Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications and Broadband) Share this | Hansard source

As the member for Scullin said in his remarks, this report deals with the media legislation that is currently before the parliament. This report offers very, very harsh criticisms, but measured and responsible criticisms. It makes the point that these laws are an affront to human rights, and it holds the government up for its reckless haste, its obscene haste, in bringing these laws in. The report notes that the new media laws would have the effect of licensing journalism in the sense that no journalist would have the benefit of the exemptions under the Privacy Act, without which they cannot do their work—that is common ground—unless they or their employer is a member of a press council type body that is in effect licensed by this new entity, the Public Interest Media Advocate, which has been the subject of so many discussions with the Independents overnight and this morning.

The report says in paragraph 1.78:

The effect of the bills are, as a practical matter, to require a news media source to become a member of a self-regulation body whose constitution, powers and operations satisfy a number of criteria. The PIMA is the arbiter of whether the self-regulation organisation satisfies those standards …

It then goes on to note in paragraph 1.80 that:

Removing the exemption of news media organisations from the Privacy Act 1988 appears to effectively limit the right to freedom of speech of the journalists who may no longer have the benefit of the exemption and limits the rights of readers and viewers to receive information unfettered by these confidentiality requirements.

It adds that this:

… limit the rights of these organisations to freedom of speech, and the rights of people to receive information from such news organisations. In order to justify an important change of this sort, the Minister must be able to point to a legitimate objective for such regulation, show that the proposed scheme bears a rational connection to this objective, and demonstrate that it is a necessary and proportionate measure for achieving that objective.

Needless to say, the minister has not done that. The government has not done that. There is no regulatory impact statement. We have begged the Prime Minister to tell us what the problem is, what the issue is, what the mischiefs are that the legislation is designed to address, and she cannot or will not nominate them.

In paragraph 1.89 and 1.90, in the blackest of bold type that they could find in their collection of fonts, the committee concludes in this way:

The committee considers that the material presented to the Parliament in support of the bill does not provide sufficient information about supposed inadequacies or ineffectiveness of current systems for the regulation of media to allow an informed assessment of the need for, and proportionality of, the proposed scheme of regulation.

The committee intends to write to the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy—

that is Senator Conroy—

to request further information as to why changes to the regulation of the news media is considered necessary and will ask whether other less intrusive alternatives to the proposed scheme were considered and, if so, why this scheme was chosen over any less intrusive measures.

This was not written by the Liberal Party. This was not written by the opposition or by me or by the member for Warringah, the Leader of the Opposition. This was written by a committee of this parliament in which the government has a majority, a committee chaired by the former Speaker, one of the most distinguished and revered parliamentarians in this building. And he is holding up this government—a government of his own party—to account for their reckless disregard of due process and of human rights. This is saying: 'Shame, Julia Gillard, shame, Stephen Conroy. You know what you're doing is wrong. These bills are wrong. You have to do better.' I commend this report and it conclusions to all honourable members.

Debate adjourned.

See this speech in context