Taking an objective view of the latest broadcasting bill

In relation to advertising, Australia’s Advertising Standards Board provides an appropriate mechanism for dealing with complaints against advertising that causes offence to even one member of the public.

Funded by the advertising industry through the Australian Advertising Standards Council, the procedures are as well planned as they are implemented.

After being triggered by no more than a single complaint, the processes allow all parties to state their respective cases, and for a panel representative of Australian society to determine the merits of the situation on the basis of prevailing community standards.

It is a fair and reasonable approach, and one from which our society could benefit if applied to the design and delivery of such government legislation as the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2002.

In the case of the ASB, the regulatory system purposefully avoids manipulation or undue influence on the part of any individual or shared-interest group. In the case of impending changes to our broadcasting laws, it is difficult to reach a similar conclusion.

Here, the interests of advertisers - wanting a diversity of opportunities to get their commercial messages across - are directly aligned with those of the wider community - wanting a diversity of information and entertainment media. Only government legislation stands in their way.

The recent review of legislation following an apparent reversal of government thinking on maintaining media ownership in a few domestic hands afforded an opportunity to remove the remaining barriers to a new world of media.

The Government took submissions on the issue, but - not for the first time - appears to have given greater weight to the views of the few - media proprietors in particular - than those representing the many.

Those of us with a high level of interest in the media environment will hardly forget the matter of the Government shunning the recommendations of its own Productivity Commission and taking an opposite direction on grounds never publicised.

Arguably, in 2002 we are experiencing more of the same as the Government introduces legislation that denies the majority of its constituents the opportunities and benefits accruing to the public and business sectors in more open economies under less selectively protectionist policies.

It might be argued that this could only occur under a climate where censorship is accepted if not openly advocated.

But censorship has only ever served short-term ends.

Eventually, advertisers, as media sponsors, will continue to press for more liberal media ownership policies, and the general public, as media consumers, will have their say - and changes will be made, including some to the remaining restrictive clauses in the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2002.