John Murphy (Lowe, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

In the next breath we heard the Southern Cross Broadcasting Managing Director, Tony Bell, say that he believes media consolidation will take place reasonably quickly. Is it any wonder that at the moment Mr Packer is licking his lips? We see from today’s papers that the Packer family is having a field day with media reform. These are Senator Coonan’s ‘in it for the consumers’ media reforms. The bills have not even passed the House, Kerry Packer is not even stiff and James Packer is about to double the family fortune.

I wonder what the ‘Packer Family First Party’ conscience is thinking this morning with all the poverty in Australia and with the great wealth of the Packer family set to double out of Mr Packer’s monopoly gambling interests and his keeping the monopoly in place through his media company. All thanks go to the ‘Packer Family First’ senator, Senator Fielding, and the Howard government. ‘Packer Family First’ Senator Steve Fielding has behaved in my view in a most venal way and has become the Judas of the parliament.

Before the ink has barely dried on the Senate’s approach to cross-media changes and before receiving the rubber stamp from this chamber, we now have the good news that a conga line of media proprietors are seeking to expand their personal media interests. According to media reports this morning, Mr Packer will be selling some of his media interests, though still remaining in control of them, and using his new-found cash bonanza to target media acquisitions, including the Fairfax newspaper group and online and radio interests. We have news that Channel 7 has launched a $200 million raid on West Australian Newspapers, the main newspaper company in Perth. We have woken up to headlines this morning that are disastrous for our democracy, including ‘The big media carve-up’, ‘Packer’s sale of the century’, ‘Introducing PBL Media, $6b predator’, ‘Packer hits $4.5b jackpot’, and ‘Stokes joins media frenzy’.

CCZ Equities analyst Roger Colman had the good sense to tell the public, back in August this year, that if the bills were passed there would be a flurry of media activity. However, earlier this year the venal communications minister, Senator Coonan, said that she could see no big media changes, that ‘it is difficult to see that there would be a real flurry of activity’ on the media landscape. Senator Coonan is either incompetent or just hopelessly out of touch. Either way, she ought to be sacked for showing such contempt and reckless disregard for our democracy. What a disgrace. The parliament has not even passed the bills yet, and we have this flurry of activity that will result in less choice for consumers. What an appalling insult to this House, to the Senate and to the democratic process. What an appalling mockery of Australia’s precious democracy. What a black day for the parliamentary process. What a black day for our democracy. I ask again: who is really running the country?

Four-and-a-half billion dollar deals are not struck overnight. How long has this clayton’s communications minister been doing the bidding of big media proprietors? Was the public consultation process legitimate, or was the minister just going through the motions? Why was the minister so keen to push these changes through a farcical two-day shotgun Senate inquiry? And the government is going to gag debate on the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 in the House in half an hour’s time. What a disgrace.

Through the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill, the minister is gagging political debate in the media. As I speak, she and her party are going to gag debate in the parliament at 11 o’clock today. What a black day for our democracy. These are questions that must be answered immediately to restore some respectability and legitimacy to the government’s entire media reform. Yet this is a clayton’s communications minister who will not answer them. She has not answered them in the past, she will not answer them now and she will not answer them in the future.

PBL and News Ltd now have free reign to own virtually all of Australia’s major newspapers, a free-to-air television network, monopoly pay TV Foxtel and 70 per cent of the internet’s news and information sites, while no-one else is allowed to buy a free-to-air television licence. So much for the minister being ‘in it for the consumers’! While the big end of town jumps for joy at the minister’s half-measures and half-baked media initiatives, including the weak initiatives in this bill, consumers are increasingly becoming fed up. I draw the minister’s attention to Greg Graham’s letter to the Sydney Morning Herald on 12 October, which said:

The only beneficiary of the new laws is big business, and John Howard needs to explain to me at least why its interests override mine.

The government needs to explain this to Mr Graham, it needs to explain this to me and it needs to explain this to all other ordinary Australians, who are concerned that the government has fallen prey to the fangs of Australia’s media proprietors.

Australia’s democracy is certainly entering a dark era. Despite Australia already having one of the most concentrated media ownership landscapes in the Western world, we are seeing plans that will see it become a lot more concentrated. A functioning democracy requires a sufficiently diverse source of news and political commentary to ensure members of the public are well enough informed to make their own judgements. We need a free and sceptical media that can promote a plurality of opinions. What sort of a pillar of democracy will our fourth estate be if it is owned by a couple of media proprietors? Will journalists freely dissect and report the serious issues of the day if they run the risk of impeding their employment prospects?

As I mentioned, this bill uses half-measures to address current problems that are only compounded by other bills that are currently before the parliament. It is sad that people should be sceptical about the internet value of digital television technology, but it is sadder that such scepticism exists because of the actions and policies of the Howard government. We know the government can do something about this. The government can provide more compelling digital content, not token digital content, to viewers in remote areas through this bill. The government’s approach to this bill reflects the approach of the failed and discredited policies of former communications minister Senator Richard Alston. It reflects an approach that is stuck in the shadows of the government’s 1998 legislation in which it was somehow thought to be in the public interest to freeze further commercial television networks. Perhaps it was thought that we needed to protect the incumbent commercial broadcasters during the period when they had to invest in digital transmission all those years ago.

That might have been fair enough then, but why, in the name of the public interest, are we transforming this freeze into an ice age? There is no public interest reason. It makes no sense to the ordinary Australian consumer. This bill aims to encourage existing broadcasting players to provide more broadcasting services in underserved areas without the need for inviting more licensees into those areas. Those who sit opposite might wonder why. The reason is simple. There cannot be more licensees because the number of commercial TV broadcasting licences has been frozen. What about providing to consumers more competition, greater choice and innovation from new entrants? Why give existing players an opportunity to rehash old footage on a digital channel?

Remember the submissions from Steve Ulrich and Paul Macknamara that digital television does not offer enough digital programming or content to provide incentives for consumers to upgrade? Why hand over the new service to existing media players when there is a risk that the content will be similar to or the same as the content that consumers in that area are already getting? Is the minister really serious about driving the take-up of digital television in these areas? Is the minister really in it for the consumers? Of course not. What is wrong with giving another broadcaster a free-to-air television licence if that broadcaster is willing to put forward the large sums involved in such an investment?

If the minister truly were the consumers’ champion, there would be no freeze on the number of free-to-air television networks. As I have said before, John Singleton wants to put a 100 per cent Australian content television network throughout Australia, and that would take only five per cent away from the existing market. What is wrong with that? If the minister truly were the consumers’ champion, the conversion to digital television would be gathering momentum Australia-wide because free-to-air broadcasters would be unshackled from restrictions on multichannelling. The restriction on standard-definition multichannelling while opening up high-definition multichannelling is ludicrous. Given that the only network that has shown an interest in multichannelling, the Channel 7 network, has stated that it has no plans to commence a high-definition multichannelling service, it makes absolutely no sense.

This is a cunning attempt by the minister to appear as though she is giving something to consumers when in reality she is giving them nothing. The reality is that a prohibition on free-to-air networks and a ban on standard-definition multichannelling in non-remote areas are clearly designed to address the interests of media players. It is a compromise with the numerous media businesses that are naturally seeking to protect their turf. That is why I have been screaming in the House for the last six years, since the government proposed all these changes to the media reform landscape in Australia.

What about protecting the public interest? What about being in it for the consumer? This bill and other elements of the government’s so-called media reform package can only lead me to conclude that this government is motivated not by the public interest but only by the interests of the two biggest media companies in Australia. Most, if not all, of the government’s media reforms appease the powerful commercial media interests, not the interests of consumers.

It is amazing that the minister scratches her head and wonders why Australians are not taking up digital technology, when she is simultaneously selling them out in favour of the two biggest players. The government has refused to tell the Australian people the real agenda behind its policies, but the Australian people are not blind. Most will see right through the minister’s venal behaviour. What is most problematic about the Howard government’s approach to digital television is its track record of deviating from a commitment to providing a diverse range of services offering entertainment, education, news and information.

At every juncture of digital TV policy, the government has navigated a dangerous path which appeases entrenched segments of the television and pay TV industry and most obviously PBL and News Ltd. Everything the Howard government has tried to do in terms of digital television has been nothing short of a win for stupidity and a triumph for incompetence. Sadly, the fumbling and bumbling approach to digital technology is only contributing to the untenable situation whereby Australia remains in a world of analog while other countries make a permanent switch to digital. This is the case in remote and non-remote areas.

I challenge the minister to undertake a genuine reform agenda, starting with this bill, that does not build upon the foundation of appeasing established vested interests. Why start from the premise of pandering to media moguls? Why not build from the foundation of exploiting opportunities presented by digital television rather than exploiting and flogging the poor consumers? If we can have more new broadcasters in the free-to-air television space, why stop this progress? If we can enhance viewing choice by allowing standard-definition multichannelling options for those in non-remote areas, why stop this progress? Why should we continue to remain shackled by decisions that seem purposefully designed to inhibit the development of digital technology? Why not listen to consumer and competitor concerns when reforming any elements of Australia’s media?

Australia’s media need not remain a protected species. Since entering parliament, I have held the sincere belief that the government would stop singing from the same song sheet as the influential media moguls. The Howard government’s track record on media regulation has been appalling. Combined with the Howard government’s ruthless attempt this week to sell out our democracy to powerful media moguls, my belief has understandably waned.

Members of the government should show courage and leadership and stand up for their principles rather than political pragmatism. Australia’s democracy is far more important than any short-term political gain. The public interest and the future of our democracy are at stake, in my view. They demand more than a short-sighted view to obtaining favourable editorial coverage from the media. Sadly, it appears that the bulk of the government’s reforms will continue to make it more difficult for competitors to rise from the ashes. The people who have the most to benefit from the spate of recent media bills from this government are the existing players. I say that again and again.

The past week has shown that the Howard government is either utterly clueless when it comes to promoting digital technology or extremely cunning in protecting vested interests. Either way, media consumers and Australia’s democracy will be worse off for this bill and the media ownership bill, which is going to be rammed through the House of Representatives shortly. Nonetheless, I will not resile from my campaign, which has been going since 2001, and I will continue to live in hope that people in this House will come to their senses.

I have previously accused the minister of engaging in venal behaviour and I do not resile from that. However, I know the Prime Minister to be a great believer in our democracy and a man who believes in civic responsibilities and obligations. That he did not wish to spend much political capital on this issue suggests that his heart really is not in it. Why didn’t the Prime Minister come into the House and speak on this bill? I appeal to him to review this bill and to put a stop to the assembly line production of other media bills.

We need to do more to protect and promote diversity in entertainment, news and political commentary sources in this government. We all know that greater diversity of news and information is good for democracy and good for our country. As I have already mentioned, in his Australia Day address to the National Press Club, the Prime Minister made several exultant references to our democracy. He also said that a fiercely independent media strengthened by industry diversity has contributed to these democratic traditions. Actions speak louder than words and that is why I hope the government will embrace the opportunities presented by digital television and put a stop to cross-media amendments that will put more power and influence in the hands of unelected media proprietors.

It is a disgrace that the Prime Minister, ably assisted by Senator Coonan, is slamming a wrecking ball into the pillars of our democracy in Australia. We are going to suffer the ramifications of the media reform bills—this bill and the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006, which we are about to vote on in the House of Representatives in a few minutes time. It is an absolute disgrace. The government stand condemned. They are not interested in the public interest; they are only interested in looking after the big, powerful media companies.

See this speech in context