Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Correct, and that is the concern. We are voting on and speaking on separately the broadcasting legislation amendment bill 2013, which has reference throughout it to the Public Interest Media Advocate. But the detail of that Public Interest Media Advocate is in a separate bill that we were originally, less than half an hour ago, meant to debate and vote on together. Now we understand there are some backroom deals going on somewhere else in Parliament House, trying to stitch up the votes of Independents. The procedure is an utter and complete farce.

Looking at the provisions of the bill, what is the mischief, what is the evil, that these bills are meant to remedy? No-one from the government side has been able to identify this. We already have the ACCC, which has a substantial lessening of competition test for mergers. The ACCC investigates mergers in this country. The process is working; it is working reasonably well. We have already seen the ACCC bar the Seven Group from bidding for Cons Media. We have already seen the ACCC active in the media, finding where there will be a substantial lessening of competition and blocking those mergers. This is simply an overlap of legislation.

But the real concern is that, with decisions that this public media advocate makes, there can be no appeal. They become the judge and jury. Under the ACCC process, there is a process of appeals where, if a company disagrees with what the ACCC have done because it does not like the ACCC's verdict in blocking its merger, it has the right to take that decision through our courts. This bill does not include that right to take a decision through the courts.

We know the reason for this bill. It is simply that this government desires to suppress any opinion that does not align with its policies. It is simply the government deciding to silence any criticism of its policies. That is what this bill is all about.

Secondly, what is the rush? Why are we rushing these bills through parliament tonight? These bills were introduced only a few days ago, on the last sitting day of last week. What is the rush to get these through parliament? Why are the government and the minister seeking to trample on the parliamentary processes and rush through this legislation—legislation that, for the first time in our nation's history outside of wartime, attempts to put controls on the media? Are we facing an invasion? Is that the reason? Have hostile foreign troops landed on our shores? Is that the reason for the urgency of this legislation? What national emergency has arisen that has caused this government to abandon all due process and rush this legislation through our parliament?

We know these proposed media laws are all about pressuring a free press to prop up a completely dysfunctional government. This mad rush that we are seeing here tonight, this dysfunctional process, is just one example of the bad judgment of this Prime Minister and this government, which continues to make it up as it goes along. Two centuries ago, the great and wise Adam Smith, in his book The Wealth of Nations, left us a warning. Smith wrote:

The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.

Adam Smith was a great visionary. But, when he warned about an order 'whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it,' even Adam Smith in his wildest dreams could not have imagined how accurately his words could be applied to this Labor government. One only has to look at its long and shameful record.

I would hope that tonight someone on the opposition benches will step forward, show some leadership and call this farce for what it is. Any one of these government members could call off this farce. The process is a farce, the legislation is a farce and it is damaging to our nation. This legislation should be rejected, and I hope at least one member on the other side will show some courage and come and sit with us to reject this legislation here tonight.

See this speech in context