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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked today.

Yet again, we have a minister who has lost touch with reality—Senator Coonan. I know it is hard to tell, Senator McGauran, listening to the drivel that we have to listen to in answers to questions, but we have a minister continuing to deny the undeniable. Everybody in the media industry understands what is going on in the marketplace today as we speak. A merger frenzy is building. PBL has generated a war chest. Kerry Stokes has launched a raid on the West Australian and today there is news that a mystery buyer has snapped up a strategic stake in Fairfax. The investment bankers and lawyers have been called in and the plans to carve up Australia’s media sector are being drawn up. The minister claims that everything that is happening now is happening under the existing laws. This is just treating the public with contempt.

Is the minister seriously claiming that it was just a coincidence that James Packer and Kerry Stokes made their moves when it became clear that the legislation would get through parliament? Does she think that Kerry Stokes would have moved on the West Australian if he did not know that it would be up for grabs next year when the new laws are proclaimed? For the past few days the minister and the Prime Minister have been wandering around feigning surprise, pretending that the speculation about a wave of takeovers comes as a shock to them. The very purpose of the media ownership legislation was to facilitate a massive consolidation in the industry. The minister said that the industry had to be free to realise economies of scale. That was the minister’s statement. The floor of five voices per market in the city and four in regional Australia was set deliberately so low as to allow these takeovers to occur. The explanatory memorandum stated that the cross-media ownership changes would allow companies to generate reductions in expenditure. This was always just code for media takeovers that would allow newsrooms to be merged, journalists to be sacked and local content to be reduced. Today we had the Prime Minister on radio claiming that we have to accept concentration because we are just 20 million Australians. The truth is that the Australian media sector, with the existing number of players, is tremendously profitable. Cross-media mergers are not needed for the viability of this sector.

The other great furphy being peddled by the government is that the new media laws are friendly to the consumer. What nonsense! How could a dramatic reduction in media diversity be in the interests of consumers? The minister has talked up the modest improvements in digital television in the package as a great win for consumers, but the claim that Australians need to sacrifice media diversity in order to enjoy the benefits of digital television is a complete red herring. No other government in the developed world has asked its citizens to make such an absurd trade-off. In truth, the digital package is not focused on consumers at all. It is a carefully crafted set of compromises designed to placate the interests of the big media players. Let us look at the rules for multichannelling, for example. Under the new laws commercial broadcasters will be allowed to run only one extra digital channel in high definition until 2009. HD equipment is available in only five per cent of households and is at least three times more expensive. But the best summation is in the editorial of today’s Australian. It says:

Whatever the outcome, Senator Coonan should be ashamed of herself. By protecting the free-to-air television owners from real competition, Senator Coonan has delivered them a free run at the nation’s print assets and in the process managed to reduce overall diversity and, most probably, the quality of Australia’s print media landscape.

(Time expired)

Kay Patterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in response to a question put to Senator Kemp by Senator Claire Moore regarding carers payment for parents for children who have a profound disability and who are under 16 years of age. When we first came into government in 1996, there was a carers payment to people caring for someone who required care. The carers payment is in lieu of someone who would otherwise be paid to go to work. It is usually for people under 65 years of age, although some people who receive a carers payment are over 65. However, those people usually move to the aged care pension because of its portability and other issues that mean that they are better off on it or because they prefer to be on it.

Senator Newman came into this chamber when we were facing $96 billion worth of debt that Labor had left us. We were paying about $8½ billion or more in interest. People who have mortgages know that when you have a debt you pay interest on it. We were $96 billion in debt and paying about $8½ billion in interest—mostly overseas, I presume—for that debt. Despite that and despite the fact that we were tightening our belts, Senator Newman fought long and hard to get a measure through cabinet for parents who were caring for a profoundly disabled child under 16 years of age—and of course it was limited earlier on because we were trying to rein in the debt. Senator Newman also brought in a measure that, if there were two children in a family with a degenerative disease—and often with a degenerative disease a person is slowly deteriorating—and those two children made demands on the carer equivalent to those of a child with a profound disability, the carer would get the carers payment.

For the first time in the history of Australia, carers with a child under 16 who had a profound disability or who had two children with a degenerative disease and who qualified because their care was the equivalent of looking after a child with a profound disability received a carers payment. Never, ever had it crossed Labor’s mind or lips to assist those people. Mind you, Labor were spending like there was no tomorrow—$10 billion in the last year they were in government, but not on carers of children with a profound disability. As we paid back some of the debt, Senator Vanstone was able to extend that. When I was minister, we had a review of some of the issues within the carers payment.

So for Labor to come in here and give examples of children whose parents might not qualify—I know that Mr Brough is looking at that again—is to have such gall and front, when we go back and look at the history. Prior to 1996 there was not one single parent of a profoundly disabled child under 16 whose parents received any assistance in the form of a carers payment—not one. It pays to have been here for a while to remember exactly what Labor’s record is. They come in here under the cover of ‘I care about these people. Look at us, we’ve got the heart. We’re people who care,’ but they never remind people that, when they were in government, they did not give one single cent in carers payment to a family with a child with a profound disability. So it is crocodile tears.

While on my feet, I may as well remind honourable senators what we have done for carers since we have been in government. We extended the time that carers can be away from the person for whom they care and not lose their pension. We increased the amount of time that a person on a carers payment could work and not lose it. Labor never remind people about that. Because we paid back the debt and reduced taxes, we have been able to ensure that people on carers payments and other benefits receive some assistance. As a result of the fact that we paid back the debt, we have been able to give people who are in the workforce or people who are retired and who have investments some tax relief. We have also been able to give people on a carers payment $1,000 extra at the end of the budget year for the last three years. This is because we have managed the economy well. Never did anyone on a carers payment see any money when Labor were in government.

We have put in $25 million to acknowledge young carers—some as young as five, six, seven, 11 and 13—who are assisting in the care of a disabled sibling. There are also some children who at 13 years of age and on their own are caring for parents with multiple sclerosis. We have given $25 million to those young people to provide them with respite, assistance, counselling and a hotline so that they can find out how to get a wheelchair. Labor is all talk and no action. (Time expired)

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

I rise this afternoon to take note of answers given by Senator Coonan, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, to questions which were predominantly asked by Senator Conroy. It was interesting to watch Lateline last night. We saw the juxtaposition of the minister’s claims some weeks ago that there would be no media frenzy following the debate and passage of the cross-media laws—she gave a categorical guarantee of that—and her attempts on Lateline last night to justify the activity that we have seen in the last 24 hours. She may well say that the activity is occurring under the existing regime, but it seems odd, don’t you think, that the activity of people such as Mr Packer has occurred within the last 24 hours? It could have occurred within the last 10 years—but, no, the activity and the frenzy has been occurring within the last 24 hours in preparation for the imminent changes once that legislation is signed into law.

We now know that the government’s changes will in fact lead to a massive concentration of media ownership not only in the metropolitan areas but also in regional Australia. The government’s five-four voices test is an absolute fraud. It does not protect diversity. In places like Bathurst the number of current media owners is five, and under the plan it will go to four. In places like Coffs Harbour there will be a reduction from five to four. In Sydney the number could go from 12 to six, and in Melbourne the number could go from 11 to six. In places like Lismore we could go from five to four. So everywhere we look around this country there will be a reduction in diversity and a concentration of media ownership.

As I have said, the number of owners will halve in Sydney and Melbourne, and fall by one-third in many parts of regional Australia. The upshot of that is that we will have one person owning a newspaper, two radio stations and a TV network, and that company would be given the same weight in the diversity test as a small radio station. The end result is that these changes are not in the public interest—that media diversity is in fact essential for the proper operation of a democracy. We have seen a media frenzy whereby this concentration will start to happen and will continue to happen because the floodgates have now been opened to allow that to happen. The changes will ensure that a wide range of views that are heard on key issues are minimised. The changes that we are experiencing are extreme.

We heard Senator Conroy say in his taking note of answers that the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts believes that because we are a nation of only 20 million people a certain concentration is needed. She tries to justify that for economic reasons. Let us look at the economic reasons. We know that media industry profits are at a record level. The average profit margin is 24 per cent—you cannot get much higher than that—so economic reasons do not seem to be valid in this argument. If we believe that it is needed because we are such a small nation of 20 million people then why is it that other democracies like the US, the UK, France, Germany, South Korea and the Netherlands have very comprehensive cross-media laws?

We already have a concentrated media market by world standards, but of course under these laws and these proposals that concentration will be further increased. The Prime Minister needs to explain to people why he wants to give even more power to some of the most powerful people in this country, a concentration that will be held by only two or three people. The diversity of views that you read, hear and listen to will become even more concentrated. This government can deny as much as it likes that that is going to be the fact, but all we have seen across the tabloids today—and let us face it: tabloids usually drive our radio shows through the day and probably television—is a frenzy of people buying and selling and secret buyers trying to get their hands on this grab for greater media ownership. (Time expired)

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

I rise to take note of questions asked of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Senator Vanstone. The issue of the 457 visas arises every question time, and I think it is important to say how the government is investigating the so-called misuse of 457 visas.

The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, DIMA, is currently investigating around 160 allegations of the misuse of 457 visas. Generally the DIMA investigators have found that many of the allegations were baseless and resulted in the reputation of employers being wrongly tarnished and that a minority of employers have underpaid workers and, unfortunately, have not kept proper records or have used workers in less skilled positions. It is important to note that state and territory governments are the biggest users of this visa class.

It has also been said that the 457 visa arrangements are driving down Australians’ wages. I do not agree with this. The average salary of 457 visa holders is $66,200. The 457 visa is not a cheap option for employers, given the costs of recruiting from overseas. In order to bargain for higher salaries, 457 visa holders regularly move from one employer to another.

We have also had criticism that the training of Australians is at risk because of the people who have 457 visas. This is not correct. Employers seeking to sponsor workers on the 457 visa must demonstrate a commitment to training Australians or that their operations will result in the introduction of new or improved technology or business skills. This is something that is very close to me because the town next door to where I live has a large meatworks and the question has been asked: why suspend the processing of meatworker visas? DIMA is undertaking integrity checking to ensure that sponsored workers have the correct skills.

I would like to tell those opposite about the progress that has been made on the meat industry labour agreement. There is a draft labour agreement for the meat industry, and it is ready for signature. The agreement addresses industry-specific needs whilst safeguarding employment opportunities for Australians, including protecting conditions, wages and training. It is very difficult to get anyone to come and work in the meatworks in my area, even though it is a very high-class establishment, because there is so much other work. The nickel mine just recently opened at Ravensthorpe is taking away an enormous number of our labour sources. As farmers, we have found it very hard to get anyone to come and work on the properties. As far as the meatworkers go, the town of Katanning has meatworkers from very many different countries. Christmas Islanders are the basis of the workforce, and we have a number of Afghan, Chinese and Filipino meatworkers, and now we also have some African meatworkers. We have a very multicultural community in Katanning.

To continue on this industry labour agreement: the state governments, the Australian Meat Industry Council and the Australian Meat Industry Employees Union have all been consulted regarding the new labour agreement that is waiting to be signed. We are also told that the possible introduction of minimum English language requirements is being discussed currently with state and territory governments and industry groups. Also, traditional labour market testing for 457 visas was progressively abolished in 1994. Labour market testing was found to create lengthy delays and costs for employers without adding any value, as employers rarely failed labour market testing. (Time expired)

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

I rise to take note of answers provided by the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Coonan. Here we are only a week after standing in this chamber debating the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 and already we see the cracks appearing. What a week it has been for the minister, who has seen her government’s ideological obsession with having the cross-media ownership rules pass through the parliament at any cost—all that to now be upstaged by the media giants who have been salivating at the mouth in anticipation. I would suggest that the events of the past week have finally brought a few realities to the minister. I would guess the minister is now beginning to see that consumer-benefiting competition is not something that media moguls have a strong interest in. I would also think the minister is beginning to see that she can no longer hide behind digital technology and hope that nobody sees what the intentions really are.

The Prime Minister and Senator Coonan are trying to hose everything down. They are telling us all to take a cold shower. This morning we heard the puzzling assertion by the Prime Minister that the impending frenzy of media takeovers is unrelated to the new legislation. For the Prime Minister to say that the activity occurring in media organisations’ boardrooms is unrelated to the passing of the new legislation is a bad joke. That is not what we are reading in our newspapers, and I draw your attention to the following headlines: ‘Media makeover already underway’; ‘Cashed-up PBL starts deal frenzy’; ‘Feeding frenzy looms’; ‘Magnates open wallets as opening blows struck’; ‘Media moguls lead way as stocks keep soaring’; ‘Media moguls on the prowl as new laws change rules’; ‘Packer’s $4.5b first shot in media war’; ‘Trading frenzy catches Fairfax’; ‘Cashed up and hunting bigger game’; ‘Investors tip media frenzy, Coonan tries to calm fears’; and, from the Northern Territory News, ‘Media knives out as carve-up begins’.

The Prime Minister was trying to create even more smoke and mirrors by saying, ‘A certain concentration is needed in a nation of 20 million’ for ‘economic reasons’. It would be interesting for him to expand on this statement a little, when profits to the media industry are at record levels. And so with criticism all around them what do the government do? They continually revert back to the internet as a great saviour for their bungling of media diversity in this country.

Given that this government is so keen to cite the internet as a cornerstone of diversity and given that YouTube has been given so much press of late, I think we need a section on YouTube dedicated to the Howard government. But what name could we give such a section? One that springs to mind is ‘denial’. The government is in denial mode, so that is the key word that we could use—www.howardindenial.com is my suggestion for the YouTube link. Here people could view all sorts of footage of the Howard government’s out-of-touch rhetoric, and I feel confident in saying that such a website would receive a significant number of hits. Maybe the link could be a spin-off from that infamous line ‘the truth is out there’, made popular by a certain television series, because the truth is now out there for all of the country to see. The truth behind the government’s motivation for this legislation is out there. The reality is that this legislation was not designed with the Australian public media consumers in mind, it was not drafted to improve the value and superiority of Australia’s media and it was never going to enhance diversity.

On Lateline, when Tony Jones asked the minister: ‘Alan Bond aside, are you the best friend the Packer family ever had?’ the minister ducked answering the question. The minister seems to be doing a lot of ducking in answering questions over the media changes. It is clear that the minister is no friend of the Australian public when it comes to ensuring a diversity of media voices of influence. This latest round of legislation highlights that this government has completely left the building when it comes to being in touch with Australia. The government’s bill was rammed through the place with the support of Senator Joyce and Senator Fielding. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.