The mining industry is used to having its voice heard in Australian public debates, so it should come as no surprise that mining billionaires such as Gina Rinehart and Clive Palmer would consider buying up a bigger slice of the Australian media.
While the estimated $20m spent by the mining industry on television advertisements opposing the introduction of a mining tax was the most visible example of the industry’s determination to influence the public it is, in fact, just the tip of the iceberg.
The problem for those interested in old-fashioned ideas like representative democracy and the development of policy in the national interest is that the mining industry has demonstrated, very clearly, that some sectional interests in Australia effectively have a veto over policy they don’t like the sound of.
Very few economists dispute the fact that a well designed mining tax would transfer huge amounts of money from those who extract resources to those who actually own them, that is, the citizens of Australia. And very few pollsters dispute that the public believes miners can and should be asked to pay more to extract our natural resources.
But despite having the public and the policy elites on side, the Rudd Government failed spectacularly to introduce its proposed mining tax. Julia Gillard’s first act as Prime Minister was to negotiate a deal that the big miners could live with, a deal which collected $100 billion less than the original plan.
A similar story recently played out in relation to the proposed reform of poker machines in Australia. Repeated inquiries from bodies as radical as the Productivity Commission have developed a comprehensive reform agenda which is backed by a majority of the population and then committed to in writing by the Prime Minister. Until the multi-billion dollar gambling industry ramped up its public and private campaign that is.
One of the main fronts in these policy battles is “jobs”. Despite a long history of job shedding and off-shoring, big business in Australia has done a remarkable job of presenting themselves as being primarily concerned with job creation. Government policy, we are told, will typically destroy jobs while leaving businesses alone will create them. The media has played a major role in perpetuating such a view.
A recent survey by The Australia Institute found that the average Australian thought that 16% of the Australian workforce was employed in mining when, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics the actual figure is 2%. This 800% perception gap is a result of a ten year PR strategy by the miners to describe themselves as big employers who contribute enormously to the prosperity of most communities.
The business pages of our major dailies have often acted as a cheer squad for the mining industry’s determination to extract as much as it can as quickly as it can. Australia has a bigger share of the world’s traded coal market than the Saudis have of the world’s traded oil market; but while the Saudis think the way to get rich is to restrict supply, it is now common sense in Australia to accept that the way to get rich is to sell as fast as we can. Could it be that foreign owned mining companies are not acting in Australia’s interests?
It is rare that such questions were taken seriously by the Australian media even before Gina Rinehart bought a major stake in Fairfax to accompany her share of Ten Network Holdings, where she now sits on the board.
The mining industry has been working hard, and successfully, to manipulate the Australian media. Relatively small projects are breathlessly described as $50 billion projects by simply adding up the total sales over the next 40 years. If you added up Woolworths’ projected sales over the next 40 years you would get an even bigger number, but why would you? You could say that someone who earns $50,000 per year will be a millionaire over the next 20 years but, again, why would you?
The media can and does play an important role in democracies. It provides both scrutiny and platforms for those who seek to influence the nation. But that role is becoming both harder and more contestable.
Newspapers in particular are struggling financially, in part because of online competition for breaking news but mainly because of online competition for the once lucrative classified advertising markets. A quick look at the number of private advertisements for cars in a Saturday newspaper will give you a good idea about the scale of the changes that have occurred with the ads typically making it from A for Audi to V for Volkswagen in less than half a page.
The contest over the role of newspapers is as tough as the fight for advertising revenue. Should newspapers be “campaigning” for or against particular change or should they be reporting “just the facts”? Opinions obviously differ.
A recent blogpost in the United States created an outcry when the New York Times asked its readers whether or not the paper should check the claims made by politicians before they reported them. It is an understatement to suggest that most readers were apoplectic that the question was even asked.
But the responsibility to inquire into, and speak out concerning the truth does not rest solely, or some would say at all, on the shoulders of the media. Academia, the public service, civil society and the courts all have a role to play in keeping our national debates centred on the national interest rather than the self interest of powerful industries or groups.
Unfortunately, just as the media claim that tight budgets and shorter deadlines impede their capacity to inquire and question so too do many academics, community organisations and public servants raise similar issues. The courts, on the other hand, have simply never been a level playing field for settling disputes between the wealthy and the majority.
The prospect of mining magnates buying up large slices of the Australian media has understandably made many citizens anxious about the future of public debate in Australia. But the real issue is not whether Gina Rinehart should be able to buy shares in a media company. She is not breaking any laws and has done nothing to suggest she would be a better or worse proprietor than Rupert Murdoch, Kerry Packer or Conrad Black.
The real issue is how, if at all, Australians want to limit the capacity of those with the greatest wealth to influence what the rest of the country sees, hears and reads.
If we decide we do not care who owns the media and how much a vested industry can spend to protect its interests, then we need to consider how much, if at all, we want to buttress our universities, community organisations, the public service and the courts against that same kind of influence.
We seem to take for granted that businesses can spend $20m, tax deductible, buying blanket TV ads for their cause or $200m for a slice of a media empire but should the same sorts of money be able to buy you a university centre or a community organisation?
At a time in which the mining industry is more profitable than any time in history, public resourcing of higher education, public broadcasting and the community sector is at historical lows. Ironically these groups are often encouraged to go and seek commercial sponsorships, or more politely, commercial partnerships, from the same industries whose influence the public is concerned about.
While all votes might be equal, the bank balances of Australians clearly never have been and never will. Russia provides an extreme case study in the possibilities for enormous wealth to purchase enormous political support. Australia’s democracy is far more vibrant and robust than Russia’s, but the ability of corporate money to purchase political influence is clearly greater today than it has been.
Gina Rinehart’s purchase of a large parcel of shares in Fairfax has led to a wide ranging debate about who should own the media but, perhaps unsurprisingly, it has resulted in far less debate about how it is that so much of Australia’s natural resource wealth has been allowed to accumulate in the hands of so few people. Deciding who can or cannot own a media enterprise will never be easy in a democracy. Perhaps surprisingly, it might be easier to redistribute our wealth than to distribute the right to own a newspaper.
Since publication, this piece’s disclosure has been amended to include the fact that Richard Denniss is The Australia Institute’s executive director. This was disclosed in Richard Denniss’s profile at time of original publication.
Join the conversation
Comments (16)
Sean Lamb
(logged in via Facebook)
I guess some protections would be afforded by the professional sense of Fairfax journalists and editors who would baulk at overt arm-twisting or influence peddling by the new owners. Also might be the desire of the new owners to maintain the value of the asset they had just purchased - which would be endangered if some measure of credibility was not maintained.
But it is probable that in terms of commercial interests holding too much influence in our media the horse is well and truly out the…
show full comment
Lorna Jarrett
PhD candidate, science education; Physics teacher (logged in via email @diment.org)
I'm worried. In Victoria and NSW we've seen industry-killing limits placed on wind power in the name of the "precautionary principle" - without any politician explaining what risks they're taking precautions against. This of course, is costing jobs (in the regions too - I understand regional jobs are supposed to be a good thing).
Meanwhile no such limits placed on the coal seam gas industry despite the methane-leakage issues, water-pollution and possible permanent contamination and mechanical damage to aquifers and creek beds. Even as the evidence mounts, no land is off-limits, whether it's Sydney water catchment protection zone, our most productive farmland or inner-city Sydney.
Can anyone explain how these twin policies can possibly be in the public interest? I think the last thing Australians need is more power and influence in the hands of the mining lobby.
Colin David Butler
(logged in via Facebook)
Coal mining of the scale we do - and plan - is really not different to exporting poison to the world. Forty years ago there was less recognition, but today we know that by so doing we are contributing to catastrophic climate change. Forty years ago there was also less alternative to the mining and burning fossil fuels (to release useful large scale energy); today we could and should be developing truly carbon neutral energy systems .. and we should leave the coal in the ground. (I think we have to accept iron ore extraction at the moment.)
We need to change the "social contract" that allows coal exports to be seen as acceptable. Clearly, part of this, contract is determined by the mainstream media. Personally I have been appalled to see Twigggy Forest so much on Lateline, including his chumming up with Tony Jones. I'd like to see Richard debate Twiggy and Tony.
Thomas Reuter
(ARC Future Fellow at University of Melbourne)
The shooting down of Kevin Rudd was to Australia,
what the shooting down of one John Kennedy was to the US,
a sign to show us all who is really running the country.
It sure isn't the people.
But who are "the people"?
Hearing some people comment I am reminded that it does rather change one's perception when one is on the payroll. It thus becomes a matter of the rest of us convincing those on the payroll that they are selling out way too cheap.
It would be even better if some of those…
show full comment
William Raper
Mr. (logged in via email @optusnet.com.au)
I have simple solutions to the seemingly intractable problems of press diversity and wealth concentration (none of which will ever be implemented)!
1. Ban Lobbyists
2. Ban unelected government advisors
3. Ban political donations
4. Permit only direct contact between politicians and industry employees
David Arthur
n/a (logged in via email @fastel.com.au)
I'm not too worried about mining interests owning large parts of Australia's media.
I think of it this way: suppose they use their ownership to influence the views of the Australian polity, who then vote to support mining, particularly coal mining, to the detriment of developing other industries.
As climate change starts to bite, the divergence between what newspapers report and reality will become apparent. As China weans itself off coal, the absence of other industries in Australia will make plain to all just how destructive the views of these people really are.
Lorna Jarrett
PhD candidate, science education; Physics teacher (logged in via email @diment.org)
David - "As climate change starts to bite, the divergence between what newspapers report and reality will become apparent. As China weans itself off coal, the absence of other industries in Australia will make plain to all just how destructive the views of these people really are".
Well yes, I'd agree - but I'd rather avoid the mayhem and destruction in the first place. I'm sure that left to themselves, the mining lobby and sundry "these people" will need things to be seriously bad before they admit they were wrong. By that time it may not even be possible to put things right.
I think we owe it to all the billions of people who don't get a say in any of this, to make an effort to prevent the damage.
David Arthur
n/a (logged in via email @fastel.com.au)
Fair points Lorna, although we're already a quarter century too late to forestall at least some damage - atmospheric CO2 exceeded 350 ppm around 1988, when the world was still more worried about the Cold War than sustainability.
My expectation that the stupidity and shortsightedness of Australia's commentariat will be be made plain by a combination of environmental changes and developments in climate science within this decade.
In the past couple of months, Richard Muller's BEST project has refuted one Denialist conspiracy theory, namely that the instrumental temperature record has been manipulated by "Alarmists". In the last week, results from the GRACE program has observed substantial sea level rise (1.5 mm pa) from terrestrial ice mass loss, although most media coverage seems more interested that the high Himalayas aren't [yet] melting.
Lorna Jarrett
PhD candidate, science education; Physics teacher (logged in via email @diment.org)
David, agreed that we're already behind on tackling climate change - but with the miners eyeing off huge tracts of Australia, I'd rather see the damage prevented than held up as retrospective evidence that we were right.
There is drilling going on in the Sydney watcher catchment protection zone. FFS - you're not even allowed to go *bushwalking* in the area in case you pollute the water. As a scientist, I can't begin to get my head around how they justify that - so I've come to the conclusion that…
show full comment
David Arthur
n/a (logged in via email @fastel.com.au)
State governments have been acting against the national interest for some time - the Queensland government has privileged mining interests over the long-term best interests of its electors for at least as long as that of NSW.
Regarding Sydney's water supply - I think the banning of people from parts of the catchment was motivated by concerns that "terrorists" would poison the water. The War on Terror has ceased to exist, yet the restrictions on liberty imposed at the time remain in force.
Our major political parties lost any stomach for defending rights some time ago. That this will be to the long-term detriment of the nation is beyond doubt.
Lorna Jarrett
PhD candidate, science education; Physics teacher (logged in via email @diment.org)
David - the Sydney water catchment access ban was definitely in place before 2001. However, you raise an interesting point - if the Government is/was worried that terrorists might contaminate the water supply, what does that say about the gas companies who have contaminated soils and surface waters?
I also think Gina Rinehart's latest boulder-related activities could be construed as a form of (cultural) terrorism. Or maybe she's starting a personal War On Poetry.
Lucy Mae Mirren
(logged in via Facebook)
" ... how it is that so much of Australia’s natural resource wealth has been allowed to accumulate in the hands of so few people ..."
Because only a few are prepared to bear the risk, and only a few Australians support the alternative, a state-run mining sector.
We need newspapers. Newspapers need investment. Big business has money to invest. I'm satisfied there's no evidence Ms Rinehart's investment is necessarily less philanthropic - nor her potential to influence any greater - than Graeme Wood's financial support of the Global Mail.
There are no perfect political solutions and no means of perfecting the press.
All is well in the world.
Lucy Mae Mirren
(logged in via Facebook)
There is evidence to support Peter's claim. Julianne Schultz, "Reviving the Fourth Estate" polled Australian political journalists. On a seven-point scale, (from memory) about 60 per cent nominated themselves as left of the centre, about 30 per cent on the centre, and about 10 per cent on the right.
The figures are about a decade old, though the composition of the political media hasn't changed that much.
I don't see that as a problem, people are entitled to their political views - but it needs…
show full comment
Peter Lang
Retired geologist and engineer (logged in via email @netspeed.com.au)
I have another question. With the media dominated by the Left ideologues, how can we ensure appropriate balance?
How can we balance the strongly Left dominated public broadcaster? (Australia's version of Pravda)
Where is the balance for the ideologically Left (or far left) Fairfax press?
Peter Lang
Retired geologist and engineer (logged in via email @netspeed.com.au)
The editors of The Conversation, ABC The Drum, Crikey, Matilda and other many other web sites are dominated by Left ideologs. The lead articles are dominantly of Left persuasion and the commenters are largely of left persuasion. Many of the commenters (perhaps a majority) would like any opposing views banned.
How could our regulatiosn be structured to improve balance, because they certainly are not providing it as they ar now.
Lorna Jarrett
PhD candidate, science education; Physics teacher (logged in via email @diment.org)
Peter - In the last 20-odd years (I'm not a historian, maybe it's to do with the fall of Communism), political systems all over the world have lurched to the Right. What was Right 20 years ago is now centre-Left. What was far-Right 20 years ago is now centre. Labor and Coalition policies are about as different as all those brands of washing-powder that on examination all turn out to be made by Unilever.
Socialism and the Left have become dirty words - calling someone a Socialist today is like calling someone a homosexual in the dark days when it was illegal.
Franky I'm stunned by the idea that the media in Australia is dominated by the Left (either the real Left or the Lite version that passes for it today).
Do you have any evidence (extraordinary or otherwise) to support this extraordinary claim?