Bills Digest no. 32 2006–07
Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill
2006
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
Financial implications
Main Provisions
Concluding Comments
Endnotes
Contact Officer & Copyright Details
Passage
History
Broadcasting
Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006
Date introduced: 14 September 2006
House: The
Senate
Portfolio: Communications, Information Technology and the
Arts
Commencement:
Schedule 1 Sections 1-3 and anything in the
Act in addition to Schedules 1, 2 and 3 on 1 February 2007.
Schedule 2 on Proclamation or if provisions do not commence before
1 January 2008, on that date Schedule 3 on 1 January 2009
To implement new cross media ownership and
foreign media ownership laws.
The Bill permits cross-media mergers in radio
licence areas where sufficient diversity of media groups remains
following the mergers. At least five separate media groups will be
required to remain in mainland State capitals and four groups in
other licence areas following merger activity.
The Bill removes broadcasting specific
restrictions on foreign investment in Australia s media sector. The
media will remain a sensitive sector under Foreign Investment
Policy, the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act
1975(1) and the Australia United States Free Trade
Agreement.(2)
Schedule 1 to the
Bill amends provisions in the Broadcasting Services Act
1992(3) (BSA) to:
- permit transactions involving commercial radio licensees,
commercial television licensees and associated newspapers,
including cross media transactions, to occur subject to there
remaining a minimum number of separately controlled commercial
media groups in the relevant licence area;
- exempt commercial television and radio broadcasting licensees
operating outside the broadcasting services bands of spectrum from
media ownership and control provisions; and
- require cross media mergers and acquisitions involving a
commercial radio licence, a commercial television licence and an
associated newspaper in the same licence area outside mainland
state capitals to obtain clearance from the Australian Competition
and Consumer Commission (ACCC) prior to the transaction.
Schedule 2 to the Bill amends the BSA:
- to remove all provisions in the BSA that restrict foreign
ownership of commercial television and subscription television
interests;
- to subject commercial television and radio licensees and
newspaper publishers with cross-media interests to disclosure
obligations;
- to require the Australian Communications and Media Authority
(ACMA) to impose licence conditions on commercial television
licensees in regional Queensland, NSW, Victoria and Tasmania to
provide minimum levels of content on matters of local
significance;
- to require ACMA to impose licence conditions on regional
commercial radio licensees to maintain existing levels of local
presence if the licence is transferred to a third party, if a new
commonly controlled media group is created or if control over the
licence otherwise shifts (a trigger event); and
- to subject regional commercial radio licensees to local content
obligations if a trigger event occurs.
Powers to control media activities are
specifically derived from the Commonwealth s power to make laws
with respect to electronic communications under section 51 (v) of
the Constitution(4) and are contained in the BSA. This
legislation allows the Commonwealth to impose prescriptive
conditions on broadcasting licences, but control over print media
is largely limited to other more generic controls in relation to
commercial activities under sections 51(i) and 51(xx)(5)
of the Constitution. These controls, which can also be applied to
broadcasters, are contained in Acts such as the Trade Practices
Act 1974(6)
and the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975.
The BSA, introduced under the previous Labor
Government, represented a significant reform of the
Broadcasting Act 1942, imposing a regime of regulation on
the ownership and control of commercial radio and television
broadcasting licences. Subsequent amendments to the BSA were also
made under the previous government.
Current controls over media ownership
contained in the BSA are:
Section 53: 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;(7)
Foreign persons must not be in a position to
control a licence and the total of foreign interests must not
exceed 20 per cent.(8)
Section 55(9) sets limits on
multiple directorships and section 58(10) on foreign
directors.
A person must not be in a position to control
more than two licences in the same licence area.(11)
Multiple directorships are also limited under
section 55.
Under section 60(12) 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.
Section 6 of Schedule 1 of the BSA provides a
simple 15 per cent rule for establishing whether a person has
control of a company. If a person has interests in a company
exceeding 15 per cent, then in the absence of proof to the
contrary, the person is deemed to be in a position to exercise
control of the company.
There are also similar limits on cross media
directorships.
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.(13)
There are a number of
controls on foreign investment in the media in addition to those
contained in the Act. All (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) interest 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 fifty per cent.
Since its election in 1996, the Government has
made it clear it considers Australia s media ownership rules
anachronistic. However, prior to the 2001 election it considered it
futile to attempt a media reform agenda without the support of the
Opposition.(14)
In March 1999, however, the Government sought
advice from the Productivity Commission on practical courses of
action to improve competition, efficiency and the interests of
consumers in broadcasting services .(15) In a Report
published in 2000, the Commission recommended that foreign
investment in broadcasting should be handled under Australia s
Foreign Investment Policy, that specific media controls in the BSA
should be repealed and that the prohibition on owning more than one
television licence, or more than two radio licences, in the one
licence area should be removed.
The Commission also recommended the repeal of
cross media rules(16) but only once certain conditions
were met:
- removal of regulatory barriers to entry in broadcasting,
together with the availability of spectrum for new
broadcasters;
- abolition of BSA restrictions on foreign investment, ownership
and control, and
- amendment to the Trade Practices Act to provide for a
media-specific public interest test to apply to mergers and
acquisitions.
On 21 March 2002, the Government introduced the
Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill
2002.(17)
The purpose of this Bill was:
- to remove restrictions on the foreign ownership and control of
commercial and subscription television and to discontinue newspaper
specific restrictions under general foreign investment policy,
- to grant exemptions to cross media rules subject to the
application of a public interest test to be administered by the
(then) Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA).
The public interest test involved giving
undertakings to retain separate and distinct processes of editorial
separation amongst the outlets making up a set of media operations;
and in the case of regional radio and television, to ensure that
minimum levels of local news and current affairs were provided.
The Bill was referred to the Senate
Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts
Legislation Committee, which agreed with the principle that
complex, inflexible and tightly focussed media ownership regulation
should be modified, subject to certain amendments. These related to
the public interest test and regional content. The Committee
considered that the public interest was better protected by a
disclosure requirement of commercial interest where co-ownership
existed under a cross media exemption.
In relation to regional markets the Committee
recommended that cross media exemptions should only be allowed in
relation to proposals that could result in a media company having
cross ownership in only two of the three generic categories of
newspapers, radio and television. It also made recommendations to
promote regional news and current affairs coverage and to encourage
disclosure of cross-media interests.(18)
The Government accepted the Committee
recommendations and introduced the Broadcasting Services Amendment
(Media Ownership) Bill 2002 (No 2),(19) which
incorporated the changes. The Bill was passed by the House of
Representatives in December 2003 but it had not been approved by
the Senate and lapsed when the 2004 Federal Election was
announced.
The Government s broadcasting policy for the
2004 election restated its commitment to the reform of media
ownership regulation. The relevant sections of the election policy
on broadcasting stating:
- The Coalition is committed to a twenty first century media
ownership regime that gives all media organisations maximum
opportunity to grow and offer a wide array of innovative services
to the Australian public.
- The cross media rules are anachronistic, and media
organisations should be able to obtain exemptions from the rules if
they give undertakings to: maintain separate and distinct editorial
processes; and retain existing levels of local news and current
affairs production on television and radio.
- The existing media specific foreign ownership rules that apply
to television and newspapers are preventing the introduction of new
players and a more competitive media sector. They should be
abolished, with media acquisitions considered under the Foreign
Acquisitions and Takeovers Act.(20)
While some negotiation took place following
the election with balance of power senators to attempt to introduce
a revised media reform bill prior to July 2005 when the Government
gained a majority in the Senate, by the end of 2004 this approach
to media reform had been abandoned.
On 14 March 2006, the Minister for
Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Helen
Coonan, released a discussion paper on media reform
options.(21)
The paper proposed removal of the media
specific foreign ownership rules in the BSA as well as newspaper
specific foreign ownership restrictions in the Foreign Investment
Policy under Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act. The media was
to continue to be considered a sensitive sector (22)
under the Foreign Investment Policy. Proposals by foreign interests
to invest directly in the media sector, irrespective of size, would
remain subject to prior approval by the Treasurer.
It also proposed that cross media rules would
be amended to allow cross media transactions to proceed, subject to
there remaining a minimum number of commercial media groups in the
relevant market (four in regional markets, five in mainland state
capitals). It proposed that existing limits on broadcasting
licences would be maintained with a maximum of two commercial radio
licences in a radio licence area; one television licence in a
licence area and no more than 75 per cent national television
reach. Public disclosure would be required when media outlets
reported on activities of cross held entities. The ACCC would
separately assess the competitive impacts of transactions, in
accordance with the requirements of the Trade Practices Act.
The paper allowed for continued requirements
for minimum levels of content on matters of local significance in
key regional commercial television markets.
The Government argues that the current media
regime is strongly prescriptive and that it creates an inflexible
regulatory framework which cannot account for changes in the media
industry or for the impact of the emergence of new media on the
market and consumer behaviour.(23) Proposed changes to
the BSA will address these types of problems while maintaining a
number of safeguards to promote a diverse range of services.
The Government s view is that the proposed
changes will be advantageous to the media industry allowing it to
pass on benefits to consumers.
It argues that the lifting of restrictions on
cross media ownership will allow companies to access economies of
scope that may be derived from mergers as well as capital
management and expertise from other media sectors. Lifting foreign
ownership restrictions will provide Australian companies with
access to foreign capital, opportunities to integrate into global
markets and improve capacity to adopt new technologies.
Additionally, current foreign ownership and
control provisions are inconsistent and have not been effective in
maintaining Australian control of television and newspapers.
Lifting foreign ownership restrictions in the television sector,
which are currently inconsistent with regulation of the radio
industry, will allow the television sector not only to access
foreign capital, but it will also encourage the sector to pursue
innovation and efficiency gains.
The Government argues that provisions under
Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act will ensure that proposals
for investment remain consistent with Foreign Investment Policy and
serve the national interest. The media will remain a sensitive
sector under the legislation and final decisions on media foreign
investment proposals will rest with the Treasurer.
In effect, the Government sees the foreign
ownership and cross media restrictions as limitations on investment
and impediments to innovation in Australian media which
consequently undermine an important objective of the BSA; to
provide a regulatory environment that aids the development of the
industry.(24) It is also concerned that current
regulations are inconsistent with competition policy that requires
uniformly applied rules to all forms of
business.(25)
Further, the Government considers that the
current regulations do not take into consideration the fact that
the proliferation of new media has eroded any basis for maintaining
specific ownership restrictions. The current regulations target
specific platforms , restricting their ability to compete against
the unrestricted, extensive and growing sub sectors of news and
information available to consumers.(26)
The argument for continuing foreign ownership
restrictions because Australian media proprietors are more likely
to provide content of relevance to Australians than foreign owners
is also not justified, according to the Government. It cites
Productivity Commission findings that all media proprietors respond
to commercial imperatives, local content regulation and competition
from other sources to deliver programming particular audiences
want, and that it is possible foreign owners may be less likely to
interfere in local content or have clashes of interest than
Australian owners, as justification for this
stance.(27)
The Government considers the legislation will
not deny diversity to consumers in the delivery of media services,
which it considers generally, will be maintained through the
provision of a range of broadcasting categories including public
broadcasting, community broadcasting and narrowcasting.
Specifically, it believes that any threats to local content for
rural and regional areas which may occur as a result of the
legislation will be addressed through local content
obligations.
It also sees the removal of restrictions as
providing benefits to consumers by increasing the pool of potential
media investors arguing that this will prevent media concentration
and provide greater opportunity for diversity of opinion.(28)
The problems associated with maintaining local
regional programming in a changing media environment became obvious
following the introduction of aggregation in the late 1980s.
Aggregation was introduced by the Broadcasting Amendment Act
1987 and involved creating larger, more commercially viable
regional television markets by combining existing licence areas.
When aggregation was introduced it was argued that larger service
areas would provide opportunities for licensees to expand and
develop regional content and that viewer preference would provide
an incentive for regional licensees to produce local programs.
This did not eventuate, however, with a 2001
House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications,
Transport and the Arts drawing attention to the decline of local
radio programming(29) as various communities raised
concerns following the closure of television news services in a
number of regional areas.
A subsequent ABA investigation concluded that
there was legitimate community concern about the lack of
competition and diversity in regional media and markets. In moving
to address these problems, in 2003, the ABA imposed the additional
licence condition on regional broadcasters that minimum amounts of
local content were to be broadcast in aggregated
areas.(30) By September 2004 it appeared that commercial
broadcasters had met local content quotas and some had
substantially exceeded the requirements.(31) It appears
the Government is satisfied these arrangements will provide
sufficient ongoing local content as it only intends to formalise
the existing arrangement under the proposed legislation.
At the same time the Government acknowledges
the removal of cross media ownership restrictions may lead to the
diminution of levels of local content ,(32) but it
intends only to impose additional content requirements on regional
radio licensees that change ownership.
The Government argues this will strike an
appropriate balance between meeting community concerns about levels
of local content on regional radio, and imposing potentially costly
local content obligations on regional radio licensees .(33)
Media proprietors have
for some time expressed the same opinion of the current media
regulations as is expressed in the Government s justification of
the reform under this legislation. They have argued reform will
enhance efficiency in their industry and assist them to combat
their increasing irrelevance as the result of the rise of the new
media.(34)
Proprietors have also argued that removal of
foreign ownership restrictions would improve access to capital,
increase the pool of potential media owners and that this would act
as a safeguard on media concentration. One media group argued
before a Senate Committee that a more commercial and practical
approach is now required to the modern media environment. It
considered that while cross media ownership rules were originally
intended to deliver diversity of ownership and opinion, the
strategic behaviour of industry participants across traditionally
separate market sectors means that the rules are no longer suitable
to deliver this key outcome .(35)
Clearly, the proposed legislation reflects
these perspectives. The Government delivering a consistently
similar argument to the media that the legislation will deliver
efficiencies in the industry to allow it to cope with the rise of
new media, while at the same time providing opportunities for the
industry to access investment capital and partnerships.
Initially, most of the media welcomed the
media ownership proposals with the general view being that the
changes would deliver the desired increases in efficiency,
competitiveness, flexibility and diversity, while allowing media
companies to grow and compete better.
Notably, News Corporation argued from the
outset that the ownership changes would distort the market and
reduce diversity(36) but it is most likely that this
criticism was motivated by the lack of benefit the reforms will
deliver to the Foxtel pay television network which is part of News
Corporation's television operations.(37)
There has been a significant turnaround in
media support for the proposed legislation, however. In July 2006,
Fairfax considered the media ownership reforms would strengthen the
media industry and the diversity of media as well as provide
opportunities for strategic growth,(38) but by September
this view had altered; Fairfax Chief Executive Officer, David Kirk
remarking that the proposed changes were neither in the interests
of the media industry nor media diversity.(39) Much of
the criticism has stemmed from a belief that free to air television
gains an unfair advantage resulting from the Government s decisions
to allow free to air networks to bid for one of the two new digital
television channels the Government will auction in
2007,(40) rather than from a change in attitude to
removing ownership restrictions.(41)
Certain commentators
in the media have also been effusive in their praise for the idea
of lifting media ownership laws with some arguing the industry
would certainly be better off with less regulation .(42)
Since the announcement of the proposed changes, however, other
commentators have been more cautious. Matthew Ricketson in the
Age making the pertinent point that the argument that a
variety of ownership in the blogosphere does not necessarily mean
that media regulation is redundant;(43) and similarly,
Graeme Phillipson has rebutted the Government s claims the
legislation will allow the media to move into a dynamic world of
digital content.(44)
Journalists such
as Brian Toohey have also noted the important argument that
news collecting is a difficult, costly and labour intensive task,
which it is likely that Internet bloggers would not be able to
undertake effectively. Tellingly, Toohey has argued there is scant
reason to believe (new media technologies), or (the Government s)
rules changes, will empower consumers, let alone weaken governments
and media giants .(45)
A Roy Morgan
survey found that 82 per cent of Australian journalists believe
changes to the media laws will impact negatively on the integrity
of reporting and 85 per cent consider they will reduce diversity. A
majority of journalists (71 per cent) believe Australian media
companies/owners have too much influence in determining the
political agenda.(46)
Labor has consistently questioned the proposed
legislation, arguing it will result in massive media concentration,
which will not be in the public interest. Labor spokesperson for
communications, Senator Stephen Conroy, arguing:
Media reform genuinely focused on consumers would
protect diversity, promote competition and enhance consumer choice.
Measured against these criteria the Government s media package
comes up well short The proposal would inevitably narrow the range
of news and opinion available to the public Some argue that the
emergence of new media renders the ownership restrictions
irrelevant. Although it is true that digital technology has led to
a proliferation of platforms the sources of the most influential
content remain the traditional media companies... While there are
thousands of blogs, their influence is minuscule in
comparison.(47)
Senator Conroy has also questioned if the ACCC
will have sufficient power under the legislation to stop media
mergers and argued that the timeframe for scrutiny of the
legislation was inadequate.(48)
The ALP expressed concern about the inadequacy
of local content provisions(49) and the threat posed to
Australian democracy by the legislation.
Democrats leader Lyn Allison noted in July
that her party agreed some media reform was needed, but that she
thought changes the Government may introduce would lead to a
concentration of media ownership, which in turn would be a problem
for diversity and freedom for journalists to critique governments.
She saw grave dangers in how media voices would be defined under
the legislation, was concerned that the ACCC did not have
sufficient powers to control the merger process and believed a
public interest test on mergers should be included in the
legislation.(50)
The Democrats media spokesperson Andrew Murray
was unconvinced that the proposed changes would be beneficial for
democracy, noting that the Government had no evidence to support
the assertion that reform would not lead to a concentration of the
media market, and that there were insufficient safeguards in the
legislation. Murray called for a strengthening of the Trade
Practices Act and the imposition of a public interest
test.(51)
The Australian Greens leader, Senator Bob
Brown criticised the removal of foreign ownership regulation in the
proposed legislation as detrimental to
democracy.(52)
Family First
Family First s Senator Steve Fielding has made
no public statements on the proposed legislation, but has been
reported as being concerned about the extent to which safeguards in
the legislation will be effective and the potential impact of the
reforms on rural and regional media.(53)
A number of National Party members have
publicly expressed concern that localism, diversity and competition
in rural and regional areas will be lost unless changes are made to
the proposed legislation. The Nationals changes would involve
varying the requirement that four media groups remain in regional
areas following media merger activity, restricting mergers so that
companies could control only two of the three main media formats in
regional areas.
The capacity of the ACCC to deal adequately
with rural media issues has also been an issue leading to the
suggestion that guidance on mergers and other matters should be
included in the legislation and not left to the discretion of the
ACCC (and ACMA).(54)
While some Nationals have couched their
concerns about the legislation in terms of a fear of the threat
posed to democracy, it appears that there is no clear ideological
objection to the legislation within the party.
The Australian Consumers Association and the
Consumers Federation of Australia have made little public comment
on the proposed legislation. In July the view was advanced that the
Government s media reforms in relation to digital television were
putting the interests of media owners ahead of
consumers(55) and in September the general manager of
policy at the Australian Consumers Association, argued the reforms
should do more to open the market to new
players.(56)
The ACCC released a paper in August 2006 which
was intended to provide guidance about its role under the proposed
legislation.(57)
Under section 50 of the Trade Practices
Act 1974, the ACCC would investigate proposed mergers to
determine if they substantially lessen competition. In so doing it
would consider the impact of media mergers on market concentration,
on the number and market share of media outlets in a market and
whether a merged media business could exercise market power by
reducing the quality of the content it provides consumers, which
could include reducing the diversity of the content.
In undertaking its consideration the ACCC
would also, among other things, assess the ability of new players
to enter the market.
As section 50 of the Trade Practices Act
specifically requires the ACCC to consider the impact of proposed
mergers on markets in regional Australia, it would take into
account the differing circumstances in rural and regional Australia
compared with urban areas.
The ACCC paper acknowledged that unique
characteristics of the media sector would need to be identified,
considered and weighed when determining whether a merger is likely
to lessen competition substantially.
As a fundamental part of assessing media
mergers, the ACCC would base its assessment on what a market would
likely look like in the foreseeable future and as markets evolve so
it would change its analysis to ensure that media mergers would not
be hindered based on speculation about future technological
development.
The ACCC would consider the following main
assessment categories: the supply of advertising opportunities to
advertisers and content to consumers and the acquisition of content
from content providers as well as more specific products, such as
premium content; classified and display advertising; and the
delivery of news, information and opinion.(58)
A Roy Morgan Survey conducted in August 2006
noted that the reform package has failed to attract the support of
Australians. A small majority of Australians (52 per cent) oppose
the plan to drop cross-media restrictions, while a clear majority
of Australians (64 per cent) oppose the plan to relax foreign
ownership restrictions.(59)
About one third of Australians (36 per cent)
believe changes to the media laws will have a negative impact on
the integrity of reporting (only 14 per cent see it as positive),
while thirty five per cent say the reforms will reduce diversity
(17 per cent say diversity will increase).(60)
The essential argument in favour of
deregulation in media ownership control is that it will address the
declining interest in news and current affairs presented by the
traditional media, which may be linked to a growing distrust of
political and media institutions.
It is claimed that as people think the
traditional media is biased, inaccurate and unprofessional , they
are doing something about it. They have become news grazers across
all types of media, often using multiple sources of media
simultaneously to assemble their own package of information,
particularly by passing traditional sources. People s news
interests have also changed; they want news on health, hobbies and
entertainment that traditional media are not providing.
The news lectures of the traditional media are
giving way to news conversation also. Through blogs, people can
share their perspectives and through citizen websites, user
generated content or citizen journalism is emerging. This type of
journalism is seen as adding value through citizen participation
within trusted communities.(61)
As one blogger notes:
I can write about anything. I can write opinion. I
can report facts. I can ask questions. I can jump from topic to
topic to topic. Sports, the NBA, business, personal experiences,
technology, movies, entertainment, hdtv, whatever I want to write
about. One minute I m a reporter, communicating what happened and
where, the next I m an opinion columnist. The next I m op ed,
punching or counter punching someone in traditional media, just to
see if they can take a punch as well as they can throw
one.(62)
Deregulation of the traditional media as an
imperative for a world where consumers are demanding media on their
terms, will ensure that traditional media companies can address
consumer concerns. The traditional media will be able to transform
their culture, operations and strategic thinking to respond to new
market demands.
At the same time as the proposed legislation
will assist traditional media owners to counter and incorporate
changing patterns of media usage, it is argued it will also
potentially deliver more diversity of opinion in the traditional
market. This will open up the concentrated media market that
currently exists in Australia, while ensuring that the public
interest is protected through legislative instruments and the
Foreign Investment Policy.
Additionally, according to
some commentators, there is no need for concern as smaller
companies in the information and communications industries are
taken over. The situation does not necessarily equate to less
competition and more concentration because the average size of the
fish is growing, [and] so too is the overall size of the pool they
are swimming in. This means the degree of market concentration may
not be getting larger and may even be shrinking
.(63)
A number of arguments raised in relation to
the proposed media reforms, and the relaxation of media regulations
generally, have essentially focussed on the possible threat they
pose to democracy.
Specifically, critics such as former Prime
Minister, Paul Keating, mount arguments that the reform to
Australian media ownership rules could concentrate power in the
hands of a few media owners and so potentially limit free speech,
and as such, they are not only a threat to democracy but also to
cultural diversity.(64)
Contrary to the Government s view that the
media should be treated like any other commodity, a significant
body of thought is that careful regulation of the media is so
crucial to the functioning of a democratic society that it must not
be treated like any other market participant. Underpinning this
argument is the persuasive belief that:
Access to information is essential to the health
of democracy for at least two reasons. First, it ensures that
citizens make responsible, informed choices rather than acting out
of ignorance or misinformation. Second, information serves a
checking function by ensuring that elected representatives uphold
their oaths of office and carry out the wishes of those who elected
them.(65)
The threat to democracy from deregulation of
the media can be seen as coming from an inevitable concentration of
media ownership on a global scale and the consequent promotion of
uniform content and values that undermine differences in cultures,
ignore minority voices and, at the best trivialise important
issues. They cite scenarios where the monopolistic media are
completely unaccountable and unwilling to present any information
that may be damaging to their advertisers or interests they may
wish to promote.
These critics already see the results of media
concentration in markets such as the United States, where it is
argued public affairs reporting and local programming have declined
as media companies have consolidated and grown so that
communication is dominated by a few large entities. News reports,
it is argued, are consequently biased or suppressed if they do not
appear to serve the interests of these companies, which also
interfere to ensure programming is suitable .(66)
Others support this argument that as owners of
the media influence media content through employment of personnel,
funding projects, and by providing a platform for interest groups,
once the inevitable conglomerates emerge from a deregulated media
environment a small group of powerful owners [will] control what is
read by the population, what people see and hear or do not read,
see and hear . The consequent question is: How can democracy
function if information that people rely on to make political and
social decisions is tainted by the influence of
mega-media?(67)
A variant of the argument that democracy is
threatened by the removal of media regulation is that diversity of
sources and opinion will disappear with the removal of existing
media regulations. Comment is the case to repeal media ownership
laws is based on a flawed assumption that new media sources will
guarantee a diverse range of opinion that will be freely available
and exchanged in these new forums.(68) According to this
argument, the new media do not enhance diversity, as they too are
controlled by the traditional media.
Proponents of this argument have pointed out
that the only significant new Australian news service provided by
pay television operators is Sky News Australia,(69)
which is owned by the existing networks, Seven and Nine, and
British Sky Broadcasting. The latter is 40 per cent owned by News
Corporation.
Roy Morgan research also indicates that the
most popular Internet news sites are controlled by existing media
operators; Fairfax, News Ltd, Channel Nine and the Australian
Broadcasting Commission making up the top four. The news arm of the
Internet portal Yahoo is a distant fifth.(70) The only
major new operator in Internet news is Telstra Corporation.
However, Telstra s new service consists of AAP news stories. AAP
Information Services is jointly controlled by News Ltd and
Fairfax.
Recent surveys and polls point to the
continuing importance of free-to-air television, newspapers and
radio, particularly for coverage of national politics and current
affairs. For example, a Morgan Poll conducted in December 2005
revealed that for coverage of events in Australia, 56 per cent of
people used free to air television, 18 per cent turned to radio and
11 per cent turned to newspapers (a total of 85 per cent). For
coverage of political background and analysis of events in
Australia, 41 per cent turned to free to air television, 27 per
cent turned to newspapers, and 13 per cent turned to radio (a total
of 81 per cent).(71)
So while there is evidence to indicate a
decline in utilisation of traditional sources of media as people
turn to the Internet and pay television for entertainment and other
types of information,(72) there is a corresponding
indication that people continue to turn to traditional sources for
current affairs information and analysis.
Further to the diversity argument, the
Productivity Commission broadcasting inquiry concluded that media
proprietors business and editorial interests may influence the
content and opinion of their media outlets. So it is in the public
interest in ensuring diversity of information and opinion and in
encouraging freedom of expression in Australian media that there
are more media proprietors. This is particularly important given
the wide business interests of some media
proprietors.(73)
The Commission also noted that it was not
necessary for proprietors to be heavy-handed about what was
acceptable editorial content. So should more media concentration
result from deregulation of media ownership, not only will
diversity of opinion be lost, but what opinion and critique that
remains will most likely be subject to subtle influences which will
ensure that what is reported and how it is reported reflect the
interests of the remaining, more powerful media owners.
There is a question about whether the ACCC and
ACMA will be able to fulfil the respective roles of regulator and
decision maker adequately under this legislation.
It is clear that the ACCC has powers relating
to the investigation of mergers under section 50 of the Trade
Practices Act, but it is not clear what will be the consequences
under the new regime of the media being considered simply as
another market sector. The ACCC notes in its August 2006 report on
media mergers that it will consider the unique characteristics of
the media in making decisions regarding competition, but this
assurance is couched in terms of competition policy alone and does
not take into account the distinctly pivotal role for the media in
a healthy democracy that does not apply to other business sectors.
Indeed, it could be argued that such a role is not appropriate for
an agency. It appears the media s role in providing information,
analysis and a variety of considered opinions to assist people in
understanding and participating in social and political life may be
just another category to be considered in assessing competition. Or
if the framework set out in the ACCC s report is any indication,
not a consideration at all as the framework concentrates on the
characteristics of product relevance, geographic and functional
dimensions of a market and whether mergers will lessen competition
in the foreseeable future.(74)
So while it will be necessary under the
legislation to notify the ACCC, for example, of three way, cross
media mergers, approval of these mergers may not take into
consideration effects such as the diminution of the number of
viewpoints in a particular area as the result of syndication of
news and information over television radio and newspaper
services.
Equally, under the proposed legislation, ACMA
s discretionary power over the media landscape is likely to
increase. Although there is provision in the legislation for the
Minister to be able to direct ACMA to undertake certain tasks and
to take into consideration certain matters in making decisions, it
appears that ultimately those decisions will remain with ACMA. The
Government argues this will ensure independent assessment and
process,(75) but again it could be questioned whether a
regulator should be given the interpretative power to make
assessments that may impact significantly on the functioning of
democratic processes. Under section 61CC of the legislation ACMA is
able to define what is meant by local, which in itself may be open
to subjective interpretation. Certainly it is difficult to see how
some subjectivity cannot be present in many of the areas where ACMA
will be given discretion to make decisions - about whether radio
broadcasting local content plans actually provide sufficient local
content, or if local news bulletins actually adequately reflect
local issues.
There is an anomaly in the fact that the ACCC
and/or ACMA will not be granted similar interpretative powers under
a public interest test. After concluding that provisions in the
Trade Practices Act were insufficient to address public interest
considerations, in its 2000 report on broadcasting, the
Productivity Commission suggested that a public interest test could
be applied to media mergers at least until such time as competition
among media firms can be adequately addressed under mainstream
competition law .(76)
While the Commission did not suggest the
format of an actual test, it did note that a clear definition and
guidelines would be needed to ensure the continuance of diversity
of opinion and sources and that the ACCC could administer such a
test on recommendations from ACMA. The Communications Law Centre
(CLC) made a similar point about the need for, and desirability of
a public interest test in the context of criticism of the ACCC s
approach to regarding all media content as digital data, rather
than as a qualitative entity that can result in deep
dissatisfaction within the community .(77)
The Government dismissed the inclusion of a
public interest test as part of the media ownership legislative
package because it considered that subjective judgement by an
individual or organisation will inevitably occur in deciding what
constitutes the public interest and that this would create
uncertainty for industry.(78)
Including some form of public interest test
may, however, have been able to help in allaying concerns about
issues such as what will constitute a media voice in a deregulated
media marketplace. The proposed legislation requires that no less
than five media groups remain in mainland state capitals and four
in other areas following the removal of ownership restrictions.
Media groups are defined as groups of two or more operations, with
operations meaning a commercial television broadcasting licence, or
a commercial radio broadcasting licence or a newspaper associated
with a commercial television licence or a commercial radio
broadcasting licence (section 61AA).
However, there is no account in the
legislation for the differing corporate profiles of operations
within groups. An operation could therefore be defined as a small
community radio station, a broadcaster that simply provides racing
information or a major metropolitan newspaper or television
station. All are considered equal; but all are patently not equal.
As the CLC recognises, the outcome of a situation where all
operations are treated as equal, however, is likely to be that
certain mergers may result in damage to the public sphere . A test
could be developed which would help to ensure diversity by more
fairly assessing what the CLC labels as clout , that is, the
potential and/or real influence of media operations, by identifying
the mergers that matter .(79)
Additionally, in regional areas where the
audience of the public broadcaster, in its various guises, often
reaches over 30 per cent,(80) it is in the interests of
diversity, as noted further below, for this voice to be enhanced to
encourage the expression of political and social opinion and
debate.
The following table illustrates the extent of
media concentration and the lack of diversity of sources of opinion
already apparent in the two largest mainland capital media
marketplaces. Other mainland capitals exhibit similar media
concentration, which existing legislation has failed to prevent. It
is unlikely the central media players in these markets will
withdraw following deregulation and/or that an era of independent
voices of opinion will begin. The probability is that the opposite
will occur, as significant media operations vie to consolidate and
expand their interests.
Sydney Media(81)
|
|
Owned by
|
Major shareholders
|
Ratings %
Circulation (approx)
|
|
Radio
|
|
|
|
|
2CH (Easy listening)
|
Macquarie Radio Network Ltd
|
John Singleton/Mark Carnegie/Alan Jones
|
(Nielsen Survey June 25 Sept 2 2006) 5
|
|
2GB (News/Talk)
|
* (* Denotes as above)
|
*
|
13
|
|
2Day (New music)
|
Austereo
|
Village Roadshow (Kirby family
|
9.7
|
|
2MMM (Rock music)
|
*
|
*
|
8.6
|
|
2SM (News/talk)
|
Broadcast Operations P/L
|
Bill Caralis
|
NA (Not available)
|
|
2SYD
(New music)
|
DMG radio
|
Daily Mail and General Trust (GB/Viscount
Rothermere)
|
7.5
|
|
2WFM (Classic hits)
|
Australian Radio Network
|
(JV)APN News and Media Ltd (Sir Tony O Reilly) Clear
Channel Communications (US)
|
6.6
|
|
2UUS (Classic hits)
|
*
|
*
|
5.6
|
|
2UE(News/talk)
|
Southern Cross Broadcasting
(Australian)Ltd
|
Institutional investors
|
8.5
|
|
2MAC (Macedonian)
|
Win Corp P/L
|
Bruce Gordon
|
NA
|
|
2KY (Racing)
|
Tabcorp Holdings Ltd
|
Institutional investors
|
NA
|
|
Newspapers
|
|
|
|
|
Sydney Morning Herald/Sun-Herald
|
John Fairfax Holdings Ltd
|
Institutional investors
|
Mon-Fri: 35.4 (214,000)
Sat: 51.1
(352,000)
Sun: 41.8
(514,000)
|
|
Daily Telegraph/
Sunday Telegraph
|
News Corporation
|
Rupert Murdoch and Murdoch family
|
Mon-Fri: 64.6
(390,000)
Sat: 48.9
(337,000)
Sun: 58.2
(716,000)
|
|
Television
|
|
|
|
|
Channel 9
|
Publishing and Broadcasting Ltd
|
Consolidated Press Holdings (Packer)
|
(Source Oz tam 2006 to date) 29.9
|
|
Channel 7
|
Seven Network Ltd
|
Kerry Stokes
& associated companies
|
27.9
|
|
Channel 10
|
The Ten Group P/L
|
CanWest (Canada/Leonard Asper), Ten Network
Holdings
|
20.7
|
|
Community
|
|
|
|
|
Television
|
TVS Sydney
|
|
Radio
|
Muslim
Community Radio Inc.
Gadigal
Information Service Aboriginal Corporation
Multicultural
Community Radio Association Ltd
Christian
Broadcasting Association Ltd
Music
Broadcasting Society of New South Wales Co-operative Ltd
Sydney
Educational Broadcasting Ltd
Radio for the
Print-Handicapped of NSW Co-op Ltd
Radio Skid Row
Ltd
|
Melbourne Media
|
|
Owned by
|
Major shareholders
|
Ratings%
/Circulation
(approx)
|
|
Radio
|
|
|
|
|
3AW(News/talk)
|
Southern Cross Broadcasting (Australia)
Ltd
|
Institutional investors
|
(Nielsen Survey June 25-Sept 2 2006)
16
|
|
3EE(Golden oldies)
|
* (*Denotes as above)
|
*
|
3.8
|
|
3AK(Sports)
|
Pacific Star Network Ltd
|
Radio Australia P/L Ronald Hall/ Rosh
Hagiborim/Southern Cross Broadcasting (Australia) Ltd
|
2.7
|
|
3MP(Easy listening)
|
*
|
*
|
3.1
|
|
3Fox (New music)
|
Austereo Group Ltd
|
Village Roadshow (Kirby family)
|
11.9
|
|
3MMM(Rock music)
|
*
|
*
|
8.3
|
|
3KKZ(Classic hits)
|
Australian Radio Network
|
(JV)APN News and Media Ltd (Sir Tony O Reilly) Clear
Channel Communications (US)
|
10.3
|
|
3TT(New music)
|
*
|
*
|
5.6
|
|
3MEL(New music)
|
DMG Radio Australia
|
Daily Mail and General Trust (GB/Viscount
Rothermere)
|
8.3
|
|
3UZ (Sports)
|
3UZ Pty Ltd
|
|
NA
|
|
Newspapers
|
|
|
|
|
The Age/Sunday Age
|
John Fairfax Holdings Ltd
|
Institutional investors
|
Mon-Fri: 26.2
(196,000)
Sat: 36.3
(292,000)
Sun:
24.4
(195,000)
|
|
Herald Sun/Sunday Herald Sun
|
News Corporation
|
Rupert Murdoch and Murdoch family
|
Mon-Fri: 73.8
(553,000)
Sat: 63.7
(512,000)
Sun: 76.6
(605,000)
|
|
Television
|
|
|
|
|
Channel 9
|
Publishing
and Broadcasting Ltd
|
Consolidated Press Holdings (Packer)
|
(Source Oztam 2006 to date)
30.8
|
|
Channel 7
|
Seven Network
|
Kerry Stokes & associated companies
|
27.2
|
|
Channel 10
|
The Ten Group P/Lk
|
CanWest (Canada/Leonard Asper), Ten Network
Holdings
|
22.6
|
|
Community
|
|
|
|
|
Television
|
MCTC
|
|
Radio
|
Joy
Melbourne
Eastern
Community Broadcasters Community Radio Inc.
North West
Community Radio Association Inc.
Student Youth
Network Inc.
Light FM
Inc.
South Eastern
Indigenous Media Association Inc.
Ethnic Public
Broadcasting Association of Victoria Ltd
Music
Broadcasting Society of Victoria Ltd
Progressive
Broadcasting Service Co-operative Ltd
Triple R
Broadcasters Ltd
Vision
Australia Foundation
Community
Radio Melbourne Pty Ltd
South Eastern
Radio Association Inc.
Southern
Community Broadcasters Inc.
Western Radio
Broadcasters Inc.
|
There should be some guarantee of certainty
for public broadcasters associated with the proposed legislation,
but the Government only notes that diversity will be ensured by the
existence of public and community broadcasting once deregulation
occurs.(82)
There is, however, no certainty about the fate
of public broadcasting to be gleaned from the current debate and
this is concerning, given that the issue of privatising the
Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) has been raised a number
of times in recent years. In August 2003, the Government argued for
example that:
the ABC must find an additional revenue source and
introduce between-program advertising [It] cannot sustain its
current reckless programming priorities unless it is prepared to
find supplementary income .(83)
Similarly, it was noted in June 2006 that:
there has been a fair bit of talk in recent weeks
about public broadcasters accepting advertising. That isn t so
surprising given Helen Coonan s suggestion that the ABC might like
to consider commercials and SBS s announcement that commercials
will soon interrupt its programming.(84)
The Government considers that allowing
advertising would create incentives for the ABC to broaden its
appeal to the large numbers of Australians whom it currently
overlooks. It sees in between program advertising on the Special
Broadcasting Service (SBS) as a success, noting that there have
been no credible complaints that limited advertising on SBS has
compromised that broadcaster s values and capacity to meet the
standards and benchmarks set out in their charter
.(85)
The Government believes that a new revenue
source would ensure that quality programs continue and denies that
commercialisation would dumb down the national broadcaster. Such
claims have also been thoroughly refuted by the experience of SBS
.(86)
But the New Zealand experience, noted in a
later section of this Digest, repudiates such claims. If the ABC
were to be forced, by whatever means, to accept commercialisation,
and albeit that commercialisation was partial, what the public
broadcaster stands for is inevitably corrupted. The fundamental
concept of public broadcasting is that it exists for the public,
not for advertisers or media proprietors. As one media commentator
notes:
Commercialisation as has already been
demonstrated, without subtlety, at SBS, would influence the type of
material commissioned and broadcast. This is because the people who
hold the whip hand in any commercial broadcasting entity aren t the
audience, program-makers or even station executives. The whip hand
is held by advertisers. He who pays the piper must inevitably
choose the tune.(87)
The Australian public has agreed consistently
that it wants and values an independent public broadcasting
voice,(88) realising when governments sometimes fail to,
that the public broadcaster presents balanced reporting and raises
issues of vital importance that are often overlooked by commercial
interests. There appears to be no guarantee that the public
broadcaster will be given adequate resources to combat the media
frenzy some are predicting will follow deregulation, however. One
scenario is that following deregulation, the trend to real funding
cuts for the ABC and SBS over recent years will
continue.(89) SBS has already succumbed by announcing it
will accept advertisements during programming, so will this result
in further funding cuts and the loss of the independence
fundamental to a public broadcaster? Will the ABC be forced to
follow the lead of SBS?
A public interest test may also be able to
address some of the concerns noted earlier and raised in relation
to the treatment of the media as simply another market sector,
albeit a sensitive one. A clear definition developed of public
interest could be developed gleaned from extensive consultation
with relevant groups and most importantly with the public which
could help allay concern about possible loss of diversity as a
result of deregulation. While an element of subjectivity may remain
in applying such a test, many would argue that all regulatory
decisions in areas such as the media contain an element of
interpretation.
Because of the significant differences in
culture, size and characteristics of media markets and legal and
administrative traditions within Europe, media regulation in the
European Union is a difficult and complex issue. It is unlikely
that a common law for media ownership can exist in the European
Union and attempts to introduce specific media regulation have been
unsuccessful.
There appears to be within the Union, however,
general acceptance that the rights to freedom of information and
expression, combined with a plurality of media voices are vital
contributory factors to the functioning of democracy. Article 10 of
the European Convention on Human Rights reflects this view in
emphasising that all European States have a duty to protect media
diversity and to take positive measures to ensure it is
maintained.(90)
Media diversity is also seen across Europe as
essential to maintaining the threads of European identity; allowing
all citizens access to a variety of information, opinions and
ideas, and at the same time presenting them from different cultural
perspectives.
The European Commission argues that European
competition law provides an important contribution to ensuring
media pluralism in the Union by helping prevent the creation or
abuse of dominant media positions, while ensuring market access for
new entrants.(91) But the Commission is of the view that
competition law alone cannot replace the need for national media
concentration controls and measures appropriate for each member
state to ensure media pluralism in particular
jurisdictions.(92)
Nevertheless, despite general support across
the Union for media pluralism in all its forms, ultimately, member
states operate under different media ownership
regimes.(93)
What this means is that there are various
applications of media ownership rules and regulations throughout
the Union. In some states only general competition rules and
criteria apply, while in others such as Ireland, Austria and the
United Kingdom, some media specific general regulation exists.
Cross media ownership regulation varies considerably also with
limited rules applying in Germany, cross sector restriction in
France and Greece and no restrictions applying in Spain, Sweden or
Denmark.
A number of control mechanisms are employed
across the Union. These can involve:
- Limiting the number of media licences or refusing to grant
licences, based on ownership of other media outlets;
- Restricting individual ownership through limiting capital
shares or voting shares which can be held by one broadcasting
outlet or subsequently, in a second broadcasting outlet;
- Measuring market share through readership and audience;
- Measuring market share through advertising or industry
revenue;
- Preventing dominant position through measuring market share of
media assets; or
- Assessing transparency of ownership.(94)
Despite the varying application of these
measures, it appears there are increasing trends towards
concentration of traditional media across Europe as the result of
less stringent rules on the numbers of licences operators can hold
and more flexible cross media ownership regulations. As a result,
countries such as Sweden have considered introducing media
ownership regulatory models based on a general clause of
investigation, which would allow authorities to intervene if they
found media concentration detrimental to freedom of expression and
diversity of opinion.
Similar arguments have been raised to those
currently being considered in the Australian context that new
technologies undermine the rationale for stringent restrictions on
media ownership as new technologies provide an increase in choice
and diversity and that companies should not be hampered from
competing in a global economic system by ownership restrictions.
However, the Council of Europe dismisses this idea, convinced that
it is appropriate for European states to maintain media ownership
controls.
Foreign ownership of European media is also
seen as a problem. Some states are particularly concerned with the
encroachment of American media conglomerates and the effect these
have both on diversity and neutralising unique European cultures.
In Central Eastern Europe there is additional concern that
encroachment by Western media groups per se has prevented
or made difficult the development of independent or
nationally-based media in these countries. For instance, in the
Czech Republic, German and Swiss companies own 80 per cent of
newspapers and magazines. German, Austrian, Swiss, French, and
Scandinavian capital also dominates print media in Bulgaria,
Hungary, Poland, and the Baltic states.(95)
The United Kingdom
A radical overhaul of media regulation in the
United Kingdom was introduced under the Communications Act 2003.
This Act resulted from government thinking which proclaimed the
United Kingdom s media regulatory structures as a by-product of a
bygone era .(96)
The Communications Act removed rules which
limited the share of the television audience that any one company
could control, the joint ownership of the two London ITV licences
and the joint ownership of a national ITV licence and Channel 5.
New rules liberalising radio ownership were also introduced with
the proviso that at least two or more radio operators were required
in local areas in addition to the British Broadcasting Corporation
(BBC).
Limited media controls remain under the Act,
but crucially, these are in relation to cross media ownership. A
company holding a national ITV licence for example is not able to
merge with a company owning 20 per cent of the national newspaper
market, nor can a company holding a regional ITV licence merge with
a company owning more than 20 per cent of the newspapers of that
region. Complex provisions ensure that no merger can deny consumers
at least two sources of local radio in addition to the BBC.
Powers given to the Secretary of State to
intervene in mergers which raise issues of media plurality in
conjunction with a public interest test were introduced in the Act
with the stated intention of protecting pluralism. Public interest
is defined by the Act as the need for:
- a sufficient plurality of media to serve different audiences
and localities throughout the United Kingdom;
- availability of a wide range of broadcasting in the United
Kingdom which is both of high quality and calculated to appeal to a
wide variety of tastes and interests; and
- media enterprises to have a genuine commitment to standards
such as accuracy, impartiality, fairness and privacy in
broadcasting).(97)
Critics have argued that it is doubtful
whether the particular public interest test introduced in the
United Kingdom will indeed have any practical effect. They consider
that changes under the Communications Act have indeed already
delivered unprecedented opportunities for commercial television and
radio broadcasters to expand their share of the
market.(98) It appears there is some substance to this
case, given that while competition authorities are supposed to vet
television mergers closely to ensure the public interest is
paramount, a merger between Carlton and Granada television has
already delivered consolidated ownership and control over most
regional ITV licences to one entity.(99)
At the same time, however, it must be
acknowledged that the powers given to the Office of Communications
(Ofcom) under the Act mean that programming quotas are still
enforceable in areas such as news and current affairs and local
content. These powers represent represent a compromise on the
Government s original position on the relaxation of foreign
investment laws and the promotion of media mergers
.(100)
The United States
The Telecommunications Act
1996(101) was the first successful attempt to reform
American policymaking in the broadcasting and telecommunications
sectors since 1934.
The Telecommunications Act abolished many of
the cross-market barriers that prohibited dominant players from one
communications industry, such as telephone, from providing services
in other industry sectors, such as cable television. New mergers
and acquisitions, consolidations and integration of services
previously barred became legal under the Act.
The Telecommunications Act incorporates
numerous changes to the rules dealing with radio and television
ownership. Broadcast ownership limits on television stations were
removed although a raised service cap area still only allowed
proprietors to purchase television stations that serviced a maximum
cap of 35 per cent of the population.
Limits on the number of the radio stations
that may be commonly owned were lifted, though the Act did provide
limits on the number of licenses that may be owned within specific
markets or geographical areas. Also amended were restrictions on
foreign ownership of stations.
Terms of license for both radio and television
were changed to eight years and rules allowing competing
applications for license renewals dramatically altered in favour of
incumbent licensees.
The Act significantly altered rules regarding
station affiliations and cross-ownership restrictions. Stations
were able to affiliate with more than one network and while
broadcasting networks were barred from merging or buying out other
networks, they were able to establish new program services.
Broadcasters were allowed to own cable television systems, but
television licensees are still prohibited from owning newspapers in
the same market.
The Act affirmed the continuation of local
marketing agreements and removed the previous restrictions on
common control of radio and television stations in the top fifty
markets, the one-to-a-market rule.(102)
President Clinton
predicted that the Telecommunications Act would deliver lower
prices for consumers, better quality services and greater choices
while at the same time ensuring the benefits of a diversity of
voices and viewpoints in radio, television and print media
.(103)
In reality, the
result of these regulatory changes has been the creation of radio
giants; prior to the passage of the Act no single radio corporation
owned more than 65 stations, today Clear Channel owns more than
1,200 radio stations. It has also led to homogenisation of play
lists and the broadcast of less local news.
The changes to
television ownership rules in the United States encouraged greatly
increased media concentration. Between 1995 and 2003 ten of the
largest television station owners went from owning 104 stations
with $5.9 billion in revenue to owning 299 stations with $11.8
billion in revenue. Five companies Viacom, the parent of CBS,
Disney, owner of ABC, News Corporation, NBC and AOL, owner of Time
Warner, now control 75 per cent of all prime-time viewing.
The Act also
permitted the easing of cable-broadcast cross-ownership rules and
as cable systems increased the number of channels, the broadcast
networks aggressively expanded their ownership of cable networks
with the largest audiences. Ninety per cent of the top fifty cable
stations are now owned by the same parent companies that own the
broadcast networks, a situation which challenges the notion that
cable is any real source of competition.
Since 1975, two thirds of independent
newspaper owners have disappeared. Currently, less than 275 of
America s 1,500 daily newspapers are independently owned, and more
than half of the market is dominated by one paper. The number of
major media companies has reduced from around 80 in 1986 to five in
2005.(104)
In June 2003, the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) attempted to change several of the remaining media
ownership rules(105) such as those which limit the
number of television stations one corporation can own and ban the
cross ownership of a television station and newspaper in the same
market.
This attempt at further deregulating media
ownership was criticised extensively in the United States with many
arguing that it could only ensure that the largest
firms(106) would be handed more power. It was also
argued that allowing such media concentration not only violated the
notion of competition in the marketplace, it also had negative
implications for democracy in that media conglomerates would
dominate journalism, culture and to a large extent, public
opinion.(107)
The FCC countered
this type of criticism with a similar argument to that now being
advanced in the Australian context that the proliferation of new
sources of entertainment and information, such as the Internet,
cable television and satellite services, justified relaxing the
limits on media regulation . In an unprecedented decision, and
after more than three million people protested to the United States
Congress, a federal court overturned several of the FCC media
ownership proposals until the Commission undertook a revision of
its proposals.(108)
In 2005, the Bush administration decided
against appealing this court decision that FCC s justification for
the new limits was insufficient and which put the rules on hold
until the FCC addressed the court s concerns.
The FCC also had tried to permit television
networks to own more stations, to allow them collectively to reach
45 per cent of the national audience, a figure increased from 35
per cent, but Congress overruled the Commission on this matter also
and set the ownership limits permanently at 39 per cent; a
situation which most likely both reflects a desire to compromise
and the power that the media has over Congressional deliberations.
Both Viacom Inc. s CBS network and News Corporation s Fox network
are currently close to the 39 per cent limit.
In June 2006, the
FCC announced that a comprehensive quadrennial review under the
Telecommunications Act of all media ownership rules would determine
whether any of such rules are necessary in the public interest as
the result of competition .(109)
In terms of
foreign ownership controls there are no laws specifically
prohibiting foreign participation in United States print media, but
in broadcasting, the FCC bars all aliens, alien governments and
alien corporations from holding more than 25 per cent of the voting
stock of a potential licensee.
Canada
Broadcasting policy in Canada has been
strongly influenced by objectives stated in the Canadian
Broadcasting Act 1991,(110) which emphasises that
broadcasting media should be Canadian owned and controlled and that
it should provide programming that serves to safeguard, enrich and
strengthen the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of
Canada. The idea of protection of Canadian identity and
encouragement of Canadian expression, which underpins this Act, is
crucial to understanding the media situation in Canada. As in many
other aspects of Canadian life, there is an awareness of the
proximity of the United States and its potential to overwhelm
Canadian opinions and values unless specific steps are taken.
Consequently, while there are strict laws
limiting non Canadian ownership of cultural industries of which the
media is one,(111) there has been traditionally less
objection to significant concentration of media ownership and high
levels of cross media ownership.
Radio and television ownership in Canada is
governed by the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications
Commission (CRTC),(112) which has a mandate to ensure
that programming reflects the aims of the Broadcasting Act and
provides access to reasonably priced, high-quality, varied and
innovative communications services that are competitive nationally,
as well as internationally.
The CRTC regulates over 3,300 broadcasters,
including television, cable distribution, AM and FM radio, pay and
specialty television, Direct-to-Home satellite systems, Multipoint
Distribution Systems, Subscription Television and Pay Audio.
Almost all Canadian television stations and
newspapers are owned by national media conglomerates. In radio,
companies are normally restricted to owning no more than three
stations in a single market, of which only two can be on the same
broadcast band. Under certain circumstances, local marketing
agreements may be implemented, or the ownership rule may be waived
entirely.
Canadian content rules are also in place to
combat the United States influence over Canadian broadcasting.
Content rules are requirements that radio and television
broadcasters (including cable/satellite)) must air a certain
percentage of content that is at least partly written, produced,
presented, or otherwise contributed to by
Canadians.(113)
Simultaneous substitution rules require that
when a Canadian network licenses a television program from a United
States network and shows it in the same time slot, upon request by
the Canadian broadcaster, broadcast distributors must replace the
program on the United States channel with the broadcast of the
Canadian channel, along with any overlays and commercials.
The CRTC also regulates
which channels broadcast distributors must or may offer and
approves distribution of signals to protect Canadian channels,
arguing that allowing free trade in television stations would
overwhelm the smaller Canadian market.
As noted, while the high level of media
concentration is criticised in Canada, for some time there was a
certain acceptance that this may be a necessity to preserve
Canadian identity in the face of the overwhelming influence of
United States media.
Recently, however, commentators
have begun more frequently to compare media empires in Canada with
feudal states, while others have warned of the potential for abuse
of political power from concentration of power in the media. Still
others have expressed concern about the lack of quality information
which has resulted from media concentration; the Canadian
experience is that stories are syndicated and investigative
journalism is a rare event.
It is argued that Canada has backed itself
into a corner with regards to media concentration and that there
are now only two choices for the Government: to split up existing
media monopolies or open up the market to foreign competition. The
first choice will probably involve a major political battle, but
the second could mean domination by American media
companies.(114)
Journalists have for some time also denounced
what they have labelled as a disturbing pattern of censorship and
repression of dissenting views by Canada s largest media company
Canwest.(115)
In an attempt to resolve the dilemma of
balancing cultural identity needs with criticism about loss of
diversity, the Senate Standing Committee on Transport and
Communications examined media concentration in Canada in its June
2006 Report.(116) The Report concluded that while there
are many strengths in the existing Canadian system, serious
problems are apparent. These include high levels of concentration
in news media ownership and/or cross ownership and the fact there
is no recognised mechanism that allows the public interest in media
issues to be discussed and reviewed in an open, transparent and
democratic manner.
During the Committee deliberations, localism
was discussed from a number of perspectives with some suggestion
the closure of local newspapers that had occurred with increasing
concentration may have an influence on voter turnout in elections;
the idea being that when citizens lose local interpretation of
national events, they feel less connected to national policies and
less inclined to vote for those who set these
policies.(117)
Similarly, centralised news coverage had
created a perception that only the centre matters; one witness to
the Committee noting that listeners in the regions do not need to
hear reports about traffic jams in Montreal while important stories
in their own communities receive no mention .
Concerns about the lack of diversity as the
result of media concentration were also apparent to the
Committee:
Public debate based on differing views is the
cornerstone of democracy, and the news media provide a vital space
where that debate is carried out. The right of proprietors to voice
their opinions on their editorial pages has long been considered
fundamental to freedom of the press. Difficulty arises, however, if
one proprietor owns so many media outlets that his or her opinions
crowd out others.(118)
The Committee acknowledged the privileged
position of the media under the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms accepting the principles that government not
interfere in the news operations of media organisations, or in
their espousal of whatever political position they choose in their
opinion pages. However, it concluded that the media s right to be
free from government interference does not mean that proprietors
should be allowed to own an excessive proportion of media holdings
in particular markets.
It acknowledged that the current regulatory
regime in Canada does little to prevent this occurring. It saw the
future media challenge in Canada as determining an easily
understood review mechanism to consider the public interest in news
media mergers which was able to ensure no interference in the
internal workings of the media, while at the same time including
clear accountability mechanisms for the public interest in
assessing media mergers. It recommended a number of ways to proceed
which included enacting legislation that included considering
dealing with the following aspects of media mergers:
- Cross-media ownership in particular markets;
- Development of a dominant position in particular advertising,
production or distribution markets; or
- Mergers that involve acquiring more than, say, 35 per cent of a
particular audience, or subscribers.(119)
New Zealand
As Dwyer et al note, in New Zealand there are
no comparable limitations on foreign ownership or cross media
ownership to those currently existing in Australia, the United
Kingdom or the United States.
Indeed, New Zealand is one of the most
deregulated media markets in the world and since the 1980s New
Zealanders have been told this situation is good. But if this is in
fact the case, why then is it as one commentator remarks, that
common complaints in New Zealand about the news media are that it
is biased and that the quality of content is
poor?(120)
Not only is the New Zealand market one of the
most deregulated, it is also one of the most concentrated with four
companies, all overseas owned, dominating the news media. There is
a near duopoly in each of the three main media print, television
and radio and a monopoly in pay television.
In 2003, Fairfax newspapers owned nearly half
(47.4 per cent) the daily newspaper circulation, while their main
competition, APN News and Media, boasted around 44 per circulation,
about 30 per cent of this coming from the New Zealand
Herald, the largest circulation daily newspaper in New
Zealand. APN also held substantial radio holdings. Between them
Fairfax and APN owned 87.4 per cent of audited daily press
circulation of the provincial newspapers (those with under 25,000
circulation), and 92.2 per cent of the metropolitan readership
(those newspapers with more than 25,000 circulation). In addition
they had extensive and increasing ownership of community newspapers
and magazines.
APN s main competitor in commercial radio was
the Canadian company CanWest, which owned the second of the two
largest radio networks, and two television channels. CanWest s
competitors in television were the state-owned television network
and News Corporation s Sky Television, which had a monopoly on pay
television.(121)
The New Zealand Government has begun to
recognise a problem exists as a result of the move away in the
1980s and 1990s from recognition that broadcasting has a cultural
and educative role beyond economic imperative. Minister of
Broadcasting Steve Maharey, has lamented that in its embrace of
market driven policies, the government evaded its responsibility to
ensure New Zealanders have access to a genuinely indigenous
broadcasting system .(122)
Maharey argues further that since 2000 his
government has reclaimed its obligation to involve itself
meaningfully in the broadcasting sector, regulating broadcast
content to ensure the promotion of national culture and identity,
promote participatory democracy and to encourage diverse sources
for information.(123)
Nevertheless, it remains that the former
public broadcaster has been broken up into separate state-owned
corporations, Televsision New Zealand (TVNZ) and Radio New Zealand
(RNZ) and while RNZ remains commercial free, TVNZ s claims to be a
public broadcaster, are questionable. About 90 per cent of its
funds are derived from advertising and merchandising sales for its
two stations; the remainder of its funding comes from government
sources.
TVNZ operates under a Charter introduced in
2003 under the Labour Government, but the Charter involves a dual
remit whereby the broadcaster has to maintain commercial
performance, while simultaneously attempting to provide public
service broadcasting.
The Charter requires TVNZ to feature:
- the highest standard of programming that informs, entertains
and educates while maintaining high standards and contributing to
shared experiences;
- a significant Indigenous voice to be heard in programming;
- the broadcast of programs of general appeal as well as those
which appeal to smaller audiences;
- the broadcast of programs that appeal to all age groups;
- to seek to extend the range of ideas and experiences available
to New Zealanders; and
- to encourage creative risk-taking and experiment while
supporting and promoting the talents and creative resources of New
Zealanders and the independent New Zealand film and television
industry.(124)
In its defence of this situation, the New
Zealand Government has argued:
in charging our publicly-owned television
broadcaster with the dual remit of implementing its public service
charter while maintaining commercial viability we have created an
arrangement to meet our particular needs as a nation. We are
forging a new approach that combines social and commercial
objectives for public service television. In a country with the
tax-base the size of ours, the government cannot hope to make
sufficient funding available to fully support a public television
service.(125)
TVNZ s efforts to balance commercial
performance with the Charter objectives have been unsucessful.
Despite some investment in local programs, the content on both its
stations has remained commercialised , consisting mainly of a high
proportion of light entertainment and reality shows.
One reason for this is that its dual remit to
continue paying dividends to the Government is not matched by a
modest subidy paid to implement the 2003 Charter. The Government
has proposed a Programme of Action for broadcasting which may
review this current funding system, however.
Ironically also, NZTV has been criticised
because its high ratings result in companies paying some of the
country s dearest rates to advertise on the public broadcaster.
- There is much debate on the future of TVNZ, which focuses on
the nature of public service broadcasting and whether it can have a
commercial aspect. Three options have been outlined:
- TV One as a fully non-commercial network charged with
delivering Charter values like the ABC in Australia, and possibly
merging with Radio New Zealand;
- TV One as a semi-commercial broadcaster with no more than six
minutes of advertisements an hour like the soon-to-change SBS
arrangement in Australia;
- TV One and TV2 remaining unchanged, but two new public service
channels being broadcast via digital
television.(126)
It appears that the Government is rethinking
the current broadcasting situation and looking at adopting the
third of the options proposed above in the near
future.(127)
In the present environment, a statutory body,
NZ on Air also acts as a funding agency to promote New Zealand
content in programming. It appears to be somewhat of a toothless
tiger , as it has no control over decisions made by broadcasters on
programming or advertising matters, nor over the content of
programs it does not fund.
It does seek, however, to promote and foster
the development of New Zealand s culture by funding locally-made
programmes.
Titles and combined circulation of the
major types of newspapers.
|
Type of
Newspaper
|
Titles
|
Total Circulation
(million)
|
|
Capital City & National
Daily Mon to Fri
|
12
|
2.3
|
|
Capital City & National
Daily - Saturday
|
12
|
3.0
|
|
Capital City Sunday
Papers
|
11
|
3.5
|
|
Regional Daily
|
35
|
0.6
|
|
Regional Non-Daily
|
235
|
0.7
|
|
Capital City Community (free or
partly paid)
|
126
|
7.0
|
|
Regional Community (free or
partly paid)
|
154
|
3.7
|
Percentage of Circulation for Major
Newspaper Owners
|
Controlling Interest
|
Capital City
Mon-Fri
(% of circulation.)
|
Capital City
Saturday
(% of circulation)
|
Capital City
Sunday
(% of circulation)
|
Regional Daily
(% of circulation)
|
Regional Non-Daily
(% of circulation)
|
Capital City
Community
(% of circulation)
|
Regional Community
(% of circulation)
|
|
News
Corp
|
68
|
61
|
78
|
23
|
4
|
56 (1)
|
18 (1)
|
|
John
Fairfax Holdings
|
22
|
24
|
20
|
16
|
|
23 (2)
|
10
|
|
Independent Print Media Group
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
West
Australian Newspapers Holdings
|
9
|
12
|
|
1
|
5
|
1
|
3
|
|
Rural
Press
|
2
|
2
|
1
|
21
|
31
|
2
|
21
|
|
APN
News & Media
|
|
|
|
27
|
9
|
|
17
|
|
Other
(3)
|
|
|
|
12
|
51
|
14
|
27
|
(1) Includes joint venture with
West Australian Newspapers Holdings Ltd
(2) Includes joint venture with Torch Publishing
(3) Comprises 121 companies/owners
There are 53 Australian commercial television
licences. The main operators, together with the percentage of the
population that their stations reach, are as follows:
- the Seven Network (Seven Network Ltd) has six licences reaching
73 per cent of the population
- the Nine Network (PBL) has four licences reaching 52 per
cent
- Network Ten (Ten Network Holdings Pty Ltd) has five licences
reaching 66 per cent
- Southern Cross Broadcasting (Australia) Ltd has fifteen
licences reaching 42 per cent
- WIN Television (WIN Corp P/L) has fourteen licences reaching 26
per cent
- Prime Television Ltd has nine licences reaching 25 per
cent.
It should be noted that the three major
networks are also broadcast by stations that they do not own, so
that their actual reach and influence is greater than would appear
from the above figures.
The national broadcasters, the ABC and SBS,
also have television networks that reach most of the population. On
average, the ABC is watched by around 13 million people each week.
Over 7 million people watch the SBS each week.
The major pay TV operators are Austar United
Communications Ltd (498 000 subscribers), Foxtel (more than
998 000 subscribers) and Optus Television (164 000
subscribers).
There are also seven community television
licences and eighty remote Indigenous community broadcasting licences.
The following table summarises the radio
services available in Australia.
|
Type of Radio
Services
|
Number of
Stations/Licences
|
|
Commercial Radio Services using
the broadcasting services bands
|
261
|
|
Commercial Radio Services not
using the broadcasting services bands
|
13
|
|
Community Radio
Stations
|
359
|
|
ABC - Four national networks
(Radio National, Classic FM, Triple J, NewsRadio) broadcast on
stations in each capital city and Newcastle)
|
36
|
|
ABC - other radio
stations
|
57
|
Those radio networks that reach over ten per
cent of the population are listed below.
|
Name
|
Capital City
Licences
|
Regional Licences
|
Percentage of population
reached
|
|
Austereo Group Ltd
|
10
|
|
59
|
|
DMG Radio Australia
|
7
|
1
|
53
|
|
Southern Cross Broadcasting (Australia)
Ltd
|
7
|
|
53
|
|
The Australian Radio Network
|
7
|
1
|
51
|
|
Broadcast Operations P/L
|
1
|
29
|
27
|
|
Macquarie Regional Radioworks (Macquarie Bank
Ltd)
|
2
|
88
|
22
|
|
Macquarie Radio Network Ltd
|
2
|
|
19
|
|
Tabcorp Holdings
|
1
|
|
19
|
|
3UZ P/L
|
1
|
1
|
19
|
|
Pacific Star Network Ltd
|
2
|
|
18
|
The table below details the possible effect of
the replacement of the current rules with the government s 5/4
proposal. It refers to only those markets (defined by the relevant
radio licence area) that have an associated daily newspaper. This
constitutes around 86 per cent of the population.
|
|
|
Current Media Outlets
|
|
|
|
Market
|
Radio Licence Area Pop as a % of
Australia
|
Paper
|
Radio
|
TV
|
Current Minimum Possible
Owners
|
Minimum Possible Owners under
5/4
|
|
Adelaide
|
5.91
|
1
|
6
|
3
|
7
|
5
|
|
Albury Wodonga
|
0.64
|
1
|
3
|
3
|
6
|
4
|
|
Ballarat
|
0.61
|
1
|
3
|
3
|
6
|
4
|
|
Bathurst
|
0.24
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
5
|
4
|
|
Bendigo
|
0.99
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
5
|
4
|
|
Brisbane
|
8.64
|
1
|
7
|
3
|
8
|
5
|
|
Broken Hill
|
0.11
|
1
|
2
|
2
|
4
|
4
|
|
Bundaberg
|
0.37
|
1
|
3
|
3
|
6
|
4
|
|
Burnie
|
0.31
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
5
|
4
|
|
Cairns
|
0.8
|
1
|
4
|
3
|
6
|
4
|
|
Canberra
|
1.88
|
1
|
4
|
3
|
6
|
4
|
|
Darwin
|
0.64
|
1
|
2
|
2
|
4
|
4
|
|
Devonport
|
0.34
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
5
|
4
|
|
Dubbo
|
0.35
|
1
|
3
|
3
|
6
|
4
|
|
Geelong
|
1.67
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
5
|
4
|
|
Gladstone
|
|
1
|
4
|
3
|
6
|
4
|
|
Gold Coast
|
2.33
|
1
|
3
|
3
|
6
|
4
|
|
Grafton
|
0.26
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
5
|
4
|
|
Gympie
|
0.57
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
5
|
4
|
|
Hobart
|
1.15
|
1
|
3
|
3
|
6
|
4
|
|
Ipswich
|
0.93
|
1
|
1
|
3
|
5
|
4
|
|
Kalgoorlie
|
0.18
|
1
|
3
|
2
|
5
|
4
|
|
Launceston
|
0.58
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
5
|
4
|
|
Lismore
|
0.72
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
5
|
4
|
|
Mackay
|
0.61
|
1
|
4
|
3
|
6
|
4
|
|
Maroochydore
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
5
|
4
|
|
Maryborough
|
0.39
|
1
|
3
|
3
|
6
|
4
|
|
Melbourne
|
17.91
|
2
|
11
|
3
|
11
|
5
|
|
Mildura
|
0.3
|
1
|
3
|
3
|
6
|
4
|
|
Mt Gambier
|
0.27
|
1
|
2
|
2
|
4
|
4
|
|
Mt Isa
|
0.13
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
3
|
4
|
|
Muswellbrook
|
0.25
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
5
|
4
|
|
Nambour
|
1.9
|
1
|
3
|
3
|
6
|
4
|
|
Newcastle
|
2.63
|
1
|
4
|
3
|
6
|
4
|
|
Orange
|
0.35
|
1
|
3
|
3
|
6
|
4
|
|
Perth
|
7.07
|
1
|
6
|
3
|
7
|
5
|
|
Rockhampton
|
0.81
|
1
|
4
|
3
|
6
|
4
|
|
Shepparton
|
0.84
|
1
|
3
|
3
|
6
|
4
|
|
Sydney
|
18.97
|
2
|
11
|
3
|
11
|
5
|
|
Tamworth
|
0.32
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
5
|
4
|
|
Toowoomba
|
0.96
|
1
|
4
|
3
|
6
|
4
|
|
Townsville
|
1
|
1
|
4
|
3
|
6
|
4
|
|
Tweed Heads
|
|
1
|
1
|
3
|
5
|
4
|
|
Wagga Wagga
|
0.52
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
5
|
4
|
|
Warrnambool
|
0.27
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
5
|
4
|
|
Warwick
|
|
1
|
4
|
3
|
6
|
4
|
|
Wollongong
|
1.36
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
5
|
4
|
Note: markets without given population
percentages are part of other radio licence areas. It has been
assumed that existing competition law would prevent any one owner
from controlling more than one television licence in any one market
direction, as self-censorship by journalists may achieve similar
outcomes.
There are no financial implications arising
from the Bill.
The proposed changes to the BSA will allow
permit cross media mergers in radio licence areas where it is
considered sufficient diversity of media groups remains following
the mergers.
Schedule 1 will:
- permit transactions involving commercial radio licensees,
commercial television licensees and associated newspapers,
including cross media transactions, to occur subject to there
remaining a minimum number of separately controlled commercial
media groups in a relevant licence area;
- exempt commercial television and radio broadcasting licensees
operating outside the broadcasting services bands of spectrum from
media ownership and control provisions; and
- require cross media mergers and acquisitions involving a
commercial radio licence, a commercial television licence and an
associated newspaper in the same licence area outside mainland
state capitals to obtain clearance from the ACCC prior to the
transaction.
Under Schedule 1 media transactions involving
commercial broadcasting licences and/or associated newspapers can
proceed if at least a minimum number of media
groups remain in a relevant radio licence
area following completion of a transaction and the
transaction does not breach existing licence holdings and reach
limits.
The minimum numbers of groups for mainland
metropolitan areas will be 5 and for other licence areas, 4.
If numbers of groups drop below these levels
then an unacceptable media diversity situation will be said to
exist. Causing an unacceptable media diversity situation will
constitute a civil offence and will be subject to a civil
penalty.
- The Australian Media and Communications Authority (ACMA):
- will be required to establish and maintain a Register of
Controlled Media Groups to identify ownership and control of media
groups in each licence area;
- to monitor compliance; and
- to investigate and respond to breaches of the BSA.
- Cross media mergers and acquisitions involving commercial radio
licences, commercial television licences and associated newspapers
in the same licence area outside mainland state capitals will be
required to gain clearance from the ACCC prior to the
transactions.
Certain statutory controls will continue to
apply under existing sections 52-56 of the BSA so that a person (or
directors of companies) may not control:
- commercial television licences with combined licence area of
more than 75 per cent of the population and more than one
commercial television licence in the same licence area;
- more than two commercial radio broadcasting licences in the
same licence area;
- a commercial television licence and a datacasting transmitter
licence.
Section 50(A) is a new section in the BSA to
provide that licensees operating outside broadcasting services
bands will be exempt from media diversity rules and will not be
considered in assessing an unacceptable media diversity situation
(this is because these licences do not have access to the limited
radio frequency spectrum; licences are issued to authorise content,
licensees need to make their own arrangements to carry their
services).
It is considered also that these licences have
the potential to add to the range of media services available
.(129)
Section 52(A) will be inserted so that
measures in the legislation relating to newspapers are not only
supported by the communications power in the Constitution, but also
by the corporations power, the trade and commerce power , the
Territories power and the external affairs
power.(130)
New subsections in section 59 are inserted to
prevent newspapers being established to avoid media diversity
rules.
Section 59 requires ACMA to maintain an
Associated Newspaper Register. The Register must be available for
public inspection and ACMA may charge fees for inspections. The
Register must also be available on the Internet without charge.
Section 61 defines an
unacceptable media diversity situation which will exist if the
number of points in a metropolitan radio licence area is less than
5 and if the number of points in a regional area is less than 4. A
point is roughly equivalent to a separately controlled media group,
which in turn will mean a grouping of one of more operations
Media
group is defined as: a grouping of one or more of a
commercial radio licence, a commercial television licence and an
associate newspaper where there is at lease one person in a
position to exercise control over each of the media entities in the
media group and where the media operation complies with the
statutory control rules (operations meaning a commercial radio or
television licence or an associated newspaper)
Radio licence areas are
specific geographic areas which are determined in a Licence Area
Plan. The ACMA defines Licence Areas in terms of areas defined by
the Australian Bureau of Statistics for the purposes of the
Australian Census.
61AC Points
(1) Use the table to work out the number of
points in the licence area of a commercial radio broadcasting
licence (the first radio licence
area):
|
Points
|
|
Item
|
This
|
is worth
|
|
1
|
a group of 2 or more media operations,
where:
(a) a person is in a position to exercise control of
each of those media operations; and
(b) each of those media operations complies with the
statutory control rules; and
(c) if a commercial television broadcasting licence
is in the group more than 50% of the licence area population of the
first radio licence area is attributable to the licence area of the
commercial television broadcasting licence; and
(d) if a commercial radio broadcasting licence is in
the group the licence area of the commercial radio broadcasting
licence is, or is the same as, the first radio licence area;
and
(e) if a newspaper is in the group the newspaper is
associated with the first radio licence area
|
1 point.
|
|
2
|
a commercial radio broadcasting licence,
where:
(a) the licence complies with the statutory control
rules; and
(b) the licence area of the licence is, or is the
same as, the first radio licence area; and
(c)item 1 does not apply to the
licence
|
1 point.
|
|
3
|
a newspaper, where:
(a) the newspaper complies with the statutory
control rules; and
(b) the newspaper is associated with the first radio
licence area; and
(c)item 1 does not apply to the
newspaper
|
1 point.
|
|
4
|
a group of 2 or more commercial television
broadcasting licences, where:
(a) each of those licences complies with the
statutory control rules; and
(b) more than 50% of the licence area population of
the first radio licence area is attributable to the licence area of
each of those commercial television broadcasting licences;
and
(c)the core commercial television broadcasting
services to which those commercial television broadcasting licences
relate pass the shared content test in relation to each other;
and
(d) item 1 does not apply to any of those
commercial television broadcasting licences
|
1 point.
|
|
5
|
a commercial television broadcasting licence,
where:
(a) the licence complies with the statutory control
rules; and
(b) more than 50% of the licence area population of
the first radio licence area is attributable to the licence area of
the commercial television broadcasting licence; and
(c)none of the commercial television broadcasting
services provided under the licence passes the shared content test
in relation to any of the commercial television broadcasting
services provided under another commercial television broadcasting
licence, where more than 50% of the licence area population of the
first radio licence area is attributable to the licence area of the
other commercial television broadcasting licence; and
(d) item 1 does not apply to the
first-mentioned licence
|
1 point.
|
(2) If, apart from this subsection, all the
media operations in a group of media operations mentioned in an
item of the table are also in one or more other groups mentioned in
an item of the table, then, for the purposes of
subsection (1), ignore the existence of:
(a) if one of the groups has the highest number
of media operations the remaining group or groups; or
(b) if 2 or more of the groups have an equal
highest number of media operations:
(i) all but one of the groups that have an
equal highest number of media operations; and
(ii) the remaining group or groups; or
(c) if the groups have an equal number of media
operations all but one of those groups.
Section 61AG makes it an offence to cause an
unacceptable media diversity situation or to cause the number of
points in a licence area to reduce. The maximum number of penalty
units under the Crimes Act 1914 will be 20,000 for persons
and 100,000 for bodies corporate. The same conduct will also be a
civil offence with the same pecuniary penalty payable as for the
criminal offence.
Under new subsection 61AJ ACMA may approve a
transaction that would result in an unacceptable media diversity
situation.
- it may seek information about the transaction before making a
decision;
- it must specify a time period during which action is to be
taken to alleviate the unacceptable media diversity situation (at
least one month and no more than two years);
- it may specify action to be taken; and
- it must provide its decision in a notice to the applicant.
ACMA may grant an extension to allow
compliance with its decision although it must not grant more than
one extension which can be no longer than the original period
specified in a notice or one year whichever is shorter. In deciding
whether to grant an extension ACMA must consider what endeavour had
been made to comply with a notice and difficulties encountered in
attempting to comply.
If ACMA considers an unacceptable media
diversity situation exits on or after commencement day, it may
given remedial directions to ensure the situation ceases to exist
under section 61AN. Remedial directions must:
- specify a time period for compliance not more than two
years;
- ACMA can grant one extension for no more than three
months;
- Breaches of remedial directions are civil and criminal
offences.
Under the new section 61AS, ACMA can accept
undertakings that specified action will be taken to ensure an
unacceptable media diversity situation does not exist or if one
already exists specified action to ensure that there is not a
reduction in the number of points in a licence area. Once accepted
by ACMA, undertakings will be enforceable by the Federal Court.
ACMA is to establish and maintain a Register
of Controlled Media Groups. The Register will be maintained
electronically and will be available for inspection on the
Internet; the Register will not be a legislative instrument
(section 61AU).
For the purposes of establishment of the
register ACMA need not consider if an unacceptable media diversity
situation exists. This concession is included to ensure the
interests of existing group controllers (persons in positions to
exercise control of media operations in a media group) are not
unduly affected by the new concept of an unacceptable media
diversity situation and the establishment of the
Register.(131)
A change in the media operation of groups on
the Register will mean they cease to exist, although this does not
apply if one or more operations cease in the group and at least two
operations remain and there is no increase in the number of
operations in the group (section 61AX). If ACMA is satisfied that a
media group has ceased to exist it must remove the group s name
from the Register (section 61AZA).
ACMA is able to register new groups if it is
satisfied that their registration will not cause an unacceptable
media diversity situation or a reduction in the number of points in
an area where an unacceptable media diversity situation exists
(section 61AZ).
ACMA must register changes of controllers of
registered media groups (section 61AZB) and changes in the
composition of media groups (section 61AZC).
ACMA is required to review unconfirmed entries
on the Register. It may reconsider its decisions on these at any
time or upon application from persons whose interests are affected
by its decisions (sections 61AZE and AZF).
A new section 61AZJ requires transactions
involving three way mergers of commercial radio licences,
commercial television licences and associated newspapers to gain
prior clearance from the ACCC in addition to the mergers not
resulting in an unacceptable media diversity situation. It will be
an offence not to obtain clearance from the ACCC for these
transactions.
According to the Government, the intention is
that mergers that may significantly reduce levels of diversity in
regional markets will be required to demonstrate compliance with
the Trade Practices Act.(132)
Commercial television, radio and datacasting
licensees and newspaper publishers must report annually to ACMA
giving details of a person (or persons) in a position to exercise
control of these media operations and changes in control of the
operations. It will be an offence not to provide this information
to ACMA.
Foreign ownership of the media will only be
regulated as the result of the removal of restrictions under the
BSA by the government s Foreign Investment Policy under the
Foreign Investment and Takeovers Act 1975. Items 4 and 6
of Schedule 2 repeal sections 57, 58, 60 and 61 which impose the
current foreign ownership limitations.
The Government argues these sections are no
longer necessary as media diversity will be protected under new
provisions in the BSA.(133)
- Foreign owners of media would need to establish an Australian
subsidiary to be licensee companies.
- Local content obligations will be imposed by ACMA in regional
aggregated television markets and will involve the licence
conditions requiring the broadcast of minimum amounts of material
of local significance . ACMA must ensure that on and after 1
January 2008 a condition exists that requires licensees of regional
aggregated commercial television markets to broadcast under this
licence condition. Aggregated markets are defined under subsection
43A (2).
- Under Schedule 2 (new Subdivision 5B), cross
media ownership will need to be disclosed:
- this will apply to commercial television broadcasters and
newspaper publishers at the time they broadcast or publish matter
(other than advertising) that is wholly or partly about the
business affairs of a cross controlled media organisation (the
business affairs model).
- radio broadcasters will be able to adopt this model or a
regular disclosure model, which will require them to broadcast
cross media relationships at regular intervals.
- compliance with this requirement will be a licence condition
for television and radio broadcasters. As newspapers are not
subject to a licensing regime, it will be a criminal offence not to
comply with this requirement.
- the Minister may make a written determination that specifies
types of material that are exempt from this requirement.
- ACMA will also impose conditions on non metropolitan commercial
radio broadcasting licences if a trigger event
occurs in a licence area for the purpose of maintaining existing
levels of local presence (section 43B). ACMA is to define existing
level of local presence in the licence condition. (A trigger event
will occur if a commercial radio licence is transferred to a third
party or a new media group is created or there is a change in the
control of a media group of which the radio licence is a
part).
- ACMA will require regional commercial radio broadcasters to
provide a prescribed minimum level of local news and information
services if a licence has been transferred to a third party or a
new commonly controlled media group has been created. ACMA may
define what is meant by local .
- (minimum standards of local news will be met if in a week at
least five local news bulletins are broadcast on different days of
the week during prime time. Minimum standards of community service
announcements will be met if at least one community service
announcement is broadcast. Minimum standards for emergency warnings
will be met if licensees comply with requests from emergency
service to broadcast warnings. ACMA is able to define local ).
- As a licence condition, radio licensees must submit Local
Content Plans (LCPs) to ACMA for approval and registration. ACMA
will be able to impose its own plans if it is dissatisfied with
those submitted by licensees. Draft LCPs must be submitted within
90 days of a trigger event. ACMA must maintain and make publicly
available a register of LCPs. ACMA is required to review LCPs every
three years and can require variations as a result of its findings.
The Minister may direct an investigation into whether additional
licence conditions should be imposed in relation to local
content.
Media regulation in Australia should be
reformed as it has proven problematic for the current regulations
to accommodate developments in technology adequately. The media
landscape is decidedly different from the one that produced the BSA
in 1992 and new legislation needs reflect this fact. But that being
the case, it does not unavoidably follow that all regulation of the
media, which is a vital feature of a functioning democratic
society, should be discarded. As the experience of deregulation in
some nations and the concerns expressed by others about the
consequences of treating the media as simply a market commodity
illustrate, this type of action is likely to have negative impacts
in terms of availability of information, opinion and critique.
The proposed changes in this Bill do not
address the concerns of many who fervently believe the media is not
just another market sector, and the public are not just consumers
of media content. It is more in the public interest that
regulation, albeit flawed, should continue in place to foster at
least the current level of media diversity than it appears will be
likely to result from deregulation.
The Government has argued consistently that
the proposed changes to the BSA will ensure that a balance is
achieved between commercial media interest and the public interest,
it seems that failure to acknowledge that the media s unique role
and, as a result to provide adequate safeguards to ensure current
levels of diversity are protected, have tipped the balance in
favour of commercial, rather than public interest.
- For a full text of the current Act see:
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/all/search/AA1C2617808E9AA9CA256F89001094E6
Foreign Investment Policy at Foreign Investment Review Board
website at http://www.firb.gov.au/content/default.asp
- Explanatory Memorandum, pp. 1/2.
- For a full text of the current Act see:
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Management.nsf/lookupindexpagesbyid/IP200401834?OpenDocument
- Section 51 (v) of the Constitution: The Parliament shall,
subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the
peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect
to: Postal, telegraphic, telephonic, and other like services.
- Section 51 of the Constitution: The Parliament shall, subject
to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order,
and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:- (i) Trade
and commerce with other countries, and among the States; and (xx)
Foreign corporations, and trading or financial corporations formed
within the limits of the Commonwealth.
- See http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/tpa1974149/
Accessed 20 September, 2006.
- Section 53 of the BSA - Limitation on control of commercial
television broadcasting licences:
(1) A person must not be in a position to exercise control
of commercial television broadcasting licences whose combined
licence area populations exceed 75 per cent of the population of
Australia. (2) A person must not be in a position to exercise
control of more than one commercial television broadcasting licence
in the same licence area.
- Section 57 of the BSA - Foreign person not to be in position to
control commercial television broadcasting licence (1) A
foreign person must not be in a position to exercise control of a
commercial television broadcasting licence. (3) 2 or more
foreign persons must not have company interests in a commercial
television broadcasting licensee that exceed 20 per cent.
- Section 55 of the BSA: Limitation on numbers of directorships
television (1) A person must not be a director of a company that
is, or of 2 or more companies that are, between them, in a position
to exercise control of commercial television broadcasting licences
whose combined licence area populations exceed 75 per cent of the
population of Australia. (2) A person must not be: (a) in a
position to exercise control of a commercial television
broadcasting licence; and (b) a director of a company that is in a
position to exercise control another commercial broadcasting
licence whose combined licence area population exceeds 75 per cent
of the population of Australia (3) A person must not be (a) a
director of a company that is in a position to exercise control of
a of a commercial television broadcasting licence; and (b) a
director of a company that is in a position to exercise control of
another commercial television broadcasting licence;; if each of
those licences have the same licence area. (4) A person must not
be: (a) a director of a company that is in a position to exercise
control of a commercial television licence; and (b) in a position
to exercise control of another commercial television broadcasting
licence; if each of those licences have the same licence area.
- Section 58 of the BSA: (1) Subject to subsection (2),
not more than 20% of the directors of each commercial television
broadcasting licensee may be foreign persons. (2) The ACMA may, in
writing, approve the board of a commercial television broadcasting
licensee containing a higher percentage of foreign persons for a
period not exceeding 28 days if the ACMA considers special
circumstances exist that require such an approval (3) If the ACMA
has approved a breach of subsection (1), the ACMA is not to
grant another approval of the same breach.
- Section 54 of the BSA: A person must not be in a position to
exercise control of more than two commercial radio broadcasting
licences in the same licence area.
- Section 60 of the BSA: A person must not be in a position to
exercise control of: (a) a commercial television broadcasting
licence and a commercial radio broadcasting licence that have the
same licence area; or (b) a commercial television broadcasting
licence and a newspaper that is associated with the licence area of
the licence; or (c) a commercial radio broadcasting licence and a
newspaper that is associated with the licence area of the
licence.
- Section 109 of the BSA: (1) A foreign person must not have
company interests of more than 20% in a subscription television
broadcasting licence. (2) A foreign person must not have company
interests in a subscription television broadcasting licence that,
when added to the company interests in that licence held by other
foreign persons, exceed 35%.
- Prime Minister John Howard. Radio interview transcript, 1
September, 2000.
See: http://www.pm.gov.au/news/interviews/2000/interview429.htm
Accessed 28 September 2006.
- Terms of reference, March 1999. Productivity Commission,
Broadcasting Inquiry Report No 11, 3 March, 2000.
http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiry/broadcst/finalreport/broadcst.pdf
Accessed 28 September 2006.
- Productivity Commission, op. cit., Recommendation 10.4.
- See
http://parlinfoweb.parl.net/parlinfo//view_document.aspx?TABLE=OLDBILLS&ID=1291
- Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and
the Arts Legislation Committee. Report on the Broadcasting
Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2002, June 2002.
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/ecita_ctte/completed_inquiries/2002
04/media_ownership/report/report.pdf, Accessed September 18
2006
- See:
http://parlinfoweb.parl.net/parlinfo//view_document.aspx?TABLE=OLDBILLS&ID=1554
- The Howard Government election 2004 policy, A stronger economy,
a stronger Australia, 21st century broadcasting. See:
http://www.liberal.org.au/2004_policy/21st_Century_Broadcasting_merged.pdf
Accessed 19 September 2006.
- Department of Communications, Information Technology and the
Arts, Meeting the digital challenge, reforming
Australia s media in the digital age, March 2006.
See
http://www.dcita.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/37572/Media_consultation_paper_Final_.pdf
Accessed 15 September 2006.
- Sensitive sectors: The Government determines what is 'contrary
to the national interest' by having regard to community concerns.
Reflecting community concerns, specific restrictions on foreign
investment are in force in more sensitive sectors such as
residential real estate, banking, telecommunications, shipping,
civil aviation, airports and the media. Generally these categories
include sectors where other Government agencies or relevant
interested parties would be involved in the screening process or
have major carriage. See: http://www.firb.gov.au/content/default.asp
Accessed September 26 2006.
- Regulation Impact Statement, p. 13.
- ibid.
- ibid, p. 20.
- ibid, p. 13.
- ibid, pp. 14/15.
- ibid, p. 18.
- See:
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/cita/regional_radio/irindex.htm
Accessed 18 September 2006.
- See:
http://www.acma.gov.au/acmainterwr/aba/newspubs/radio_tv/investigations/documents/general/localcontent-june04-execsumm.pdf
accessed 19 September 2006.
- ABA, Regional television exceeds local content quotas , News
Release 106/2004.
7 September, 2004. See: http://www.acma.gov.au/ACMAINTER.262384:STANDARD::pc=PC_91497
Accessed, 19 September 2006.
- Regulation Impact Statement, p.39.
- ibid, p. 47.
- See: the submission by Network Ten on the Broadcasting Services
Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2002:
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/ecita_ctte/completed_inquiries/2002-04/media_ownership/submissions/sub08.doc
Accessed 21 September 2006.
- See
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/ecita_ctte/completed_inquiries/2002-04/media_ownership/submissions/sublist.htm
Accessed 21 September 2006.
- Alex Wilson, Most media welcome new rules, but Murdoch group
not happy ,
Canberra Times, 14 July, 2006.
- See: News Corporation website http://newscorp.com/operations/dbst.html
Accessed 4 October 2006.
- Alex Wilson, op. cit.
- ibid.
- Reported on the ABC s The World Today 14 September 2006
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1741037.htm
- Brooke Williamson, Why are these men laughing? It s the John
and Jamie s TV love in Daily Telegraph, 14 September
2006.
- Chris Mitchell, Media Report transcript, 9 March 2006. See
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/mediareport/stories/2006/1586075.htm#
- Matthew Ricketson, It matters who owns the media Age,
18 July 2006.
- Weak signal Sydney Morning Herald, 25 July 2006.
- Brain Toohey, In news, it s quality, not quantity
Australian Financial Review, 18 March 2006.
- Roy Morgan Research, Australian s oppose government s media
laws August 15 2006. See http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2006/4065/
- Stephen Conroy, Proposed media reforms staff up to a no show ,
Age, 28 August 2006.
- Senator Stephen Conroy, House of Representatives
Debates, Questions on Notice, 12 September 2006 and 24
September, 2006.
- Senator Ursula Stephens, Senate Debates Questions on
Notice, 14 September 2006.
- Senator Lyn Allison interview on Meet the Press, 16 July,
2006.
- Senator Andrew Murray, press release, 14 September, 2006.
- Misha Schubert and Helen Westerman, Democracy under fire in
plan, says Joyce , Age, 13 July 2006.
- Katherine Murphy, Joyce cagey on whether he will endorse media
package , Age, 6 September 2006.
- David Crowe, Nats wary on media rules , Australian
Financial Review, 9 August 2006.
- Australian Consumers Association, press release 13 July
2006.
- David Crowe, Viewers rebuff media reforms Australian
Financial Review, 16 September, 2006.
- ACCC, Media Mergers, August 2006. See:
http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/758231/fromItemId/3737
Accessed 25 September 2006.
- ibid.
- Roy Morgan Research Australian s oppose government s media laws
, `15 August, 2006. .
See: http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2006/4065/
Accessed 27 September 2006
- ibid.
- American Society of Newspaper Editors, Growing audience.
Understanding the media landscape, 2006. See
http://www.growingaudience.com/downloads/GALandscapeExecSummary.pdf#search=%22decline%20in%20traditional%20media%20audiences%20%22
.
Accessed 26 September 2006.
- See:
http://www.blogmaverick.com/2006/05/13/blogging-vs-traditional-media-this-time-its-personal/
Accessed 26 September 2006.
- Ernest J. Wilson, Technological Convergence Media ownership and
content. An agenda for research and action. See
http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/wilson/visions.pdf#search=%22american%20ownership%20of%20european%20media%20%22
Accessed 4 October 2006.
- 7. News 14 September, 2006. See: http://au.news.yahoo.com/060913/23/10j5m.html
Accessed 29 September 2006.
- Center for Democracy and Governance, The role of media in
democracy: a strategic approach, United States Agency for
International Development, Washington, D.C. June 1999, p.3.
- For example, according to one source, Sinclair media ordered
its seven ABC affiliates not to air a "Nightline" episode in which
the anchor Ted Koppel read the names of American soldiers killed in
Iraq. The company objected because it believed Koppel's purpose was
"to focus attention solely on people who have died in the war in
order to push public opinion toward the United States getting out
of Iraq." (Eric Alterman, "Is Koppel a Commie?" The
Nation, May 24, 2004, p. 10). Media companies refuse
advertisements from labor unions because they are often critical of
advertisers. (David Swanson, "Media Outlets Refuse Union
Advertising," International Labor Communications Association, Dec.
6, 2004, reprinted at www.freepress.net/news/5673)
and after the terrorist attack on New York in 2001 Clear Channel
circulated to its radio stations a list of songs that should not be
played. The list included several antiwar songs such as John
Lennon's "Imagine." After the list was leaked to the press, Clear
Channel said that it was compiled by program directors and did not
represent company policy (Jeff Sharlet, "Big World: How Clear
Channel Programs America," Harpers Magazine, Dec. 2003, p.
37-45). See Free Expression Policy Project at
http://www.fepproject.org/factsheets/mediademocracy.html#11#11orject.
Accessed 26 September 2006.
- Werner A. Meier Media Ownership Does
It Matter? Meir cites Bagdikian 2000; McChesney 2000; Herman 1998
as his sources. p. 300. See:
http://www.lirne.net/resources/netknowledge/meier.pdf#search=%22media%20ownership%20in%20europe%20%20%22
. Accessed 26 September.
- Christian Downie and Andrew Macintosh, New media or more of the
same? The cross-media ownership debate , The Australian
Institute, May 2006. See
http://www.tai.org.au/Publications_Files/Papers&Sub_Files/Cross-media%20ownership%20webpaper%20_May%202006_.pdf#search=%22new%20media%20or%20more%20of%20the%20same%22
Accessed 4 October 2006.
- See http://www.skynews.com.au/index.asp
Accessed 4 October 2006.
- Survey 1 March, 2006. Old Media Dominates Online See: http://www.roymorgan.com/news/press-releases/2006/464/
Accessed 5 October2006
- Survey 14 December, 2005. Australians sceptical of the media
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2005/3952/
Accessed 13 September, 2006.
- Fusion Strategy, cited in Australian Financial Review,
18 April 2005 TV s uncertain future . Cited in the Government s
Regulation Impact Statement, p.6.
- Productivity Commission, Broadcasting Inquiry Report No
11, 3 March, 2000 p.314.
- ACCC, Media Mergers, August 2006, p.19. op. cit.
- Regulation Impact Statement, p.49.
- Productivity Commission, Broadcasting Inquiry Report,
op. cit., p. 384.
- Tim Dwyer, Derek Wilding, Helen Wilson and Simon Curtis,
Content, consolidation and clout, Communications Law
Centre, 2006. See
http://www.comslaw.org.au/CCC/downloads/ExecSumforWeb.pdf#search=%22content%20consolidation%20and%20clout%20%20%22
- Regulation Impact Statement, pp. 21/22.
- Dwyer et al, op. cit.
- Conclusion drawn from analysis of Nielsen regional radio and
television ratings.
- Sources for table: Nielsen radio and television ratings.
http://www.nielsenmedia.com.au/MRI_pages.asp?MRIID=11
http://www.nielsenmedia.com.au/MRI_pages.asp?MRIID=22
Australian Radio online. http://www.adonline.id.au/radio/
Oztam http://www.oztam.com.au/html/
Australian Film Corporation ratings http://www.afc.gov.au/default.aspx
Communications Law Centre, Communications Update, June
2005.
Note in addition to the media cited in the table a considerable
number of suburban community newspapers are published in all
mainland capitals. These are mainly owned by John Fairfax Holdings
and News Corporation in Sydney and Melbourne although a number are
owned by South East Newspapers P/L in Melbourne. All accessed
October 8/9 2006.
- Regulation Impact Statement, p.8.
- Christopher Pyne, Adequately funding the ABC requires that we
look at advertising revenues , 19 August, 2003 http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=628
Accessed 15 September 2006.
- Errol Simper, Corporate dollar spells end of public
broadcasting , Australian June 29, 2006. See
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19620687-14622,00.html
Accessed 15 September 2006
- Christopher Pyne, op. cit.
- ibid.
- Errol Simper, op. cit.
- Opinion polls show that 82% of Australians think the ABC is
doing a good job (Newspoll, 2002) and that 90% of Australians
continue to believe that the ABC provides a valuable service to the
community (ABC Annual Report, 2005). A large number of Australians
(60%) also support increases in the ABC s budget through government
funding. A Newspoll survey found that only 2% believed that funding
should be less (Newspoll, 2002). See
http://www.australiancollaboration.com.au/democracy/persistissues/publicbroadcasters.html
Accessed 4 October, 2006.
- The ABC s budget has continued to be cut and applications for
new funding have consistently been rejected.
The table above shows the ABC s funding has decreased by 29.7%
since 1985-86. The BBC, the British public broadcaster, gets almost
five times the ABC s funding on a per capita basis. The BBC
2004/2005 Annual Report estimated that funding in total to the BBC
group income was estimated at 3835.3 million for 2005 (BBC Annual
Report, 2004-5, p.96). See
http://www.australiancollaboration.com.au/democracy/persistissues/publicbroadcasters.html
Accessed 4 October, 2006.
- European Commission, Information Society and Media Directorate
General, Issues Paper for the Liverpool Audiovisual Conference,
Media Pluralism - What should be the European Union s role? July
2005. See
http://ec.europa.eu/comm/avpolicy/docs/reg/modernisation/issue_papers/ispa_mediapluralism_en.pdf
- ibid.
- Article 21(4) of the Merger Regulation allows Member States to
apply additional controls to protect pluralism in the media - 4
Council Regulation No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of
concentrations between undertakings; JO L 24, 29.01.2004,
1-22.
- Media Division, Directorate General of Human Rights, Media
diversity in Europe, December 2002. See http://www.ebu.ch/departments/legal/pdf_brudoc/INFOEN_060.pdf
Accessed 10 September 2006
- Deirdre Kevin, Media ownership and pluralism: Regulatory
trends and challenges in the European Union member states,
14/15 October.2004. See:
http://www.epra.org/content/english/press/papers/Media%20ownership%20and%20pluralism%20Kevin%20Istanbul%20final.ppt
, Accessed 10 September 2006
- European Federation of Journalists, Media power in
Europe: The big picture of ownership, 2005. See
http://www.ifj.org/pdfs/EFJownership2005.pdf
Accessed 10 September 2006
- Gillian Doyle and Douglas W. Vick, The Communications Act 2003;
a new regulatory framework in the UK , Convergence, Volume
11 Number 3, 2005. See http://con.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/11/3/75
Accessed 19 September 2006. Accessed 26 September 2006
- Office of Communications guidance on media mergers public
interest test, See http://www.ofcom.org.uk/media/news/2004/01/nr_20040105#content.
Accessed 26 September, 2006.
- Gillian Doyle and Douglas W. Vick, op. cit.
- ibid.
- Guy Jervis, Communications Act 2003 , Burges Salmon, See:
http://www.cw360ms.com/research/Whitepapers/Burges%20commsact.pdf#search=%22communications%20act%202003%20uk%22
accessed 26 September 2006.
- For the text of the Act see http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.pdf.
- See
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/U/htmlU/uspolicyt/uspolicyt.htm
Accessed 13 September 2006.
- Telecommunications Overhaul Approved by Congress , Facts on
File, World News Digest, 8 February 1996.
- See http://www.stopbigmedia.com/chart.php?chart=tv
http://www.stopbigmedia.com/chart.php?chart=radio
http://www.stopbigmedia.com/chart.php?chart=pub
Accessed 13 September 2006
- For an explanation see http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/#background.
Accessed 13 September 2006.
- Freepress Who Owns the Media details media ownership, see:
http://freepress.net/ownership/chart.php
Accessed 16 September 2006.
- Common cause, The fallout from the Telecommunications Act
of 1996. Unintended consequences and lessons learned. May 9,
2005. See:
http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7BFB3C17E2-CDD1-4DF6-92BE-BD4429893665%7D/FALLOUT_FROM_THE_TELECOMM_ACT_5-9-05.PDF#search=%221996%20telecommunications%20act%20%22
accessed 16 September 2006
- Jeremy Pelofsky, FCC Won t appeal media ownership decision
Reuters, 28 January, 2005. See report accessed 28 September
2006.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/fcc_06-24-04.html
Accessed 16 September 2006.
- FCC, 2006 Review of the media ownership rules, See: http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/#background Accessed 16
September 2006
- For the text of the Act see http://www.crtc.gc.ca/ENG/LEGAL/BROAD.HTM
- The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
is hereby directed that no broadcasting licence may be issued, and
no amendments or renewals thereof may be granted, to an applicant
that is a non-Canadian . See: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/LEGAL/Noncanad.htm
, Accessed 29 September, 2006.
- See http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/welcome.htm
, Accessed 29 September, 2006.
- See http://www.answers.com/topic/crtc.
Accessed 29 September 2006.
- See http://dominionpaper.ca/accounts/2003/11/10/journalist.html
Accessed 29 September 2006.
- James Winter, Canada s Media Monopoly. One perspective is
enough, says CanWest , Extra! May/June 2002, See: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1106
Accessed 29 September 2006.
- Professor Christopher Waddell of Carleton University in
Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications,
Final report on the Canadian news media, June 2006. See:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/tran-e/rep-e/repfinjun06vol1-e.htm#_Toc138058276
, Accessed 29 September 2006.
- Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, op.
cit., Part 111.
- ibid.
- ibid.
- Aaron Skudder, Media Consolidation in New Zealand , See
http://www.radioheritage.net/ColumnAS1.asp
Accessed 3 October 2006.
- Bill Rosenberg News media ownership in New Zealand , February
2004. See
http://canterbury.cyberplace.org.nz/community/CAFCA/publications/Miscellaneous/mediaown.pdf#search=%22new%20zealand%20media%20ownership%20%22
Accessed 3 October 2006.
- ibid.
- ibid.
- See TVNZ Charter at
http://corporate.tvnz.co.nz/tvnz_detail/0,2406,111535-244-257,00.html
Accessed 10 September 2006.
- 'Defining our place via the small screen and in the lecture
theatre: the politics of tertiary education and broadcasting reform
, Address to the Stout Research Centre and Institute of Policy
Studies Educating the Nation, and The Media 3rd annual Trans-Tasman
conference, Hunter Council Chamber, Victoria University of
Wellington, Hon Steve Maharey, Minister of Broadcasting, 31 October
2003.
- Chief outlines 'major problem' at TVNZ, New Zealand
Herald, 13 December 2005.
See:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10359765
- Speech to Victoria University of Wellington media studies
students by Hon Steve Maharey, 24 April, 2006. See http://www.beehive.govt.nz/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=25546
, Accessed 14 September 2006 .
- The source for media ownership information is the
communications Law Centre publication, Communications Update:
Media Ownership Update (June 2005). This is the only
comprehensive regular review of Australian media ownership. It is
not freely available online.
- Regulation Impact Statement, p. 56.
- See: http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/par5cha1.htm
- Explanatory Memorandum, p. 67.
- Regulation Impact Statement, p. 72.
- ibid, p.80.
Rhonda Jolly
Social Policy Section
10 October 2006
Bills Digest Service
Parliamentary Library
This paper has been prepared to support the work of the
Australian Parliament using information available at the time of
production. The views expressed do not reflect an official position
of the Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional
legal opinion.
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 2006
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 Parliamentary Library, 2006.
Back to top