Senator HARRADINE (5:12 PM) —by leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) standing in my name on sheet 2985:

; and (d) the application is not in relation to a set of media operations in a metropolitan licence area that includes a television broadcasting licence and a newspaper associated with the licence area.

I move these amendments to protect against media proprietors having undue influence in the metropolitan media markets. My amendments are quite straightforward. They would ensure that a media proprietor could not own both a television licence and a newspaper in the same mainland capital city or, as the legislation describes it, a `metropolitan licence area'. The definition of metropolitan licence area used in the legislation does not include all Australian capital cities. It does not include Darwin, Canberra and, most importantly, Hobart. I was initially concerned about the omission of Hobart from the definition, but I am satisfied that the minimum voices rule detailed in the most recently passed amendments will protect Hobart and also Launceston from media concentration.

The amendments protect against media proprietors having undue influence, particularly in a city, by owning both a television licence and a newspaper in that city. I have also been concerned that some of the larger media groups in television and newspapers might have undue national influence if they were allowed to merge. I made the arguments before in my speech on the second reading debate about what the Productivity Commission says. I think we should take special note of what the Productivity Commission has said in this regard. The commission found:

There is a strong preference for more media proprietors rather than fewer. The report also said:

These are the central points that I have in mind when considering these amendments, and I hope you have them clearly fixed in your minds as well. My amendments are specific to newspapers and television. We have just heard Senator Cherry outline to the Senate the type of influence that these media each have—I think Senator Cherry said 50 per cent for TV, 28 per cent for newspaper and 22 per cent for radio—and half of that was the ABC.

The reason that my amendments are specific to television and newspaper is that these are the types of media that have been found to be influential sources of news for the general public and, most importantly, they count for fewer voices than other media like radio. There is already some concentration in the TV and newspaper markets. In the mainland cities of Perth, Brisbane and Adelaide, for example, there is only one daily newspaper. There are two local daily newspapers in Sydney and Melbourne. Further, the free-to-air stations across Australia are protected against new competitors under the terms of the licence moratorium in the act. No new television licences are permitted until 2006. In contrast, there are a number of commercial radio stations in each of the mainland capitals and plans for new FM radio licences in Adelaide, Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney.

Without my amendments—and through you, Madam Temporary Chairman, I ask that honourable senators consider this—I put it to you that this is the scenario. A media owner of one particular Australian television network which has the potential audience reach of over 70 per cent of the population could look to purchase or merge with a newspaper group. If a merger were agreed with one of the major newspaper groups which has almost 70 per cent of the capital city and national newspaper market, that would create a situation which would be totally unacceptable to the public interest.

An examination of influence at the city level is just as concerning. The circulation rates in the single newspaper towns of Perth, Brisbane and Adelaide are well known. If you do a few calculations based on the TV ratings in those markets, you can get an idea of how many people might be reached each day in each of the three cities. In one of these markets, a cross-media owner could almost double his potential reach to the general public by owning both the newspaper and a television station—an audience reach of about 450,000 people. Even more significantly, this owner would control the local daily newspaper market for that city and a third of the television viewers. In Sydney and Melbourne, the only markets where there are two local daily newspapers—and we are all aware of who owns those—there are newspapers that have circulations of over 400,000 and over 500,000 respectively. Couple that with a television station reaching up to a third of the audience and you can potentially have a very significant influence.

This issue is far too important to let go and not to address in this particular measure. I hope that, if my amendments are passed, the government will be able to support the amended bill. I have actually never ceased to be amazed at the grasp the minister has of the minutiae and the policy parameters of his portfolio. I hope that the government will not ditch the bill if my amendments are adopted by the Senate. They go to the heart of diversity and, indeed, of democracy. The minister would readily acknowledge the substantial improvements made to the bill by his own amendments and those of other senators. A lot of time and work has been put into them, and I acknowledge that.

On the issue of the growth of the industry, my amendments would still allow room for media proprietors, particularly the smaller proprietors, to move and grow. They will, for instance, still allow newspapers to merge with radio and allow television to merge with radio in the metropolitan area. They also allow a media proprietor to own a newspaper in one city and a television licence in another city. Regional areas will not be directly affected by these amendments.

I acknowledge that some media lobbyists have suggested that the big media owners are doing very well, thank you very much, under the existing legislation. But, really, I cannot accept that letting the big players make large cross-media purchases to form a combined newspaper-television group is in the interests of the general public. It might be in the interests of the media groups but it is certainly not in the public interest.

The amendments I am moving were first drafted and raised with the government in March, both in correspondence and later in meetings with colleagues. I had hoped that, over time, we would be able to come closer to an agreement on this legislation. I have always been troubled by the issue of how to best ensure media diversity and the influence that one media proprietor can have under the current laws, and I am now troubled by the even larger influence they could have under the current bill if it is not amended. I would like to thank honourable senators who have worked on this legislation. I know that many of my colleagues have done substantial work on this issue. I have valued the opportunity to discuss the issue with them. I ask the Senate to support my amendments.