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

My question is to Senator Coonan, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. I refer the minister to reports today that media moguls are positioning themselves to carve up Australia’s most important media assets. Does the minister recall telling Business Sunday earlier this year that the government’s media ownership laws would not lead to a wave of takeovers? Didn’t the minister say:

... it is difficult to see that there would be a real flurry of activity ... But my view is that, probably, all the low lying fruit here has been picked.

Does the minister also recall saying on the ABC AM program on 11 October:

... the cross-media arrangements that have been agreed to have very significant safeguards.

Haven’t the media moguls already worked out that these so-called safeguards are no barrier to their ambitions? Will the minister now admit that her media laws are just a recipe for a massive concentration of media ownership?

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

Thank you to Senator Conroy for the question. What appears to have escaped Senator Conroy and a lot of commentators is that the current media laws have not even been proclaimed yet. The government has not even set a date for the proclamation of the media laws. Any current activity would need to have regard to the existing old Keating laws passed under the Hawke government back in the 1980s.

The important thing when looking at media is that there will be some movement, but it will be subject to very stringent safeguards that affect not only the type of mergers but also the number of possible mergers. You only have to listen, for instance, to the comments of Mr Samuel, the Chairman of the ACCC, this morning to appreciate that he has said not only that is he keeping a very close eye on it but that the speculation should give rise to people having a cold shower. I would suggest that Senator Conroy, if modesty permits, also take a cold shower together with all of those currently hyperventilating over what might happen if these transactions proceed when the media laws are actually proclaimed. They have not yet been proclaimed.

I think people are getting ahead of themselves. I note that most of what is being reported, particularly about PBL, at least up until the time question time started, has certainly not been clarified and you could fairly say it is speculative. The media ownership changes will not take effect until a date to be proclaimed sometime next year, so the changes being effected must have regard to existing laws or else those companies run the risk of having breached current laws. It is certainly the case that players may be trying to position themselves in certain ways prior to the laws coming into effect. But what their future intentions are is a question of course that has not been revealed. It is perfectly clear that the changes to the media ownership rules will allow for some movement, subject to the safeguards.

Senator Conroy obviously does not want to admit that the media laws have not even passed yet. If you look at what the speculation is about PBL, it appears to be more about financials and securing the position of PBL rather than any merger activity. Of course, the most revealing thing over the last few days is how the Labor Party still does not have a position on media policy that is not dictated by Mr Keating. We had Mr Beazley a couple of days ago saying that he had no idea what Labor’s position would be—that they would think about it. Senator Conroy just adopts a position of opposition for opposition’s sake. What the people of Australia might expect from Labor is that we will take a visionary leap backwards to the 1980s in accordance with Mr Keating pulling the strings of those who do not have the mettle to have a policy of their own, have no idea where they are going and are perpetually lost.

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

I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Will the minister now apologise for misleading the Australian public about the impact of gutting the media ownership laws? Does the minister concede that the new media laws will deliver a massive windfall to some of the most powerful people in Australia? Isn’t Terry McCrann right when he says:

YOU only get one Helen Coonan in your lifetime. But boy, she’s even better than one Alan Bond if the name’s Packer. James Packer.

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

What these laws do, of course, which is the most important thing, is something for consumers. The beneficiaries of these media reforms are consumers, with new and innovative services—up to 30 new channels from next year—and investment that will enable consumers not to be left behind in an Australian backwater but actually be able to take advantage of what you can get in the rest of the world. I know that the Labor Party want to bury their heads in the sand and stay back in the 1980s with Mr Keating. It is too late. It is time to move into the 21st century with media.