Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak to the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (New Media Diversity) Bill 2013. I unreservedly agree with the comments made by the member for Wentworth. This bill forms part of a package of media reform legislation that the government is trying to ram through the parliament in a desperate last-ditch effort before it runs out of time before the election. Plain and simple, it is an election ploy. If it is not an election ploy then it has to be a means to control the media. Not only the way in which the government is trying to push through this legislation raises questions—and I will move onto that in a moment; the very content of these bills raises serious concerns about our collective direction, as a nation, if these bills are successful.

There is no doubt that the proposals before us today are the most onerous regulation of the press in peacetime history. This bill presents a bleak future for our nation and for the freedom of media outlets. This package of bills removes the independence of media from government both in terms of ownership decisions and in terms of self-regulation. We have all seen the grandstanding by both the media and this Labor government over the last week with regard to media reform. We have seen ultimatums being thrown out and we have seen the media respond in a very colourful way. However, it is vital that we look past this grandstanding and give effective debate to the reality of this situation. The point is that these bills are effectively trying to restrict Australian media's ability to do its job—that is, to inform Australians about current affairs. In Australia, we are fortunate to have a media that is independent of all levels of government and that acts as a watchdog to the ultimate benefit of the public.

It has been a longstanding unofficial title that the media is the fourth estate of our democracy—an estate that brings to the mind of the Australian public those factors that they need to be aware of. It exposes those who involve themselves in behaviours that are not acceptable to the society in which we live—and we have certainly seen that over the last 12 months with the exposure of some Labor individuals and the practices that have prevailed at various levels. Although times may have changed since Edmund Burke first coined the phrase 'fourth estate', the purpose and role of media in Australia has not.

In our democracy, media performs the critical role of keeping the public informed about government activities. By virtue of its independence, media has been able to comment on the performance of governments and oppositions, to hold them accountable for their actions, to question their actions and to create the public debate that causes the public pressure that needs to be brought to bear on particular issues which impact on the lives of ordinary Australians—families, communities, states and territories.

The independence of the media has granted journalists the ability to criticise or applaud based on the virtues of an action or situation. The bills that this Labor government is attempting to pass today remove the media's independence from government. The bills that this Labor government is attempting to pass today place the final say on ownership decisions and media content into the hands of a government-appointed regulator. These bills grant a government regulator, the Public Interest Media Advocate, with the ability to evaluate the standards and codes of conduct in relation to privacy, fairness and accuracy. These bills place a public officer in charge of private media in a move that equates to government control.

Anybody who holds an office that is funded from a government source is inadvertently under the influence of their minister or their respective line of authority. As a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I am well aware that article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantees freedom of expression for all Australians on all issues. It accords them the opportunity to challenge that within their society with which they are not happy. Therefore I will continually argue that our media should be free from the constraints of governments.

Clearly, this proposed Public Interest Media Advocate will have the capacity to determine media standards. Not only this, but the scope of the Public Interest Media Advocate is so vague that it will be open to the interpretation of the government of the day, with ultimate control resting with the minister and the Prime Minister. To make matters more serious yet, media outlets will have no right of redress for decisions made by the Public Interest Media Advocate. Decisions of the Public Interest Media Advocate are binding and media outlets will face potentially high costs if they withdraw complaints.

All of these measures are designed with the intent to minimise opportunities for media outlets to question the judgement of the government and will no doubt strike fear into the heart of journalists. By all means, while we may not always like or agree with the coverage of politics in the media, those of us on this side of the chamber accept that the media perform an important function of informing Australians about the activities of this place within a democracy. It is simply not possible to expect a government controlled regulator of a free press to adequately keep a government accountable for its decisions.

This Labor government has only demonstrated once more that it is dysfunctional and in chaos. Trying to push through this legislation without proper scrutiny is a slap across the face to the many individuals within the media who believe they are performing a critical role in our democracy. This package of legislation was only revealed last week, with the government having the intention of pushing it through the parliament as quickly as possible. This government has been talking about making changes for two years now, but has left it until the eleventh hour to take any action, expecting that all stakeholders will simply fall in line on these controversial changes. Not even the government's own members were given the opportunity to properly scrutinise this legislation.

Now the Prime Minister and her cronies are attempting to force feed all members of this parliament, leaving no room for disagreement. The minister has been playing tough cop all week, telling the parliament that it could take it or leave it and that there was no flexibility to negotiate this legislation. When it became clear yesterday and today that this package did not have the support of Independent MPs, the government did a quick shuffle, backtracking from its tough cop stance.

We have to ask why the government is so concerned that it feels it necessary to push these reforms through without adequate opportunity to scrutinise the legislation. This is a growing trend for this government, which seems to believe that it does not need to allow scrutiny of the bills that it brings before the parliament. Once again it would seem that this government is more concerned about its own survival than it is about the greater good of governance of our country. The government is the only beneficiary of these reforms. This is most definitely detrimental to the quality of content in our media and most definitely detrimental to the national interest.

This government does not have a good track record when it comes to legislative reform. We need only look as far as the carbon tax and the mining tax to see two examples of mismanagement of government programs and ineffective legislation. This government does not have a good track record when it comes to administering new programs.

Ironically, this is not something that has escaped the notice of media. Seven West Media Chairman, Kerry Stokes, has said: 'I can only recall legislation being pushed in this haste in the wake of 9/11. My submission is you shouldn't be doing any of this.' Fairfax Media CEO, Greg Hywood, said, 'To be plain, the impression, voiced almost universally over the weekend, is that the process is at least unseemingly rushed and the bills mirror that state of affairs.' Network Ten's Hamish McLennan said, 'The implications for regional Australia are great and that we shouldn't rush the changes through.'

The Public Interest Media Advocate will require all media voices to register with the government. This alone creates confusion as to what the definition of 'media voice' will be. Where will the line between a personal online blog discussing current affairs and an online media outlet containing discussion of public affairs be drawn? Surely personal opinion will be a huge part of decisions made by the Public Interest Media Advocate and the so-called public interest will be open to enormous interpretation. This bill will require all media voices to consult before any changes to ownership are made. All changes will need to be approved by the so-called Public Interest Media Advocate.

These changes are wide-reaching and significant, yet industry and stakeholder input into developing these reforms has been minimal. Now that these reforms have been announced, the government seems determined not to consider the impact on the sector. It would seem that this government is so tied up in its own agenda that it is not interested in having a discussion with the media about the changes it intends to enforce. Fairfax Media CEO Greg Hywood has said:

The practical application of this legislation is that it sets up a model where a minister of the government can pick up the phone to his own appointee and say 'fix it'. 'Fix it' being 'get the media off our backs' ... It is our strong view the fact that a government feels it is not getting a fair go from one or other media outlet is a very poor reason to regulate, in fact it is the worst reason. We believe (we) feel that the introduction of a government-appointed regulator to oversee print and digital newsgathering journalism will have seriously dangerous consequences for good government.

This Labor government is trying to have the entire debate of media reform caught up in media diversity.

Media diversity is a challenge that we need to face. It is a complicated and serious challenge that we should consider. It is a challenge that is caught up in the emergence of new media and a diversity of media platforms. It is also a challenge that is caught up in the emergence of shared content, for example with the collaboration of News Limited and Network Ten's Meet the Press. But this is not a challenge that is unpacked or solved by these bills. In fact this legislation barely scratches the surface of dealing with media diversity and instead presents a heavy-handed approach that benefits no stakeholders.

Media diversity is not a challenge that should have a bandaid solution applied to it without adequate consultation or discussion. It is an ongoing challenge that requires the investment of time, discussion and industry input. It is a challenge that needs serious consideration, not the half-baked attempt that this government has presented in this legislation. It is for this reason that I must add my voice in opposition to these bills today.

See this speech in context