Aitken is probably the biggest real estate agent in Penrith area. He is a local Liberal councillor—that would not surprise you—and he is also a former state Liberal candidate. He has been accused this week of creating a new company so that he can terminate his employees and shift them onto new contracts. A faithful Liberal soldier, he has taken the opportunity provided to him by Work Choices and told his staff they can sign it or else. It is an interesting local story and I wait to see the outcome of it, because Councillor Aitken would have to be the biggest advertiser in the local papers—the Penrith Press and the Penrith City Star. I will be interested to see whether this story does get a run in the local papers, because it did get a run on Channel 10 last Saturday night.

But, as I said, while the government’s proposal says it will guarantee a five-four minimum, it does not speak to the influence of these voices or the marginalising effect a significant merger could have on the remaining voices. This may not be an overnight effect, but the exposure to even a watered-down two-way merger, combined with the increased revenue from the ensuing advertising, would make for an incredibly formidable conglomerate that would more than likely encourage its competitors to follow suit.

One of the great attractions of a merger for media organisations is centralising their production units. Production staff and journalists are a high cost for media organisations. Mergers between groups provide the incentive of homogenising production so that live and local becomes mass produced and impersonal. In a merged media market, the number of locally based journalists would be downsized so that locally produced news is an afterthought. For the money counters, centralised production makes good sense, but the local consumers who want to find out what is happening in their communities will be left scratching their heads. And just as the temptation to delocalise media production would be too great, so too would be the temptation to use all arms of an organisation for cross promotions. We have already seen some poor examples of promotions tarted up as news, and the abolition of cross-media laws will only add to the opportunities for media organisations to use their time and print space to further their own bottom line, regardless of the public interest value.

I would also like to touch on the role of the emerging media. It is completely ignored in this bill, more than likely because the dominance of the existing media players means that the influence of the voices represented by emerging media are following similar patterns to those in the traditional media. The argument goes that new media like the internet is much easier for a nonplayer to break into than your traditional media market. Theoretically, this would hold true. It is relatively inexpensive to begin your own online news service or entertainment provider. There are literally millions of blogs out there giving unknown authors’ unfettered freedom of expression, and there are web portals with video, audio and text on demand that surpass what is on offer in traditional media.

But popularity in the emerging media has its price. Online video sharing website YouTube is the most popular site of its kind. It began as a way for people to upload video diaries and has exploded to include all kinds of audio-video content. But YouTube does not quite know what to do with its popularity, and has a monthly $2 million bill just to keep up its capacity. The profiteers from the existing media stable are hovering, ready to turn YouTube into an advertising goldmine. Mobile television is the next battleground, where media companies will fight to be in the pockets of millions of Australians. The government has already signalled it will open the bidding to existing media companies, meaning that another emerging media will be lost to diversity and we will see more of the same.

It is characteristic of a government ignorant of the wishes of the Australian people, who are sick of the profit first mentality of the current Howard regime, and that is why this bill worries me. We have seen many examples in the last 12 months where this government has opted for ideology over practicality. We have seen it with the issues I raised earlier. We are seeing it now with the sale of Telstra, the sale of Medibank, which the government has backed off from at this stage, and the other issues that we have been highlighting, including Work Choices. The bill that we have been presented with today is, once again, a triumph of ideology over practicality. This bill worries me, because in the end it will narrow the stream of opinion and it will be a significant threat down the track to our parliamentary democracy.

Alan Eggleston (WA, 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 deliver very real and necessary reforms to media ownership and media services in this country. Media and media technology have changed dramatically over the last two decades. The triumvirate framework based on the traditional media of press, radio and television is no longer a real reflection of the nature of the media in Australia. We now have pay TV, free-to-air digital TV with multichannelling and 3G mobile networks offering music, video and text along with phone calls. We have podcasts, digital radio, websites from around the world and now mobile TV. The existing media players are operating in a restricted market where their expertise and capabilities are constrained by unrealistic regulation.

Australian media is competing with media from all over the world: American newspapers online, podcasts of German radio programs and Asian news video on the internet. We no longer live in a world where the local daily paper, the morning radio news and the evening television news are our only sources of information. Changing the ownership rules will let the media market operate more efficiently, benefiting industry and consumers by allowing greater competition and economies of scale. These benefits will be shared across a large sector of the economy.

Like other microeconomic reforms undertaken by the Howard government, the benefits of reforming the media ownership restrictions are real, both for industry and consumers. The removal of foreign ownership restrictions allows foreign media companies and investors to enter the television and daily newspaper markets, providing greater opportunities for investment, new players and services. Similarly, the removal of cross-media restrictions will allow Australian media companies to enter different media, providing greater competition opportunities for greater efficiency and new and improved services for consumers. Any reform needs to protect diversity of ownership, but this can be done in a way that is less restrictive than the current regime. The diversity of ownership will continue to be protected through the two out of three requirement, and licence and reach limits.

The current media ownership laws regulate commercial radio and television and daily newspapers above other media because of their greater level of influence. While they remain influential, they are no longer the sole source of news and information, as I have already said. A regulatory framework that assumes that radio, television and newspapers are the only sources of information will become outdated and ineffective, ultimately to the detriment of consumers.

As the chair of the Senate committee which conducted the public hearings into these bills, may I say the committee encountered a wide range of views and produced a report, which I felt was very balanced, on the effects of this legislation. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues from all parties and all those who contributed to the inquiry, especially the committee secretariat staff.

One of the issues I found of most concern was the proposal to regulate local content on regional radio. All the witnesses representing regional radio said that they had not been consulted about the proposed regulation of regional radio services and believed that they were providing the services required by their communities. The proposed regulations would require regional radio stations to satisfy a quota of 12½ minutes of local news every day, have a local content plan in force and report annually to ACMA on their compliance with the local content plan. I feel that any regulation should be as light as possible. The reality is that market forces will strike the balance of local, regional, national and international content. If a radio station is providing too little or too much local content, people will stop listening and advertisers will stop buying time on that station. In fact, in my experience regional and rural listeners want a balance between local, state and national content.

As an example, my Western Australian colleague Senator Adams cited at estimates that residents in Albany in the south-west of Western Australia were displeased when the ABC radio program hosted by Liam Bartlett from Perth was replaced by a local Albany morning program. They in fact preferred the Perth program. I am very pleased that the minister has agreed to the committee’s recommendation that the regulation of local content measures for regional radio be reviewed.

The digital television bill will remove the current genre restrictions on multichannelling by national broadcasters. It will remove, from 1 January 2007, the high-definition digital television broadcast requirement which will enable a broadcaster’s HDTV simulcast service to become a multichannel. I have always believed that the mandating of HDTV broadcasts unnecessarily restricted the Australian television industry. This change means that broadcasters will be able to offer a broader range of digital services to customers. From 1 January 2009 commercial free-to-air television broadcasters may provide a single multichannel in standard definition television in addition to the standard definition TV simulcast of the analog service. This is intended to allow commercial broadcasters to provide additional services during the simulcast period.

The current restrictions on full digital multichannelling by commercial free-to-air broadcasters will be removed at the end of the simulcast period. The usual viewer protections will apply in relation to the regulation of content on multichannels; however, other content obligations, such as Australian content standards, will not apply initially so as to assist with the development of these channels. There will, however, be a review of the regulation of multichannels before analog switchover. The government is committed to encouraging the uptake of digital television. However, it has to be said that the uptake of digital television in Australia has been slow compared to other parts of the world. In my opinion, it is unlikely that the viewing public will invest in digital TV technology on the mere promise of improved picture quality. I believe content will be the major incentive for the uptake of digital TV.

In Europe, digital stations offer multichannelling and interactive services. As shown elsewhere in the world, multichannelling can generate positive outcomes for consumers through this enhanced competitiveness, as, for example, was the case in the UK when Channel 4 removed both the E4 and the Film4 channels from its subscription platforms and made them part of its free-to-air multichannel service. The government intends to remove the restrictions on commercial free-to-air stations with regard to multichannelling at the end of the simulcast period, as I mentioned earlier. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission noted in a report in 2003:

... benefits flowing from maintaining the status quo may be lessened over time. The restriction on FTA multi-channelling may actually prevent the FTA operators from responding to new sources of competition.

Pay TV is now an increasingly secure and commercially viable part of the Australian media market. As it seems clear that competition will drive content and that content will drive digital TV uptake, accordingly I believe that the government should consider bringing forward the date for lifting multichannelling restrictions on free-to-airs and consider shortening the simulcast period in the interests of encouraging householders to purchase digital televisions. However, given the complexity of the issues involved, I acknowledge that this is a difficult decision for a government to make.

There have been some minor changes in the antisiphoning scheme, the most important being to remove present broadcasters from premiering antisiphoning listed events only on digital multichannels. This will ensure that listed events remain available to the widest possible audience. The government has announced that it will introduce a use it or lose it scheme for events on the antisiphoning list; however, this scheme is to be controlled by the minister and, in the view of the committee, does not require legislation.

The legislation will also open up two new channels of currently unallocated spectrum made available for new in-home and other services, such as mobile TV. There was a lot of discussion in the committee’s public hearings and private meetings about access to these two new channels, particularly the channel B spectrum. It is proposed that the channel B spectrum may be used for mobile television services and there was some concern that, by awarding this spectrum to one provider, a monopoly situation would arise. There was some concern from the 3G mobile phone industry about how mobile TV and 3G services may dovetail. There was also some discussion on the committee about splitting the channel B spectrum to encourage diversity. I am confident that the government has listened to these concerns and will put in place measures to ensure that there is a balance between encouraging the development of these new technologies and ensuring competition in the market. SBS and the ABC will be able to provide a broader range of content on their multichannels with the removal of the genre restrictions.

The government has fulfilled its election commitment to transfer the power to allocate commercial television licences from the Australian Communications and Media Authority to the government of the day. It is important that a democratically elected and publicly accountable body exercises this power, and that is achieved by these bills. The Australian Communications and Media Authority has had some concerns that its range of enforcement powers are not sufficient to enable it to fulfil the objects of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.

The bills before the Senate today will enhance ACMA’s broadcasting regulatory powers under the BSA by providing ACMA with powers in relation to civil penalties, injunctions, enforceable undertakings and infringement notices. The government is introducing these changes to enable ACMA to be more responsive, particularly when it comes to ensuring compliance with broadcasting codes of practice and licensing conditions. The changes build on ACMA’s review of television codes of practice for reality television and the government’s announcement in June this year that content safeguards would be extended to mobile devices and premium internet services. The Howard government is committed to a classification system and coregulatory regime that enables people, especially parents, to make informed decisions about the types of programs that are suitable for them and their children to watch. I must say, of course, that the committee recommended that ACMA also have divestiture powers.

In conclusion, we have heard many opposition speakers today talk about media concentration and control of the media. The changes proposed in this legislation will allow greater flexibility in the media market, reforming the outdated system created prior to the internet, the iPod, pay TV and 3G mobile phones. ACMA will continue to enforce rules regarding content and broadcasting. The ACCC will continue to ensure competition and fair trade practices in the media market, as it does in all Australian markets. The Foreign Investment Review Board will continue to assess and regulate foreign ownership of Australian businesses. The two out of three rule will maintain media diversity. All of this will occur without imposing an outdated and meaningless straitjacket of regulation on media organisations—regulation based on the state of the media market 20 years ago. I do not believe for a minute that journalists will be any less fearless in researching and disseminating news. I do not believe that journalists will be any less diverse in their views when this legislation is passed into law. These reforms will revolutionise the media in this country and will provide, I believe, a more flexible framework for media organisations and better media products for consumers.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Sport and Recreation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor is, of course, opposing the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006. Like my colleagues, I am gravely concerned about the effects that this bill will have on media independence as well as the diversity and quality of local content in Australia. I note with interest the rhetoric of the government. It talks about providing ‘greater flexibility’ and dealing with ‘outdated and meaningless legislation that is 20 years old’. I challenge the government by saying that these are hollow words. What does ‘greater flexibility’ mean in this context? It only means one thing and that is permission to further consolidate and concentrate media in markets around Australia. With the way that these laws have been drafted, that is the only thing that ‘greater flexibility’ could possibly mean. It has also used the words ‘outdated and meaningless’, as though time itself has rendered this legislation outdated and meaningless. It is actually the substance of the cross-media laws, the current laws, that remain precisely relevant and meaningful in this current debate. To somehow drag up that they are 20 years old as evidence that they are meaningless I think is shallow and spurious.

The bill really constitutes quite a shameful attempt by the Howard government to weaken the laws. It undermines existing cross-media ownership laws that are designed to protect media diversity in Australia and within Australia’s regions. It will cause and, I suspect, hasten and encourage a further concentration of media in Australia. Having fewer media outlets means a reduction in diversity. This, first and foremost, is unhealthy for democracy, because it means that the community can access fewer news and current affairs sources, journalistic commentary and opinions. Later on I will also provide a comment on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006.

The current laws relating to media ownership prevent the common ownership of newspapers, free-to-air television and radio licences in the same market, in the same region. Their purpose is to ensure a diversity of ownership across the most influential media by preventing those same organisations from controlling a multiple of platforms. This has the effect of ensuring that a wider range of news, information and opinion can be accessed by the community.

The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Coonan, has tried to convince the Senate on several occasions that changes to cross-media laws are in the interest of consumers. However, the minister has always failed to back up her claims with any evidence. It was with the typical arrogance of a tired old government that the minister resorted to quite insulting and illogical arguments to try to garner support for these bills. The government’s arguments in favour of these changes are insulting because it is obvious to anyone seriously observing this debate that the government is shamelessly trying to placate some of the largest incumbent media interests in their ongoing clamouring to have the current cross-media constraints removed—because those interests see them as constraints to making their businesses bigger and more profitable.

It is hard to fathom the front of the minister when she claims that these changes are designed to help consumers, when even the farcically short Senate inquiry could not identify any consumer benefit. All we got were these amorphous claims about flexibility and economies of scale, all of which benefit the big businesses that are already incumbents in these markets. They were not able to point to anything else. The beneficiaries, we know, are those big incumbent businesses in the media.

It is so insulting that these arguments are put forward that it is easy to make the observation that they come from a government that is so arrogant that it does not even bother to try to make a reasonable case. What we are left with is this exercise of negotiation between National Party and Liberal Party senators, as though somehow that makes up for the massive change that they are trying to impose.

These changes will open the floodgates for media mergers and acquisitions because the rules will allow for fewer voices or separate commercial media outlets than currently exist in many markets. You have heard from my colleagues, right through this debate so far, about the extent to which those voices could be reduced in both metropolitan and regional markets. The result will be less variety for consumers, not more. Nowhere will there be more voices.

As we have heard, if for some reason there are four voices and some of those voices go out of business, there is no mechanism to create more voices. So there will be a perpetual ratcheting down of the number of media voices in this country, with no scope for new entrants, because the inevitable consolidation in these markets will make it even harder for new companies to get a foot in the door of a new market. And yet the minister illogically insists on this being good for consumers. Last time I looked, less was bad news for consumers, not good news as the minister purports.

Another insulting argument put forward by the minister is that these changes will make it easier for new providers to enter the market. We heard this put forward at the Senate inquiry. We have heard the minister say that, but how can it be so when all of the activity will be in mergers and acquisitions. Surely the market will dictate that new players will ultimately have fewer opportunities as incumbent players get bigger, consolidate and purchase or take over smaller ones. It does not sound like a good scenario for a small entrepreneurial outfit trying to establish themselves in the media market.

The other big porky the minister is trying to peddle is that the internet has resolved the need for cross-media restrictions. The minister claims that the internet ensures that people can get a wide variety of media from an almost infinite number of sources. This shows how out of touch the minister is with what is going on with the internet. Again, I know several of my colleagues have pointed out that the top four news sites—which account for 84 per cent of hits—for people accessing news on the internet in Australia belong to Fairfax, News Ltd, the ABC and PBL respectively. So what the internet provides—and this was confirmed very strongly by the ACCC during the Senate inquiry—is another platform for the same players. It does not represent diversity at all. When the minister suggests that it does it shows that she is choosing to ignore these facts and figures or she is choosing to mislead the Australian public about the role the internet plays in the provision of news and current affairs and information services to Australians.

Labor has always supported sensible media reform, but what is being proposed here today is not reform. I reject completely the arguments put forward by the government that this is somehow the next natural step in media reform; it is not. It is an effort to placate the needs of some of the largest businesses in this country. The practical implications of these changes will lead to a further concentration of the ownership of the most influential media and this will result in an increase in the power of some of the most powerful companies in the country. This does not enhance democracy. It is likely to diminish it, and Labor believes it is certainly not in the public interest.

I would like to turn to this concept of media diversity. It is quite central to the debate and we think it is worth preserving because it is an essential element of any functioning democracy. An effective democracy requires that issues relating to politics, policies, governance, administration, events, and public and community life be reported in a fair, transparent and quality manner by the media. Deliberately reducing the number of media players performing this role to a few powerful entities in a given community, as this bill intends to do, will diminish the variety of ways that news, information and opinions are presented to the public. Less variety means less competitive pressure to maintain quality content—and so the spiral cycles downwards.

Media diversity is also important to citizens as members of geographic communities. The public interest is served by ensuring they have access to newspapers, television and radio programs that cater to their local needs and interests as well as to their broader thirst for information about national and global affairs. Again, less variety means less competitive pressure to maintain a high proportion of relevant localised content. The alternative is only being able to access what a few big media entities think sells—purely commercial considerations. That is when you get the syndicated news and the ‘rip and read’ approach to news, particularly on radio.

So much of the news and information reported, analysed and distributed is already syndicated, or shared, and this aspect of media business—news reporting—is expensive because it requires skilled human beings to do it. The Senate inquiry heard that news is often the first to go in any merger or takeover of smaller media companies. That is because the motivation is not about communities or their interests; it is about economies of scale—the one thing the minister has said which is accurate but which, for the purposes of this debate, means newsrooms being merged, reporters being sacked and genuine local content reduced.

We have heard government senators purporting that these bills provide safeguards to try to ensure some media diversity will be maintained, but these safeguards are woefully inadequate. I have already mentioned the voices test, and I want to go into that in a bit more detail. This so-called diversity of voices test, or five-four test, provides a minimum number of distinct commercial media entities in a given market: four in regional markets—a definition which includes the ACT, my electorate—and five in metropolitan markets. As I said, a quick count of the number of existing players in regional and metropolitan markets will expose the fact that this test can only result in a reduction of players, because so many markets have more. This renders this measure completely ineffective as a safeguard for diversity. It is a complete con.

Using this test, the numbers of media owners in metropolitan areas like Sydney or Melbourne could halve, and in many parts of regional Australia the number of media owners could fall by a third. So what a fraud this test is and how arrogant of this government to even serve up the five-four voices test as some sort of safeguard. Not only will the five-four test allow for media ownership to be concentrated; it fails to take media influence and reach into account. Some mergers would have little impact on local media, whereas others—for example, between a sole local paper and the leading television station—would profoundly disrupt the news culture of any given community. However, the five-four test fails to distinguish between the two. Any subsequent two out of three test, such as the one we are hearing about in the form of proposed amendments, is unlikely to mitigate the possible negative effect on diversity of the five-four voices test in the sort of scenario I have described.

In recent times, including at the Senate’s cross-media inquiry, the ACT has provided a useful case study of a regional community that in certain circumstances could have less media diversity as a result of the new laws. The submission from the Communications Law Centre reflected on a hypothetical scenario to demonstrate how ineffective the five-four rule would be in a regional community like Canberra. I quote from the submission:

Hypothetically, Canberra Times merging with Southern Cross TV (Channel Ten) would potentially be one point under item 5; Capital Radio merging with Austereo would potentially be one point; and Prime TV … and WIN … would potentially count for a point each. The Bill does not recognize that by having the local paper potentially share content (due to ownership by the commercial television broadcaster), the quality and diversity of news coverage is potentially diminished in the region. The Bill does not recognize the importance of an independent source of news in a print format.

I also want to discuss the role of the ACCC under the bills we are discussing. When questioned about the very real effects these changes will have on competition and diversity in the media industry, the minister has been quick to identify the ACCC as being the responsible entity to implement competition and therefore diversity policy. The government has claimed that the ACCC’s administration of the Trade Practices Act will be a safeguard against excessive concentration in media markets, but we now know, thanks to the painfully short Senate inquiry, the ACCC is no substitute for the current cross-media laws.

Senator Conroy notified the Senate on 14 September of this year that a number of leading competition lawyers had seriously questioned the ACCC’s capacity to stop significant media mergers. Historically, the ACCC has considered that newspapers, radio and television operate in separate markets and, as such, a merger between these businesses would not technically breach competition laws. Even in the event that the ACCC does find that a merger breaches the Trade Practices Act, the Federal Court may overturn the decision. Labor believes media independence and diversity are too important to leave to the vagaries of such interpretations of the law. The current cross-media laws provide a guarantee of media diversity that the ACCC’s enforcement of the Trade Practices Act simply cannot provide.

The bills also introduce measures imposing obligations on regional broadcasters to comply with local content rules, and it became clear very quickly that this had not been discussed with any of these businesses—so much so that everybody was concerned that that would have a negative effect on the government’s attempt to make a sop to the National Party about provisions for local content. They were operating in a vacuum—and indeed still appear to be in the construction of new proposed amendments.

A constituent recently emailed me—actually, it was during the Senate inquiry; they were obviously listening to proceedings. I would like to place their observations on the record, as I think they are relevant to the debate. They wrote:

When I was growing up, 2BE Bega broadcast to the people of the Bega Valley: pig and bobby calf sale prices, local river heights, even the prices at the local co-op. This was information of no importance or interest to people beyond the Valley.

But to people within the Valley it was information that was directly relevant, that was both important and interesting.

Today 2BE is East Coast Radio, broadcasting from Eden to Bateman’s Bay. Localism has been killed. It has been replaced with regionalism, with aggregated markets. Localism has been lost, with areas homogenised into advertising demographics. That’s the point about localism. You can’t expect the people of Malua Bay to have the same ‘local’ interests as, say, those at Pambula.

So you can see how localism is interpreted according to the perspective of this particular individual, and I think this person had a valid point. The bills fail even at this most basic level to adequately protect or define true local content. No amount of red tape with additional regulations or window-dressing with all of the flowery rhetoric can make this bill a satisfactory replacement for the current cross-media laws.

I will now spend a few minutes making comments on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill. Unlike the media ownership bill, there are some positives for consumers in the digital television bill. It will provide for some additional digital channels, theoretically making digital television more attractive to consumers—and we know the Howard government has been quite appalling in its efforts to try and encourage people to switch to digital. I say ‘theoretically making digital more attractive’ because, true to form, the Howard government has also compromised its claimed intent to make digital more attractive. The compromise is that, while this bill appears to make progress in promoting digital broadcast services, it is unlikely to dramatically increase the take-up of digital television.

The decision to lift genre restrictions on the multichannels of the ABC is strongly supported by Labor. It is a policy that the opposition has advocated since before the last election. Our minority report notes several important points about the extra channels and interactive services, including the fact that in the UK they seem to have made an important contribution to generating consumer demand for digital television. (Time expired)

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in favour of the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006. The bill implements the Howard government’s longstanding commitment to reform Australia’s outdated media ownership laws. The changes to media ownership were announced as part of the federal government’s media reform package in July 2006.

The current foreign and cross-media ownership restrictions under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 limit competition in the media sector. They also restrict access to capital, expertise and technology. The proposed changes will encourage greater competition. They will also allow media companies to achieve economies of scale and scope, whilst at the same time protecting the diversity of Australia’s media.

For 20 years, Australia has had a set of media control rules that, in effect, largely restrict how media markets and companies operate. This is based on an outdated philosophy based on the concept of ‘containment’. This philosophy of containment does not recognise that today media companies operate very differently to the way they did when the legislation was first introduced. Technology has greatly changed and, indeed, so too has the way we consume media and media services today. When those rules were framed, the internet was available only to a small number of people; pay TV was in its infancy in Australia; there was no framework for digital radio; no-one had heard of IPTV; and 3G mobile phones, video iPods or television over a mobile device, otherwise known as DVB-H, were nowhere on the radar.

Today, our traditional media platforms are being pressured from all angles. To enable them to survive and compete, it is vital that some of the regulation currently restraining them be freed up to enable these platforms to adapt to changing times. Without this change, the traditional media industry will continue to watch other platforms encroach on their traditional businesses. They will be fettered from moving themselves. New media will leave them well behind.

Through these proposed amendments of the ownership rules, the media market will operate with greater efficiency. This in turn will ensure that both industry and consumers will benefit by permitting greater competition and economies of scale and scope. The effect of these benefits will be diffuse, dynamic, and shared across a large sector of our economy. As with other microeconomic reforms undertaken by this government, the benefits of reforming the media ownership restrictions are real. For example, the restrictions on foreign ownership restrictions will enable foreign media companies and investors to enter the television and daily newspaper markets, thereby allowing greater opportunities for investment—in short, new players and new services. It is interesting to note that Australia’s radio sector has no foreign ownership restrictions. Notwithstanding that, it is considerably more diverse in its ownership than either television or newspapers, with two major foreign owners in the sector, namely APN and DMG. Similarly, the removal of cross-media restrictions will allow Australian media companies to enter different media areas. In turn, this will afford greater competition, greater opportunities for more efficiency and, most importantly, new and improved services for consumers.

It is important that any reform must protect diversity of ownership; however, this is able to be achieved in ways that are less restrictive than is currently the case. This diversity of ownership will continue to be protected via the five-four voices requirement and licensing reach limits. The current media ownership laws regulate commercial radio and television and daily newspapers above other media by virtue of their greater level of influence. In 1987 television, radio and newspapers were virtually the only news media but, whilst they remain highly influential, they are no longer the only sources of news and information. Further, while traditional news gathering remains dominated by what one can term ‘old media’, the ability and the capacity of independent online sources to deal with news more quickly, to comment on and to provide analysis of that news and in turn to diffuse that information means that online news and information has emerged as a powerful influence in its own right. Indeed, today, when we want information or news our immediate instinct is to go online.

Consequently a regulatory framework that assumes that radio, television and newspapers would be the only sources of information will soon become hopelessly outdated and ineffective. Ultimately this will work to the detriment of services and to the detriment of consumers. The media reform package that the government announced in July outlines major reforms to Australia’s media ownership laws as part of a broader reform package relating to new digital services and other key broadcasting issues. These reforms have been the subject of lengthy and widespread consultation within government, industry, the community and other interested stakeholders.

The media landscape is an ever-changing one, and we need a flexible system which enables media companies to adapt and prosper in new and dynamic environments. Hence the government’s far-sighted approach will on the one hand meet consumer needs and on the other hand provide new technological benefits into the future—the core of the package, of course, being new services and programming for consumers. These reforms will allow existing players to take full advantage of emerging digital media technologies and will afford them flexibility to structure their businesses to be globally competitive media companies. The package will also allow a more competitive environment, which should encourage new entrants into the media market, hence affording greater diversity and choice to consumers.

While the reforms will allow for some cross-media mergers, they also contain significant safeguards to protect diversity and stop undue concentration, particularly in regional areas. As an additional safeguard against undue media concentration, the government will amend the bill to include a two out of three rule for media mergers in metropolitan and regional areas. This means that media mergers will still be permitted, subject to the floor of four voices in regional areas and five voices in metropolitan areas, but mergers will be permitted only between two of the three regulated platforms in a licensed area—commercial television, commercial radio and associated newspapers. In short, this rule will prevent three-way mergers between commercial television, commercial radio and an associated newspaper in a licensed area. As a senator based in the regional area of the Illawarra, I am hopeful that these reforms will result in greater choice and more balanced views which better reflect the changing nature of the Illawarra.

The report of the Senate Standing Committee on the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts recommended that this rule be introduced in regional areas; however, the government has decided that it is more appropriate to extend this additional safeguard to all licensed areas. Industry will still benefit from the increased flexibility that relaxation of the cross-media ownership laws will bring, whilst consumers can be confident that diversity will continue to be protected through the range of safeguards the government is including in the bill.

The Trade Practices Act 1974 will continue to apply to media transactions, with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission playing an essential role in assessing competition issues associated with mergers. Separate from the protection of competition, the Australian Communications and Media Authority will oversee the safeguards to ensure diversity and local content. ACMA will make sure that transactions comply with the minimum number of media group requirements and that broadcasters comply with local content obligations. It is important to remember that, in addition to the traditional commercial media, Australians will continue to have access to a variety of other services from the public broadcasters. In relation to the ABC, this includes two digital television channels, up to five radio stations—Radio National, News Radio, Local Radio, Classic FM, and Triple J—and their online services. In relation to SBS, this will include television, radio and online services, subscription television, community radio and television, out of area and national newspapers and other internet services.

The government is committed to ensuring that all Australians, be they in metropolitan or rural and regional areas, benefit from these reforms. The government is committed to reforming Australia’s media ownership laws while protecting the public interest in a diverse and vibrant media sector. So what do we get from our political opponents? During the election, Labor said their policies would maximise Australian investment and employment in the media sector. They want to retain cross-media ownership laws but at the same time relax foreign ownership restrictions. How do you maximise Australian investment in the media sector by lifting foreign ownership restrictions which only allow new overseas investment in our media sector and prevent Australian media companies from competing? Clearly Labor’s idea of preventing excessive concentration of media ownership in Australia is by allowing only foreign companies to contribute to diversity. This simply does not make sense.

I now turn to the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006, which I also support. In 2004 and 2005, statutory reviews of the digital television regulatory regime were conducted. Following these reviews, and in the context of broader changes in the media sector, the government issued a discussion paper on a range of media policy reform options in early 2006. The bill also gives effect to the government’s election commitment to transfer the power to allocate commercial television licences from ACMA to the government of the day.

The object of this bill is to give effect to the government’s decision to reform several aspects of the digital television conversion framework and commercial television broadcasting regulatory regime, including the operation of the antisiphoning scheme, following these reviews and the media reform consultation process. I also support the amendments which include measures in relation to the allocation of the two channels of unallocated digital spectrum that exist in each licence area—channels A and B.

Over and above the benefits from media ownership reform, the package will also afford considerable scope and opportunity for new services, including two channels of currently unallocated spectrum made available for new in-home and other services such as mobile TV. ABC and SBS will be able to provide a broader range of content on their multichannels. The FTA broadcasters will be permitted to provide an HD multichannel from next year and an SD multichannel from 2009. Indeed, further and greater opportunities for new services will emerge at the point where switchover is reached and a considerable additional spectrum is freed up.

This bill forms part of an integrated and far-reaching package which will assist Australia’s media sector to move to a new digital environment by encouraging new players and new services for Australian consumers. The government’s media package will afford opportunities for a range of innovative new services for consumers while maintaining the existing services that the community already rely upon and very much enjoy, including quality free-to-air television services. I believe that consumers will be the biggest winners. They can access a new range of services, including several new digital channels, with potentially more to come with full transition to digital television. Whilst this bill introduces some modifications to the antisiphoning scheme, the government is not proposing to abolish the antisiphoning list. Many Australians have a keen interest in continuing to have free access to major sporting events that have traditionally been shown on free-to-air television.

Labor has no credibility and no policies on broadcasting and, indeed, did nothing while in government to prepare for the introduction of digital. The Labor Party clings to outmoded models for the industry. This will not benefit and grow the industry. It will provide absolutely nothing new or innovative for consumers. The coalition has led the way in continuing to ensure that the regulatory framework allows broadcasters to adapt and adjust to technological and other developments. Unlike the Labor Party, the coalition understands how important it is that both small and large commercial operators are supported and continue to be supported in participating in the broadcasting sector.

In relation to the antisiphoning list, Labor fails to understand its practicalities or the delicate balance which the government strikes to ensure important events remain available for Australians to view on free-to-air television. The opposition’s alarm at the seven-year, $150 million deal struck between the FFA and Fox Sports to deliver a wide range of Socceroos and A-League domestic matches on pay TV is a clear example of this. This deal was seen as securing the long-term financial stability of the game and will mean that a significant package of matches will be available on pay television. None of the events covered by the deal are on the antisiphoning list, and in the past the free-to-air coverage of Socceroos games has been inconsistent.

Australia needs to move its media sector into the new digital age. If we do not undertake these reforms, we will pay a heavy price for policy paralysis if we cannot move the current frameworks. The media landscape has changed so much, and we need to afford a more flexible and innovative environment to meet this new media era.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006. This legislation effectively abolishes the cross-media laws and relaxes foreign ownership laws currently in place in this county. This is yet another attempt by this arrogant government to use its power in this place to pass legislation that is extreme and dangerous. We know that the deal has been done and that regional and rural Australians have been abandoned once again by The Nationals.

I have to say that I agree with the comments made by my colleague Senator Hutchins about the sell-out of the bush by Senator Joyce and Senator Nash. This legislation will negatively impact on media diversity as it has the intention of concentrating media ownership on the big players. Just in case the Prime Minister and Senator Coonan have forgotten, Australia is supposed to be a democracy. A democracy cannot exist without freedom of speech, without freedom of thought and without freedom in the media.

In this technological age, we have seen the massive growth of the internet and web-based blogs. News is available 24/7 and is able to be transmitted as it happens into the homes, offices and mobile phones of all Australians. There is no doubt that the media industry is changing as a result of the technologically aware age and generation. Let us be honest, how many of us in this place can truly claim to have read one of these strange things called ‘blogs’, let alone written one!

Labor recognises that amidst all these wonderful but strange new technologies there is a need for media reform. The debate, however, should be about exactly what media reform is needed. Media reform does not mean that we should relax the rules and let the big companies run rampant. But that is exactly what this government is doing. It is saying, ‘Let’s reduce media diversity, stifle competition and reduce consumer choice.’ The majority of Australians are opposed to a further concentration of media ownership for this very reason. In Sydney and in Melbourne, this legislation will see the number of owners of the most influential media businesses halved. This legislation will allow companies to own several media assets, across a range of formats, as long as there are five operators in mainland capitals.

The legislation in its current form states that there must be only four media operators in rural and regional areas. I note that the Howard government in its continuing arrogance has excluded the capital of Tasmania—Hobart, for members of the coalition who are searching their memories—from the criteria requiring that capitals must have at least five operators. That would mean that Tasmania is classed as a rural or regional area under this legislation. Thus, there would be a requirement for only four media operators to function.

There is no doubt that this legislation is all about stifling diversity. This legislation will see the editorial interests of proprietor businesses influence the content and opinion portrayed to the public. This, by any stretch of the imagination, is definitely not what springs to mind when one thinks of free media.

With this in mind, Labor has supported reforms of the foreign ownership rules since 2002 on the basis that this could increase media diversity in this country. But with this legislation as it stands the changes to the cross-media laws would lead to a massive concentration of ownership in metropolitan and regional Australia, wiping out any advantage that would come from the relaxation of the foreign ownership restrictions.

The government is making much of its so-called voices test, but the simple fact is that it is another smokescreen. It will not do anything to protect diversity. By international standards, Australia already has a highly concentrated media market. The Prime Minister knows that this legislation will negatively impact on our democracy. Through it, he is looking to give even more power to the most powerful people in the country.

Cross-media laws are common in many other countries throughout the world, to protect the public’s right to a fair and diverse media. The United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Korea and the Netherlands all have cross-media laws. The only winner as a result of this legislation will be the big players, who already own a large share of Australia’s media landscape. These so-called reforms will lead to mergers, a loss of jobs and a loss of content.

The legislation was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts for inquiry. As farcical as the inquiry turned out to be, with government senators using their numbers in an attempt to ensure that the bill did not receive the proper scrutiny warranted, the submissions received by the inquiry speak for themselves. Professor Franco Papandrea, the Director of the Communication and Media Policy Institute for the Division of Communication and Education at the University of Canberra, was among those who forwarded a submission. He stated in his submission that his concerns relating to the legislation primarily related to the replacement of cross-media ownership with a minimum number of voices rule. Professor Papandrea states:

My assessment from personal research and detailed assessment of the proposed changes is that they will have a detrimental impact on diversity of opinion in Australia.

He goes on to say:

The case for the repeal of the existing cross-media rules appears to be based only on economic efficiency considerations with insufficient regard to the loss of social benefits that would flow from the change. There is no credible evidence that the current rules impose significant economic costs. On the other hand, there is widespread agreement that a substantial social loss is generated by reductions in viewpoint diversity. Consequently, the proposed changes are unlikely to be in the public interest (in the sense that the economic benefits outweigh the social cost).

During the committee inquiry, the coalition senators had widely differing views on this legislation. It is now obvious that deals have been done on the legislation, and they have been done at the expense of rural Australians. However, the minority report prepared by Labor senators following the inquiry noted that during the course of the media law debate the government failed to put forward a convincing justification for its extreme approach to what it calls ‘reform’. The report says:

The Explanatory Memorandum on the bill concedes that the benefits of cross media reform are ‘unclear’ but suggests that they are likely to be obtained from a reduction in expenditure by media companies.

From the explanatory memorandum, it would seem that the Howard government is recognising that, as a result of this legislation, it is likely that the number of journalists throughout the country will be cut through newsroom mergers and that local content will be reduced.

Safeguarding the Australian public against excessive concentration in media markets under this legislation would be left up to the ACCC under the Trade Practices Act. However, Labor does not believe that the merger provisions in section 50 of the act would be an effective substitute for the current cross-media laws.

The media play an important role in the lives of all Australians, and there is little doubt that as technology improves it will play an even greater role. With this in mind, Labor believes that media diversity is too important to be left to chance. The decisions made now regarding this legislation could well influence the Australia of the future.

The committee’s majority report recommended an amendment to the bill to prevent more than two of the three traditional media being owned by one company in regional markets. Labor does not support this proposal as it would do nothing to address the overall problems contained in the bill itself. Make no mistake: Labor supports genuine media reform. However, the government’s ‘reforms’ in this package, which have been hastily grouped together to try to force all the legislation through, are not reform. Labor believes that media reform should provide the industry with the capacity to grow and deliver the benefits of digital technology to consumers; enhance consumer choice and competition; and protect and promote diversity by preventing a concentration of ownership.

The function of Australia’s media ownership regulation must be to promote the free expression of diverse views. As legislators, we cannot agree to proposals that will see Australians bombarded with media from a limited range of sources. We already know that the modern technology that we have come to take almost for granted—the internet, mobile phones, television—plays a huge role in influencing people’s minds and lifestyles.

There has been a huge debate recently about the direct effect of advertising on children and whether junk food advertising has a direct relationship with childhood obesity. I think the consensus, as a result of this ongoing debate, is that, yes, overexposure to advertising, television programs or the like that endorse junk food does have a very direct influence on the types of food our young people are consuming. So it is a fair enough conclusion to draw that if this is so with children then a lack of media diversity and the deficiency of a wide range of viewpoints being portrayed in the media through these so-called ‘reforms’ of the Howard government would have a negative effect on Australians. The fact is that, whether we realise it or not, we are all affected by the media that surround us. Whether it be the portrayal of superskinny models on the covers of magazines, negatively influencing Australian women to have an unrealistic and unhealthy body image, or the issue of young people and hotted up vehicles being portrayed in films and television, influencing what has become known as the ‘hoon culture’, there is no doubt that Australians are influenced by the things they see, hear and read.

The government’s decision to group the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006 and the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 as a package is aimed at detracting from the implications of both bills. The bills reflect what would be the most significant changes to Australia’s media laws since the introduction of the cross-media ownership laws back in 1987. The fact that the government has treated the committee process which examined this legislation with contempt comes as no surprise. The committee chair’s report that backs the government’s claim that this legislation must be taken as a package is not supported by Labor. Labor sees no reason for improvements to digital television regulations to be tied to the government’s cross-media ownership agenda, and Labor will seek to amend the legislation so that the current cross-media ownership laws are retained. Once again the minister has obviously done deals at the expense of the Australian community, particularly those living in the bush and living in rural and regional Australia. Shame on the National Party, shame on the Tasmanian Liberal senators, who once again have failed to stick up for the rights of the Tasmanian community, and shame on the Howard government!

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006. The Howard government has no shame. Its arrogance has no bounds. Its willingness to sell the Australian people down the creek is breathtaking. What we are debating here today is the great sell-out by this government to its big media mates. This bill is all about profit—nothing more, nothing less. This bill is not about increased media competition. This bill has nothing to do with protecting and enhancing Australia’s cultural heritage and social diversity.

The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts tells us that the current cross-media ownership laws limit competition in the media sector and restrict access to capital, expertise and opportunities for growth. At the same time she makes no commitment to enhancing media diversity in this country, no commitment to a higher quality media sector and no commitment to improving the role and responsibilities of Australian public media companies to diversity enrichment and to integrity in news and information reporting—none at all.

The Australian public have a reliance on the public media for information on which they can make judgements about a whole range of matters essential to daily life. As well, media companies are a source of entertainment and general information. By any measure the media companies in this country are highly profitable, but the large players are still not satisfied. They are clearly after much higher profits, even if it means screwing the Australian public in the process. The primary goal of the owners of private media outlets is to leverage as much profit as possible from being a seller of news, information, entertainment and advertising. As has been said by a recent CEO of Fairfax, newspapers are basically advertising platforms. It has been argued by another newspaper executive that ‘a newspaper was basically a media for distributing advertising and the news was wrapped around it to make it attractive’.

We are entitled to ask what is behind these legislative changes. Is it the Australian community at large? I hear no call from the Australian public for these changes to media ownership law. Clearly, the minister has been put up to this by the major media companies in order to increase their profits. That is what these changes are about. It is as simple as that. And how is this to be achieved? By ‘economies of scale’—the magic words so loved by big business. We all know what ‘economies of scale’ really means: company mergers and fewer and larger companies, less competition, the slashing of input and distribution costs, and a reduction in jobs. In other words, cost cutting, job shedding and less diversity.

Even with the current cross-media ownership legislation, Australia stands out amongst the OECD countries as a country having one of the highest concentrations of media company ownership. What possibly can be behind this move by the coalition government to open the gates to an even higher level of concentration of media ownership in Australia? Where is the benefit for the Australian people? This is a heist, and the Australian public are about to be dudded. This bill will set in motion the creation of a very small number of very powerful media despots who are to be given the economic and media power to hijack and manipulate the political landscape in this country and make superprofits in the process. Silvio Berlusconi, forget Italy; your opportunity is right here in Australia. Come over here. It is all here for you. This mob of cultural vandals will not rest until they turn this parliament into a rubber stamp for big business and big media.

I wish to turn to the National Party dissenters. What a pack of wimps! What a pack of show ponies! What is the response of the National senators to this bill? A dissenting report! The second paragraph of the National senators’ dissenting report to the findings of the government dominated Senate committee inquiry into the bill states:

A major concern with the proposed media reforms remains the over centralisation of the media market and the lack of capacity of the ACCC to have effective oversight of media mergers and their effect on the democratic process of our nation.

In three lines the National Party senators have entirely blown the government’s cover. The National senators know that this bill will inevitably and rapidly lead to much greater media ownership concentration and that nobody will be able to do anything about it. The ACCC has already admitted it does not have a role to play as far as the public interest is concerned.

It gets better. The National senators go on to directly state in their dissenting report that there is clear evidence of manipulation in Australia’s media market that has inhibited true competition. This is nothing less than outright condemnation of the performance of the coalition government in its inability to ensure that Australia has a media sector that is fair and honest and impartial. Why should the Australian public trust a government that its own members do not trust?

Again, in their dissenting report the honourable National senators quote extensively comments made to the Senate inquiry by Mr Beecher of Private Media Partners. It is obvious that at the time they wrote their dissenting report the National senators must have been completely convinced that they were dealing with a dud bill and that they were unwilling to rely on the major public media company spokespersons for advice on the proposed amendments to media ownership laws. The National senators clearly do not trust the major media companies and they obviously do not trust the government’s commitment to looking after the public interest as far as the media is concerned—a government of which, I might remind senators, the National senators are members.

Mr Beecher is the publisher of Crikey.com.au, a small, independent, internet based news provider that has filled a big gap in the availability of independent and fearless news reporting—something that has become rarer and rarer in Australia. The National senators’ dissenting report makes clear that they do not trust the major media companies, they do not trust their own side, they do not believe that there is effective competition in Australia’s media sector, and not only that but they see clear evidence of market manipulation by the media companies. Furthermore, they believe that the proposed legislation will result in less competition, not more competition as claimed by the minister. They clearly endorse the view that media owners in Australia have a track record of filtering news and information to the Australian public to promote those issues that media owners are interested in in order to influence public perceptions and opinion in ways that fit with media owner interests and views.

The National senators believe that the proposed legislation will result in even greater capacity for the owners and managers of the major media outlets to direct the flow and interpretation of news and information in a way that is kind to their interests and to their close friends and fellow travellers. The National senators obviously do not believe as things stand that the relevant government regulatory bodies have the power, political support or resources to match the major media companies when it comes to promoting and protecting the public interest.

And the National senators are dead right. If there is nothing in this bill for rural communities, there is certainly nothing in this bill for the rest of the Australian public. But what do we get after these great statements of principle? A wishy-washy set of amendments. The National senators clearly do not trust their coalition colleagues on this matter. What makes them think that they will get anything more than lip-service from the government as far as their amendments are concerned?

If the National senators were fair dinkum about this matter then they would vote down the bill in total. But they are not fair dinkum. We all know about ‘Backdown Barnaby’ and ‘Nowhere-to-be-seen Nash’. But I must admit my good friend and colleague Senator Hutchins has flushed them out and they are now on the speakers list. I am glad about that, because I am really looking forward to their comments. But we believe they will slither into the chamber and vote in favour of this bill, just as they voted in favour of the sale of Telstra. And isn’t that going well! I tell you what: I do not think Stroker would have voted for this bill.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you mean Wacka?

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I apologise. I do not think Wacka would have voted for this bill. When Wacka gets to Canberra, he will not be putting up with this kind of rubbish.

This bill is not going do anything but serve the interests of one or two major media companies. The risks to fairness, objectivity and impartiality in media reporting of Australia’s political and electoral processes if this bill is enacted are immense. What makes the National senators think that a government with the arrogance to put up legislation of this type could be trusted to construct and pass amendments that will have any effect on altering the intent of this bill? If the National senators had any real gumption, any principles at all, they would stand up immediately and demand that the government scrap this pathetic bill and make it clear to the government not to bother coming back to the Senate on this matter until it is able to guarantee that media diversity in this country—in both urban and country Australia—will not be diluted and that there will be no further concentration of media ownership.

I have no doubt this extreme bill is being pushed by an increasingly extreme government. The National Party senators, by their own words, know this to be true. But the time has come for something more than words. Let us find out whether the National senators from New South Wales and Queensland are the real thing. Are they having us on? Who are they—Fine Cotton or Bold Personality? None of us really know. I think they will turn out to be another Fine Cotton, whom they tried to dress up as a Bold Personality: all show and no substance. You can be sure the crowd will be shouting ‘Ring-in!’ when this bill goes to the vote. Bold Personality will be nowhere to be seen. All we will see is the gelding that is left standing at the post.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to talk about the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 and the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006 in my role as a Nationals senator. My role as a Nationals senator is to ensure that rural and regional Australia is not disadvantaged and that the divide between our rural and regional communities and our urban cities is closed. I want to ensure that we have equality in services right across the board between the urban and rural areas.

There are a whole lot of issues at the moment that are important for those regional areas—issues like telecommunications, health, infrastructure, roads and, particularly at the moment, drought. When I first started considering the proposals put forward by the minister they were not of a top-of-mind order for me. Media reform was not necessarily something that I had closely looked at in the past as something that was important for regional areas, bearing in mind that there were all those other things that are very important for our regional communities. But I looked at them very closely, because the impact of those media reform bills on the regional communities was very important. In my role as a Nationals senator I had to ensure that the impact on those communities was not going to be negative.

At the outset I would like to commend the minister, Senator Coonan, for the degree of consultation that she provided right throughout this process. There is no doubt that these were incredibly complex bills. That complexity led to a great deal of consultation and many hours of members and senators looking through these bills.

Rural and regional communities in this country depend very much on localism. It is that local fabric in those communities that often leads to their success and their sustainability. It does not matter if it is schools, businesses, community groups or indeed media; the importance of that local content and that local flavour is vital for the sustainability of those regional communities. I know this is difficult to understand for people who have not lived and worked in those communities, but I know that senators in this place who do come from a regional area will understand exactly what I mean. Localism is the heart and soul of those communities. That is what makes regional and rural communities different from urban areas. We are different, and that local flavour is so very important in ensuring the sustainability of those communities.

They were a very complex set of bills, but there were a number of issues that I was aware of throughout. Some of those issues were more important to me that others. One thing I considered important was multichannelling for free-to-airs. As we are looking at the take-up of digital in this nation we need to have drivers in place to do that. I certainly saw that encouraging the greater use of multichannelling for free-to-airs, bringing that forward, was one way of doing that. I looked at it in the context of regional areas and looking at those regional areas where often there are a lot of people who cannot afford pay TV. Indeed, an extra channel through multichannelling would have given them greater diversity. I certainly took into account the minister’s views on that but I did state my case very strongly that multichannelling should be looked at in that context.

When we first looked at these bills, one of the components of the bills was that a proprietor should be able to own all three mediums of media in regional areas over four voices. What that meant was that where there was not a floor of four voices a single proprietor could come in and own the television, newspaper and radio stations in that region. Of course, in the metropolitan areas, that was a floor of five voices. My concern at the time, which still remains, is that there should never be too much concentration of media ownership in regional areas. As I said at the outset, I looked at these bills very much from my position as a Nationals senator and in terms of the impact that this was going to have on our regional communities. I strongly believe that too much concentration of media ownership would certainly have a negative impact on those rural and regional communities.

With that in mind I put forward very strongly, as did many of my Nationals colleagues, that the two out of three rule should apply in all regional areas. Many of our regional communities have five, six or even seven voices. It was particularly in these larger regional towns where any movement to one proprietor owning all three mediums in those towns would really have a negative impact on those communities. I did not want to see regional communities become subject to an environment where a proprietor with a particular view or particular bent may well be able to filter through all those three mediums. The people in our regional communities deserve to have a choice and they deserve to have diversity, which was why I pushed very strongly for the two out of three rule to apply in regional areas. I know my colleague in the other place, Paul Neville, was also very strong on this, as were many of our other colleagues. It was the right thing to do and the right thing to push for. I was of course extremely pleased to see the minister recognise that and agree to apply the two out of three rule for regional communities, because I see that as a safeguard for our regional communities so that they will not be subject to any form of greater concentration of ownership in those communities. It was the right thing to do and I commend the minister for the decision she has taken in this regard.

I would also like to talk about news provision in regional communities and how important that is for the people living there. As I said earlier, anybody living in a regional community would know how important local content is. Again, The Nationals were very strongly of the view that there should be a prescribed amount of local news that is run on community radios. We put forward our view that it should be 12½ minutes a day of local news to be broadcast at least five days a week, repeats of news bulletins were not to be counted in that and a minimum of five weather bulletins per week should be included.

I know that was not something the minister initially considered when she put forward her proposal, and again I commend her for the amount of time she spent listening to The Nationals’ concerns. She not only listened to The Nationals’ concerns; she understood what we were saying—and she recognised the importance of that local news to those local communities. I talk to people in regional communities all the time, and one thing I do hear, in spite of what some people may say, is that they want to have that local news. They do not want to hear news constantly coming through from metropolitan areas and hearing what is happening hundreds of kilometres away. They want to know about the people in their local town, their businesses, their events, what is happening to the people that they know, and it is vitally important to them. I am very pleased to see that this local news and weather requirement is in the amendments and that the minister has seen the benefit of what we were putting forward and has agreed to it.

Local content has obviously been an issue that has been discussed a great deal over recent weeks. I know there are some who believe that market forces should prevail and that any business running in a regional area will put forward what the market wants and, therefore, the right outcome will be achieved. I understand the principle of those views, but I do not agree with it. I live in a regional area, and I find that on some occasions there is a necessity for government to intervene to ensure rural and regional communities get the best service they possibly can, that they get the things they need and to make sure we bridge the divide between city and country.

While I take the point of those who would prefer not to see a prescribed amount of local content, of broadcasting live and local on our regional radio, I believe it was the right thing to do to have a prescribed amount in the legislation. To me, it seems sensible to look at it this way. If regional radio operators are already prescribing more than 4½ hours, which has become the agreed amount, then there should be no burden on them at all to comply, because there have been some who are saying it would be too onerous for radio stations to have to comply with a set amount.

I believe those radio stations that are already broadcasting a certain amount of live and local content will not find this a burden. Indeed, I commend those radio stations that are already operating in this manner. However, there are some stations where there are not enough live and local broadcasts, and that might be for a variety of reasons. We often see that in very small towns; very small operators do not have the capacity. We have said all the way along—and I have certainly said this—we are very open to a review. We do not want this to be onerous for operators; we do not want small operators to go out of business as a result of it. We are certainly very open to a review to ensure that that does not happen.

But where an operator can provide that live and local content through broadcast, and they are not doing it just because they choose not to for whatever reason, then that is where this provision will come in to safeguard our local communities. We have already seen enough of that local content disappear out of our regional communities and, quite frankly, I do not want to see any more disappear. And this requirement to me is a very sensible measure to have in place, to ensure that that local content is there for those regional communities. Again, along with many of my colleagues, including Paul Neville, I pushed very strongly for there to be a requirement in the legislation to do this.

There was quite a deal of opposition that this should not be in there, and I do commend the minister for coming up with a position that I believe will be in the best interests of regional Australians. She could very well have walked away from this and not done anything about it and said, ‘I’m not going to have any local content prescription in this,’ but she did not. She understood the concerns of The Nationals, she realises it is important to the people out there in the regions to have safeguards such as this. I look forward to the review, to seeing what that brings forward. But the point is The Nationals are making sure that there are safeguards in place to ensure there is no disadvantage to regional areas. There are those sitting on the other side of the chamber saying, with great glee, that we have sold out and a whole range of other things, but really and truly they should focus on the best interests of regional communities and not try to political point-score. What I am doing in my role is trying to ensure there is no disadvantage to regional communities.

We have seen a range of things looked at despite the complexity of these bills. My concerns were, and remain, that the two out of three rule is applied in regional areas, we have local news requirements of 12½ minutes and we have at least 4½ hours of prescribed local content in the legislation. Those three things that I required are all in the legislation. So for anybody to say that I have sold out on what I wanted, they obviously have not followed very closely what I was asking for in the best interests of regional Australia and to what was given.

To my mind, while they are very complex bills, the outcome that we have seen here with the amendments is in the best interests of rural and regional Australians. I will continue to watch very closely how these media reforms affect regional communities. I will certainly be watching very closely the outcome of the review as it applies to local content for our regional radio operators, but, as I say, at the end of the day my role is to make sure that I make the best decisions that I can in the interests of those rural and regional communities that I represent. I believe I have done that, and in my role here in this place I will continue to do so.

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the Australian Democrats have pointed out on numerous occasions, we do not oppose media industry reform. In fact, we strongly support the modernisation and improvement of statute and regulation with respect to media industry if this is coupled with greater competition and genuine diversity. In his speech on the second reading my colleague Senator Murray covered the important issues of concentration of media ownership, its impact on democracy and the need for greater competition and safeguards. I want to focus on the need for greater access to new technologies to provide the necessary diversity to protect our democracy and the failure of this package of bills in achieving this.

As we noted in our minority committee report, we recognise that technological and market changes that have taken place in the media and in technology over the last 10 years—at increasing speed, I might say, over the last five years—make it imperative that media law and regulation keeps pace with the market and technology and creates a sensible and effective forward-looking regulatory environment for the future. It is our view, however, that if we are to modernise media markets the government must pursue policies to increase diversity of views and voices as well as consumer choice. That means improving the use of and access to new technology, particularly digital and broadband, and ensuring open access to media content. As my colleague Senator Murray said:

Failure to protect diversity of viewpoints is a failure to protect the necessary public debate that makes our democracy function ...

Failure to provide access to new technology is a failure to protect diversity.

The government has argued that cross-media ownership reforms can now be relaxed because of access to new media forms and the internet, but we say the government has exaggerated the extent of the impact that the internet and so-called new media has and will have in the short term on credible information supply in contrast to traditional media. This is because the government has not supported the development of these technologies. In November 2005, a Roy Morgan poll found that 48 per cent of Australians have television as their main source of information, 22 per cent get their information from newspapers, 19 per cent access it from radio and only eight per cent get it 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.

Given this data, the Democrats believe there is a good case for arguing that cross-media laws should not be changed until full digitisation has been achieved, more spectrum is available to enable new entrants and the range of new services provided by new technology is more mature and utilised by more consumers. In this respect much more needs to be done. While we acknowledge that there are many aspects of the media package before the parliament that will go a long way towards modernising the media market and providing more consumer choice—such as access to multichannelling, additional digital channels and removing genre restrictions to the national broadcast—more could have been done. This package does not do enough to improve competition and diversity.

For example, there is no fourth television station. The digital reforms are too slow and do not go far enough, and there is nothing in this package to address the role of Telstra. Much of the technology for media delivery in the future—and that future, I think, is not very far away—will be on telecommunications platforms. That being the case, it is essential for telecommunications and media that we establish guaranteed affordable services available to all but the remotest Australians and enforced through legislated consumer service obligations. As we noted in our minority report, this media package fails to acknowledge the pivotal role of the telecommunications industry in the provision of media content and access in the future. This is a big hole that should have been addressed.

There is no mention of Telstra and how its privatisation feeds into this debate. In our view, it is not possible to debate media regulation or access and content in a vacuum that excludes telecommunications. You must also debate telecommunications infrastructure and access along with it. Competition has improved in the telecommunications markets over the years, especially in mobile phones, but Telstra, with its ownership of the copper network and hybrid fibre-coax cable—which, of course, is used for pay TV and broadband delivery—is still the dominant player in most other telecommunications markets. Telstra also owns a significant share in Foxtel, giving Telstra a potentially dominant position in the new media market.

In the 21st century, one of the most important delivery systems of media content is the internet, which is why telecommunications and media are absolutely intertwined. It provides access to the most diverse range of media content, but, of course, much of rural and regional Australia will miss out on this access because of the lack of telecommunications infrastructure to deliver high-speed broadband access.

Recently, telecommunications expert Paul Budde told Meet the Press that it is likely Telstra will only roll out fibre to the metropolitan areas, leaving rural areas in the lurch. I think it is a great pity that National Party senators have not pushed very hard on this issue since their constituents are so affected. In May this year the head of the ACCC, Graeme Samuel, told an audience:

Once the proportion of Australians connected to reliable, high speed broadband reaches a critical mass, new business models centred on the provision of new and innovative digital services could break down the barriers between traditional print, audio and audio-visual media silos.

Again, in August, Mr Samuel said:

Equipped with a high speed broadband internet connection, anyone in Australia can access the widest range of news, information, analysis and entertainment, including digital versions of traditional newsprint articles, radio broadcasts and television programs.

Clearly access to high-speed broadband will be critical if Australians are to benefit from new media markets that the government argues will deliver the diversity of views and voices.

The ACCC has also raised concerns about content. Mr Samuel in his August speech said:

As technology advances and take-up of broadband continues, how people access the content they desire, and at what speed, will increasingly be determined by the control of the telecommunications networks—the pipes—connecting homes and business.

As the pipes are increasingly able to deliver a wide range of content to consumers, the question of who controls the content, especially premium content such as sports and new release movies, will become a key question in assessing competition.

The ACCC also indicated that they want to ensure the technology bottlenecks are monitored closely so that they are not used to lock content competitors out of the marketplace. Some have speculated that the ACCC could try to limit Telstra’s ability to become a content provider while it owns and operates a dominant broadband network. The ACCC also raised concerns about Telstra buying exclusive rights to specific content like sporting events because of concerns that it will use exclusive content rights to reduce competition in the broadband and mobile telephone markets.

The issues raised by the ACCC have been largely ignored by the government, not only with respect to media reform but also with the sale of Telstra and telecommunications competition in general. When the sale of Telstra was negotiated by The Nationals, the media side of Telstra was totally neglected. I think that is a great pity. It is a shame that nobody reminded the National Party negotiators that telecommunications is the way to deliver media diversity in the 21st century. It is fine to talk about local news but people in country areas also need to be connected to the broader world.

In fact it is laughable that The Nationals are concerned about the impacts of media reforms on regional and rural areas when they sold off Telstra. If they had wanted to maintain media diversity, particularly in rural areas, they needed to keep telecommunications infrastructure in the hands of government. They voted not to do that, so there is no point, in our view, shouting about diversity now. It is rather too late for that.

The Democrats have argued time and time again that Telstra should at a minimum be forced to divest Foxtel and its HFC cable. This stance supports the ACCC’s view. It would open up more competition in the market. The ACCC has argued that Telstra, in protecting the revenue of both the copper wire and the HFC cable, would only invest in services that would cannibalise the revenue of the other network. Divesting Telstra of its cable would improve broadband competition and provide greater access to media technologies and content to all Australians, including those in the bush.

As I said earlier, the Democrats are also concerned that the digital reforms are too slow and do not go far enough. The government has on a number of occasions failed to meet the simulcast deadline, and we have serious doubts that this current package will deliver. The minister and her government were lobbied very hard by big media in the late 1990s to ensure that the digital spectrum would be used only for high-definition television rather than multichannelling and datacasting. The free-to-air TV channels, except for Channel 7, have continued to support high-definition TV as the appropriate use of spectrum space and have argued against multichannelling. The problem with high-definition television is that it takes up substantial spectrum space and leaves too little room for multichannelling and datacasting—or, to put it bluntly, more competition.

In 2004 the Seven Network commissioned a study of digital terrestrial television, known as DDT, by Spectrum Strategy Consultants, who are independent international consultants in media. That study pointed out that most mature television markets have multichannelling. More importantly, the consultants believed:

... if commercial free to air ... broadcasters resisted the market evolution in Australia it would be contrary to the interests of consumers and detrimental to the Australian broadcasting market.

The Democrats believe multichannelling would allow for diversity, it would allow for a relatively low entry cost into the media market, as would datacasting, and it would open the media market to niche competition.

Recently the Senate passed the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2005, which enabled a regional Western Australian television station to multichannel and be exempt from mandatory high-definition TV quotas. During his speech in the second reading debate on that bill, my colleague Senator Murray asked why this provision applied only to remote areas of Australia and why it cannot be enforced nationally and in the major metropolitan areas. He stated that it was possibly because the commercial television interests in large metropolitan areas have lobbied the government so long and so hard that it does not dare move a muscle or make an amendment that would in any way get its media allies offside. It is my understanding that this issue was the sticking point that almost prevented the package from being introduced into the parliament.

A recent House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Information Technology and the Arts report, Digital television: who’s buying it?, recommended that the program restrictions on multichannelling be removed no later than 2007. Clearly this recommendation has not transpired and not made its way into this package. The Democrats believe that the mandated high-definition TV quotas should be removed sooner than the end of the simulcast period in order to free up broadcasting spectrum for the other digital services and that all restrictions on multichannelling coincide with this date. It is our strong view that cross-media laws should not be changed until competition is improved. Telstra has been divested of its interest in Foxtel and the HFC cable—

Debate interrupted.