The Federal Government has decided against a full-scale public inquiry into media ownership in Australia. Instead it will conduct an internal departmental inquiry based on written submissions. Some will argue that this is a breach of an election promise, but the extent and nature of the inquiry was never fully articulated.
There is not a lot of advantage in a public inquiry into media ownership, or indeed any significant policy issue in Australia. Public inquiries, with their courtroom-style of witnesses and cross-examination, may be suitable for investigating malfeasance of one sort or another, but the process is too cumbersome for policy matters. Worse, this sort of process almost inevitably becomes adversary and tends to turn into examination of past conduct of individuals, rather than genuine inquiry of what should happen in the future. The previous parliamentary public inquiry into media ownership did precisely this. It was as if Kerry Packer, Conrad Black and Bob Hawke were on trial. The public, oral process tends to invite grandstanding and posturing.
The proposed process of written submissions gives ample opportunity for with a genuine interest in broadcasting law to put their views. It will also allow for the inquiry itself to see further clarification from those who put in written submissions.
At the end of the day it is up to the Government to propose changes to the legislative framework. Too often governments hide behind recommendations of inquiries instead of getting on with the job they were elected to do. Ultimately, this government will have to put legislation on the table. Before doing so it is wise to consult and seek views, but there is not need for a costly public inquiry that will generate more light than heat.
The objectives of broadcasting law should be fairly clear after decades of debate. Diversity of ownership; competition; less foreign control and more Australian control; diversity of content; a reasonable amount of Australian content; enough range of content to reasonably satisfy various segments of the Australian community and less vertical and horizontal monopoly of media outlets.
The Commonwealth has ample constitutional power through its corporations and broadcasting powers to legislate to ensure those policy objectives.
However, the sorry history of media law in Australia is that governments of both persuasions have pandered to the big media owners all the time pretending that the law and administration of it is being monitored to ensure the aims of greater diversity of content and ownership and greater Australian content and ownership. The rules about to what extent a person can own both broadcast and print media; the rules about foreign investment and the rules about meeting licence requirements have all been twisted and diluted to suit big players from time to time. Those laws are so weak now as to verge on the useless.
The wonder is why we continue to bother with the charade. Mercifully we are being spared the charade of a public inquiry this time. The written-submissions inquiry will be no less of a charade. The Government seems bent on relaxing cross-ownership rules and permitting greater foreign ownership and any inquiry is likely to be a complete waste of time. The matter will be decided by the numbers and horse-trading the Senate and by ministerial decree where the Government can get away with it.
It is a pity. The Government should strive for greater diversity and Australian ownership and content. But it is difficult to see than happening.