Although public interest and participation is taken into account when formulating policy, it must be remembered how pervasive commercial forces are in being ‘powerful influencers of government policy’ (Cunningham 74-5). In many countries, government ownership equates to government control of the media. The act specifies that the ABC must maintain an “independent national broadcasting service”. The pro-regulation groups can be broadly summarised as coming from a social policy position that aims to uphold the ideals of democracy as being in the public interest (Papandrea 304). The opposing sides are not coming from similar frameworks, and thus their goals are widely disparate. Cunningham summarises the current main arguments used by those who object to government regulation: that as Australia has a small population, its media and communications market requires ‘increased private-sector investment’ (85). Under this model, the media transmit the messages these institutions determine. Australia has always been seen as the lucky country of democracy and choice. Although Australia's media ownership laws have remained unchanged for over a decade, debate on the desirability of reform has continued unabated. Through a discussion of the main arguments for and against government regulation and an examination of the impacts the 2007 changes had on the Australian media landscape, this essay aims to show why some intervention is necessary. Media interests snapshot This is a summary of the main interests in major commercial TV and radio networks and associated newspapers. Web. The current regulations toward media ownership in Australia can be attributed toward the Broadcasting Services Act of 1992. 1-12. ( Log Out / Who is the A.C.M.A.