|
representatives vote 2006-10-18#12
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2015-01-23 10:59:29
|
Title
Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 — Consideration in Detail- Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 — DUPLICATE
Description
<p>Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.</p>- See the edited version of [this division](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/representatives/2006-10-18/9).
<p class="speaker">Stephen Smith</p><p>by leave—I move:</p><p class="italic">(1)    Schedule 1, page 3 (line 2) to page 47 (line 16), - Opposition to oppose</p><p class="italic">(2)    Schedule 2, item 6, page 53 (lines 6 and 7), omit the item.</p><p>Let me first give a technical description of these amendments. These amendments seek to remove from the <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/R2635">Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006</a> provisions which delete the current cross-media ownership laws from the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and replace them with the government’s weaker regime, which will facilitate a massive consolidation of media ownership in this country.</p><p>The government’s new media diversity regime is inserted into the act by schedule 1. The new regime, with the so-called five-four voices test and the two out of three rule, fails to protect media diversity in this country and, as a consequence, threatens the health of our democracy. Amendment (1) deletes schedule 1 from the bill. Item 6 of schedule 2 deletes the cross-media rules, which are presently found in sections 60 and 61 of the Broadcasting Services Act. Amendment (2) will remove item 6 from the bill.</p><p>If these amendments are successful, the effect will be that the amended media ownership bill will remove the foreign ownership restrictions relating to commercial and subscription television. Provisions of the bill which insert local content requirements for regional television and radio will remain part of the amended bill. By passing these amendments, the House can support media reform that promotes diversity and enhances local content.</p><p>Having dealt with the bill’s technical effects, let me now deal with the substantive policy and political effects. This is the last chance the parliament has to prevent a massive concentration of Australian media ownership. This is the last chance the parliament has to secure, protect and preserve media diversity in Australia. This is the last chance for the National Party, this is the last chance for the Liberal Party, and this is the last chance for our parliament to prevent a massive concentration of media ownership in Australia and a massive undermining of diversity of media content in Australia. Such a concentration, such a diminution of diversity, will have serious adverse consequences, not just for media content but also for opinion, information, cultural services, cultural activity and democracy in our nation.</p><p>The frenzy we have seen overnight, the frenzy we have seen on the front page of every major newspaper, has occurred before the bill has even gone through the parliament. It has occurred before the bill has been formally enacted and proclaimed—and proclamation of the bill does not take place until sometime between 1 February 2007 and 1 January 2008. So we have seen this frenzy of activity before the bill has passed through the parliament and it is some time before the bill will be proclaimed, which could occur as late as 1 January 2008.</p><p>What does that tell you? That tells you that the market will always go where public policy lets it go. And that is the point here: the market will always go where public policy lets it go. I have seen comments like ‘we have this terrible, shocking, bad media company here,’ or ‘we’ve got this not so bad media company here,’ or ‘we’ve got this good media company here’. It is not about good media companies or bad media companies. It is not about good media proprietors or bad media proprietors. It is about bad public policy. The effect of this bad public policy will be a massive concentration of media ownership and a massive lessening of diversity of media opinion and media ownership in the marketplace. That will be the consequence of the government’s law, and that is the consequence of the marketplace seeing what the government proposes to enact as law in this country.</p><p>We have seen the PBL example and we have seen the Channel 7 and <i>West Australian</i> example. It may well be that the PBL example we have seen is consistent with current law. If that is structured in the same way in which Channel 10 and CanWest structured their arrangement—which caused the regulator, then the ABA and now ACMA, considerable consternation over a long period of time—that may well be lawful. It may well be lawful if the deal is predicated to take effect upon the changing of the law, and it would not be affected adversely by Labor’s amendment, which allows the removal of the foreign ownership restrictions. <i>(Extension of time granted)</i> And I was quite surprised to hear the parliamentary secretary opposite, the member for Flinders, saying that he did not believe that foreign capital investment in Australia was a good thing.</p> <p class="speaker">Greg Hunt</p><p>I didn’t say that. That is a complete fabrication.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Smith</p><p>You did. You exactly did. So the PBL example may well be available under the current law, and what Mr Stokes and Channel 7 are doing—apparently, purchasing 14.9 per cent of the <i>West Australian</i>is clearly available under current law. As the member for Perth, let me deal with the Channel 7/<i>West Australian</i> example. I said in my remarks in the second reading debate:</p><p class="italic">… in my home state of Western Australia, in its capital city of Perth, a person who owns Channel 7 and the <i>West Australian</i> would have a tremendous capacity to influence the political debate.</p><p>That is because, on a good day, Channel 7 rates 40—if you want to get a message to the Western Australian community, get yourself on Channel 7—and, on a bad day, the front page of the <i>West Australian</i> will drive electronic media interest in Western Australia. So, if you own the <i>West Australian</i> newspaper, the monopoly newspaper in a capital city, and you own Channel 7, that gives you significant influence—too much influence for one organisation, in my view. I am not being critical of Mr Stokes; I have a high regard for Mr Stokes. I have known Mr Stokes for a long time. But again it comes down to this: it is not about good individuals or bad individuals and it is not about good companies or bad companies; it is about bad public policy. The <i>West Australian</i>/Channel 7 illustration, which is not prevented by the four-five voices rule of the government or by the two out of three rule, will have an adverse effect on diversity in Western Australia and Perth—and that can be replicated throughout the nation, throughout the Commonwealth.</p><p>Senator Conroy, the shadow minister for communications, said that he expected there would be a frenzy. No-one quite expected, not even the market, that we would see the beginning of the frenzy before the bill had even passed the parliament, before the bill had been proclaimed. But it is quite clear we will see a massive concentration of media ownership. That is not good for diversity. It is not good for our democracy. But it is quite clear that the market believes that what is occurring is available to it.</p><p>Labor have for a long period of time been absolutely committed to ensuring diversity in Australia’s media—to ensuring the necessary safeguards for the public interest and for the national interest to ensure diversity of opinion. Labor will continue to harass the government on the issue of media diversity. In the run-up to the next election, we will outline a range of measures which will have the effect of seeking to secure diversity of opinion in Australia’s media. So we remain committed to pursuing policies that protect and promote a diverse range of information and opinion in Australia’s media. There are a range of options available to achieve this objective and Labor will consult widely in the development of our media policy.</p><p>The new media ownership regime will not come into effect before 1 February 2007 at the earliest and possibly not until 1 January 2008 at the latest. It is likely the media landscape will be radically different in two years time. The capacity of the ACCC to block mergers which reduce media diversity will be much clearer, and we will obviously take that experience into account in formulating a comprehensive policy statement, along with all the relevant legal issues, including consideration of what various policy options would give rise to a requirement for the Commonwealth to pay compensation if divestiture was required—although I make the point, as Senator Conroy has, that we are a long way from that.</p><p>This is the parliament’s last chance to prevent a massive concentration of media ownership in Australia, to prevent a massive concentration of media information, opinion and view. It is the last chance to prevent a substantial and dangerous weakening of the diversity of opinion in Australian society. This is the last chance for the National Party, the last chance for the Liberal Party and the last chance for this parliament, and this House should avail itself of that opportunity.</p> <p class="speaker">Greg Hunt</p><p>The government rejects the opposition’s amendments for a very simple principle: they would trap Australia’s media and communications network in the last century rather than allowing them move forward into the coming century. I repeat: the reason we reject these amendments is that they would trap and freeze Australia’s media and communications sector in the last century rather than allowing it to move forward and operate in preparation for the coming century. I make those points precisely because over the last 20 years we have seen a revolution in communications which has meant that the old rules applying to the old economy do not allow for the flexibility that will assist Australian firms and the Australian media prepare for the coming century. In essence, we have moved from three to six platforms, as I mentioned earlier. The traditional platforms of newspapers, radio and television have been supplemented by the now mature platforms of the internet and pay television and the sixth emerging platform of mobile communications in the form of 3G and mobile television.</p><p>These bills allow for a real transition and infusion of capital into that area. They allow for those transitions by creating diversity in terms of 15 new channels potentially by 2009, 25 new channels of high-definition TV, or digital television, by the point of switch-over from analog to digital, all free to air. But they recognise—and this is the point—that the fundamental mechanism for doing that is to allow reform. To compete in the global media environment where global communication is coming through the new three platforms you must allow the old platforms to evolve and work in an environment of reform.</p><p>That means there must be capital. I do not object to foreign capital at all. If people want to invest in Australia and to contribute their funds to the development of Australia, that is a profoundly good thing. But I do object—and here I respond directly to what the opposition shadow has said—to the proposition that we should do that without modifying our existing environment to give Australian content providers, Australian communicators and Australian communications companies the flexibility to compete. If you do one and not the other, it fails the package. The package around foreign ownership and cross-media communications does a very simple thing: it sets out the provisions which ensure that there can be capital, synergies and flexibility, but contrary to the view put forward by the opposition, there are real protections.</p><p>So their amendments provide all of the restrictions but none of the flexibilities. It is last century’s approach to this century’s great revolution. There are adequate and deep protections. There is provision for a minimum of six media groups in Melbourne and Sydney, five in the major cities, four in the regional areas and a requirement that no group can hold more than two out of three platforms and a maximum of two radio stations in any particular media market and, significantly, quite powerful local content provisions which, I would argue, actually expand the capacity and the requirements for the provision of local content around Australia.</p><p>On that basis we reject the arguments put forward. I note in particular that the shadow spokesperson of the opposition has a misunderstanding. I am advised that the speculation in today’s media about changes in media ownership is about movement under the current rules. So with great respect, there is a misunderstanding and for those reasons, because this is the way forward, we reject the position put forward and the amendments. I again commend the bill in its original form to the House.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|