Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 and the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Television) Bill 2006. In doing so, I will be arguing against any increase in the concentration of media ownership amongst Australia’s dominant media outlets.

The purpose of the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 is to dismantle cross-media ownership laws. It does so by allowing media owners to buy into other means of communication. The main purpose of this bill is to scrap restrictions that have guaranteed that the major metropolitan newspapers are not controlled by the same people who control the television stations or the comparatively few opinion-setting radio stations. How can the concentration of ownership of TV, daily newspapers and radio businesses within any one company do anything but decrease media diversity?

Analysts all over the country have identified the result of this bill—that is, a reduction in the number of media owners in Australia’s major media markets from 11 to five. As a result of this government’s assault on Australian journalism, we will see the largest players buying up media and making the notion of diversity within Australian journalistic media a global joke. There may be some countries with less media diversity than this government has planned for Australia. They are countries such as Cuba, North Korea, maybe Burma, and the old Soviet Union of the fifties through to the eighties. This is the company we, a free and open democracy, will be keeping with a minimal number of media outlets with a millennium of media dominance to play with.

This debate is taking place in a context of open warfare between this government and the ABC—the diminishing budgets, the accusations of bias, the threats of commercialism. Whether or not there is diversity of media ownership is of secondary interest to this government. Its absolute focus can be seen in this media bill’s Castroesque aversion to diversity of opinion and content.

Monopoly profits enjoyed by some proprietors are quite insignificant compared to the political effect of content control—opinion dominance and hence, as some would hope, something approximating social control and, ultimately, voter preference control. Australia being a democratic nation, let me ask this: who called for this bill? Who lobbied for it? Who supports it in the community, at the kitchen tables and in the lounge rooms and workplaces around the country? Where is the democratic push for the increased concentration of media ownership in this country which already has one of the most concentrated markets among comparable countries? Television stations have a guaranteed business and profitability; they do not need to buy into radio to be commercially viable.

There is a notion that this bill is necessary to enable regional radio stations to achieve greater economies of scale, thus enabling increased returns to be altruistically reinvested in the region through local news production. However, regional radio stations are doing fine. They are not going bust. They are able to cope with the demands of their markets. Where the market demands local content, they provide it. The proposed amendments are not necessary to save them from their own population bases.

In short, this government is out of control. We have seen this in its extreme industrial relations legislation. We have seen this in its delusional dismissal of global warming. We have seen this in its preference for cheaper, overseas workers taking jobs for which Australians should be receiving training. And we see it in this media ownership bill—how this supposedly modern government is delivering the nation’s media to media owners, shoring up the oligarchic industry.

Within my home state of South Australia, specifically Adelaide, we only have one newspaper and, apart from the ABC, only one radio station focused on opinion, news, the progression of ideas and the like—that is 5AA. The single newspaper, the single talkback radio station, the ABC and a few channels are not an awful lot of players to be going on with. But, if there is consolidation in the Adelaide market and even fewer players, it would be yet another indictment of this government’s disregard for the desires of the public and the needs of our nation.

Regarding the digital TV amendment, I want to make a few points on the provision of television services, which every household in my electorate would like to see improved. Whatever any government of the day decides is the best use of available spectrum, it is a finite resource and free-to-air television will always operate within constraints. Apart from any qualitative improvements inherent in digital television, the greater utilisation of spectrum made available to television stations and viewers is certainly in the interests of my constituents and I look forward to a day on which we see full multichannelling by each broadcaster. This day has been drawing nearer for six years. It could have been no later than 1 January 2009 but, unfortunately, it is apparent that the will is not there to make it so.

All free-to-air broadcasters have provided digital services in metropolitan areas since January 2001 and in regional areas since at least January 2004. In this implementation phase, analog programming has been simulcast in digital—same content, same viewing, same everything but perhaps noise or snow. By the end of 2005, ABC digital services reached over 96 per cent of the population and SBS have expected their roll-out to be completed by the end of 2006. Digital Broadcasting Australia have claimed that approximately 87 per cent of the Australian population had all free-to-air television services available to them in digital last year. Given this encouragement, the fact that digital TV had been adopted by something in the vicinity of only 13 per cent of households up to the end of 2005, with the anticipated analog switch-off in metropolitan areas being just three years later, has more than a deflationary effect; it is a ridiculously low figure.

So, digital TV is available to an overwhelming proportion of the Australian population right now, but people have not been sold on the idea of converting to digital. Expert advice is very simple, whether it be from the Seven or Ten network, any other provider or interested party—even the ACCC: give people a reason to invest in new technology. Give them access to something in addition to what they are currently getting or they have no incentive to take it up—no underlying personal gain, no invisible hand, no digital take-up.

Before being motivated to take up digital, you naturally need to know it exists. Two years after digital’s commencement, 21.8 per cent of Perth households had never even heard of digital TV. This is in 2003, with an analog cut-off in 2008. Wouldn’t it have been a different story if the government had put half of its Work Choices advertisements—just half of its $55 million worth of industrial relations propaganda—towards digital take-up, advertising analog’s switch-off date and the benefits of digital free-to-air television, and put something to people that they may have actually been able to learn something from, some accurate information for their benefit?

The government is obviously obsessed at this point in time with other things. Instead of advancing digital take-up, the minister decides to effectively drop it. Instead of pushing forward, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts retreated, admitting her preference to Senate estimates in May 2005 saying that the way the government was progressing the issue of a 2008 switch-off in metropolitan areas seemed unachievable. So maybe we will just leave the date hanging—to be determined maybe sooner or probably later. So, what is the situation now? Ask anyone in the street and they would not have the foggiest. So why would they feel inclined to spend their hard earned money on new technology?

Despite this government’s apparent lack of interest in advancing digital take-up, the inquiry into the uptake of digital television in Australia conducted by the House Standing Committee on Communications, Information Technology and the Arts recommended programming restrictions on multichannelling for national free-to-air networks as soon as possible and no later than 1 January 2007 and for commercial free-to-air networks on 1 January 2008, so that at least those who knew of digital could see some value in it. This bill lifts restrictions on the national broadcasters but only allows commercial free TV to provide a multichannel from January 2009. Restrictions on the number of multichannels a commercial free-to-air broadcaster can transmit will not be lifted until analog is switched off—whether that will be 2010 or 2012. But even with the limited gains regarding viewing choice over the next few years, one restriction remains: no broadcasting of anti-siphoning listed events on multichannels unless it is a repeat or simulcast—that is, no transmission by use of a multichannel that could work around standard programming on analog be played live on a multichannel and increase event viewing. I think this is particularly relevant given the proposed use it or lose it reaction.

We have had interested parties complaining about the proportion of listed events that are transmitted at game time. They complain that it is late, incomplete or omitted from programming. The idea in avoiding such scenarios is to make it inaccessible to anyone without access to a particular subscription service, probably worth $600 per year. So, in order to increase viewing, the suggestion is to take it off free to air and make it available to subscribers of a particular pay-for-view service. The government have wanted to minimise competition for the relatively new subscription TV industry, and their efforts have, I would expect, gone a long way to making subscription TV profitable at this time. But this deliberate and purposeful manipulation of the market to achieve subscription viability is not enough.

The government wants to continue the development of a pay TV skewed sport TV market: a market where free-to-air TV is hamstrung and purposefully prevented from using existing technology and capacity to program events—even certain games within overall events—on multichannel, giving sport fans nationwide an exceptionally good reason to convert to digital and keeping the event on the anti-siphoning list for a long time to come. In a few more years, we will all be digital and wanting to watch the event free to air. But, no, this government wants the anti-siphoning listed games taken off the list and sold to subscription TV: better to have people not be able to watch a game on pay TV than on digital free to air—this is the government’s view.

When the minister says that the antisiphoning list is for protecting events of national importance or cultural significance, I would like to ask her what she is thinking of. I cannot say I agree with every suggestion that has been made by the old Australian Broadcasting Authority on this matter, but even they have recommended, repeatedly, that all games involving Australia’s international soccer team, the Socceroos, should be included on the antisiphoning list. This is the advice that the Australia Broadcasting Authority gave to the minister for more than five years. Most international one-day cricket matches and tests Australia plays here are on the list, every international rugby test is on the list, but every international soccer game, other than the World Cup finals, is not. I would like to ask the minister why not.

Evidently, the ascension of the Socceroos to the world game, Australia’s standing within the international soccer community and the pride that Australians felt seeing the green and gold take it up to some of the best teams in the world—and in fact beat some of the best teams in the world—are not, in the minister’s view, of national importance or cultural significance. As I said earlier, I think two of the criteria for events going on that list are those of national importance and cultural significance. A question that has to be asked of the minister—and she must explain this to Australia’s soccer fans and other sports-loving fans—is why she thinks the Australian Socceroos on the international scale are not of national importance or cultural significance. Time and time again I have asked her to answer this question, but I have yet to hear any answers. It is ridiculous, narrow-minded and insulting to Australian soccer fans, as I have been hearing in the last few weeks since this issue was raised.

The effect of the minister’s view—a view which I must say is wrong—is the public’s loss of our Socceroos, the public’s loss of international games such as the Asian Cup and the loss by SBS and free-to-air to pay TV until 2013. Just at the time that Australia as a nation has witnessed our own team achieve success in the World Cup, just as it has seen young Australians mixing it with the best in the world, the Brazilians and the Italians, and just as the game is getting the attention it both deserves and has seriously lacked over many years—at this crucial point—the Socceroos are taken off the antisiphoning list and lost to free-to-air TV. People are very upset about this and, as I mentioned earlier, many people have contacted my office via email and phone calls about the Socceroos being taken off the free-to-air list and want it back on there at the earliest possible time.

This action of the Howard government shows its ignorance of what the Australian public demand, and it shows its incompetence in dismissing the Socceroos’ national significance. It also shows the Howard government is out of touch. When the Socceroos were playing in the World Cup we all saw the Prime Minister dressed up in his green and gold in front of his TV in his lounge room cheering the Socceroos on and jumping on board—in fact, everyone wanted to jump on board at that time—but where is the Prime Minister now when soccer fans really need his help to ensure that they can continue to see on free-to-air television the Socceroos play on the international stage? Where is he? Nowhere. This government does not value soccer, it does not value Australian soccer and it does not value the right of soccer-loving Australian families to watch our national team on the international stage.

Cricket and rugby lovers do comparatively better with the antisiphoning list and free-to-air guarantees, such as they are. Aussie Rules, on the other hand, is worth taking a look at. AFL games are on the antisiphoning list, so a free-to-air network gets preferential rights to air and Channels 7 and 10 have done a deal to secure those rights. But whether it was the Channel 7 and Channel 10 bid or the joint Channel 9 and Fox Sports bid, we will not see many more games played—live or delayed. Sporting competitions can be cherry-picked by the free-to-air networks and, because they cannot televise all games on their analog stations and are prohibited from televising on a multichannel, they attempt to effectively onsell the games to a subscription service.

Here we have another example of how the government’s restrictions on multichannelling are giving networks no choice but to deprive the viewing public of free-to-air sport. Again in this context, prohibiting sport on multichannels but threatening them with ‘use it or lose it’ penalties is forcing the free-to-air network to increasingly lose sporting competitions central to Australians’ social engagement to pay-for-view subscription services. I fear that AFL, cricket, rugby and soccer—the most popular sports in Australia—have all been targeted. Already many international cricket games have been lost to the antisiphoning list and free-to-air television. More international cricket is shown on subscription TV than on free-to-air TV. This is only because of the anti free TV motif of this government and its prohibition on multichannelling. This is a waste of available technology, a waste of available spectrum and a crime against all young sports fans who have enjoyed seeing their heroes on television and listening to commentaries from Ian Chappell and like greats who impart so much cricket wisdom to those willing to learn.

What we have seen with the Socceroos being lost from SBS to Fox Sports or to pay TV is going to continue with the ongoing restrictions on digital free-to-air multichannelling. Let this be a warning to the other codes, because what has happened to the Socceroos can happen to the AFL, to rugby and to cricket. It will be a devastating day when we cannot see our beloved AFL teams, our national cricket team or our national rugby teams on free-to-air. The sporting public demands more, and it is an indictment of this government that it has not advanced what is clearly in the best interests of the public and the sports. What is in their best interests is to be on free-to-air for all the public to be able to view them—for all the people who do not have the ability to pay the minimum $600 per year for pay TV or to attend sporting games. That is why football was on TV. It was for people who could not attend those games. Many pensioners cannot afford to go to the football and they cannot afford pay TV. Their only enjoyment, particularly in Adelaide, is to watch teams such as the Adelaide Crows or Port Power on a Sunday afternoon on TV. So it will be a sad day when we lose those sports from free-to-air.

These bills are not about the public’s best interests; they are about bleeding the public’s content for the good of a very few companies who are moguls in Australian media and still demand that the government gives them more. Our democracy is at stake on this issue. These bills are not in the best interests of the Australian public. The passage of these bills will reduce media ownership and media diversity. The new legislation will allow ownership of our media outlets to be in the hands of very few, stifling our democracy. We need to encourage media diversity, not constrain the media with fewer players. Australia’s media should not be seen as a commodity, which is what this government sees it as.

In my home city of Adelaide, with only one newspaper and two news radio stations, we will feel the impact greatly when these very few media outlets fall into the hands of the very few. Again, I ask: how can the concentration of ownership of TV and daily newspaper and radio businesses within any one company do anything but decrease media diversity? These bills pay lip-service to the regional areas of Australia. Therefore, I cannot support these bills and I encourage members to vote against them. (Time expired)

See this speech in context