2UE/GB newsroom merger raised in Federal Parliamentary debate

During the second reading debate of the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill on Monday in the House of Reps, Independent MP Peter Andren turned up the heat on the 2UE/GB newsroom merger, saying it “breaks at least the spirit of existing legislation, let alone the cross-media ownership dilution that we are talking about” in the new Bill.

He said, “organisational charts, separate editorial policies and
independent news management are a figment of the
imagination of the government. It just will not happen.”

He believes “the existing
laws are not tough enough to prevent two major media
organisations making a mockery of the very provisions
the government plans to put in place” in the new Media Bill.

Andren says, “if the 2UE/2GB proposal gets the nod then regional licensees
could also form a joint service supply company for news and
sales, thus reducing not only news variety but competitive
local advertising rates.”

He will propose two amendments to the new bill that will relate to the merger.

MP Peter Andren said in the House of Reps:


If this legislation is to be consistent in promoting diversity,
an amendment is required to insist that all licensees
in any given licensed area should be required to
maintain editorial separation.

Therefore I give notice of intent to move two amendments in the detailed stages
of consideration of this bill that would require all
commercial radio and television broadcasting licensees
to deliver that editorial separation.

I must say for the
benefit of the member for Hinkler, who is in the House,
that Bundaberg is one of 18 radio markets of two
commercial licences where the 2UE/2GB exercise
could be repeated if not blocked by my amendments. I
would urge him and all other members, particularly the
minister, to consider them.

I will not again cover the concerns on the impact of
this legislation in regional markets that I outlined in my
speech to the earlier legislation, for those comments
are already on the record and still apply. I notice the
member for Lowe has also reiterated my personal experiences,
which are also on the Hansard record over
several years, of the direct interference of city media
operators in news programming that I was involved in.

However, I repeat that from personal experience also
over two decades in regional radio and television, it is
a nonsense to suggest that owners of say, print and
television or print and radio in a regional market would
not use that editorial and commercial advantage to
merge their resources and content.

Organisational charts, separate editorial policies and
independent news management are a figment of the
imagination of the government. It just will not happen.

As we see with the 2UE/2GB proposal, the existing
laws are not tough enough to prevent two major media
organisations making a mockery of the very provisions
the government plans to put in place with these mandatory
tests.

To make matters worse, according to the
current issues document prepared by Dr Kim Jackson
of the Parliamentary Library, the impact of these relaxed
cross-media rules will reduce from five to three
the minimum possible media owners in places like
Bathurst, Orange and Tamworth and major regional
centres, which is a 40 per cent reduction in minimum
possible ownership, diversity of control and possible
opinion further exacerbated by the likely converging of
editorial management and content under such reduced
ownership.

We have already seen, I know the member for Hinkler
has, the impact of the hubbing … of services by regional radio operators,
some of whom are controlled not only from outside the
area that they have the licences for but are foreign controlled
with absolutely no commitment to the market
beyond the force of pressure that has brought about
some minor changes. If they had their way there would
be no commitment to localism, unless it is forced upon
them.

I hear the free marketeers saying, ‘A new operator
could start up or new media could provide alternative
voices.’ The fact is the laws do not allow it at the
moment, at least in free-to-air media. There is little
chance of independent newspapers breaking the stranglehold,
say, that the rural press group has on the country
market, and new media is years away from making
a significant impact.

The minister argues in his second reading speech
that reform of the cross-media rules will clear the way
for renewed market interest in Australian media assets.
The minister says this will allow media companies to
take greater advantage of investment opportunities as
they arise. This is all very well for the media company
shareholders and owners… [but] a broadcast licence
is a privilege and not a commercial right, but this
bill comes down on the side of commercial right as
opposed to public good.

Indeed, the Productivity
Commissioner is on the record in more recent times as
saying that diversity of opinion and information is
more likely to be encouraged by greater rather than less
diversity in the ownership and control of the main media
—and I would include the major regional operators
in the definition of ‘main media’…

The only way this legislation would be passed is
at a joint sitting of parliament, no doubt with the full
sale of Telstra bill included. If that turned out to be the
case, it would represent one of the greatest ever betrayals
of ordinary Australians by a government intent on
delivering power, influence and assets to big business,
particularly in the politically crucial and public opinion
swaying mass media.

I have drafted a press release regarding my proposed
amendments to block the 2UE/2GB news merger, part
of which I want to record in Hansard. It goes something
along the lines of:

This attempt by two major competing Sydney radio licensees
not only circumvents the spirit of broadcasting laws, but
highlights the dangers of the relaxed cross-media ownership
regime the government is promoting.

The 2UE/2GB news merger makes a mockery of the so called
mandatory tests the government is planning to impose
on media operators to separate editorial controls when a
newspaper, television or radio operator buys other media in
the same town.

The Macquarie and Southern Cross organisations, who operate
2GB/2CH and 2UE, are planning a joint venture company
to provide news and other services to the competing
stations.

To argue that this will ensure independent news analysis and
comment is a nonsense.

My amendments require each commercial radio and television
licence holder to have separate editorial news management,
separate news compilation processes, and separate
news gathering and interpretation capabilities.

While the share market and shareholders might get excited
about the cost-cutting potential of the 2UE/2GB move, such
an arrangement would enable any media organisation such as
a major newspaper group to manufacture a common news
supply to any radio or television station.

If the 2UE/2GB proposal gets the nod then regional licensees
could also form a joint service supply company for news and
sales, thus reducing not only news variety but competitive
local advertising rates.

I hope I do not get to use the last two paragraphs that I
drafted. I hope that the government will at least accept
the need for these amendments to the existing broadcasting
laws because, if they do not, they are exposing
the sort of nonsense that will be the case if these crossmedia
rules are relaxed, because it will be delivering
editorial control, comment and news diversity to fewer
and fewer people.

If the government does not see the
sense of inserting into the existing legislation the
amendments needed to block this circumvention of the
broadcasting act, then I believe its hypocrisy will be
exposed, and I will certainly seek to have the amendments
introduced by independent senators elsewhere.