The new Government has a difficult task ahead in rationalising Australia’s media rules. Over the years, Labor made many decisions in favour one player or another for political reasons. Labor did not have a coherent plan or vision with the public interest in mind. Nor did it react strategically to changes in technology, let alone predict them.
Labor was further hampered by the collapse of the share market in 1987 and the subsequent bazaar of media assets on offer. Also, early in Labor term the constitutional powers over all media were not as well developed as they are now. That does not excuse the mess, but it explains at least some of it. Now there is a chance to lay down some clearer principles, with particular attention to diversity, Australian ownership and Australian content, and the quality of content.
At present five major media players have a keen interest in the new rules. Either present rules prevent them or prevent their competitors from acting. Either way it will affect the way they act.
Conrad Black would like to increase his stake in Fairfax, at present limited to 25 per cent by a foreign-investment limit. Kerry Packer would like to increase his share in Fairfax, now limited to 17.3 per cent by cross-media-ownership rules because he owns Nine. Rupert Murdoch would like to increase his share of the Seven Network, now limited to 14.9 per cent by cross-media and foreign-investment limits. Kerry Stokes (who is chairman of The Canberra Times) has a 19.9 per cent stake in Seven and is hoping Seven shareholders approve the sale of his Golden West regional network to Seven so he can raise his stake to an effective-controlling stake of 25 per cent. And the Canadian company CanWest has its voting share in Ten limited to 14.9 per cent by foreign-investment limits while it has a further economic share, which could be converted to a voting share if the limits were changed.
It puts the Government in a difficult position. Any rule change will affect these players and might be seen as favouring or disadvantaging one or other. None the less the job has to be done.
In these circumstances a short inquiry is wise. But the inquiry must look beyond television and newspapers, even if they are the present dominant media. Technology is converging. All vision, sound (including telephone voice) and data (including written advertisements and news) can be bundled into electronic signals and sent into homes and offices through the air or through cable where it can be unscrambled and played on television, radio, computer or telephone.
The cross- and foreign-ownership rules of the past have done little to promote diversity of ownership and content or promote Australian ownership and content. The media is special. (Indeed, the word media has become a collective singular noun.) We depend so much on it for what we think and feel. The technology should enable greater diversity and the government should devise ways of ensuring greater and better Australian content. In the case of the media (unlike other industries) the market should not be allowed to rule. Whatever the short-comings of present arrangements it would be worse to scrap them without replacing them with something more effective.