Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to speak on this private member's motion concerning the proposed News Media Council and to canvass issues that arise around the recommendations of the Finkelstein report. I have great regard for the member for Bendigo. I have worked with him on committees and I have enjoyed the pleasures of his very pleasant electorate. But on this issue I cannot agree with his direction, much less that of his party.

Let there be no doubt where I stand on this matter. In conscience I stand for a free, vibrant and robust media as a guarantee of an informed public and, ultimately, for the proper function of democracy. I also stand for a diverse media and, in my time in this place, I have railed against the concentration of media ownership. I take some pride in being one of the architects of the Howard government's cross-media laws, which limit ownership of newspapers, television and radio stations in particular markets to two out of three.

I hold the view that a radio licence is a privileged instrument and carries with it an obligation of diversity, community engagement and news delivery. I do not believe that this obligation is satisfied by endless, if not mindless, networking. For that reason, radio stations should be required to maintain local content and use. Time does not permit an analysis of television which is competitive and which offers a wide range of news and current affairs. But I would make the observation that, after the 6 pm regional news bulletins in the early evening, all subsequent news and current affairs programs are very much Sydney-centric.

As new means of news, information sharing and even advertising move into uncharted waters of electronic dissemination and convergence with old media, we need to have a vibrant independent news and that is the most important thing of all. We do not need, nor will I support, the external control of media content. That is ultimately what would happen with a news media council. That said, it is evident that the motivation for the Finkelstein inquiry was the insecurity of the Gillard government in the face of sustained media inquiry, scrutiny and comment. In the face of one of the poorest government performances in our history, replete with stumble after stumble—the mining tax, the carbon tax, the wasteful school halls program, the pink batts scheme and the growing enormity of the illegal boat people saga—is it any wonder that the media should be critical and that the best of our print commentators should fiercely hold the government to account? To claim that this is unfair or a biased attack on the Gillard government and to desperately try to link it to the UK hacking scandal and the Leveson inquiry is as pathetic as it is opportunistic. I suspect that the member for Bendigo has been asked to put his toe in the water and test the mood of the public with respect to greater media control.

See this speech in context