PRIME MINISTER
TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIME MINISTER, THE HON P J KEATING, MP
INTERVIEW WITH MAXINE MCKEW ON ABC PM
CANBERRA, 3 JUNE 1992
E& OE PROOF COPY
MM4: Mr Keating David Hill obviously feels that you
effectively excluded the ABC..
PM: Well we haven't. We have explicitly included them
in the fifth and sixth transponders.
MM: But they are out of one to four?
PM: Well they are out of one to four, because I think
everybody is tired of the old faded and jaded
players, they want some new entrants in the
Australian media. That's what the Caucus wanted,
they wanted a new media player who has not had its
antecedents in the newspapers, or an existing
television networks, but a new set of players. And
the arrangement the Government has now introduced,
or will be introducing, is for the first four
transponders, we'll see in a new medium of media, a
new set of players.
MM: Mr Keating, you weren't talking about faded, jaded
players on Sunday when you said that they could have
a 45 per cent level of ownership in the first four
channels. What has made you change your mind?
PM: Well nothing. What I have done, Mr Hill said that I
had somersaulted, yes I have somersaulted upwards, I
have taken 45 per cent higher to infinity.
MM: That's one way of looking at it.
PM: Well it is the only way of looking at it. 45 per
cent has now become 100.
MM: But two days ago you were quite specific, 45 per
cent when the Caucus hadn't been even imagining
that, they talked you down, did they not, to 35 per
cent yesterday.
PM: We have all got to play the game in whatever field
of endeavour we are in, in these'sorts of issues, in
organising our bargaining positions. Now, I was
quite prepared, frankly who is going to be in a
network, in a four transponder system, probably with
a sunk cost of $ 4 500 million for 15 per cent
equity. That was 45 overall for the networks,
individually, who is going to be in it, who would
bother taking on the management?
MM: Well fine, I mean you changed your mind, you were
talking about new players for five and six on
Sunday.
PM: No, no, I have changed my mind.
MM: Now you have twisted that around.
PM: Yes for a superior outcome. A superior outcome,
because what we have got now is the best of all
worlds, we can have satellite and plastic dish
technology for the four, let's call it the
entertainment segment, but we can go to the
sophisticated fibre optic and other sophisticated
technologies on five and six. So Australia gets the
best of all worlds instead of closing of f. David
called it exclusivity, he thought it was a wise
course. Well the beneficiaries of regulation always
say regulation is wise, but that would have closed
off to Australia the higher technology of fibre
optics and MDS in favour of plastic dishes and
satellites for a decade. I was never prepared as
Prime Minister to shut that technology of f.
MM: Alright, does it mean that one to four stuck with
the old inferior technology?
PM: No, it stuck with a limited technology, but an
immediately applicable technology.
MM: But does that mean then it will be a less viable
option for those people who are interested in
channels one to four?
MM: No, no not in the things that they want to do with
it. That's blockbuster movies, sport, news. But
five and six can get into interactive-services
that is taking your banking to your house.
MM: That's a long way off isn't it?
PM: No, no.
MM: 1 People are saying that that sort of technology is
say 15 years away?
PM: No, no it is only as far off as the cable under the
fence, under the front fence, and if somebody can
af ford to do it on the basis of an entertainment
dimension, as well as then going beyond interactive
services like banking, like buying your household
goods and what have you, or the capacity for fibre
to put many more channels into a house for
educational channels, or the arts, or a voice for
the trade unions or whatever it might be, they are
in the higher orders of much greater capital
intensification because the cost of wiring up the
capital cities is probably $ 3 5 billion. So the
channels five to six can be a very high cost option,
or if the ABC for instance were to be successful in
bidding for either 100 per cent of, or part there
of, of transponders five or six, it can find itself
in a very advantageous position in the media.
MM: Well you are making $ 12.5 million available, but
David Hill would argue that they are not in the race
with Kerry Packer, surely having the.-foot in the
door, with say all of channel five or channel six.
PM: Yes but David speaks before he understands the
policy. Packer or any of them can't bid for five
and six, only for one of the two of them. So if the
ABC bids for one, for instance, it may be the one
that one of the other networks are bidding for which
leaves another one to be open to be capable of being
bidded. Do you understand?
MM2: Well, yes, but you surely haven't introduced that
many new players at the moment, as you say Kerry
Packer could have either five or six, he has already
got to free to air, and he will have the five or
six, which as you say is the superior technology.
That's greater concentration isn't it?
PM: No, no. How could you call it greater
concentration, we are going to have four channels
which is going to have no current media operater in
it.
MM: OK, well David Hill's further point there is. to say
that will be dominated by the Americans?
PM: OK Maxine, look I know, let me say this. The game
has moved to fast for David today, I mean he is
having trouble catching up with the detail of this.
I don't mind noisy, voluble quango leaders good
on them. But let's not think there is any
revolution out there for the ABC having 15 per cent
of a satellite Pay television entertainment
operation. I mean there is no great revolution in
that. Whereas in five and six there is a capacity
4
for real innovation, clever technology, and for
thoughtful people. And that's what the ABC should
do now get the thinking cap on and get the
sticking plaster out and come up with a policy, and
then maybe the ABC will realise that the Government
has done it a favour in giving it a chance it
basically didn't have to give it. Under the ABC's
national charter there is no cause why the
Government needed to be persuaded that the ABC had
any role in Pay television. We have given it the
benefit of the doubt.
MM: Alright. Who are the new bidders do you think
outside the current players, who are the new bidders
who will be interested in channels one to four?
PM: Well I think, obviously the people who run the
picture theatres, you know the Village Roadshow type
companies, people in radio, suppliers of product.
MM: They won't be put of f do you think by the lack of
exclusivity?
PM: No, I mean it's a great opportunity for them, they
have removed the other strong bidders, the networks,
they're gone, we have taken them away.
MM: And there's no chance you would increase the level
of foreign ownership if say the level of Australian
interest was less then you expect? You wouldn't go
beyond that 35 per cent?
PM: No, that's 20 for any single interest and 35 over
all. So there is no worry about it being spooked by
foreigners, I mean you know.
MM: Well it's just that the Democrats already fear that
the next step, maybe we will have to have more
foreign ownership?
PM: Well I mean, David Hill I am sure would like people
to believe the ABC is enlightened, but what it really
wants is a home town clubby decision where there are no
foreigners and they can sit under a bit of regulation and
find themselves a niche market provided by the
Government. Well things are just not that easy in 1992.
MM: Prime Minister thank you very much indeed.
PM: Thank you.
ENDS