Editorial, The Courier Mail - September 5, 1997
The inept attempt by John Howard to reshape media ownership policy deserved to fail and has been rightly consigned to the “after the next election” drawer. The bid by the Prime Minister and Communications Minister Senator Richard Alston to dump the cross media ownership restrictions failed the basic test the Government set for its changes: it was mogul specific.
Both Mr Howard and Senator Alston protested that, unlike former prime minister Paul Keating, they would not draw up media rules to suit any proprietor.
This was always tendentious nonsense. the driving force behind these mooted changes was to allow Kerry Packer’s Publishing and Broadcasting Ltd to buy the Fairfax newspapers while maintaining its stake in the Nine television network.
After dropping its promised inquiry into media ownership, the problem then became whether or not Senator Alston could deliver to Mr Packer the Fairfax prize without appearing to give a significant gift to one proprietor.
At the same time, the Government did not show any interest in relaxing the foreign investment rules covering media - restrictions which have already driven Canadian publisher Conrad Black out of the country and are placing extreme pressure on Channel 10’s owner, Can West.
It is not surprising that the Government’s back bench refused to accept this illogical and transparent play and it was right to bring the Government to heel.
This leaves us with a far from satisfactory situation which is going to demand attention in the near future.
If, as it claims, the Government really understands the growing multimedia and information technology revolution, there must be a realisation that the current media rules are unsustainable. Cross media ownership rules, which struggle to keep up with subscription TV, have no relevance when it comes to the Internet and narrowcast technology.
At the same time, the globalisation of media - in which The Courier Mail’s proprietor News Limited is a market leader - reduces foreign investment restrictions to a crude instrument which does little more than deny diversity by constraining the market.
It might do to put off these important questions until after the election but, unless Australia wants a media market with one hand tied behind its back, they must be addressed.
The Government should make one thing clear. Mr Howard should say that any changes he does make to media policy will break down barriers to investment and diversity, as well as having a neutral market impact. Unless major Australian Institutions, such as the mutual funds, show an interest in media ownership, the only vehicle for greater diversity is foreign investment.
There are many great media companies including AP-Dow Jones and London’s Pearson Group, which have aggressive international ambitions and there is no logical reason to deny them access to the Australian market.
Such investment would only enrich the range of media in this country.