Bills Digest No. 132 2001-02
Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill
2002
WARNING:
This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as
introduced and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest
does not have any official legal status. Other sources should be
consulted to determine the subsequent official status of the
Bill.
CONTENTS
Passage History
Purpose
Background
Main Provisions
Endnotes
Contact Officer & Copyright Details
Passage History
Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media
Ownership) Bill 2002
Date Introduced: 21 March 2002
House: House of Representatives
Portfolio: Communications, Information Technology and the
Arts
Commencement: Royal Assent
Purpose
To amend the
Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (BSA) to:
-
- remove controls on the foreign ownership of television
-
- provide for exemptions to the cross-media rules in certain
circumstances, and
-
- ensure that local news services are maintained in regional
areas subject to exemptions from the cross-media rules.
The specific controls over media ownership
contained in the Broadcasting
Services Act 1992 are as follows.
A person must not control television
broadcasting licences whose combined licence area exceeds 75 per
cent of the population of Australia, or more than one licence
within a licence area (section
53). Foreign persons must not be in a position to control a
licence and the total of foreign interests must not exceed 20 per
cent (section
57). There are also limits on multiple directorships (section
55) and foreign directors (section
58).
Radio
A person must not be in a position to control
more than two licences in the same licence area (section
54). Multiple directorships are also limited (section
55).
Cross-Media
Control
Under
section 60 a person must not control:
-
- a commercial television broadcasting licence and a commercial
radio broadcasting licence having the same licence area
-
- a commercial television broadcasting licence and a newspaper
associated with that licence area, or
-
- a commercial radio broadcasting licence and newspaper
associated with that licence area.
There are also similar limits on cross-media
directorships (section
61).
Subscription Television
Broadcasting Licences
A foreign person must not have company interests
exceeding 20 per cent in a broadcasting subscription licence, and
the total of foreign company interests in any licence must not
exceed 35 per cent (section
109).
Foreign Investment in the
Media
There are a number of controls on foreign
investment in the media in addition to those contained in the
Broadcasting Services Act. All direct (ie. non-portfolio) proposals
by foreign interests to invest in the media sector irrespective of
size are subject to prior approval under the Government's foreign
investment policy. Proposals involving portfolio share holdings of
five per cent or more must also be approved.
The maximum permitted aggregate foreign
(non-portfolio) interests in national and metropolitan newspapers
is 30 per cent, with a 25 per cent limit on any single foreign
shareholder. The aggregate non-portfolio limit for provincial and
suburban newspapers is 50 per cent.
The Government has long indicated that it is
dissatisfied with the existing media ownership restrictions. On 1
October 1996 the Government announced a review of the cross-media
rules and released an
Issues Paper(2) on the subject. However, in October
1999 the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and
the Arts indicated that the Government would not be attempting to
reform the cross-media rules until the Opposition also supported
such a move.(3) The Prime Minister made similar comments
in an interview on 1 September 2000, as well as indicating that he
had long believed the rules to be anachronistic.(4)
On 29 August 2001 the Minister for
Communications, Information Technology and the Arts stated that the
Government would consider a comprehensive review of the cross-media
and foreign ownership rules. In particular, the Minister indicated
that the Government would grant exemptions in respect of
cross-media if it obtained undertakings that companies would
maintain existing levels of locally produced news and current
affairs in respect of radio and television and that separate and
distinct editorial processes were put in place.(5)
This position was included in the
Government's Election Policy on Broadcasting.(6) The
Policy also states that foreign ownership restrictions on
television and newspapers will be removed. The Government's
preferred position is that media acquisitions be governed by the
Trade Practices Act and the Foreign Acquisitions and
Takeovers Act as well as the cross-media undertakings referred
to above. Since the election, the Government has indicated that the
relaxation of cross-media and foreign ownership rules must be
implemented together, or not at all.(7)
In March 1999 the Government referred the
broadcasting industry to the Productivity Commission, seeking
advice on 'practical courses of action to improve competition,
efficiency and the interests of consumers in broadcasting
services'.(8) The Productivity
Commission Inquiry into Broadcasting was released in April
2000. Part V, 'Diversity, Concentration and Competition', dealt
with ownership and control regulation. The Commission
recommended:
-
- that foreign investment in broadcasting be handled in the
normal way under Australia's foreign investment policy and that
specific controls in the Broadcasting Services Act be repealed,
and
-
- that the prohibition on owning more than one television
licence, or more than two radio licences, in the one licence area
be removed.
The Commission also recommended that the
cross-media rules be repealed, but only after the following
conditions were met:
-
- the insertion of a media-specific public interest test in the
Trade Practices Act
-
- the removal of foreign ownership restrictions in the
Broadcasting Services Act, and
-
- the removal of regulatory barriers to entry into broadcasting,
together with the availability of new spectrum for
broadcasters.
The development of the Internet and the
introduction of pay television have added to the diversity of the
Australian media sources over the last decade. It could be argued
that this has reduced the need for the media ownership rules, which
are designed 'to encourage diversity in control of the more
influential broadcasting services' (section
3(c)) of the Broadcasting Services Act). Access to the Internet
and pay TV has increased considerably over the last few years:
-
- ACNielsen(9)
surveys indicate that in July 2001 20.7 per cent of homes (or 1.4
million) have pay TV subscriptions;
-
- according to the
Australian Bureau of Statistics(10), by September
2001 there were 3.7 million household Internet subscribers.
However, new media access is well below the near
universal household penetration of free-to-air television and
radio, although it is now comparable to newspaper distribution. The
nation's daily newspaper circulation is 3.01 million (2.4 million
national/metropolitan and 0.6 million regional
dailies).(11) There are generally two to three readers
for each unit of circulation.
Although new media access is expanding, a closer
examination of news sources available on the Internet and pay TV
indicates that they are controlled by the traditional media. The
only significant new Australian news service provided by the pay TV
operators is Sky News Australia. Sky is owned by the existing
networks, Seven and Nine, and British Sky Broadcasting. The latter
is 40 per cent owned by News Corporation.
The most popular Australian Internet general
news sites are also controlled by existing media operators, namely
Publishing and Broadcasting Ltd (PBL), News Corporation, Fairfax
and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. This is to be
expected, as the low levels of revenue associated with the
Internet, together with the economies of scale experienced by the
existing news providers, ensures that new operators will have great
difficulty in emerging. The only major new operator in Internet
news is Telstra Corporation. However, Telstra's Australian news
service consists of AAP news stories. AAP Information Services is
jointly controlled by News Ltd and Fairfax.
Recent research(12) commissioned by
the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) indicates that most
people still rely on the traditional media as their source of news
and current affairs.
The ABA study reveals that:
-
- 88 per cent use free-to-air television as a source of news and
current affairs
-
- 76 per cent use radio
-
- 76 per cent use newspapers
-
- 10 per cent use pay television, and
-
- 11 per cent use the Internet.
There is no necessary connection between
diversity of ownership and diversity of views. For example, it is
possible for different licensees to broadcast the same networked
program material. Alternatively, a single proprietor could maintain
separate newsrooms for each of their media outlets. However, the
maintenance of separate newsrooms would not ensure a diversity of
views if their output was dominated by the proprietor. The
relationship between proprietors and editorial staff, which is
relevant to any discussion about media ownership and influence, is
a particularly difficult subject for legislative action. The House
of Representatives Select Committee on the Print Media report,
News and Fair Facts The Australian Print Media Industry
(March 1992) acknowledged the importance of editorial independence,
but rejected calls for legislative requirements for mechanisms to
support it.
The Productivity
Commission's Inquiry into Broadcasting considered this issue
and concluded that:
the likelihood that a proprietor's business and
editorial interests will influence the content and opinion of their
media outlets is of major significance. The public interest in
ensuring diversity of information and opinion, and in encouraging
freedom of expression in Australian media, leads to a strong
preference for more media proprietors rather than fewer. This is
particularly important given the wide business interests of some
media proprietors.(13)
The Commission also noted that it was not
necessary for proprietors to be heavy-handed about editorial
direction, as self-censorship by journalists may achieve similar
outcomes.
The ABA has undertaken research in this area.
The
ABA study(14) involved a survey of 100 news
producers and in-depth interviews with 20 key news producers and
media experts. Among its conclusions:
-
- it was broadly accepted that news producers will be influenced
by their proprietors' commercial interests. However, the news
producers seemed eager to compartmentalise occasions where they
might compromise their editorial integrity (for example, the
commercial operations of their own outlets) and also stated that
they have an independent judgment of newsworthiness on all other
issues
-
- Ownership interference was sometimes explicit, but more often
described as a subconscious pressure which led to self-censorship,
and
-
- Some news producers reported no experience of ownership
pressure.
Aggregation and
Localism
The bill contains provisions to ensure that the
granting of exemptions from the cross-media rules does not result
in reductions to local news services in regional areas. The
maintenance of local regional programming first became an issue
with the introduction of 'aggregation' in the late 1980s. This was
the process of creating larger, more viable regional television
markets by combining existing licence areas so that they could be
served by three commercial services. Aggregation was introduced by
the Broadcasting Amendment Act 1987. In his Second Reading Speech,
the Minister (the Hon. Michael Duffy, MP) referred to 'the claim
that aggregation will lead to loss of what is known as local
content or localism'.(15) He argued that if viewers want
local content, then competition would encourage localism. He also
claimed that the larger service areas provided through aggregation
would provide an opportunity for licensees to expand and develop
regional content. The legislation was referred to a Senate Select
Committee. The Committee noted that only 7 per cent of the programs
broadcast by regional television stations were locally produced,
consisting mainly of local news, community announcements and local
sport. It considered that viewers' preference for localism would
'presumably provide some competitive incentive' for regional
licensees to produce local programs.(16)
Aggregation commenced in southern NSW (March
1989), regional Queensland (December 1990), northern NSW and
regional Victoria (December 1991) and Tasmania (April 1994). The
1988-89 Annual Report of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal
stated:(17)
The effect of aggregation on localism and what
constitutes an adequate and comprehensive service is of concern to
the Tribunal, since the amount of local programming on regional
services, which the policy aimed to encourage, appears to be under
considerable commercial pressure.
However, subsequent reports of the Tribunal did
not raise the issue. The disappearance of localism as an issue have
been due to the lack of evidence of viewer discontent. In September
1990 the Tribunal released a study into viewer attitudes to
programming changes in the aggregated area of southern NSW. The
study indicated that most viewers considered that the television
service had improved, in particular because of an increase in the
variety of programs. Viewers also considered that television was
providing better information on their local area, despite the fact
the proportion of locally produced programming had
declined.(18)
Legislative Requirements for
Localism
The passage of the Broadcasting Services Act
1992 did not result in any additional requirements for local
programming, although section 3 of the Act states that one of its
objects is:
to encourage providers of commercial and
community broadcasting services to be responsive to the need for a
fair and accurate coverage of matters of public interest and for an
appropriate coverage of matters of local significance.
In addition, commercial radio and television
licences are subject to the following condition:
the licensee will provide a service that, when
considered together with other broadcasting services available in
the licence area of the licence (including another service operated
by the licensee), contributes to the provision of an adequate and
comprehensive range of broadcasting services in that licence
area(19)
This condition was modelled on that applying
under the previous legislation, the Broadcasting Act 1942.
The major difference is that under the BSA a licensee must
'contribute' to the provision of an adequate and comprehensive
range of broadcasting services, whereas under the previous act they
were required to 'provide' an adequate and comprehensive service.
It might thus be argued that the BSA represented a weakening of
this licence condition, although the qualifications contained in
s.4(6) of the Broadcasting Act 1942 would seem to have had
the effect of moderating the requirement in a manner similar to the
BSA condition. In any event, it would be difficult to construe this
condition as a requirement for local programming by any individual
commercial broadcaster.
Recent
Developments
The issue of localism resurfaced in 2001 because
of the following developments:
-
- In August 2001 the ABC announced an expansion of regional radio
services, with two new stations and the recruitment of fifty new
program makers to 32 regional stations. These will provide more
than 10 000 hours a year of local programming. This was made
possible by additional ABC funding in the May 2001
Budget.(20) The significance of this expansion is that
it would permit commercial television broadcasters to reduce their
local programming, because the BSA licence condition referring to
adequate and comprehensive services embraces all broadcasting
services (ie. it includes both radio and the ABC).
-
- The House of Representatives Standing Committee on
Communications, Transport and the Arts report, Local
Voices: Inquiry into Regional Radio (September
2001)(21) drew attention to the decline of local radio
programming with the consolidation of ownership in the commercial
radio industry and the consequent increase in networking;
-
- Prime Television cut news bulletins in Canberra, Newcastle and
Wollongong, while Southern Cross Broadcasting cut local news in
Canberra, Townsville, Cairns, Darwin and Alice Springs.
-
- The provision of Commonwealth assistance to regional television
licensees for the introduction of digital
broadcasting(22) coincided with reductions in local news
services. This resulted in some calls for the funding to be
conditional on the preservation of local services.
On 6 December 2001 the Australian Broadcasting
Authority announced the terms of reference of an investigation into
the adequacy of local television news and information programs in
regional and rural Australia. The investigation will look at what
is meant by local significance, what constitutes adequate coverage
of local news and information, and how commercial television
services could contribute to the appropriate coverage of matters of
local significance in regional and rural Australia.(23)
The Chairman of the ABA, Professor David Flint, has been reported
as saying that it was unclear as to whether the Authority had the
power to force broadcasters to provide local news services, the ABA
having received conflicting legal advice on the subject. However,
he also noted that the ABA could always approach the Government and
recommend legislative changes.(24)
As noted above, the Bill only imposes a
requirement to maintain local news services on broadcasting
licensees in regional areas that have the benefit of an exemption
from the cross-media rules. The imposition of any more general
requirement to maintain local news services is largely dependent on
the outcome of the ABA s inquiry.
It would appear that the process of aggregation
(and consequent networking), coupled with the economics of the
broadcasting industry, have resulted in a reduction of local
programming in regional areas. The cost of producing local
programming (when compared with the cost of a network feed) is such
that it is difficult to recoup through any additional advertising
revenue that might be generated because of the popularity of the
programs. Regional stations that continue to provide local
programming tend to do so because it enhances their profile in the
community, which may have some longer term benefits, rather than
for short-term revenue. When economic conditions worsen and revenue
declines, local programming tends to be the first casualty.
Current Regional News
Services
Regional commercial networks still provide local
news services in many areas:
-
- The WIN network produces 21 half-hour local news bulletins
every weekday for the following regional centres - Wollongong,
Dubbo, Orange, Canberra, Griffith, Wagga Wagga, Ballarat,
Shepparton, Albury, Gippsland, Mildura, Bendigo, Mt Gambier,
Riverland, Cairns, Rockhampton, Sunshine Coast, Townsville,
Toowoomba, Launceston and Devonport.
-
- Prime Television has weekday half-hour bulletins in Wagga
Wagga, Orange, Albury, Taree, Coffs Harbour, Tamworth and
Lismore.
-
- NBN Television produces a one-hour news bulletin each weekday.
This combines the Nine Network national news with local 'windows'
for the following six regions - Newcastle/Hunter, mid North Coast,
far North Coast, Tamworth/New England, Central Coast and the
Tweed.
-
- Spencer Gulf Telecasters Ltd holds the licences for the north
Spencer Gulf (Port Pirie - GTS) region and Broken Hill (BKN). They
produce a consolidated half-hour weekday bulletin of local news
that covers both areas.
-
- Territory Television Pty Ltd (NTD 8) produces a weekday
half-hour bulletin of local and national news in Darwin.
-
- Imparja Television Pty Ltd produces a weekday half-hour
bulletin for central Australia.
Schedule 1 contains amendments
to the BSA to remove restrictions on the foreign ownership of
free-to-air and subscription television licences. Item
1 repeals the objective of the Act 'to ensure that
Australians have effective control of the more influential
broadcasting services'. Item 3 repeals Division 4
of Part 5 of the Act, which imposes limits on foreign company
interests and directorships in commercial free-to-air television
licences.
Comment: it might be argued that the
repeal of the limits on foreign interests in television will have
little real impact because these restrictions have been partly
circumvented by creative corporate structuring over the last ten
years. In December 1992 the Ten network was purchased by a
consortium involving a Canadian company (CanWest). In November 1995
the ABA determined that subordinated and convertible debentures
were not company interests in the terms of the legislation.
Although CanWest financed 57.5 per cent of the equity capital
invested in the purchase, its voting rights were restricted to 15
per cent. In April 1997, following a number of share transactions
and Board membership changes, the ABA determined that CanWest now
controlled Ten and ordered it to take action to remedy the breach.
However, it was not until April 1998 (following a number of court
challenges) that CanWest restructured its holdings to comply with
the ruling.
Item 10 repeals Divisions 3, 4
and 5 of Part 7. These impose limits on the foreign ownership of
subscription television licences, describe the offences for
breaches of the limits, and provide for notification
procedures.
Comment: the limits on foreign ownership
of pay television licences are simpler than those on free-to-air
television, as they consist solely of share limits and contain no
reference to control. They are also much easier to avoid. News
Limited has a 25 per cent interest in the pay TV operation Foxtel,
which would appear to put it in breach of the 20 per cent limit on
individual foreign interests imposed by section 109 of the Act.
However, the company that holds the Foxtel licences, Foxtel Cable
Television Pty Ltd, has ten shares: two are owned by Sky Cable Pty
Ltd, and eight are owned by Telstra Media Pty Ltd. The ownership of
Sky Cable is shared equally between News Corporation and PBL. Thus
the 50 per cent of Foxtel not owned by Telstra can be bought and
sold by foreign interests without breaching the Act, because
Telstra owns 80 per cent of the licensee company.
Item 4 of Schedule 2 inserts a
new Division 5A to provide for exemptions to the cross-media
rules.
New section 61C provides that a
person who has the benefit of a cross-media exemption certificate
is exempt from the cross media rules in section 60 or 61 so long as
the conditions attached to the certificate are satisfied.
New section 61D allows the ABA
to issue cross-media exemption certificates to persons who present
applications in an approved form containing:
-
- A set of conditions to which the certificate is subject and an
undertaking to satisfy those conditions;
-
- Organisational charts illustrating editorial decision-making
responsibilities.
The ABA may request additional information from
the applicant if it considers that such information is required. An
applicant who has been refused a cross-media certificate by the ABA
may apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of
the decision (see section 204 and item 9).
New section 61E requires the
ABA to issue a cross-media exemption certificate to an applicant if
it considers that the conditions included in the application are
sufficiently detailed and that they will provide an adequate means
of continuously meeting the objective of editorial separation for
the set of media operations to which the certificate refers.
New section 61F defines what is
necessary to meet the objective of editorial separation. This
consists of separate editorial decision making for each of the
entities that make up the set of media operations ie. the
television station and/or radio station and/or newspaper that make
up the set. The objective is met if, and only if, each of the
entities have:
-
- Separate editorial policies
-
- Organisational charts consistent with separate editorial
decision-making, and
-
- Separate editorial news management, news compilation processes
and news gathering and news interpretation capabilities.
The sharing of resources and other forms of
cooperation between entities is permitted providing these
conditions are met.
Comment: some commentators have
questioned what is meant by 'editorial policy', as the term is not
defined in the legislation.(25) For example, the
'Editorial Policies' published by the Australian Broadcasting
Corporation contain statements of principle and philosophy, program
objectives affecting various areas of broadcasting, the mandatory
Code of Practice, general policies and explanatory
information.(26) Commercial television and radio
broadcasters are already subject to Codes of Practice developed
under the provisions of section 123 of the BSA. The Codes have
sections on news and current affairs programs which enjoin
licensees to present these programs accurately, fairly and
impartially.(27) However, unlike licence conditions, the
Codes are not legally enforceable and breaches attract no penalty,
although the ABA can make compliance with a Code a condition of a
licence under sections 43 and 44.(28)
New section 61N requires the
ABA to maintain a Register of cross-media exemption certificates
(including the conditions to which each is subject) and to make the
Register available for inspection on the Internet. However, the ABA
is not required to publish material which could reasonably be
expected to prejudice substantially the commercial interests of a
person and the ABA is satisfied that such prejudice outweighs the
public interest in the publication of the material.
Comment: it is difficult to see how the
publication of editorial policies, organisational charts and the
details of separate newsrooms would constitute substantial
commercial prejudice. None of these require the release of
confidential financial data. The structure and organisation of news
rooms is common knowledge within the industry. If the commercial
confidentiality exemption is considered necessary, then it might be
argued that the ABA should be required to report and justify all
instances where it suppresses publication of material under this
section.
New section 61P requires
broadcasting licensees who are the subject of cross-media exemption
certificates to ensure that the objective of editorial separation
is continuously met in relation to their licence.
Comment: this provision operates in
conjunction with Items 13 and 16 of Schedule 2,
which make compliance with new section 61P a
standard condition of commercial television and radio licences.
Repeated breaches of these conditions can lead to loss of the
licence under the provisions of section 143 of the BSA.
New sections 61Q to 61Y deal
with the local news and information requirements for regional
broadcasting licensees that have the benefit of a cross-media
exemption certificate.
New section 61R sets out the
minimum service requirements for local news, community service
announcements and emergency warnings.
Comment: the news requirements are
presented in two alternative formats section 61R(1)(a) and (b),
suitable for television and radio respectively (although the Bill
does not stipulate a particular format for each medium). The format
suitable for television requires five local news and weather
bulletins each week, to be broadcast in prime time (between 5.00 pm
to 10.30 pm) on different days, with each bulletin adequately
reflecting matters of local significance. The format suitable for
radio requires six or more bulletins each week, with at least five
being broadcast in prime time (between 6 am to 10 am) on different
days, with the bulletins (when considered together) adequately
reflecting matters of local significance.
New section 61S empowers the
ABA to define what is meant by the term 'local' with regard to
specified licence areas. Such definitions are disallowable
instruments.
New section 61U requires
regional licensees who are the subject of cross-media exemption
certificates to provide statements to the ABA containing:
-
- the average weekly number of local news and weather bulletins,
and
-
- the average weekly number of minutes of local news and weather
bulletins (both inside and outside of prime time)
for the year before the exemption certificate
became active (referred to as the 'benchmark year'). The ABA is
required to make these statements available for inspection on the
Internet.
If the ABA is satisfied that a licensee who
provided a statement under proposed section 61U has met the minimum
service standards for local news in the benchmark year then, under
new section 61V, it must require the licensee
to:
-
- meet or exceed the minimum service standards for local news,
community service announcements and emergency warnings (as defined
in new section 61R)
-
- ensure the number of, and time devoted to, local bulletins
(both inside and outside prime time) must not be any less than the
level provided in the benchmark year, and
-
- provide to the ABA relevant records on their performance under
this section.
If the ABA is not satisfied that a licensee who
provided a statement under proposed section 61U has met the minimum
service standards for local news in the benchmark year then, under
new section 61W, it must require the licensee
to:
-
- meet or exceed the minimum service standards for local news,
community service announcements and emergency warnings (as defined
in new section 61R), and
-
- provide to the ABA relevant records on their performance under
this section.
Comment: new sections 61V and 61W are
designed to ensure that broadcasters who are already exceeding the
minimum service standards do not reduce their services to the
minimum required, while those who are not meeting the minimum
standard raise them to the level required. It might be argued that
it is unfair to have, in effect, two standards depending upon a
broadcaster's past programming history.
The requirement to meet these specified levels
of local news content must be revoked by the ABA if licensee no
longer holds an active cross-media certificate (new section
61X).
Items 12 to 16 amend Schedule 2
of the BSA to make the requirements placed upon licensees in new
sections 61P, 61U, 61V and 61W standard conditions of a
broadcasting licence. Failure to abide by these conditions can
ultimately lead to the cancellation of the licence under the
provisions of section 143 of the BSA.
A person who believes that a licensee has
breached the objective of editorial separation or the requirements
for minimum levels of local news and information may lodge a
complaint with the ABA. If the ABA decides that an investigation is
warranted it must make the results of its inquiries available on
the Internet (items 7 and 8). The ABA is not
required to publish material that would substantially prejudice the
commercial interests of a person unless the ABA believes that the
prejudice is outweighed by the public interest.
- This section uses some of the material contained in the
Parliamentary Library brief, 'Media Ownership Regulation in
Australia' at http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/sp/media_regulations.htm.
Readers should consult the original brief for more detailed
information.
- The Issues Paper is available at
http://www.dcita.gov.au/nsapi-text/?MIval=dca_dispdoc&pathid=%2freview%2fissues%2ehtml
- A transcript of the Minister's comments is available from
http://www.dca.gov.au/nsapi-graphics/?MIval=dca_dispdoc&ID=4398
- See: http://www.pm.gov.au/news/interviews/2000/interview429.htm
for a transcript of the interview.
- See:
http://www.dca.gov.au/nsapi-text/?MIval=dca_dispdoc&ID=6012&template=Newsroom
for the Minister's interview.
- The Policy is available at
http://www.liberal.org.au/archive/2001%20election/policy/broadcasting.pdf
- 'Alston says media bill all or nothing reform', The
Age, 15 March 2002; 'Alston stands firm', Financial
Review, 15 March 2002; 'Media plan hits a snag', Sydney
Morning Herald, 15 March 2002.
- Productivity Commission, Broadcasting Inquiry Report (March
2000), p.iv (Terms of Reference). The report can be obtained from
http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiry/broadcst/finalreport/index.html
- See: http://www.acnielsen.com.au/MRI_pages.asp?MRIID=10
- See:
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/6445F12663006B83CA256A150079564D?Open
- Circulation and readership figures are available from http://www.business.vu.edu.au/bho2250/Stats/Circnews_data.htm
and http://www.roymorgan.com.au/pressreleases/20012/readjun2001.html
- See:
http://www.aba.gov.au/tv/research/projects/sources/stage2/exec_summary2.htm
for a summary of the study.
- Productivity Commission, Broadcasting Inquiry Report
(March 2000), p. 314. The report is available at: http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiry/broadcst/finalreport/index.html
- See:
http://www.aba.gov.au/tv/research/projects/sources/stage1/exec_summary1.htm
for a summary of the study.
- House of Representatives, Hansard, 12 November 1986,
p. 2864
- Television Equalisation, Report of the Senate Select
Committee (March 1987), pp. 149 50
- Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, Annual Report
1988-89 (1989), p. 8
- Ibid., p. 143.
- BSA, Schedule 2, s.8(2)(a)
- 'ABC Radio Expands Regional Services', The National
Broadcaster ABC fortnightly report, Issue 13, 17 August 2001.
- This report is available at http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/cta/irindex.htm
- The Regional Equalisation Plan - see: http://www.dca.gov.au/nsapi-text/?MIval=dca_dispdoc&ID=5318
for more details.
- See:
http://www.aba.gov.au/tv/investigations/projects/regional_news/index.htm
for more information on this inquiry.
- 'No power to save local news, ABA boss admits', The
Australian, 10 December 2001.
- Aaron Patrick, 'Foreign media don't meddle: memo', The
Australian Financial Review, 12 April 2002, p. 17
- See: http://www.abc.net.au/corp/edpols.htm
for the ABC's Editorial Policies.
- Codes of Practice can be obtained from http://www.aba.gov.au/tv/content/codes/index.htm
- The ABA appears to be extremely reluctant to make observance of
the Code a condition of a licence. In the 2UE Inquiry it found 60
breaches of the Code relating to accuracy and fairness in news and
current affairs, but did not make observance of the Code a licence
condition. Instead, it imposed two new conditions for a term of
three years. These related to the disclosure of commercial
agreements and the separation of program matter from paid
advertisements. See:
http://www.aba.gov.au/radio/investigations/completed/commerc_radio/reportindex.htm
Kim Jackson
8 May 2002
Bills Digest Service
Information and Research Services
This paper has been prepared for general distribution to
Senators and Members of the Australian Parliament. While great care
is taken to ensure that the paper is accurate and balanced, the
paper is written using information publicly available at the time
of production. The views expressed are those of the author and
should not be attributed to the Information and Research Services
(IRS). Advice on legislation or legal policy issues contained in
this paper is provided for use in parliamentary debate and for
related parliamentary purposes. This paper is not professional
legal opinion. Readers are reminded that the paper is not an
official parliamentary or Australian government document.
IRS staff are available to discuss the paper's
contents with Senators and Members and their staff but not with
members of the public.
ISSN 1328-8091
© Commonwealth of Australia 2002
Except to the extent of the uses permitted under the
Copyright Act 1968, no part of this publication may be
reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, including
information storage and retrieval systems, without the prior
written consent of the Parliamentary Library, other than by Members
of the Australian Parliament in the course of their official
duties.
Published by the Department of the Parliamentary Library,
2002.
Back to top