Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Science and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question today is to Senator Coonan, the Minister for Communications and Information Technology. It follows on from Senator Scullion’s question earlier on the issue of cross-media ownership. Does the minister recall her comments that: ‘85 per cent of regional Australia will not be affected by these changes’? Can she clarify whether this is 68 per cent, as she has just stated, or 85 per cent? Can the minister confirm that under her proposals the number of media owners could fall from six to four in the following regional markets: Albury-Wodonga, Ballarat, Bundaberg, Dubbo, Gladstone, the Gold Coast, Mackay, Maryborough, Mildura, Nambour, Newcastle, Orange, Rockhampton, Shepparton, Toowoomba, Townsville and Warwick? Will the minister now stop trying to con regional Australians and her National Party colleagues about the impact of her plans on media diversity?

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

As I said in relation to the earlier question to me, what this government understands as important is that any proposal that the government adopts as policy takes into account the needs of rural and regional Australia. That means not only diversity but also the retention of local content. The whole notion of live and local content in rural and regional Australia is clearly something that is very important to rural constituents. This government will ensure that, as part of licence conditions, live and local content will be retained, and it will in fact be monitored to ensure that it does not fall below acceptable levels.

As to the diversity test that has been proposed, it is true that the five-four test setting a floor in relation to mergers would prevent a significant reduction in media diversity in smaller regional markets. It stands to reason that, if there is a floor under which numbers cannot go, together with the competition tests that are to be administered by the ACCC, it is unlikely that there will be very much movement in regional media. The proposals very much relate to the larger markets, where you can understand the ACCC defining a market in such a way as to allow some consolidation and some scale and scope in existing media. In rural and regional Australia, quite clearly there are some very small markets—and ones where there are near-monopolies in any event—where it is unlikely that there would be any movement. It is quite clear from the test, as you look around the various centres, that about 64 per cent would have absolutely no change, and that is likely to rise to about 85 per cent. About another additional 19 per cent are unlikely to have any change unless there is some further entry into the market.

The regional communities will continue to have access to media services in addition to the current services: subscription television, ABC, SBS, community television, non-local newspapers and of course, as indeed with most other places around Australia, online services. There is no threat to diversity in regional media because of the number of tests and safeguards that this government would consider putting in place if we were to adopt the policy proposals. The safeguards are very clear. There is a voices test. There is the ACCC, which is specifically charged with looking at the idea of competition and at competition in a particular market. So there is a numbers test and a competition test. Added to that, of course, there is any amount of additional diversity delivered from other sources that are not a part of any regulated platforms.

The prospect of rural and regional Australia not being properly cared for in these proposals is absolutely preposterous. There is no reason for the government not to be looking at ensuring diversity for rural and regional areas, particularly in relation to content and particularly in relation to any proposed mergers. Any proposed mergers would have to be looked at not only as a matter of competition; we also have to bear in mind the fact that there can be, for some businesses that would otherwise qualify, some very good reasons to permit mergers to enable these particular organisations to continue to operate where the costs of those organisations— (Time expired)

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Science and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for her comments. I ask: does she recall her comments that the cross-media laws need to be relaxed so that media companies can achieve economies of scale? Minister, isn’t this just a coded way of saying that, under your plan, media companies would be freed to close newsrooms, to sack reporters and to reduce what you are calling acceptable levels of local content? Just how and why does the government think that this is in the interest of people living in regional Australia?

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

I cannot imagine that Senator Stephens seriously thinks that proposals to develop rural and regional businesses can do anything other than help rural constituents who obviously need to have access to the media instead of being frozen in time and looking backwards like the Labor Party looks backwards with everything they do. Not only have they had no plan for the economy, no plan to keep interest rates low, no plan to keep mortgages affordable and no plan for jobs; they do not even have a plan for the fastest growing area of the economy, the media. Rural and regional Australia should not miss out on what are very valuable reforms.