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

I just want to reiterate the Australian Democrats’ opposition to this set of media bills that we are dealing with. It is our very strong view that cross-media laws should not be changed until a number of things happen—including that competition is improved; that Telstra has been divested of its interest in Foxtel and the HFC cable; that full digitisation has been achieved, including having more available spectrum; and that the range of new services provided by technology is more mature and utilised by more customers. We are very concerned about many other aspects of the media ownership changes. We see very few benefits in them. We look forward to seeing what the amendments are that have been agreed to with the National Party; however, they are almost certain to have not resolved those matters which I have already raised in my speech in the second reading debate. (Quorum formed)

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also wish to speak on the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006, the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Enforcement Powers) Bill 2006 and the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 2006. The government’s media reforms encapsulated in these bills represent a significant step forward for the Australian media industry and Australian consumers. They address Labor’s media legacy that has artificially restricted the terms upon which media companies can compete and invest to serve the interests, needs and desires of consumers. For the last 20 years, Australia has had a set of media laws that act to significantly restrict how media markets and companies operate. The current laws are based on an outdated view of the world and an obsolete view of the Australian media and Australian consumers. They are based on a world without widespread internet access and use, a world without pay TV, a world with no prospect of digital radio, and a world where TV and video delivery by the internet had not been contemplated. The current media laws did not foresee or take into account the adoption and proliferation of 3G mobile phones, podcasts and vodcasts or the possibility of TV being delivered to mobile phones—otherwise known as DVB-H technology.

Clearly, when it comes to the Australian consumer and the Australian media, the world has moved on. The traditional media are experiencing competitive pressures from all angles. Few have been more passionate advocates for individual consumers and businesses being unshackled from regulation. If Australia truly aspires to maintain a vibrant media marketplace where consumer interests are served, if we truly aspire to ensure the viability and vibrancy of many diverse media players throughout Australia, we must unshackle the Australian media industry from regulation. We must unburden the Australian media to allow the flexibility necessary for them to best serve the Australian consumer.

Without these changes, the traditional media industry will continue to watch emerging platforms encroach on their traditional business. Amending ownership restrictions, as this bill provides, will allow the media market to operate more efficiently. These changes will benefit industry and consumers alike by permitting greater competition and economies of scale and scope. Those benefits will be dynamic and occur across a large sector of the economy. As with other reforms undertaken by this government, the benefits of reforming the media ownership restrictions are real. The removal of foreign ownership restrictions will allow foreign investors to enter the television and daily newspaper markets, thus providing greater opportunities for investment, new players and new services.

We already have the benefit of a clear and strong example of the benefits that foreign ownership can provide. Australia’s radio sector does not have foreign ownership restrictions. What is the result? The result is that Australia’s radio sector is significantly more diverse in its ownership than either television or newspapers, with two major foreign owners in the sector, APN and DMG. 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.

Clearly, any reform needs to protect diversity of ownership, but this can be done in a way that is much less restrictive than the current arrangements. Diversity is a principle in media ownership that everyone agrees is important and will continue to be protected. The five-four voices requirements and licence and reach limits will ensure appropriate diversity is maintained.

Current media ownership laws specifically regulate commercial radio and television and daily newspapers above other media because of their greater level of influence. This made sense in the context of 1987, when TV, radio and newspapers were virtually the only news media. As I stated earlier, since Australia’s current media laws were designed and enacted, Australian media and Australian consumers have moved on—and moved on at a rapid pace. While TV, radio and daily newspapers remain highly influential, they are no longer the sole source of news and information. Online news and information has emerged as a powerful influence challenging the traditional dominance of the ‘old media’. A regulatory framework that assumes that radio, television and newspapers are the only sources of information will become hopelessly outdated and ineffective, if it is not already, and ultimately this will be to the detriment of services and consumers alike.

In addition to the benefits that media ownership reform will bring, this package also opens up significant opportunities for new services. There will be two channels of currently unallocated spectrum made available for new in-home and other services, such as mobile television. The national broadcasters will be able to provide a broader range of content on their multichannels. The free-to-air broadcasters will be permitted to provide a high-definition multichannel from next year and an SD multichannel from 2009.

Once we reach switchover and a significant amount of additional spectrum is freed up, even more opportunities for more new services will emerge. Contrary to the naysayers, these bills form 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. It is clear to the government and to industry that the media landscape is changing rapidly, and a flexible system is needed to allow media companies to adapt and prosper in a new digital environment. A far-sighted approach is needed to meet the needs of consumers now and to provide for the benefits of new technology into the future.

The government’s media package will open up opportunities for a range of innovative new services for consumers while maintaining the existing services that the community already rely on and enjoy, including quality free-to-air television services. The proposed reforms will enable existing players to make the most of emerging digital technologies and give them the flexibility to structure their businesses to be globally competitive media companies. But, most importantly, consumers will be the biggest winners, with access to a range of new services, potentially including several new digital channels, and with even more to come in the 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. The government recognises the keen interest of many Australians in continuing to have free access to major sporting events that have traditionally been shown on free-to-air television.

Let me deal briefly with the government’s amendments to the bills. As an additional safeguard against undue media concentration, the government will amend the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 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 only be permitted between two of the three regulated platforms in a licence area—commercial TV, commercial radio and associated newspapers. In other words, this rule will prevent three-way mergers between commercial TV and commercial radio and an associated newspaper in a licence area. This amendment adopts a recommendation of the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts 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.

Industry will still benefit from the increased flexibility that relaxation of the cross-media ownership laws will bring. Consumers can be confident that diversity will continue to be protected through the range of safeguards the government is including in the bill. 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 licences, from a specified date, a requirement for at least 4.5 hours of local content each day. This will be similar to the 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 licences and how the 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 were no adjustment, the level specified in the act would remain.

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 to be broadcast on at least five days per week—repeats of news bulletins will not count towards the minimum number; a minimum of five weather bulletins per week; and regional commercial radio licensees who have a local content plan, or LCP, in force will be required to report annually to ACMA on their compliance with the LCP. 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.

The Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts report 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 holders of the channel B licence for access by content service providers. The criteria will be a legislative instrument.

A person wishing to bid for the channel B licence will be required to submit an access undertaking 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 will transfer 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 channel B to offer some exclusive services to its customers if it wishes to do so, and if it fits their business model, and ensuring that other content providers will have the ability to seek access to the services on clear terms.

The government’s reforms have been the subject of lengthy and widespread consultation within government, industry, the community at large and other interested stakeholders. The media landscape is changing rapidly and a flexible system is needed to allow media companies to adapt and prosper in the new digital environment. A far-sighted approach is needed to meet the needs of consumers now and to provide the benefits of new technology into the future. At the heart of the package are new services and programming for consumers. These reforms will enable existing players to make the most of emerging digital media technologies and give them the flexibility to structure their businesses to be globally competitive media companies. The package will allow a better competitive environment and encourage new entrants into the media market, offering diversity and choice to consumers, which is a common thrust of the entire package.

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 Australia. The Trade Practices Act 1974 will continue to apply to media transactions, and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will play a critical role in assessing competition issues associated with mergers. Separate from the protection of competition, ACMA will oversee the safeguards to ensure diversity and local content, including ensuring that transactions comply with the ‘minimum number of media groups’ requirements and that broadcasters comply with their 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. This includes ABC services, which include two digital TV channels, up to five radio stations—Radio National, News Radio, Local Radio, Classic FM and Triple J—and comprehensive online services; SBS’s comprehensive television, radio and online services; subscription television; community radio and television; out-of-area and national newspapers; and the myriad services available over the internet. This government is committed to ensuring that all Australians, not just those in metropolitan areas, benefit from these reforms.

In contrast to the government’s clear plan, Labor has no real policies on broadcasting and did nothing while in government to prepare for the introduction of digital. The Labor Party clings to outmoded models for the industry which will ultimately damage the Australian media industry and provide absolutely nothing new or innovative for consumers.

The coalition has led the way in continuing to ensure 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 to participate in the broadcasting sector.

In relation to the antisiphoning list, the Labor Party fails to understand its practicalities or the delicate balance which the government strikes to ensure that 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 on pay television a wide range of Socceroos and A-league domestic matches is a case in point. This deal secured the long-term financial stability of the game in Australia and will mean a significant package of matches will be available to Australian supporters 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.

The opposition maintains an outdated and ‘mogul specific’ approach to media ownership laws which would restrict investment and expansion of the Australian media sector and favour foreign investment over diversified investment by Australian investors. The cross-media rules are almost 20 years old, and while the opposition may be nostalgic for the old Labor days of the princes of print and the queens of the screen they have obviously missed a few technological turns of the wheel.

During the election campaign, Labor said its policies would maximise Australian investment and employment in the media sector. But Labor supports retention of the cross-media ownership laws while relaxing 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 home-grown Australian media companies from competing? Clearly, Labor’s idea of preventing excessive concentration of media ownership in Australia is to allow only foreign companies to contribute to diversity. As usual, I find it hard to make sense of Labor’s policies on this issue.

Labor knows our current laws are anachronistic, and for years, almost decades, has been promising with varying degrees of convincingness to make the hard decisions on media reform. But, when it comes to the crunch, Labor folds. When Labor’s laws on cross-media and foreign ownership were first conceived in the late 1980s, there was no digital TV or broadband cable. There was no understanding of the potential for the internet—only a few techno geniuses actually knew what it was and how to use it.

Labor have chopped and changed over the last few years on their position on media reform. They do not deny it is necessary, but they have no plans for how to achieve it. Torn between the left and right factions—the former, who would fully regulate the media, and the latter, who may set it free—Labor are conflicted, without genuine ideas on media reform. The Labor Party have not been able to hold a consistent line on media and communications reform from Lateline to lunch or from breakfast to brunch, to borrow a recently popularised phrase. (Time expired)

George Campbell (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I should apologise to Senator Joyce before I start my contribution to this debate; I chased his cheer squad away by intervening and taking my position on the speaking list. You can tell Senator Nash to come back in about 10 or 15 minutes, Senator Joyce, and she can listen to your debate then.

The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 and related legislation present yet another ill-thought-out policy that will be rammed through this place without any concern about its impact on the Australian people. Prime Minister John Howard himself has said in the past few days that these reforms are not top priority for the government, they are not top of the agenda and he can take them or leave them. If that is true, why are we seeing such policy on the fly? That is exactly what it is—policy on the run, on the fly. Some people may be more unkind and say that this is a fly policy.

On Monday the debate was on, then it was off. Then yesterday it was on, then off and then back on. Since Monday we have been held in a state of animated suspension, wondering when we were going to get to have a sensible debate about these issues.

Whether we like it or not, we are here to debate some of the biggest media ownership changes that this country has ever seen, yet the government made a deal only yesterday afternoon to secure the passage of this legislation. The deal was not made with the opposition. The deal was not made with the media industry. The government did not reach an accommodation with the media industry. The deal was made with the National Party. The deal to secure the passage of this legislation through the chamber was made with three or four senators from the National Party. And that is why we are debating this legislation now—not because of extensive research about the media and content in Australia. Rather, it was a research exercise into what The Nationals would stomach in terms of media reform.

I heard Senator Nash’s speech last night. I sat and listened to her contribution for 20 minutes and I was amazed. I did not think it took 20 minutes to apologise to your constituents for selling them out. But she took the full 20 minutes to tell her constituents that she was sorry, that she had sold them out, but that it really was for the greater good. I do not know whether there is a female ‘Wacker’ hanging around New South Wales who may be going to give Senator Nash a bit of a touch-up in the next preselection battle in that state, but she certainly took great pains to apologise to her constituents for her sell-out on this bill. I look forward with interest to hearing Senator Joyce’s contribution today to see just how far he has gone along the road of selling out his colleagues in Queensland on this media issue.

And what is it that The Nationals were prepared to stomach to support this legislation? It was 12½ minutes of local news a day on local radio. And what guarantee exists to ensure that that 12.5 minutes of daily news content cannot be produced centrally and simply ripped and read? None—absolutely none. It can be produced anywhere in the country.

I want to draw senators’ attention to a word that has been noticeably absent on the other side of the chamber during this debate. It is a word we have consistently had rammed down our throats in many debates in this chamber, and that is the word ‘choice’. Remember the debates about superannuation and the need for choice? ‘People should have the right of choice.’ Do you remember the debates about industrial relations? ‘People should have the right of choice—they should be able to choose an AWA; they should be able to choose a collective agreement; that should be their right.’ And the people on the other side of this chamber are constantly, in debates in this place, ramming down our throats: ‘You are the party that wants to dictate a uniform approach to everything for everybody. We are the party who is prepared to give individuals choice.’

Isn’t it interesting that in this debate the issue of choice is glaringly absent? And it is not coincidental, because if the government could use it they would. But they cannot. That is because this bill removes choice—something that the government have always claimed to champion. The bill will remove choice, particularly from regional and rural Australia in terms of the extent of diversity they are able to get in the news that is presented to them.

The reality is that these changes will have significant impacts on the quality and content of local news, particularly in regional Australia. While limiting choice of media sources might not matter to the government—who have the luxury of accessing national media, thanks to the taxpayer—it does matter and it matters to the people of Australia.

The internet—in response to Senator Parry’s comments—is not an adequate reason to dismantle an effective regime of cross-media laws. Are other senators convinced that it is all going to be okay because we can download videos from YouTube? I am certainly not. Let us be clear about this: the internet is not a replacement for real local content or genuine local media diversity. Being able to read the New York Times does not equate to local media diversity. Convergence is no good reason to water down protection.

There is no evidence to suggest that the internet is increasing diversity of news. The existing major media players completely dominate the market for online news, with something like 84 per cent of hits on news sites occurring on major media players’ websites. The content remains the same; only the way it is accessed is different. This is not a recipe for diversity—it is a recipe for more of the same. A majority of Australians are able to gain access to the internet. However, those who cannot will be further disadvantaged by these laws. Some cannot afford a computer or internet access, while others in regional areas, as we know, often have trouble getting the internet, especially high-speed broadband. These are the people who will be most disadvantaged.

Let us look at local radio content. In any given market, one player could potentially own two out of three outlets while another outlet might be a pop music radio station. This means that editorial coverage could still, in effect, be dominated completely by one player—never mind the ludicrous situation where a local music radio station is treated the same as talk radio, a newspaper or a TV station; each counts equally as a competing voice in the market. And now one proprietor can own only two of the three media types in a market—newspaper, radio or television. But I could be in a position where the two outlets’ editorial content were essentially the same and where that was the only editorial content available to my community. In fact, competition is narrowed as a result of this process.

Already we have issues with local media diversity and already local communities struggle to get news that is relevant to them. People will not be able to exercise choice in the market and reward providers of genuine local content because there will not be any. For this reason I find the comments made yesterday by Senator Ian Macdonald, senator for Queensland, ridiculous. He said:

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.

Well, I am sorry, Senator Macdonald—it will not be that simple. People in rural areas will not have the luxury of turning off just because they do not like it. They will have no choice of news sources or opinion by turning off the offending station. What will they be left with in those circumstances? Nothing. They will be left with no information if they take Senator Macdonald’s course of action. Regional people will be further isolated from their local community and from the rest of the country. The senator last night told regional Australia that they could like it or lump it. That is unacceptable and it does show disregard for people in regional Australia.

So where are the benefits to ordinary Australians here? Where is the community interest? Ordinary people are not desperately hoping that media moguls can go on a regional media shopping spree. We do not see any clamour from regional Australia to get Fairfax, PBL or News Ltd to come and buy up their local newspapers, radio stations or TV stations. Ordinary people are not hoping for the number of competing voices in their media markets to be halved. This is a government that is yet again pursuing the interests of the elites and the plutocracy over that of ordinary people and local communities.

Senators who saw the Media Watch report a couple of weeks ago which looked at regional media would have seen what I am talking about. Take, for example, the town of Griffith, which used to have its own bulletin on WIN TV. Now it has an amalgamated Riverina bulletin put together from Wollongong and then put out from 500 kilometres away. There is no competing local TV station, so the citizens of Griffith have no stick to wield in the market to punish this, no matter how annoyed they are. And believe me, they are annoyed. Take Mayor Dino Zappacosta’s comments to Media Watch as proof:

The incorporation of Griffith news into a bulletin that encompasses Albury, Wagga Wagga and surrounding regions has already impacted on the community and its identity.

The isolation of Griffith and towns surrounding the city, including Hay and Leeton, means that the local news broadcast provided local information for local people at a local level.

It provided cohesiveness in the community, which engaged all residents including minority and disadvantaged groups.

With the transfer of news and production facilities to Wollongong, there has not only been a loss in local information but a loss of up to nine jobs in the city.

It is estimated the drop in local news content exceeds 50 per cent, with an average of two Griffith news stories broadcast in the bulletin.

                 …         …           …

Griffith City Council and Griffith businesses have been staunch supporters of WIN-TV and the community has been angered by what appears to be a blatant disregard for that support.

That was Councillor Dino Zappacosta’s statement to Media Watch. This will only get worse. The situation in Griffith is going to be repeated across regional and rural Australia. It will get worse under this new regime. This is a problem that we have already, which will only be made worse as we cut down the diversity of sources. Matthew Ricketson, in the Age, said:

The ability to buy two of the three media forms can still lead to mega-media companies and, as far as I can see, does not prevent many, if any, of the major deals that bankers and media executives have been snooping around.

These deals include the possibility that if the proposed amendments were passed, Publishing and Broadcasting Ltd, controlled by James Packer, could buy John Fairfax Holdings, owner of The Age. Or that Rupert Murdoch’s News Limited, Australia’s biggest publisher of newspapers, could buy a TV network, such as Ten.

People will be left with less choice and fewer options to turn to. These changes continue this government’s attack on media diversity.

Let us look at the ABC. Over the past 10 years this government has constantly criticised its ABC, claiming that it has left-wing bias. We have been treated, at estimates hearings, to government senators, Senator Santoro and Senator Fierravanti-Wells, who have come along with tomes of information about where the ABC has shown particular bias. They spend hours reading through transcripts from radio stations all round the country who use this word or that word to describe the government, which they say was a bias against the government. And what has been the government’s answer? It has been to stack the board of the ABC with as many of its avid supporters as possible. You could not find a board in this country, even of major corporates, with as conservative a group of people running the show as you now have with our ABC—the hope being that ABC content will be shaped according to this government’s agenda, rather than being shaped by independent investigation, reason, research and thought.

In fact, what this government is seeking to achieve with the ABC is to make it a propaganda arm of the government in the same way that News Ltd in the United States during the Gulf War became the propaganda arm of the Bush government. It did not produce news on its nightly bulletins; it produced propaganda, and it was blatantly exposed by media watchers in the United States during that period. The government would not be attacking media outlets such as the ABC, and it would not spend $55 million advertising its industrial relations reforms if it did not think that public opinion was important to monitor and influence.

Should a dominant media company take a certain point of view, it will now have the means to control or limit the extent of what is perceived as popular opinion or the correct side or thought on certain issues. These changes are not healthy for diverse public opinion and in turn are not healthy for democracy; they are not healthy for regional Australia and they are not healthy for the Australian people. I urge the chamber to reject the bill.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I shall not speak for too long today as I have just been relieved of one of the teeth in my head. Probably some would say that is a great outcome! The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006, the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006, the Communications Legislation Amendment (Enforcement Powers) Bill 2006 and the Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 2006 are terribly important for our nation. What is the fundamental thing we are trying to protect here? We are trying to protect the nation from this outcome: that, in 10 years time, the real power would be controlled by a couple of media houses. If that were to happen then we would have really usurped the operation of this parliament. This parliament would turn into a quaint place where a lot of people would run around frantically but the real power would actually be held somewhere else.

The United States had to deal with this issue. That is why good Republican senators such as Teddy Roosevelt and Taft brought in the Claytons Antitrust Act and the Sherman Antitrust Act on either end of the 1900s—because of the threat that a corporate body would rise to such an extent that it would challenge the powers of the parliament. That is the underlying fear within the National Party we have been trying to protect against—the evolving of an organisation that would challenge the role of the parliament, and the media is the place where that organisation is the most likely to evolve.

We heard interesting analogies through the committee process. I remember reading one which mentioned the hierarchy of bribery claims in Chile. The largest bribes did not go to politicians or police; they went to media outlets. If you really want to control the place, the media is where you do it. In the Senate we reflect the aspirations of the people, and the media are the gatekeepers of what goes out and what comes back and how we are perceived. Therefore, they have inordinate power in society, which means they have a very special spot that we have to be extremely concerned about.

The suggestion has been put that this is not something where we should rock the boat too much, but I disagree with that firmly. This is absolutely an issue where we have the utmost responsibility to preserve the freedom that is in our nation and the gatekeeper of the freedom of our nation is the media. We have a building nearby called the War Memorial, which is a clear sign of those who have made the supreme sacrifice in protecting the freedom of our nation. In this place we must be ever mindful of that; otherwise we will have to build a building out the back for the ones who have let the show down. This is why this legislation is so important. We have already heard that it has been in animated suspension. There is a reason for that: there was concern in the Senate about issues in regard to this.

In the National Party we have had this concern right from the start in a resolution from state management. We tried our best to pursue those concerns through the Senate committee process and to finally get amendments to this legislation. The two out of three rule is a result of that work—the two out of three rule in regional areas which has become the two out of three rule in metropolitan areas. That is a great outcome. It has started to put some controls on where the media is. The local content rules is another outcome that the National Party has brought into this parliament. So, the protection of the media not only in metropolitan areas but in regional areas, the local content rules, the issues about channel B, the increased powers of the ACMA and the ATT are the issues that the National Party can claim responsibility for by being some sort of guardian of the passage of this legislation, to protect the democratic process in this nation.

If there were not a National Party, without a shadow of a doubt these protections would not exist. There would not be the safety valve in conservative politics to bring about these results. That shows clearly to the Australian people that, rather than our being shoe-holed in some rural constituency, there is a relevance to the National Party being in the Senate. The day the National Party is removed from the Senate will be a bad outcome for democracy. We will have everybody on the other side signing a pledge that they will always obey their masters in Sussex Street, we will have the inherent development of a loss of capacity to hold diverse views in the Senate and we will have a bipolar world. A piece of legislation like this would go straight through without the National Party standing up and fighting for democracy, as has happened with this legislation.

There are still issues that need to be looked at. I agree that there must be tighter controls on what a voice is. In the National Party we are not belligerent; we listen to everybody. We try to truly reflect views in the Senate, as we are supposed to, and be an open chamber that takes on board varying opinions, and not be like the other place, some bastion of tribalism. Hopefully, in this chamber we rise above that somewhat. When you sign a pledge that you are always going to follow your caucus leader, of course, you cannot. You usurp the democratic right of all the people who voted for you. They do not have the right to have access to your caucus leader; only you have that right. That means the caucus leader in Sussex Street starts telling the Australian nation what to do and that is what is inherently wrong about a Labor Party senator.

I believe we should have a tighter control on what a voice is. I do not believe that a media outlet that predominantly plays music or shows the races can be called the voice, so much so that I am prepared to back myself in and, if required to vote with that amendment on whichever side of the Senate it is moved, I will do that, unlike the people of the Labor Party. You do not have that right. The day you do that in the Labor Party, you are kicked straight out, because you are not a free enterprise. You are a totalitarian regime, run from Sussex Street, and that is why you never have the numbers to have a majority in both houses. You will never be given it again in our nation. It will never happen because you aspire to that totalitarian control—

Ross Lightfoot (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Joyce, direct your remarks to the chair.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

which, Mr Acting Deputy President, is anathema to what this Senate is. I believe we should have a tighter voice test and we will try to bring that about. I believe that the related entity test should be tightened up. We have a related entity test in the tax act which is very clear, very precise and works very well. That related entity test should be in this piece of legislation. I know we have an associated entity test but I feel it could be strengthened to have greater effect. And we must make sure that the ABC remains a vibrant voice—it is terribly important—and SBS, for that matter.

But there has been a great win for the National Party in the deal that it has made. Without a shadow of a doubt, a person walking down the street, not only in St George but in Sydney, has to realise that the reason they are getting two out of three is that there is a party in this nation called the National Party. They also have to understand—especially someone who is a journalist out there in Cowra today—that they still have a job, because there is a local content plan. Who got that? The National Party got it. And Mr Samuels will know that he is about to get new, increased powers to deal with mergers and acquisitions in the media market. Why is that coming about? It is because the National Party brought it about, and we are going to have a review of channel B so that it cannot create a monopoly in the channel B licence. Why is that happening? It is happening because of the access regime that the National Party brought about. That is the effect of what this party does. We are few in numbers and we collect the ire and the bile of people from all sides of politics, but we stick to our guns, because if we did not do that the democratic process in this nation would be changed forever.

With due respect, you never see the Greens break up on a vote; you never see them cross the floor. They always vote as a block. In fact, it is a dynamic that has been lost from this place, and one which detracts from our democratic process. But there is always acknowledgement that this party will do it—

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

Mr Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: I appreciate that Senator Joyce cannot bring himself to talk about the bill because of what he is doing.

The Acting Deputy President:

What is your point of order?

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

My point of order is on relevance. How the Greens vote as a block is not really relevant to the debate as it stands at the moment, and I ask that you draw him back to the bill.

The Acting Deputy President:

There is no point of order.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is totally relevant because we are showing the dynamics of the votes. I have stated before that I have a bit of a concern that we might have an Oilcode set-up here. We may actually see all the Labor Party cross the floor to make effective amendments. We might have calls from the major oil companies to say, ‘You’ve got to stand in line today.’ They might do that; you have to keep your eye on them. You never know when the whole of the Labor Party will cross the floor and vote with the government. It is a bit of a problem; you have to watch out for them.

But, today, we have a chance of getting tighter controls. We are still looking for tighter controls on voice and the related entity test. I am prepared to do that, because I believe in my obligation to my state in Queensland to try to get the best possible outcome and, if that involves going over there to vote, then I will do that. I am trying to do it because it is best for my state. It is why we are in this place; we are supposed to represent our state, not a political party, but that is a debate for another day.

We have now got to the position where what the National Party has attained would mean voting against the hard work we have put into this. That hard work has been put in by a whole range of people. Right from the word ‘go’, when we started with this resolution at the state conference in Queensland through to here in this place, Paul Neville has been an absolute workhorse. He is an absolutely passionate believer in protecting our democratic process. I would like to acknowledge the work that Mr Neville has done, because, without that sort of assistance, it would have been much harder. It is a very complicated piece of legislation, and I have had my suspicions through the process of this debate as to why we have not seen more of this discussion in the media, from the fourth estate. Why it has not been front-page news on some of the major papers has been a concern. In fact, it raises suspicions as to why we must keep a control on the diversity of opinions. If we get it wrong, it will be one of the most fundamental changes to our democratic processes you could ever have.

I also believe that the statement that the ACCC in its current form has the ability to be the arbiter of voice, the arbiter of opinion in the public field, is an absolute load of rubbish. You cannot possibly do that; that is impossible. The ACCC and the Trade Practices Act have been set up for the purpose of dealing with goods and services; it is not there to look after opinion. That is why we have to go through the mechanism of putting some benchmarks in this legislation for that role. I look forward to the day when we strengthen the role of the ACCC and strengthen the Trade Practices Act so that we do not have predatory pricing laws that allow one media organisation to cut advertising to the bone and put other papers out of business. I look forward to the day we bring in a stronger section 46, but that is a debate for another day and for another piece of legislation. Unfortunately, all we can deal with in this legislation are the issues before us now.

I look forward to this issue going to committee, because there are still changes that could be made to make it better. A tightening of the voice test would be a true acknowledgement that you will not get an investigative journalism program on a music station.

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

Red Hot Chili Peppers.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not think the Red Hot Chili Peppers or the Pussycat Dolls will put any government out of business, so I do not think we should count them as a voice. It is a bit strange to say that a program that plays predominantly music can be determined to be a voice. People will say, ‘Lots of people listen to that.’ They listen to it but they do not form their opinions from it. The 20 per cent of the people of this nation who are extremely dangerous because they change their vote will not be guided by the inspiration of the Pussycat Dolls. We have to make sure that we protect the voices that do change the aspirations, the inspirations and the opinions of our nation.

For that purpose, a voice should not be a media outlet that is predominantly a music channel—or a racing channel. Who wins race 5 at Dapto does not change the result of an election. The name of the red-hot runner at Randwick is not going to affect the governance of our nation, so that sort of channel should not be determined to be a voice; it should be knocked out. Of course, reducing the number of voices reduces the capacity of people in a market to merge. Obviously, things start falling below the five- and the four-level test. So there are ramifications, and that is why the voices test needs to be tightened up, and that is why the related entities test needs to be tightened up. The related entities test in the tax act, by way of a continual amendment process, is a vital piece of legislation. If something similar were incorporated in this legislation, it would give transparency as to who owns what.

I am prepared to vote for such amendments. Unfortunately, having regard to the dynamics of our democratic process, inspiring others to do the same can be difficult. However, on this side we have not fallen so far as to start signing pledges as to which way we are going to vote. It is good that at this point in time we on this side still do not sign pledges saying, ‘You will usurp your democratic duty for the sake of a caucus.’

The debate will go on for a number of days. I look forward to the involvement of others in the debate. I look forward to the committee stage. All in all, I feel that the National Party has carved out a whole swathe of issues that are completely and utterly different from the position when we started. We can go right back to its inception—to a resolution at a Queensland state conference—and follow it from there.

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

I welcome Senator Joyce’s contribution. I do not agree with everything he said, but I welcome it. However, I must comment on a couple of points that he made. It was not the leader of the Labor Party who stood up in his party room yesterday and demanded, right there, right then, ‘Sign up or else.’ It was not Kim Beazley who did that. It was not Kim Beazley who forced, with no debate, a decision to be made right there and right then. It was not Kim Beazley who gave his party room the bum’s rush yesterday and locked people in. It was not Kim Beazley—

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

Order! I am not sure that ‘bum’s rush’ is parliamentary.

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

If that is unparliamentary, I withdraw it and I apologise. I didn’t think it would be but I happily withdraw.

Amanda Vanstone (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, for the record, I am not personally offended by that language at all; it is water off a duck’s back. But in the Senate chamber it is perhaps inappropriate. That is my point.

The Acting Deputy President:

It has been withdrawn, Senator.

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

I accept that, and withdraw. It was not the Labor Party which passed a resolution at its Queensland conference which was considered to be binding on Queensland National Party members. So when it comes to who stands over people, it is quite clear in this debate what has gone on. Senator Joyce and Senator Nash signed a dissenting report, and they have talked a great fight. But it will catch up with you, Senator Joyce, because at some point someone is going to work out that the speech was great, but why on earth, after giving that speech, did you vote the other way?

We will be voting with you on the voices test, because that is at the heart of this debate. But once we are defeated, as is likely, Senator Joyce, when you then vote not to excise the cross-media laws and to allow the very voices test you say is not good enough, so that the Pussycat Dolls and the Red Hot Chili Peppers get to count the same as the Packer and the Murdoch empires, you will not be able to show people your speech.

There was a famous Labor Party person who used to come to the ALP national executive meetings and give passionate speeches against the outrages of the New South Wales Right. He would go home to Tasmania and say, ‘God, you should have heard the speech I gave.’ People would say, ‘How did you vote?’ ‘Oh no, I voted for it.’ He became a laughing stock pretty quickly. I have to tell you, Senator Joyce, that it will be hard for you to keep giving these great speeches and writing these great dissenting reports and then turn around and vote the other way. Credibility in politics is important, too. Maybe the media, because you are ultimately delivering them what they want, will not highlight it too much, but I know that the people of Queensland are pretty smart. They can smell a rat when one runs across their path, and you cannot say on the one hand that a voices test that allows the Red Hot Chili Peppers and the Pussycat Dolls to counterbalance the Packers and the Murdochs is a terrible thing and then on the other hand vote for it. You actually have to stand up and be counted sometimes. What is at stake, as you said, is to ensure that no organisation ends up being more powerful than the Parliament of Australia.

The government likes to call the measures in the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 and related bills its ‘media reform package’. However, when you look at the measures in detail, it is clear that this label just does not fit. It is a case of misleading advertising. Sure, the bills concern the media, and there are four of them so it is a package. But the word ‘reform’ cannot be applied to what the government has put forward. I suppose this is just another application of the two out of three rule that we have heard so much about, and that apparently, according to Senator Joyce, is the saviour of democracy. The government’s media ownership bill will reduce media diversity, it will reduce competition and it will reduce consumer choice. Where is the reform in that? Where is the reform in measures that give even more power to some of the most powerful people in the country?

Let us not misunderstand Prime Minister Howard when he says, ‘I’m not really fussed about this legislation.’ Let us be clear: this is his third attempt in the last 10 years for a bill he does not care about. Let us not be fooled by the Prime Minister pretending that it is not a priority for him. As soon as the government got its way, it was going to force it through the Senate at any and all costs. The government knows that it is hard to sell increased media concentration as good public policy. The Prime Minister has twice tried before to get the parliament to swallow this bitter pill. Sensibly, these proposals were rejected. This time around he has tried a different approach. This time around he has tried to sugar-coat the plan to repeal the cross-media laws by trying to link it to new digital television services. In truth, the Senate should realise that there is no connection between the two. Australia does not need to sacrifice media diversity in order to enjoy the benefits of the digital age. This is a package that looks after the interests of media moguls, not media consumers.

Before I get to the detail of the legislation and its flaws, some comment has to be made about the process that has preceded this debate today because it says so much about the government’s attitude to media reform. The media package that we are debating today has been under development by the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts for more than 12 months. Countless meetings have been held with representatives of the big media companies. The government has been very keen to come up with a package that balances their commercial interests. Regrettably, the public and the parliament have not received the benefit of a similar courtesy.

As we saw last year in the debates on the sale of Telstra and industrial relations, this is a government that pays mere lip service to notions of Senate scrutiny and public accountability. The minister dictated that the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts would have just three weeks to conduct its inquiry into the legislation. Members of the public were given just over a week to scrutinise four bills. Key elements of the government’s legislation were not even released to the public. It was not until four o’clock yesterday that we finally saw the amendments containing the rules governing the new digital channels, the so-called channels A and B. The committee hearings were a complete farce. The committee was forced to cram more than 30 witnesses into just two days of hearings.

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

That was to meet your convenience because you were unavailable.

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

Order!

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

I appreciate your pointing out that Senator Brandis is out of order, Mr Acting Deputy President, but I want to put this on the record because I keep hearing this complete untruth, this complete misleading of the Australian public: I was unavailable for one day only; Senator Ian Macdonald was unavailable for another two days. Let us be clear: there was no need for this committee to be rammed through in two days, no need whatsoever.

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

The schedule was to meet the convenience of senators, including you.

The Acting Deputy President:

Order, Senator Brandis. You will get your opportunity to speak next.

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

Senator Helen Coonan announced the committee hearing completion date in a press release prior to the committee even holding a meeting to discuss it. You can hide, you can run, but that is the truth. The minister dictated to members of the coalition on that committee when the bill had to be finished being considered by the committee, so do not try to pretend that people’s calendars were not completely moved around to suit the government senators. Minister Helen Coonan announced the date that the inquiry would have to be finished—unprecedented, Senator Brandis. I have never in my 10 years in this place seen a minister announce the completion date of an inquiry. That is actually the purview of the Senate and the committee process.

This debauched process has continued. Opposition senators were given just on 10 minutes to question most witnesses. Witnesses who sat down to address the committee were instructed by the chair that they could speak for no more than five minutes. Nearly 100 pages of amendments and explanatory material have already rained down on the Senate as the government has sought to fix drafting errors and appease the concerns of dissidents in its party room. The Senate will not be given time to properly scrutinise these changes, as the government wants to ram the bills through this week. This is the disgraceful way the Howard government makes law. We should not be surprised when such an approach produces poor policy.

I will now turn to the bills in detail. Despite claims to the contrary, it is quite clear that the centrepiece of this package is the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006. The bill makes two key changes to the media ownership law. Firstly, it repeals the specific foreign ownership provisions in the BSA that relate to commercial and subscription television. Secondly, it repeals the current cross-media laws and inserts new provisions which are described as diversity safeguards.

Labor’s approach to the issue of media ownership is based on the principle that regulation should promote the free expression of a diverse range of views. There is no doubt that free and open discussion of ideas and opinions is the lifeblood of democracy. Consistent with this principle, Labor supports changes to the foreign ownership rules that are contained in the bill. This is a position that we have held since 2002. There is already substantial foreign investment in the Australian media—in radio, newspapers and television. Foreign investment offers the potential to introduce new players into the market and increase media diversity.

Labor does not believe that the restrictions on foreign ownership in the Broadcasting Services Act are justifiable in the public interest. In contrast, the case for the cross-media laws which restricts media companies to owning newspapers or radio or television assets in any one market remains as valid today as it did in 1987, when the laws were first introduced. In its landmark report in 2000, the Productivity Commission spelt out clearly why diversity of ownership is so important in a democracy. The Productivity Commission stated:

The likelihood that a proprietor’s business and editorial interests will influence the content and opinion of their media outlets is of major significance.

The public interest in ensuring diversity of information and opinion leads to a strong preference for more media proprietors rather than fewer. This is particularly important given the wide business interests of some media proprietors.

Anyone who thinks that ownership of the media does not matter should have a look at a survey of journalists conducted by Roy Morgan and Crikey earlier this year. Some 48 per cent of those surveyed said they have felt obliged to take into account the commercial position of their employer. Thirty-eight per cent said that they had been instructed to toe the commercial line of their employer, 32 per cent said they felt obliged to take into account their employer’s political position and 16 per cent said they had been instructed to do so. These figures demonstrate conclusively why maintaining a diversity of ownership is so fundamental and why the media ownership bill is such a threat to Australian democracy. Of course the government says that it understands the need to protect diversity. It claims that its package has safeguards to prevent excessive concentration. In truth, these safeguards are completely inadequate.

The first alleged safeguard is the five-four voices test. Under this test a media merger will not be allowed to occur unless there will remain a minimum of five media voices in metropolitan markets and four in regional Australia. For the purposes of this test, a voice is a commercial television licence, a commercial radio licence or a newspaper that is sold in the relevant area at least four days a week. It also includes a media group that has a combination of these assets. The government has never provided any satisfactory explanation of why it thinks that five and four are acceptable numbers, other than it wants to allow scope for firms to reap ‘economies of scale’.

The five-four test is designed to facilitate media mergers. It is not really a safeguard at all. There are currently 12 owners of the major commercial media in Sydney, 11 in Melbourne, 10 in Brisbane, eight in Perth and seven in Adelaide. In 19 major cities in regional Australia, like Cairns, Mackay or Bundaberg, there are six or seven owners. The five-four rule is just a recipe for increased concentration. This fact became so obvious that yesterday the minister was compelled to announce that the five-four test will be supplemented by a two out of three rule.

The two out of three rule will prevent proprietors from owning newspaper, radio and television assets in the same market. While some members of the National Party have claimed this as a great concession, in reality it offers little additional protection for media diversity. The proposal does nothing to protect diversity in the 17 regional markets where there are only five commercial voices. These areas include major centres like Bathurst, Bendigo, Coffs Harbour, Grafton, Lismore, Tamworth and Mildura. Under the two out of three rule, it would still be possible for the number of owners to fall from six to four in many regional markets like Bundaberg, Townsville and Rockhampton.

In both metropolitan and regional markets, a person in control of a newspaper and the television station would still be able to exercise an unhealthy degree of influence. Even with the two out of three rule, a media conglomerate composed of Channel Nine and the Age would be given the same weight in the voices test as a small radio station like Sport 927. To borrow from my colleague Senator Joyce, the Red Hot Chili Peppers and the Pussycat Dolls would get as many votes in this ballot as the Packers or the Murdochs. That is the farce; that is the absurdity. It is a fact, and you are voting for it, Senator Brandis. The revised test will still take no account of the relative influence of different voices. The fact that some coalition senators have convinced themselves that the two out of three rule protects diversity shows an amazing capacity for self-delusion.

The other alleged safeguard in the package is the ACCC’s power to examine cross-media mergers to see if they substantially lessen competition. If there was one piece of evidence that emerged clearly from the Senate inquiry—and I thank Senator Brandis for interceding in this part of the debate, because he called a spade a spade—it was that section 50 of the Trade Practices Act cannot be relied upon as a substitute for the current cross-media laws. The ACCC is the competition regulator. It has no responsibility for protecting diversity. It is not able to take public interest considerations into account in assessing mergers under section 50.

In order to find that a merger of newspaper, radio or television assets lessened competition in a market for news or opinion, the ACCC would have to demonstrate that news products produced by different media types were substitutes for each other. This is a difficult test to apply in markets like news where products are typically not priced. The ACCC has stated that in order to determine whether, for example, radio and television news were substitutes, it would undertake research into consumer attitudes and conduct surveys to see if people would switch to radio if there was deterioration in the quality TV news.

Several leading competition lawyers have questioned the ACCC’s ability to stop cross-media mergers on the basis that it would lessen competition in the market for news. Peter Armitage, the competition partner at Blake Dawson and Waldron, has described the ACCC’s approach to defining news markets as ‘fairly speculative, brave new world territory’. It is important to remember that the ACCC’s interpretation of market definition is subject to challenge in the Federal Court. The ACCC does not make the law. I can just see Mr Samuels bowling up to the Federal Court and saying: ‘The basis on which I have blocked this merger is that I did a survey of a few hundred people. Thirty or 40 replied and they told me what they thought about whether or not these items were substituted.’ It is going to be a compelling argument! Even Senator Brandis has to smile about it. The Federal Court will not cop such rubbish.

In its report on broadcasting the Productivity Commission stated:

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

Let us be clear. The existing current cross-media laws are protecting and generating diversity—(Time expired)

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

I had the honour to substitute for my friend Senator Parry as a government member of the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts for its examination of the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 and related bills. I participated in the hearings, along with my colleagues Senator Eggleston, the chair of the committee, Senator Ian Macdonald and Senator Ronaldson. The four of us constituted the four government members of that committee. As well, our colleagues Senator Nash and Senator Joyce attended some of the hearings—I think Senator Nash was there for all of them—as participating members of the committee. As a result, a report was tabled which I believe deals very thoroughly with the issues thrown up by this complex suite of bills.

Can I deal with something—to clarify it on the record—which was the subject of an exchange between Senator Conroy and me just before. Yes, it is true that this hearing was conducted in a relatively brief span of time, from quite early on a Thursday morning until well into that evening, after 9 pm I think, and for most of the following day. But it is also true that the scheduling of the hearing for those two days of the week before last was undertaken in order to meet the convenience of senators, including Senator Conroy. But for the unavailability of other senators, including Senator Conroy, on days earlier in that week there would have been the opportunity for the hearings to proceed for longer. That is not a criticism of Senator Conroy; it is merely a scheduling issue. It is not unusual, contrary to Senator Conroy’s assertion, for the government to announce an intention to introduce legislation into this chamber on a specified date, which is what the minister did and which meant in turn that the hearings which had not been able to occur earlier in the week before last had to be completed by this period of sittings. So to the extent to which there was a foreshortening it is a bit of a stretch to blame that on the government when the hearings could have been longer but were not in order to meet the convenience of others, including the opposition.

I listened with fascination to Senator Conroy seeking to beguile and charm and chastise and berate Senator Joyce over the fact that Senator Joyce has made a commitment to support these bills. I would have thought that if there were any member of the Senate who would understand the nature of a political decision arrived at by consensus—what might crudely be called a deal—then Senator Conroy would be at the forefront of those who would have that understanding of how political decisions are arrived at. Senator Joyce, who had strong opinions about various matters, as did Senator Nash, as did I and other members of the committee across a range of complex issues, discussed these matters. It is a matter of public record that they were discussed very exhaustively at the joint government parties’ meeting yesterday.

As a result of that, a consensus position was arrived at. Not only is that not unusual; that is the way all political decisions are ultimately arrived at when there is a diversity of views. How remarkable it is that we should have heard a speech from Senator Conroy in which he denounces legislation—which, with all due respect to him, he does not fully seem to understand—because it does not protect diversity and yet at the same time and in the next breath he denounces the fact that there has been a diversity of view within the government, which has arrived at a consensus position.

I am very comfortable with the manner in which the minister has handled these difficult issues. They are difficult issues technically, they are difficult issues of policy and they have been politically difficult because of the range of stakeholders involved. In the form of the legislation with the announced changes which the minister foreshadowed yesterday afternoon, I think, we have a package which will satisfy most interests and will be very much serviceable to the paramount interest—the public interest. But having said that, I could not help but notice the editorial in this morning’s Australian Financial Review. Let me read a few words from it onto the record. Referring to the views adopted by Senator Joyce and Senator Nash, the editorial writer said that their:

... notion of media diversity—limits on ownership of ‘traditional media’ and 12 ½ minutes of ‘local news’ a day on rural broadcasters—will inevitably be counterproductive, saddling regional players with costs they can’t recoup and compromising the very quality, diversity and independence the [National] party seeks to preserve.

This reflects an industrial age rather than a digital age understanding of the media landscape ...

As is plain from the Senate committee report, the local content issue was an issue on which the National Party senators and the Liberal senators did diverge. But that ultimately has been resolved by compromise among them. I am sorry to say that I could not help thinking when I heard Senator Joyce’s speech, which seemed to be more a speech about the National Party than about the public policy issues of this legislation, that it is always a pity and it is never in the interests of Australia when good public policy is hypothecated to parochial party advantage. Nevertheless, the package that has been ultimately arrived at is, as I have said, a package I believe to be overall in the best interests of the country.

I will deal now with a couple of issues on the particular topic of diversity. I was more than a little surprised to hear Senator Joyce tell the Senate a little while ago that the two out of three rule was a proposal that came from the National Party when it formed recommendation 4 of the majority report by Senator Eggleston, Senator Ian Macdonald, Senator Ronaldson and me. It was a proposal first mooted some years ago in this country by the then communications minister, former Senator Richard Alston, a Victorian Liberal senator. Its scope, according to press reports in this morning’s media—I am not going to reveal what happens in the privacy of the party room—was in fact very significantly expanded, from regional markets to capital city markets as well, in consequence, so it is reported, of an intervention by the Treasurer, Mr Costello, yesterday. So I was very surprised to hear the claim made that that proposal came from our coalition friends.

I was even more surprised to hear the claim made that the vesting of ACMA with greater powers was also a proposal which emerged from our National Party friends when recommendation 3 of the report—that is, the majority report of the four Liberal senators—says:

2.76 The Committee recommends that ACMA be given broad powers, analogous to those in sections 80 and 81 of the TPA, to enforce the legislation by injunctions (including interlocutory injunctions) and divestiture orders, in appropriate cases.

That is a recommendation which the minister has accepted. The reason that I was particularly surprised to hear a claim of parentage of that proposal is that that particular part of the report was written by me. They say that failure is a lonely orphan and success has a thousand fathers, but I do not seem to remember anyone other than me writing that recommendation. Be that as it may—

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Banking and Financial Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Jeez, you’re modest, George. You’re so modest!

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

Senator Sherry, you came in halfway through my speech so you did not hear what I said before. I am merely seeking to set the record straight as to where these particular recommendations came from.

I will now address the issue of diversity. There is more diversity because there is a greater variety of platforms in the Australian media today than there was the last time this parliament had a go at media reform during the time of the Hawke government some 20 years ago. We all know that. We know it as a matter of common sense and practical everyday life. The current set of laws under which the media operates predate the digital age. I wonder how many in Australia appreciate that. The digital revolution has been one of the great factors that have changed Australia in the last two decades and yet today we operate under a set of laws that predates it. How can it be seriously maintained that those laws ought not to be reformed? Of course they must.

It is a common view on both sides of the chamber that there is an important public interest in protecting the diversity of media, which is what this legislation does through a series of safeguards now very significantly expanded, in particular as a result of the initiative of the Treasurer, Mr Costello, yesterday, by the expansion of the two out of three rule and what has been called the five-four voices test, which, I state again for those listening to this broadcast, provides that in regional centres there must be at least four different media voices and in capital city markets there must be at least five different media voices. The five-four voices test combined with the two out of three rule, which provides that no more than two out of three traditional media—that is, television, radio and newsprint—in the same market may be owned by the same proprietor, cements diversity into the market as a matter of law.

I want to address some observations Senator Conroy made about the role of the ACCC. This was a matter that was discussed between Senator Conroy and Mr Samuel, and between me and the gentleman, whose name escapes me, who was the spokesman for ACMA during the Senate committee hearing. Notwithstanding what Mr Samuel may have said in response to a question from Senator Conroy, it is not right to say that section 50 of the Trade Practices Act is a sufficient provision for protecting media diversity. It is not right to say that, in considering mergers under section 50 of the Trade Practices Act, the ACCC might have regard to broad concepts like the market for ideas, because, for the purposes of section 50 of the Trade Practices Act, a market is defined as a market in goods and services. The public interest that section 50 protects is the interest in maintaining a competitive market. The vice which section 50 prohibits is a merger which has the effect of substantially lessening competition. And the meaning of that expression ‘substantially lessening competition’ is defined by section 50 of the act purely according to economic criteria which are set out in subsection 3.

Diversity and competitiveness are quite different concepts. That is why the government senators on the committee—Senator Eggleston, Senator Ian Macdonald, Senator Ronaldson and me—recommended that, in this legislation, it was very important to ensure that the Australian Communications and Media Authority, the industry-specific regulator, be given the policing power to enforce the diversity test; not the ACCC, through its power to apply to the court to stop anticompetitive mergers under section 50 of the Trade Practices Act, but ACMA, applying the specific diversity considerations which embrace a much broader range of issues under the Broadcasting Services Act.

We made some recommendations, which I read to you before, in particular about empowering ACMA to have the same broad injunctive powers under its act as the ACCC has under section 80 of the Trade Practices Act. The government has accepted that recommendation. So, once again, it is a demonstration that, in the ultimate form in which it arrives in this chamber, having passed through the Senate committee process—relatively brief as it was—this legislation has been improved. I want to commend Senator Coonan, because that was an area in which I took a great interest, as you might know, in materially improving the legislation in that respect.

Can I finish on this point, because there seems to be a bit of a philosophical distance underlining this debate: there are some who say or seem to think that private, commercial media companies, which exist in a particular market to make a profit for their shareholders by providing a service that meets that market, ought by heavy-handed government regulation to be made some sort of generic social utility, irrespective of commercial considerations. The media sector in Australia has for too long suffered from the heavy-handedness of that approach, which seems to underlie what Senator Conroy said and seemed implicit in other contributions as well. That is not the role of governments, in my view, in this or any other industry—but particularly in this industry, where we have, at least in the electronic media, a large, expensive and, in my view, generally excellent social utility: the ABC, whose regional services in particular are relied upon, as those of us who know country people know very well, by country people pre-eminently as their source of local news in regional and rural Australia.

This is regulation that regulates the private sector but, to the extent to which the private sector, governed by commercial principles, is unable to fulfil that role, the ABC does and, in particular, in rural and regional Australia, does so excellently. It is the ABC that is the social utility, and that is not a role which ought to be imposed on private companies. (Time expired)

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

I rise to speak on the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 and related bills. In doing so, I again highlight the contempt with which the Howard government uses its numbers in the Senate to ram through its extreme legislation. The task of the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts was to examine changes to the media landscape in Australia—in fact, to examine the most significant changes since the introduction of cross-media ownership laws in 1987. So how does the government go about this process? The minister released information before the ECITA committee had even met to discuss the inquiry, nominating the reporting date, because again there was no need to wait to see if the committee agreed: the government had the numbers. Even some coalition senators were outraged by this.

The committee met. Labor senators put forward reasons as to why the time frame was too short. We argued that witnesses would need longer to prepare their written submissions and make arrangements to appear before the committee in Canberra. The issue of time was raised by a number of witnesses, including the Screen Producers Association of Australia, Premier Media Group, Commercial Radio Australia, the ACCC and the Communications Law Centre. We provided reasons why two days were not long enough to hear and question the witnesses, but again the government’s arrogance won the day.

On the day of the hearing, opposition senators were told we would have only 10 minutes to question and receive answers from each of the witnesses, and witness opening statements were limited to just five minutes. Why? Because the two days allocated by the government was not long enough and it was the only way we could hear from the more than 30 witnesses who were lucky enough to get a guernsey to appear before the inquiry. There were some potential witnesses who had provided submissions but missed out on appearing because of the time frame and the stubbornness of the government in refusing to allow the committee to meet anywhere but Canberra.

At this point I would like to raise the issue of time in relation to the two-day inquiry. In doing so, I understand that it is likely the government chair was operating under the instruction of the minister, so it would have been very difficult under the circumstances. However, in support of my claim that it was a rushed process, I point out that the government chair told nearly every witness group words to the effect that we were operating on a very short time frame; and, on at least 15 occasions during the two-day inquiry, the government chair made reference to running out of time, as did the other government and opposition senators.

But lack of time in relation to the inquiry did not end there; the abuse of process continued. Opposition senators were given just 40 minutes to consider the chair’s draft report before a telephone conference was convened to endorse it. They were given 40 minutes to consider a report on legislation that was lacking in detail, flawed in content and would significantly change the media landscape in Australia. Even rose-coloured glasses could not make this process look any better. The reality is that the inquiry into this legislation, which will impact on every Australian, was a farce.

Labor senators did not accept the report but submitted their own minority report highlighting the failure of the proposed legislation to deliver to the Australian people—and it is to these issues that I will now turn. The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 and related bills propose significant changes to laws on cross-media and foreign ownership, digital television, antisiphoning rules and the power of the media and communications regulator. The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006 contains some measures which relax the regulatory regime and increase the appeal of digital television to consumers. Labor supports these initiatives. We welcome too the adoption of our policy, advocated before the last election, of lifting the genre restrictions on the multichannels of the ABC and SBS. We urge the government to consider giving the ABC and SBS extra funds to drive take-up as part of the digital action plan under development.

There are two significant changes to Australian media law in the media ownership bill. One change, which Labor supports, is the provision that proposes the repeal of the specific foreign ownership provisions in the Broadcasting Services Act that relate to commercial and subscription television while at the same time retaining the ability to screen foreign investment in Australian media to ensure that it is in the national interest. Such changes regarding foreign investment offer the potential to introduce new players into the market and increase media diversity. However, the second provision in the media ownership bill is a significant change that weakens the existing cross-media ownership rules, and Labor opposes it. We cannot support legislation that could make way for increased concentration in the control of the major media outlets and the most influential media—newspapers, television news and current affairs, and radio talkback programs—increasing their ability to influence Australia’s public and political agenda.

It is widely acknowledged that concentration of media ownership significantly impacts on the public debate, including the formulation of public opinion. Any further concentration of media ownership in Australia would be detrimental to our democracy. These changes are likely to lead to less diversity, less competition and greater concentration of ownership. They are not in the national interest but in the interest of the incumbent media entities.

The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, the union that represents the professional and industrial interests of journalists and the entertainment industry, in its submission to the inquiry, said:

It is difficult to see how enacting legislation that allows for more mergers and acquisitions in the media sector could deliver greater competitiveness or guarantee ongoing diversity.

Their submission highlighted the Melbourne market as an example of where the introduction of five commercial media entities could result in the loss of four. This is not media diversity; it is fewer voices in the media of influence in an Australian capital city. In my hometown of Adelaide we have some understanding of the lack of diversity in media ownership because our daily newspaper, our Sunday newspaper and our suburban newspapers are all owned by News Ltd. While we welcome the investment that News Ltd continues to make in news and information in Adelaide, I am sure that even they recognise the benefits of competition. I know that many of the journalists there would welcome increased competition. In Adelaide the existing competition are the other mediums that could be lost in a merger or acquisition.

However the legislation is packaged, the end result is a reduction in the diversity of ownership—an increased concentration of media ownership—and hence a reduction in the number of voices of influence. A number of witnesses and others who put forward submissions to the Senate inquiry were of this view. I will quote from the submission by Private Media Partners. They said:

We do not believe there is any justification on public policy grounds for the Government to abolish or amend the current cross-media restrictions.

Such a change, in our view, could result in a dangerous increase in the power of existing media companies to influence Australia’s public and political agenda.

We see amendments to the proposed legislation that will prevent more than two of the three traditional media being owned by one proprietor or company in a market. Last night, we heard Senator Nash claim this as a win for The Nationals and so, too, did Senator Joyce this morning. Two out of three of the traditional media is a significant slice of the market. It is a significant change to the current laws. Under the current laws, companies are limited to the ownership of television, radio or newspaper in one market. I fail to see how The Nationals can claim that the two out of three rule is a win, when it is likely to spark a run of media mergers and takeovers.

The changes to the cross-media ownership laws and the introduction of the two out of three rule mean that we could see a reduction in diversity through possible mergers or takeovers, where a media company could own the newspapers and a TV station. For example, under the two out of three rule, it would not be inconceivable in Adelaide for News Ltd to own all of the newspapers and Ten Network, and one voice would effectively be lost.

The government’s argument that new media’s position in the market makes the current laws redundant is just not the reality. This was put clearly in the submission to the inquiry by Private Media Partners, when they stated:

... the old media still totally dominate the flow of serious information in Australia. The arrival of websites and blogs may have added more numeric voices to the debate, but they are minute blips on the information radar compared to the societal and political influence that is wielded by newspapers or talk radio.

When Australians use the internet to access news, they overwhelmingly go to the websites owned by the traditional media players. Recent figures reveal the dominance of the old media players in new media as having the dominant share of internet use and advertising sites, with Fairfax at 33 per cent, News at 24 per cent and PBL at 13 per cent. As ACCC Chairman, Graeme Samuel, told the Senate communications committee last week:

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

The dominant source of news and opinion for Australians remains the product produced by television, radio and newspaper companies.

Relaxation of the cross-media rules will lead to mergers and acquisitions. The companies will take on debt, resulting in cost-cutting exercises, with companies consolidating newsrooms and other departments across their organisations. History demonstrates that this in turn leads to a reduction in the number of journalists and other editorial staff being employed. Jobs will be lost. This, of course, would be occurring at the very same time when companies in Australia should be investing in new media, and so would not have the money to do so. There is a flow-on effect: fewer voices of influence, fewer journalists employed and a possible impact on quality of journalism. And the consumers—the Australian public—will be the big losers. As Mr Beecher said in his submission:

Removing or weakening the cross-media rules will result in fewer journalists and diminished journalism. The new laws are constructed for industry consolidation, which is likely to result in acquisitions by existing media owners of existing Australian media assets.

The removal of the cross-media rules will result in fewer owners. By consolidating political and societal power in the hands of a number of individuals, this legislation will curtail public debate and make Australia a less democratic country. In the process, the role of the fourth estate in the scrutiny of government will be weakened.

According to recent opinion polls, the majority of journalists do not support this legislation and the majority of the public do not support it. A recent Roy Morgan Crikey! poll revealed that 85 per cent of journalists surveyed believe the government changes will reduce diversity in Australia; 82.6 per cent believe that the changes will negatively affect reporting integrity; and an even higher number, 87 per cent, disagreed with the bill’s intent of abolishing the cross-media ownership rules. One submission to the Senate committee concluded in relation to the abandonment of the cross-media laws:

It creates the impression that the Government is working in the interests of a small number of media owners instead of working in the interests of all Australians.

The existing cross-media laws provide a diversity of ownership in the most influential media. They ensure that a wide range of information and opinion is available. The changes to the cross-media ownership laws are not wanted by the public, not wanted by many who work in the media and even not wanted by many of the media owners.

In concluding, I quote from an article in today’s Age newspaper by Malcolm Maiden:

As for the national good, it’s hard to find any.

By dismantling the cross-media ownership barrier the Government is opening the way for a substantial consolidation of ownership of the traditional media before new and independent digital media forums are sufficiently well developed.

It is the reverse to what was proposed by the Government’s think tank, the Productivity Commission, and it will diminish what the commission called the market for ideas. If it gets up, media consumers will be the losers. The corporate winners will emerge rapidly.

Everyone in this place knows changes to the cross-media laws will reduce media diversity. This is unacceptable to Labor. Repealing the cross-media laws and replacing them with the coalition’s new laws could facilitate a massive concentration of media ownership. It is without doubt that this would not be in the best interests of the Australian public.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not support the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 and related bills. It can be argued that some of the amendments that have been negotiated by different members of the government over recent days reduce the negative aspects of the legislation. But, inasmuch as that is true, it only changes very bad legislation to simply bad legislation. And voting for bad legislation is still a bad thing; it is certainly not in the public interest and I certainly will not be supporting it. I will briefly emphasise a couple of the key reasons why and outline just a few of the key aspects of this debate.

It is not particularly an issue for me whether or not there is diversity of ownership with regard to people pumping out three different versions of a commercial music station in the one market. The big issue with regard to this is, of course, the presentation and provision of information, not entertainment, and that is where this legislation will cause serious harm to what is already, frankly, the fairly sick democracy that we have here in Australia.

One of the things that emphasises how ill that democracy is is, of course, the contemptible process that has been followed, from the parliamentary side of things, in enabling—or supposedly enabling—this legislation to be considered. As some of the minority reports from the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts that looked at the legislation emphasised, members of the public were given just over a week to make submissions on the legislation. Yet some of the key media players involved, who have a lot to gain from this legislation, have been involved in negotiations behind the scenes for months. I do not have a problem with them being consulted; that is totally appropriate, as it is with any other area. But, for an area that is so fundamental to the public interest, to have members of the general public given just a week to respond and make a submission on the legislation is simply unacceptable.

Sometimes I think there is a perception that, when the Democrats and others complain about the grotesquely short time frames for Senate inquiries, we are just complaining about how we do not get enough time. That is certainly true. But the big problem is not senators not getting enough time—it is people in the wider community not getting enough time. Certainly that is a problem for those of us who are actually interested in the views of the wider community and the expertise and knowledge in the wider community. I accept that that probably does not include at least some members of the government—there is a growing number, particularly in the ministry, who have shown that they are not remotely interested in the views, expertise and knowledge of the wider community.

But many of us in the Senate do still believe that it is an important part of democracy to consider the views of people who might actually know what they are talking about, to consider the views of people in the real world and to consider the impact in reality of what has been put forward in legislation. The key flaw here is that the process has not allowed that. It has not allowed people in the general community, people with expertise, independent commentators—let alone people with a direct interest, commercial or otherwise—to have enough time to respond to the legislation.

That was clearly demonstrated with the farcical committee process that was followed. There was too short a time for advertising and the writing of submissions; too short a time for interested senators to read and absorb those submissions; too short a time for the public hearings, for witnesses to present evidence and for interested senators to ask questions; too short a time for information to be returned for questions that were given on notice and too short a time for all that evidence to be sifted to be presented via the senate committee report. When you combine all those things together you have a perversion of democracy, and a very serious one.

I would note that that impacts even on the members of the government. I would also note Senator Joyce’s comments, including a couple that I think were important and that I agree with: that there is a real need for democracy to continue to operate. And, whilst I certainly do not support the final outcome here, I think it is clear that some significant changes have occurred because some people like Senator Joyce have said, ‘I am going to consider this as an individual and take a considered view.’

One point he made that I think does need re-emphasising is that the entire parliament and our entire democracy would benefit if more of us across all parties were prepared to act on the basis of our views of the public interest and were prepared to show at least some degree of independent thought and some degree of independent action. Clearly, that is something that, as the record shows, the Democrats have done and, indeed, have promoted as a key part of our ethos for nearly 30 years now.

We all need more opportunity to operate in the way that we are elected to do, which is to represent the community, rather than just maintain power for whichever party we happen to represent. But a key part of that is, again, enabling the committee process to work. We had the ridiculous process where even the government members involved in the inquiry—and there were basically six of them; I think there were four Liberals and two Nationals—were getting roughly 10 minutes between them per witness. How can there be any serious, genuine opportunity for people such as Senator Joyce or anybody else to explore an issue with a witness when they have a time frame—which government members forced upon themselves, I might say, by voting for ridiculously short reporting dates—that means that they get just a couple of minutes to ask questions of witnesses, of people who actually have knowledge about what the impacts will be? That just demonstrates how corrupted the process is.

I emphasise that, to me, this really goes back to the wider problem of the weakness of the Trade Practices Act in ensuring proper competitive practices in any industry, including the media, and the ACCC’s weaknesses that flow from that—their inability to deal properly with assessing mergers and acquisitions—and the lack of divestiture powers within the Trade Practices Act. That is really the problem here. If we had strong, overarching trade practices laws that prevented excessive concentration in any particular area of any market then that would overcome a lot of the problems.

The fact is that these changes will reduce competition. There is no doubt about that. They will reduce diversity. Whilst there has been a lot of talk in this debate about the need to protect some degree of diversity in regional and rural areas—and I fully support that—as somebody who has lived their entire life in a capital city, I get very tired of there being very little attention paid to the damage that this is going to do to diversity in capital cities, which after all is where the majority of Australians live. That is not a shot at people who do not live in these areas. I think we would all be better off, quite frankly, if more people lived outside the capital cities. But the fact is that the majority of Australians do live in capital cities and major urban centres, and this legislation will lead to reduced diversity and reduced competition. They are two separate things, but we would benefit from having greater competition and greater diversity, particularly in this area. This legislation will lead to less of that, including—and, in some ways, even more importantly—in metropolitan areas.

This is particularly the case if you are talking about information. Some of the key problems with the concentration of ownership are not just the reduction in the number of outlets where people can get information—that is not necessarily going to be reduced—but the continual reduction in diversity; cross-promotion and integration, which distorts the genuineness of information flows; and even something as basic and very fundamental as career paths for journalists. If only a few major media players in the entire country employ news journalists, that is a very effective control mechanism over those journalists. They know that, if they get out of line, if they get offside with a particular proprietor, that cuts off an enormous component of their career options. That in itself means a reduction not only in diversity but in the independence and fearlessness of reporters and journalists who provide a lot of that information. To me, that aspect is one of the most serious.

From my point of view, the passage of this legislation will mean a greater necessity to again look to newer sources for information. The view of Mr Samuel that was given to the Senate committee, which has been quoted a few times, about how the internet is yet to provide much by way of greater diversity of information has a lot of truth to it, but I do not think it is completely accurate. In fact, I know that it is not completely accurate, certainly not in my view. I think there is a greater diversity of news, particularly international news, and opinion available to people now because of the internet, and I am using the word ‘internet’ in its wider sense—electronic technology, email communications, mobile technology and all those things. There are now plenty of opportunities for people to get a vast array of information about international news, without having to rely on the narrow options that are available within Australia.

Where it is still a problem and where I do agree with Mr Samuel is with regard to local news. Certainly that is where new technologies are yet to provide the range of diversity. These changes will basically force that on people—people will need to go elsewhere to get information that they believe is truly independent. I can only hope that we do better at improving the technology that is available to Australians to enable them to do that. It is another reason why we need to be ensuring greater support—and some components in the report went towards this—for community based media: public broadcasting, public radio and community television. Those forms of media are also important and will become more so. How widespread the listenership is to community based radio is very much unrecognised. It provides local news—not so much hard news, in the sense of perhaps what is happening here in this chamber—and local information. That is not recognised as widely as it should be and certainly more support there is important.

When we pull back what the core part of this legislation is really about, which is a fundamental aspect of democracy—the ability for citizens to access independent and accurate information about what their representatives and government are doing—it will undoubtedly make things worse. That is probably in the interests of the government—because the fewer the people they need to get positive reportage to, the easier life is for them—but for the general community, which already has a great mistrust about the accuracy and the adequacy of information that is available to them, it is going to be a significant problem.

Certainly the information that gets out about what happens in state parliaments—and, in my view, certainly from the Queensland perspective—is worse than what gets out about federal parliament. There are better options available to find out what happens in this parliament than what happens certainly in the state parliament of Queensland and I suspect elsewhere, let alone to find out about local council issues.

The situation is already not good. This legislation is going to make it worse and, in some ways, is going to hasten the need for people who are wanting genuine information about issues that affect them to develop, explore and support alternatives. It does not need to be that way. It is very unfortunate that we are going down this path. If we could simply support and have stronger overarching trade practices and competition legislation that allowed diversity and effective and fair competition in a whole range of areas, we would be a lot better off not just in our democracy but, frankly, in our economy more widely.

Judith Adams (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unlike Senator Bartlett, I would like to speak about media ownership reforms and regional protections. Being a rural consumer of radio and other media forms, I think it is very important that the rural voice is heard here. I would like to speak about the media reform package that the government announced on 13 July, which outlines major reforms to Australia’s media ownership laws as part of a broader reform package relating to the 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 changing rapidly, and a flexible system is needed to allow media companies to adapt and prosper in the new digital environment. A farsighted approach is needed to meet the needs of consumers now and to provide the benefits of new technology into the future. At the heart of the package are new services and programming for consumers. These reforms will enable existing players to make the most of emerging digital media technologies and give them the flexibility to structure their businesses to be globally competitive media companies. The package will allow a better competitive environment and encourage new entrants into the media market offering 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. The Trade Practices Act 1974 will continue to apply to media transactions, and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, known as the ACCC, will play a critical role in assessing competition issues associated with mergers.

Separate from the protection of competition, ACMA will oversee the safeguards to ensure diversity and local content, including ensuring transactions comply with the minimum number of media groups requirements, and that broadcasters comply with their local content obligations. Protection of regional content and diversity for consumers is a key component of the media reform package.

There are a number of measures contained in the framework to ensure that regional consumers do not miss out on the benefits of media reform. 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. These include ABC services, with two digital TV channels, up to five radio stations—Radio National, News Radio, Local Radio, Classic FM and Triple J—and its comprehensive online services; SBS’s comprehensive television, radio and online services; subscription television; community radio and television; out of area and national newspapers; and the myriad of services available over the internet.

The government is committed to ensuring that all Australians, not just those in metropolitan 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. The government is very aware of the needs and concerns of regional Australia and this package will ensure that both consumers and industry in regional Australia do not miss out on the benefits of reform.

Protection of regional content and diversity for consumers is, however, a key component of the media reform package. The community has a legitimate expectation that broadcasters will cover local news and content. Regional commercial radio licensees whose control arrangements do not change and/or whose format remains one of broad appeal will not be affected by the measures proposed in the bill. The government believes that the community has an expectation that media mergers should not come at the expense of localism.

For 20 years, Australia has had a set of media control rules that amount to a major restriction on how media markets and companies operate. This is based on an outdated philosophy based on containment. That philosophy does not recognise how media companies operate today, how technology has changed and how people consume media today. When those rules were framed, the Internet was mainly confined to academics, pay TV was in its infancy in Australia, there was no framework for digital radio, IPTV had not been thought of, let alone 3G mobile phones, video, iPods or television over a mobile device otherwise known as DVB-H.

The current foreign and cross-media ownership restrictions under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, BSA, limit competition in the media sector and restrict access to capital, expertise and technology. The proposed changes will encourage greater competition and will allow media companies to achieve economies of scale and scope, while protecting the diversity of Australia’s media. Pressures on our traditional media platforms are coming from all angles. If we want them to be able to survive and compete, we must free up some of the regulation currently placed upon them and allow them to adapt. Without this change, the traditional media industry will continue to watch other platforms encroach on their traditional business and not be able to move themselves, while new media stake their claim.

Amending the ownership rules will let the media market operate more efficiently, benefiting industry and consumers alike by permitting greater competition and economies of scale and scope. Those benefits will be diffuse, dynamic and shared across a large sector of the economy. As with other microeconomic reforms undertaken by this government, the benefits of reforming the media ownership restrictions are real—for example, the removal of foreign ownership restrictions will allow foreign media companies and investors to enter the television and daily newspaper markets, providing greater opportunities for investment, new players and new services.

Australia’s radio sector does not have foreign ownership restrictions. It is significantly more diverse in its ownership than either television or newspapers, with two major foreign owners in the sector—that is, APN and DMG. Similarly, the removal of cross-media restrictions will allow Australian media companies to enter different media, which will provide greater competition, opportunities for greater efficiency and new and improved services to consumers. Clearly any reform needs to protect diversity of ownership, but this can be done in a way that is less restrictive than it is currently. The diversity of ownership, which everyone agrees is important, will continue to be protected by the five-four voices requirement, and licence and 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 TV, radio and newspapers were virtually the only news media. Whilst they remain highly influential they are no longer the sole source of news and information. Whilst traditional news gathering remains dominated by old media, the capacity of independent online sources to handle news more quickly and to comment, analyse and spread information that would otherwise be restricted means that online news and information has emerged as a powerful influence in its own right. From my point of view, living in a rural area 15 kilometres from where I can obtain a newspaper, my HiBIS satellite internet connection allows me to go online to read news briefs and to keep up with what is going on in the world long before I can obtain a newspaper. A regulatory framework that assumes that radio, television and newspapers are the only sources of information will become hopelessly outdated and ineffective, ultimately to the detriment of services and consumers.

This bill will remove the broadcasting-specific restrictions on foreign investment in Australia’s media sector. The media will remain a sensitive sector under foreign investment policy as well as under the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement. This means that all direct media investment and all portfolio investment over five per cent will be required to be notified to, and approved by, the Treasurer. The opposition maintains an outdated and mogul-specific approach to media ownership laws which restricts investment and expansion of the Australian media sector and favours foreign investment over diversified investment by Australian investors.

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 only be permitted between two of the three regulated platforms in a licensed area: commercial TV, commercial radio and associated newspapers. In other words, this rule will prevent three-way mergers between commercial TV and commercial radio and an associated newspaper in a licensed area.

The Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts report recommended that this rule be introduced in regional areas. However, the government has decided that it is 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. Consumers can be confident that diversity will continue to be protected through the range of safeguards that the government is including in the bills.

In addition to the benefits that media ownership reform will bring, this package will also open up significant opportunities for new services. There will be two channels of currently unallocated spectrum made available for new, home and other services, such as mobile TV. The national broadcasters will be able to provide a broader range of content on their multichannels. The free-to-air broadcasters will be permitted to provide a high-definition multichannel from next year and a standard-definition multichannel from 2009. I note that the standard definition multichannel for commercial stations could perhaps come into effect in 2007, but that is not the government’s intention at this time.

Once we reach switchover and a significant amount of additional spectrum is freed up, even more opportunities for new services will emerge. 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. It is clear to the government and industry that the media landscape is changing rapidly and that a flexible system is needed to allow media companies to adapt and prosper in the new digital environment.

A far-sighted approach is needed to meet the needs of consumers now and to provide the benefits of new technology into the future. The government’s media package, the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 and the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006, will open up opportunities for a range of innovative new services to consumers while maintaining existing services that the community already relies on and enjoys, including quality free-to-air television services. The proposed reforms will enable existing players to make the most of the emerging digital technologies and give them the flexibility to structure their businesses to be globally competitive media companies. It is the consumers who will be the biggest winners, with access to a range of new services, potentially including several new digital channels, with even more to come in the full transition to digital television.

Whilst this bill introduces some modifications to the anti-siphoning scheme, the government is not proposing to abolish the anti-siphoning list. The government recognises the keen interest of many Australians in continuing to have free access to major sporting events that have traditionally been shown on free-to-air television, and to ensure that live and local content continues to flourish in rural and regional Australia, the government will mandate a minimum of 12.5 minutes of local news on at least five days a week.

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.

I myself find that a lot of the evidence that has been given in getting the minister to accept local content is very important. I am a Western Australian and live in the Great Southern region of Western Australia, and we have had a very different experience of local content. Our local content tends to override the content that we receive from the Perth metropolitan area. During estimates earlier this year, I raised the issue of local versus national content on ABC radio in my home state of Western Australia. As I said, I live in the Great Southern region. We had an ABC morning program which was hosted by Liam Bartlett. Most of you would now know that Liam has since moved on to television, where he is reporting for 60 Minutes. But, prior to his departure from ABC radio, this program was broadcast throughout the state. It used to go from 8.30 in the morning until 11 o’clock, but unfortunately the ABC in their wisdom decided to cut off the Great Southern area of Western Australia at 10 o’clock in favour of local radio programs.

This was very difficult for someone in my position, and I had a huge number of emails and letters from my constituents when this happened, because, for a lot of the very important content that affected Western Australia and often regional Australia—especially when the Telstra inquiry was going on, which was looking at regional and rural phone services—we were cut off at 10 o’clock, and most of the talkback service occurred between 10 and 11. Especially, we would have our state or federal members of parliament speaking on that segment. The only way I could listen to that was to drive up to a hilly area on our property, from where I could get that reception. But it was rather difficult, especially early in the morning when I was trying to listen to our political commentator, ABC journalist Peter Kennedy, who would give us an update on Monday and Friday mornings on political issues that were going on in the state, which were very important. Our farm worker used to say: ‘What on earth is your wife doing way up the hill in her vehicle? What’s she doing?’ The fact was that it was the only way I could get this broadcast. I think it is very sad that these issues were going on and we were not able to receive the broadcast.

So I think it is very important that people in rural and regional areas are given the opportunity to voice their opinions on this part of the legislation. When the minister has her inquiry into how rural and regional people in Western Australia review local content, I think she will be told that we do have plenty and we really would like some more of the other content. In closing, I would like to commend the minister on the number of very difficult and involved bills that she has negotiated very well. She seems to have accommodated all those who needed changes and amendments to the bills. I commend the bill.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The issue of media ownership has been a difficult one for Family First to resolve. Each media organisation has a different position on the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 and related legislation, based on its own commercial interests. These are loud voices that we politicians hear, but too often the views of ordinary Australians and their families are not considered. To be honest, most Australians that Family First has spoken to do not know about these changes. When I have outlined them, most have told me that they do not have a particular view one way or the other.

You see, ordinary Australians are busy getting on with their lives. They are working hard to get the mortgages paid, struggling to keep on top of the bills and doing their best to raise their kids and put them through school. Debates in parliament about who owns what in the media simply do not feature in the day-to-day lives of the Australians we represent. More and more families are not reading newspapers and cannot afford them. Television, especially free-to-air television, is the primary source of information and entertainment. The programs Australians watch are determined not by who owns what station but by the programs themselves. Families switch from one station to another depending on what is on.

This reality has led me to conclude that the current debate over media ownership is going in the wrong direction. There appears to be widespread agreement that relaxing cross-media ownership restrictions is likely to lead to further concentration of media ownership. Family First believes the question we need to ask is: what is the theory underpinning this debate? Are we concerned about greater media concentration because it will boost profits of media barons? No. The concern about ownership is based on the assumption that ownership is the dominant factor which determines content and editorial priorities. It is also based on the assumption that when media outlets do use their power to promote particular views they significantly influence public opinion. However, Family First strongly believes the real concern ought to be not so much the concentration of ownership but the concentration of ideology—the concentration of ideas. Where is the evidence that the key factor that determines ideas is ownership—in other words, that owners dictate ideas?

Out there in the real world it is nothing like that. Consider the ABC: it is owned by the government, and the ABC board is appointed by the government. Therefore, wouldn’t we expect the ABC to voice the views of its owners? In theory, yes, but we all know the ABC’s owners—the government—are constantly railing against them. Does Southern Cross Broadcasting hire Neil Mitchell in Melbourne because of his views or because he can pull an audience? Did John Singleton lure Alan Jones to 2GB because of Jones’s political views or because he rates? Does 2UE keep John Laws because he toes a certain editorial line? Does 2UE particularly care what Laws says as long as he rates? The reality is that media organisations are big businesses and need to be profitable to survive. What drives them are dollars.

Of course further concentration could result in fewer people wielding power and influence, and I admit Family First is uneasy about that. But would fewer people mean less diverse ideas or merely fewer people sharing the same philosophical or cultural outlook? I also note the Productivity Commission’s 2000 report. It stated:

The likelihood that a proprietor’s business and editorial interests will influence the content and opinion of their media outlets is of major significance.

However, Family First is sceptical about that statement as it does not accord with our real world experience.

The argument that ownership is the sole determinant of ideas is simplistic. It is a myth. It is much more complicated than that. Therefore, if the media owners are not preoccupied by content and running editorial lines, we need to ask: who does determine what ideas are promoted? Increasingly, it comes down to the mindset of individual journalists, opinion editors, editorial writers, section editors, columnists and editors of the nation’s letters pages. It is these people who decide what is published, what is aired, what is screened and what is not. For example, just last week almost 200 doctors signed a letter opposing embryonic cloning. The letter was sent to every major newspaper across the country, yet only one published it. Was that because both Rupert Murdoch and Ron Walker decided that? Clearly, it was the decision of the letters editors.

But let us consider for one moment that media ownership and ideology are intrinsically linked, that owners do dictate the ideas. What effect does that actually have on how Australians think and behave? In other words, how influential are these media barons at using their media mouthpieces to dictate how ordinary Australians should act? Consider the republic debate in 1999. With very few exceptions, every paper and journalist across the country actively campaigned for a yes vote. What effect did they have? Overwhelmingly, Australians voted no. Consider the war in Iraq. Many people believe the Murdoch press has run a strong pro-war campaign; yet, despite the fact the Murdoch press dominates newspaper circulation across the country, polls show that the majority of Australians do not support the war and want our troops out.

Another point that is important to make is that, increasingly, news is becoming entertaining. Our talk show hosts and columnists are as much there to entertain as to run any editorial line imposed from above. As I said earlier, the media industry is driven by dollars. This is all commerce. The Murdoch empire thinks these changes are against News Ltd’s commercial interests, while the Packer empire thinks they are in PBL’s commercial interests—all for reasons Family First does not fully understand.

That said, there does need to be balance. Despite my earlier comments, Family First is concerned about the possibility of a monopoly of our major media outlets and the potential abuse of power that that represents. That is why Family First supports the two out of three rule and is pleased it will apply to metropolitan as well as regional markets. Family First is also pleased the government will require regional radio stations to air local content and news during the day and that that will be put in legislation. However, Family First is unsure what a reasonable level of local content would be. Family First supports a review to examine what is reasonable and how operators, big and small, will be affected.

It is important to note that the real concentration of regional TV occurred when we allowed aggregation of television. Regional TV is now dominated by Southern Cross, WIN and Prime. Where is the existing law that stops Murdoch buying the Morning Bulletin in Rockhampton or that says Fairfax cannot buy the Shepparton News or the Wangaratta Chronicle? There is no limit on that. In fact, Fairfax bought the Border Mail in Albury-Wodonga just months ago. Family First is cautious when approaching difficult issues like media ownership. But we are not talking about moving from a regulated system to an unregulated one. The proposed changes are about a different system of regulation. Family First understands there are arguments both for and against this legislation. However, Family First believes that the arguments against these changes, whilst strong, are not overwhelming. This is a decision which must be made on balance. Family First is not persuaded that the arguments against this legislation are so significant as to justify rejecting it and, therefore, we will support it.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to stand up in support of the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 and related bills. I do so for a range of reasons. Firstly, I wish to thank those on the Senate committee of inquiry who have spent a good deal of time, in difficult and challenging circumstances, reviewing the legislation. They have prepared a very thoughtful and comprehensive report which is now available on the public record. All of those involved, on all sides of the chamber, have put in a fair and significant effort to prepare such a comprehensive and thoughtful report. It is very pleasing to note also that the recommendations made in the report have been taken into account by the government. At the outset I wish to congratulate the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Helen Coonan, on an outstanding performance to date in pulling together all the key arguments and views and on discussing and negotiating with all the relevant members of the Senate, key players in the industry and members of the local community far and wide over many months. It has been a mighty effort on her behalf and she should be congratulated on doing that job for and on behalf of the Australian public.

The Senate committee report has been tabled and the recommendations have been made. The government has now concluded that the legislation will proceed. It is good, forward-thinking legislation. For the last 10 to 20 years in Australia we have been caught up with archaic legislation in need of reform. We should be looking to the future, not the past. We should be preparing a framework in which investment, development and jobs growth can occur into the future, not just in the cities but in rural and regional Australia. New technology—not just the internet but technological innovation in all its forms—is now upon us. Be assured that the rate of change will continue to grow even faster than it has in the last 10 years. We need to prepare a regulatory environment in which the key players in the industry can act upon and implement their decisions free from bureaucratic red tape and the quagmire of government bureaucracy so that the best interests of the public can be served.

In speaking in favour of the bill I will deal with a number of aspects, but before doing so I wish to make a few more introductory remarks. The legislation is consistent with this government’s push for less regulation and more flexible arrangements across the board. Work Choices is a more flexible workplace arrangement in this country which is now delivering more jobs and higher wages to Australian working men and women. The legislation before us on media ownership and media reforms is consistent with the efforts of the Howard government leadership to care for families and to look after the interests of working men and women and their families.

Quite clearly, over the last 20 years Australia has had a set of media control laws and rules that amount to a major restriction on how media markets, companies and businesses operate across the nation. It has been based on a philosophy which can best be described as ‘containment’. The rules have changed, as I have indicated, because we now have the internet, digital radio, digital TV, 3G mobile phones—there was a recent announcement by Telstra in that regard—video iPods and mobile devices with television attached. There have been a whole host of technological changes. Be assured that the rate of change will ever increase. There have been the traditional media platforms—TV, radio and newspapers—but things are changing fast. We need to be ready for the future. Sadly, I believe that the Labor Party take the view that they want to stay in the past, but that is consistent with their views on Work Choices and a range of other government reforms. They oppose just about every single reform that the government puts up which is in the best interests of the Australian people and the working men and women of this country.

Nevertheless, our legislation and this framework for change and reform will protect diversity of ownership. That is now going to be done in a far less restrictive way than it has been done in the past. Twenty years ago the key forms of media were television, radio and newspapers. They were virtually the only news media, the only media where you could access news. But that has changed radically. We are in a new, digital age and we must prepare for that. A framework has been provided under this legislation where we can move into the future. Be assured that, if the legislation is not passed, as a result of that policy paralysis this country will suffer. This is consistent with the opposition parties’ views in this chamber. If we cannot move from the current settings, from the current media ownership and media law arrangements, then this country will be left behind, not only with respect to our Asian neighbours but with respect to the rest of the world. The media landscape has changed. It is still changing, and fast. We need to set the parameters for future investment, development and growth.

I would like to speak to a number of aspects of the legislation. Specifically I commend the government for accepting a number of the recommendations in the Senate report and from the backbenchers who expressed their views to the minister and to the government. The government is willing to listen to and accept the views of its people. It listens to the people out there at the grassroots level. With regard to the importance of content, to ensure that live and local content continues to flourish in rural and regional areas the government will mandate the broadcasting of a minimum of 12.5 minutes of local news on at least five days a week. It will also mandate minimum levels of local content to be broadcast. This will take effect following a review. This change has been made in recognition of concerns expressed about the provision of live, locally produced and locally relevant content. The government will amend the bill accordingly. It will require ACMA, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, to have in place for all regional radio licensees from a specified date a requirement to broadcast at least 4.5 hours of local content each day.

Prior to the requirement coming into effect, ACMA will be directed by the minister, under the powers of the Broadcasting Services Act, to investigate the current levels of local content on regional radio and the impact of the proposed minimum level on licensees and how different types of regional broadcasters will 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. I think that is an excellent amendment. I say that for a number of reasons. I come from the state of Tasmania, where there are a range of commercial radio stations—primarily FM. Just this morning I spoke to and received feedback from Heart FM and from Way-FM, a Christian radio station based in Launceston. Brian Yeoman, the manager of Way-FM, indicated to me that they meet the requirements that are to be set by the government of 4.5 hours of local content each day and a minimum of 12.5 minutes per day of local news to be broadcast on at least five days a week—a further minimum that has been proposed. Not only do they meet them; they exceed them. In terms of the review, that is entirely appropriate. There may be other radio stations in a different position.

I am particularly concerned that some of the smaller regional and rural radio stations that are based in country Australia might find this particular minimum an onerous requirement. My inclination and proclivity is to remove, wherever possible, regulation that might increase costs for these smaller operators, in particular. I have been a long-time supporter of small and micro business, as most are aware, and will continue to be a strong supporter of them well into the future, as they are the jobs generators across the country. The rural and regional radio stations—not only Heart FM, Way-FM and other FM stations in Hobart and Launceston—such as those in Burnie, Devonport and Scottsdale have a very important role to play in terms of keeping close to their local communities. I will be interested in the feedback from those radio stations as a result of this amendment. I sincerely hope the amendment is supported through this chamber because the review process will be important. I will be listening to the proprietors of the radio stations and to those who work in them to find out whether they believe it is an onerous requirement or whether they are entirely satisfied. I congratulate the minister for being willing to listen and for implementing this important variation to the media package and reforms.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hear, hear!

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Parry. It is an excellent effort on behalf of the minister to do what she has done. I mentioned the importance of local news and weather requirements. Those minimums have been set. That is why I am so pleased about this slight variation to the reforms.

I would like to speak in favour in particular of the two out of three rule that has been effected in this reform package, and in particular congratulate and thank the Treasurer, the Hon Peter Costello, on his view that the two out of three rule should apply to not only rural and regional Australia but also the cities, the major populous areas across the country. Yes, the Senate report and recommendations recommended that the two out of three rule apply to rural and regional Australia, but I support entirely the Treasurer’s view that it should apply across the board. There should be no cherry-picking in this game to just support one particular part of the country. The two out of three rule should apply across the board—there should be consistency—and it should be fair across the country. This is an additional safeguard against undue media concentration.

The government will amend the bill to include the two out of three rule for media mergers in metropolitan and regional areas. What that means is that media mergers will still be permitted, subject to there being four voices in regional areas and five voices in metropolitan areas. It also means that the mergers will only be permitted between two of the three regulated platforms in a licence area. What do I mean by that? For those who may be listening to this broadcast, it means commercial TV, commercial radio and associated newspapers—so two of those three. It will prevent a three-way merger between commercial TV, commercial radio and an associated newspaper in a licence area. In a place like Northern Tasmania, for example, our key newspaper is the Examiner. On the north-west coast it is the Advocate and in southern Tasmania it is the Mercury. You have Southern Cross commercial television and WIN commercial television as well as the ABC free-to-air television stations. I mentioned earlier the importance of protecting the interests of relevant commercial radio stations across Tasmania to ensure their interests are best protected and taken into account.

The industry will still benefit from the flexibility that the relaxation of the cross-media ownership laws will bring. As I said earlier, this is a rule that was brought in 10 to 20 years ago. There have been slight variations to it over that time but basically it has been stuck in the past, and we do not want that to continue in any way, shape or form. I think overall, with respect to the two out of three rule, it is a very sensible approach. I would like to congratulate and thank Mr Howard and the government on going down that track. As I have indicated, the Treasurer has taken a keen interest in this particular area. His views are fully supported by me and, I know, many others in the Senate. In terms of the overall need for reform, that is quite clear. We have a package now where we are protecting the diversity of ownership, and that is being done in a less restrictive way than over the last 20-odd years. We are really moving out of the Dark Ages. We can now look to the future and be prepared for just about anything. The rate of change, as I have indicated, is faster than ever before.

An area of interest that I have is the internet and internet filtering. This is an area that is not touched on directly by the media reforms, but the importance of technological changes means that we also need to stand at the ready to protect the best interests of children—to protect the boys and girls across Australia, and the future children of Australia, from inappropriate and offensive material on the internet. I notice that in the gallery today there are children. Yes, we have privilege in this place and we can say what we wish—but we need to use words that are appropriate for the ears of those children and indeed those who are listening. So filtering is important.

In terms of the government’s objectives there, a $116 million package has just recently been announced by the government—and congratulations again to Senator Helen Coonan, who announced that with the Hon. Chris Ellison and me just a few months ago. By January next year every Australian family will have access to a filter for their home computer to ensure that offensive and inappropriate material is kept out of the family home. That is very important for families and the future of Australian children. In conclusion, it is a mighty job, on behalf of the government, that Senator Helen Coonan has undertaken and, together with the Senate committee, she should be congratulated. I urge all members of the Senate to support this legislation and hope that they will do so.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In rising to support the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 and related bills today I would ask the members of the Senate to cast their minds back about 20 years. Apart from the ageless nature of you, Mr Acting Deputy President Hutchins, a number of things have transpired over the last 20 years that I think we are wise to consider. There have been many changes in our world. Many of these changes have in fact benefited the Australian public and many of these changes have in fact been introduced by this government. If we want to remember a few of these things, we can remark briefly on the reduction in taxation payments for many Australians. This government has certainly made a massive change to what was taking place in this country some 20 years ago. Interest rates have also been reduced from 17 per cent under the Keating-Beazley government down to around seven per cent today. Unemployment has also been reduced quite significantly. But there are a number of relics of the past that do remain. One of these of course is the Australian Labor Party. But, aside from that, there are also some relics in our media ownership laws.

These laws were introduced to ostensibly contain media barons. The politics of envy was no more apparent than when they were brought about, when we had the ‘queens of screen’ and the ‘princes of print’ appeals. This is a historic attitude. It is an attitude that is completely out of touch with today’s society and the media available to everyone in today’s society. I think we need to consider these amendments very much on their merits. I would ask the Labor Party to consider their commitment to free, effusive and open exchange of ideas and to encourage foreign news investment and media investment in this country because, despite what some will tell you in this chamber, opening our shores to foreign investment and to people building productive businesses here has been an absolute boon for this country.

The media reforms are very important in that regard because we need to make sure that we are an effective and competitive nation not only in the distribution of information across many media platforms but also in maintaining our place in the information flow across the world. I support foreign investment in this country. It is going to bring new players into this game, particularly into some of the media areas such as television and newspapers. It is going to bring new services to regional areas and some of the metropolitan areas as well because, in a place like Adelaide, a fine place—the people of South Australia are very well served by many good members of parliament and many good senators, and they have been served very well over a number of years—

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Including you, Senator Bernardi.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take that interjection, thank you very much, Senator Barnett! I would like to highlight one of the things that we have been missing in South Australia: the simple fact that we have only one daily newspaper, the Advertiserand a fine publication it is. But we used to have an afternoon daily newspaper as well, and unfortunately that did not survive. Since then, we have had a weekly newspaper produced called the Independent Weeklyanother fine publication that provides an alternative perspective of news. Quite frankly, we would like to see the local and international investors which own the Independent Weekly broaden their supply of news information across the state and we would also like to see them publish on a more frequent basis. This is what can happen with these amendments. We will see a foreign player come in and be able to invest and produce another daily paper for South Australians, which would be a wonderful thing.

This government has acted in the public interest. I think that is very clearly demonstrated by all the things that have transpired, including the lower interest rates and lower unemployment, and the productivity growth and real wages gains that are extraordinarily high under this government. Accordingly, it has proposed amendments to the media bill so that we are protecting the diversity and the local content for our media owners and ensuring that our regional and rural areas—and cities like Adelaide—have diversity of content. One of these things is the two out of three rule for ownership, so any one media operator will not be able to control a newspaper, a radio and a television station within the same broadcast area. I think this is very important.

It is a good amendment. It is actually a tribute to the democracy that takes place in the Liberal Party and in the coalition. This government will propose legislation and it will listen very carefully to what its backbench members and senators produce. The minister has been very responsive in this regard. I think that highlights the support we have for private enterprise, for individualism and for accountable government—which, I have to say, is sadly lacking on the other side of the chamber, because they do not get to participate in free thinking and in free-ranging ideas, because they get drummed out of either their party or their faction or, indeed, sometimes they lose preselection.

Because of the people in the chamber, I do not make that point lightly. I would like to echo Senator Ronaldson’s comment from yesterday that, Senator Webber, we will miss your great contribution to this chamber. It is a very sad day when the Labor Party has seen fit to attack and harangue someone mercilessly and unnecessarily with regard to this. But, nonetheless, I credit you because you are not a dalek and I think that is fantastic. You are a true trooper. You are an honest and straightforward player. I wish you well in that regard in your future career. However, the beauty is that, when you leave this place, Senator Webber, you will have access to increased media content. You will be able to enjoy a greater range of services, thanks to the implementations this government has brought into the media realm. You will have access to the internet and the groundbreaking materials that come out of it.

I would like to remind the Senate that a number of major news stories have actually been broken or launched by internet bloggers, who are the independent media operators of the future. The Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky scandal springs to mind, because that was broken by a blogger in the US. We also have a number of bloggers locally. I know Senator Lundy has a blog, on which I have not been able to find any breaking news as yet, but I am sure it will be coming along at a point. I know that Mr Turnbull in the other place has a blog which is widely read and well regarded. We are facing the fact that there are a number of independent operators continuing to transgress into traditional media space. We need to ensure that our mainstream, major broadcasters have the opportunity to pursue economies of scale, to ensure that the massive investment that they have in a number of areas can justify the continuing good service—

Debate interrupted.