Early in the week, before the asylum-seekers took centre stage, media ownership was firmly on the Government’s agenda. No doubt it will return there.
Prime Minister John Howard explained the main aims: “” You’d get rid of the prohibition whereby a newspaper owner can’t own a television station or vice versa and you would relax the restriction on foreign investment in the media.”
That has been a long-term aim of the government, but previous attempts have been blocked by Labor and the Democrats.
After the election, many thought the Government would go through the motions of putting up some changes in the full knowledge that Labor and Democrats would block them. But this week, it seemed the Govebnemnt was fair dinkum and would try to put through whatever chagnes it could.
Certainly the Government is supported in making changes by existing media owners, particularly Kerry packet Rupert Murdoch and the chief executive of Fairfax Fred Hilmer.
Further, Labor’s communications spokesman, Lindsay Tanner, signalled a willingness to relax restrictions on foreign ownership, even if Labor was unwilling to relax cross-ownership. “”It’s much more likely we’d support the Government on foreign ownership,” he said.
The big question is whether the Government would permit a relaxation of foreign ownership without a concomitant relaxation of cross-media ownership. The reason for the both-or-nothing approach has nothing to do with high principle, but what various media moguls will accept. A relaxation on foreign ownership would suit Murdoch, but not Packer. Packer would need a relaxation on cross-media ownership (so he could get his hands on Fairfax) before he would accept (albeit reluctantly) a relaxation on foreign ownership.
And aside from these rules, the Trade Practices Act prohibits takeovers that would lessen competition in a market. Is the market media product in general or print or broadcast? Depending on the answer, any extension of the Murdoch tentacles in Australia would invite investigation by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.
Immediately upon mention of relaxation there was been a frenzy of speculation about who would own what when and where. Would Packer go for Fairfax? Would Murdoch go for a fourth television network (built from scratch) as he did in the US, or would he buy Packer’s Nine Network in return for allowing a Packer free run at Fairfax? Would there be some sort of consortium owning Fairfax? And so it went on with speculation on permutation and combination all predicated upon existing owners and existing media assets – the consumer rated for naught.
For 50 years – when the first sniff of television hit Australia – the policy debate and decisions have been based upon who will own what where. Rarely has the consumer been the centre of attention – except from the moralistic censorship debate about who cannot watch what when.
Australian consumers are the last consideration in the debate. Australian consumers are abominably served by politicians too busy in brown-nosing themselves to media proprietors.
The major unanswered question about media ownership laws is not whether restrictions on foreign and/or cross-media ownership should be changed, but whether the Democrats and Labor have the courage to insist – in the name of Australian consumers – that the digital television and data-casting restrictions be also lifted.
(Hush thy mouth. Neither Mr Murdoch or Mr Packer have asked for relaxations in these areas, so why should they be put on the agenda. Media policy – whether Liberal or Labor – is about appeasing the big boys, not about delivering to consumers.)
As it happens, under the Government’s policy to introduce digital television to Australia it prohibited a fourth (or fifth or sixth) commercial network and the use of satellite datacasting via the internet until 2006 to protect the cosy little triopoly that the existing broadcasters have over the huge television advertising revenues. Moreover, it restricted the existing networks to delivering only one mega-high definition digital signal – even though the technology allowed for a split signal of four or five different program streams of standard digital for the same spectrum. It was done because the Government said the networks needed the triopoly to guarantee revenues to develop digital. No other industry gets a government-mandated monopoly to protect it against the winds of technological change – normally industry wears it under the ordinary rules of competition (unless you are Kerry Packer and the Government fears the political influence of your broadcasting arm).
So consumers cop inferior product — limited free-to-air choice and no datacasting – to appease the big boys. This week AFL fans in Canberra, for example are bemoaning programming limitations that mean they will have to watch league and movies rather than their own game. Under a sensible digital television regime they could have the choice of two AFL games, two league games OR the movie.
It happens in Europe and the US.
In the old days spectrum was scare and had to be regulated. Now there is oodles of spectrum. The Government only regulates it to preserve the profits of the big media players.
As for cross-media restrictions, the Government is way behind the technology. Already the television networks, including the ABC, are producing de-facto newspapers over the net. The Government says it wants to insist editorial newsrooms stay separate in the event of a relaxation of cross-ownership rules. How silly is that? Just as the delivery of media is converging, so is the collection of it. A journalist need not be just a television journalist or a print journalist – he or she can be both. Indeed, should be both.
Australians are so badly served by present rules, that the Government should re-open the whole book. It should relax foreign township and cross-media ownership. It should allow more commercial television networks. It should give choice to those networks as to how they want to use their spectrum (many standard-definition digital programs or one mega-high definition one). It should open up datacasting to be sued to the maximum of its technological capacity.
Rather than the Liberals insisting on both foreign and cross reform or nothing, Labor should insist on reform of the whole gamut of media or nothing. All present restrictions do is enrich the few moguls at the expense of all media consumers.