Steve Gibbons (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

An independent news media plays an essential role in maintaining the individual freedoms we enjoy in a democratic society. But participatory democracy only works if citizens have sufficient and accurate information about an issue for them to make up their own minds about what they think about it.If something is reported unfairly or inaccurately, not only does it potentially harm those mentioned in the story, but it also misleads every reader, viewer or listener of that story. Unfortunately, the contemporary news media are failing to perform this vital role in a way that is acceptable to the community at large. In fact, there are journalists and many media practitioners that demand the right to deliberately mislead by stating untruths and to not be held to account, and it is no surprise that these very same media practitioners are the loudest and strongest critics of any form of effective media accountability.

Currently journalists and other media practitioners are only accountable to whoever employs them. Consequently , over the past couple of decades , there have been increasing indications that the media has lost the community's faith. It has lost the community's confidence that it can be trusted to run its businesses in an ethical and socially acceptable manner. It only takes a few examples of unethical or irresponsible behaviour to destroy that public confidence, to destroy the industry's so-called social licence to operate. With little distinction these days between news reporting and opinion, it is almost impossible for readers to distinguish between the information they can trust and the information about which they should be very sceptical. It is no surprise, therefore, that Australian journalists are consistently ranked among the least honest and ethical professions in the annual Roy Morgan reputation survey. Nor is it surprising that newspaper circulation has been falling for years , and those who think that this is just due to the internet are kidding themselves. The plain fact is that fewer and fewer people, especially among our younger citizens, want to buy what newspapers and other media outlets are currently selling.

In the private sector, self-regulation in the form of codes of ethics and industry appointed bodies such as the Australian Press Council have clearly not delivered standards of journalistic integrity that the public has a right to expect and, in fact, does expect. I support many of the recommendations in the Finkelstein report, which the g overnment is currently considering. In particular, I agree with its conclusion that the current regulatory mechanisms are:

... not sufficient to achieve the degree of accountability desirable in a democracy.

A ccountability is what this motion is all about.

I accept and fully support the concept that the media has a role, indeed a responsibility, to hold governments and oppositions to account. However, some media companies, particularly News L t d media companies—and there are others—seem extremely reluctant to hold the current federal opposition to any worthwhile form of account. Let me be quite clear that I am not seeking to curtail anybody's right to free speech, including those with whom I may disagree. I also accept that everyone, including redneck extremist columnists and shock jocks like the Andrew Bolts, Alan Jones es and Piers Akermans of this world—and there are others—should be free to express whatever opinion they like. But in return for that freedom they must, in my view, meet three criteria: what they say must be within the law; when they are expressing an opinion, it must be clearly identified as an opinion and clearly distinguishable from reporting ; and, whether it is opinion or reporting, it must be factually correct.

The media's pleading that they are a special case is becoming increasingly hollow as their behaviour and their failure to be effectively accountable to their readers and the wider community continue to erode public trust in their industry—and, perhaps more importantly, contribute to the degradation of our public debate. Of course, it comes as no surprise that one of the people most responsible for the declining quality of public debate in this country, the Leader of the Opposition, should be unable to grasp the concept that freedom of speech also carries with it a responsibility to be fair and accurate. His recent speech to the Institute of Public Affairs saw him arguing that insulting and humiliating media articles, and hurt feelings, are the price we have to pay for freedom of speech. In his criticism of Andrew Bolt's conviction under section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, the Leader of the Opposition accepted that Mr Bolt's articles were, 'almost certainly not his finest' and 'there may have been some factual errors'.

Exactly the same could be said of the passages referring to Mr Abbott, the Leader of the Opposition, in Bob Ellis's 1997 book Goodbye Jerusalem, but this did not prevent Mr Abbott suing Mr Ellis and his publishers because his feelings had been hurt. Obviously the Leader of the Opposition believes that the hurt feelings of a few Indigenous Australians are a price we have to pay, but his hurt feelings and those of his mates are not. And what happened to Bob Ellis's right to freedom of speech? We should not, perhaps, be surprised at the audacious way in which the Leader of the Opposition brushes aside the factual inaccuracies in Mr Bolt's articles, despite the judge in the case saying that among the reasons for his findings was 'the manner in which the articles were written, including that they contained errors of fact, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language'—after all, virtually every statement made by Mr Abbott since becoming Leader of the Opposition has been a paragon of factual errors, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language.

This is where I do not think the Finkelstein report goes far enough, when it comes to sanctions for inaccuracy in media reporting and opinion. Prominently publishing or broadcasting apologies, corrections or retractions is all very well—and I agree with the report's recommendations about strengthening these processes—but there are far more serious consequences for democracy if a media article misleads the public. A misinformed public cannot possibly form reasonable views about matters of national importance. As a society, we seem to have little difficulty deciding what is socially acceptable behaviour in most walks of life. For example, our legislatures, our regulators and our legal system seem to be able to determine what constitutes misleading advertising. I fail to see why it should not be possible to do the same for misleading media stories.

Penalties of commercially significant amounts do appear to lead to improved behaviour, and in recent months we have seen Apple fined $2¼ million for misleading consumers about its iPad; and internet service provider TPG fined $2 million over its misleading advertisements. In my view, fines such as these for publishing blatant untruths or misleading news reports, or temporary suspensions of the right to publish or broadcast, would lead to a major improvement in the accuracy and fairness of our media. When a media outlet, journalist or redneck shock jock deliberately broadcasts or publishes a statement that they know is factually wrong and it is subsequently proven that they knew it was factually wrong they ought to be subject to an appropriate penalty.

As far as independent oversight of the media is concerned, I agree with the Finkelstein report's recommendation to replace the Australian Media and Communication Authority and the Australian Press Council with a new media council. However, I believe stricter rules are required for council membership to ensure the required degree of independence. To start with, no-one who has held elected political office should be eligible for appointment. And, while it is important that the council has knowledge of the media industry through members with media experience, the majority of its members should comprise appointees with legal, regulatory and community experience. And no members with media experience should be currently employed in the industry.

It is also vital that such a new regulatory body be provided with adequate resourcing to enable it to enforce statutorily-defined sanctions against today's financially and politically powerful news media companies.

We have recently seen announcements by Australia's two largest media organisations about major changes to the structure of their organisations and also about significant changes in share ownership of some media companies. In the light of these developments it is imperative for our democracy that federal parliament act sooner rather than later to rectify the manifest deficiencies in our current media accountability arrangements.

I repeat what I said earlier: I am not seeking to curtail anybody's right to free speech, least of all of those with whom I may disagree. I will always strongly support the media's role and responsibility in holding governments and oppositions to account. But I am seeking to impose greater accountability on those who claim the right to free speech and who then deliberately and constantly breach that right and the community trust that goes with it.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

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

He is a very brave man and I am sure he would be capable of it. Although the government's position is not yet plain, a core recommendation of the Finkelstein inquiry revolves around the establishment of a new body, the News Media Council, to set journalistic standards for news media, in consultation with the industry, and to handle complaints made by the public when those standards are breached.

Finkelstein says the News Media Council would:

… have those roles in respect of news and current affairs coverage on all platforms, that is, print, online, radio and television. It will thus explicitly cover online news for the first time, and will involve transferring ACMA functions for standards and complaints concerning news and current affairs. It will replace the voluntary APC with a statutory entity.

Further, Finkelstein says:

The News Media Council should have secure funding from government and its decisions made binding, but beyond that government should have no role.

He claims:

The establishment of a council is not about increasing the power of government or about imposing some form of censorship.

But I, for one, doubt that very much.

In essence, the report proposes an outside body to take over the role of the Australian Press Council and the media regulatory role of ACMA as well as having control functions over convergence content. While I concede the Press Council has at times been accused of self-interest and of being dismissive of public complaints well made, I am sure an internal renewal of the council and a code of conduct composed by the industry itself is infinitely preferable to a heavy-handed external regulator.

In a media release on 2 March this year, Malcolm Turnbull, the member for Wentworth, made this point about the comparative powers of ACMA and the Press Council:

It is worth noting that the segment of the media which is most criticised for bias and inaccuracy—

and indeed the member for Bendigo did this in his speech this morning—

is in fact commercial radio which is already subject to regulation by ACMA. Mr Finkelstein is critical of ACMA in its media regulation role, but if media outlets unregulated by Government (such as metropolitan newspapers) have a better track record for balance and accuracy than commercial radio (which is regulated), doesn’t that make an equally valid case for reducing rather than increasing the regulation of the media?

Former High Court Judge Ian Callinan made the point that any form of regulation is far too risky. He said:

The struggle for free speech has been long and painfully achieved and I wouldn't want to go back on it.

He made the further point that the way to control the media was through focused defamation laws.

Senator George Brandis, even in this last week, described to the Samuel Griffith Society how freedom of the press is watered down by the appeal to victimhood. He said: 'Today it is the self-styled progressives of the Left who want to ban things. In particular, they want to eliminate expressions of opinions which they find offensive. Sometimes this takes the form of overt prohibitions, of which section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act is an egregious example. As witnessed in the Bolt case, freedom of speech and its corollary, freedom of the press, are, for these people, values of less importance than respect for certain favoured groups which are identified in the minds of the—

An honourable member interjecting—

alleged victimhood. Thus, paradoxically, victimhood becomes the basis for the new privilege. Is it really the role of government to be telling people what they might say? But this is the very point of the political correctness movement: to shape the language so that the ideas of which it disapproves are eliminated from public discourse.' And haven't we seen enough of that?

You can go back over history, and a free press has been able to give opinions which have been criticised here this morning. You can go right back to 1898 and Emile Zola's famous article 'J'Accuse' in the Paris newspaper L'Aurore.

Captain Dreyfus, who had been given a life sentence on Devil's Island in Guiana, was saved as a result of Zola giving his opinion on the front page of that paper—a very brave opinion. And in All the President's Men we had Woodward and Bernstein virtually bringing down President Nixon. There are many examples of this in the history of good journalism. What I do not want is some external body controlling that sort of freedom, and I will oppose it bitterly.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A strong and independent media is one of the key cornerstones of our democracy. Edmund Burke is said to have remarked, 'There were three estates in parliament but, in the reporters' gallery yonder, there sat a fourth estate more important far than they all.' Yet it is also worth reflecting on what Oscar Wilde said: 'In old days men had the rack. Now they have the press.' That is an improvement, certainly, but still it is very bad and wrong and demoralising. Somebody—was it Burke—called journalism 'the fourth estate'. That was true at the time, no doubt, but at the present moment it is the only estate—it has eaten up the other three.

Press independence is important, but who is it we are granting this independence to? This question matters. A democracy dominated by the press is no democracy at all. A democracy in which the journalists create rather than report the news is a democracy in decay. The situation is rendered much worse when, to create the news, journalists start adjusting the truth in their quest for the next Quill Award or other journalistic award, or, worse, when journalists are encouraged to sex up, embellish, misrepresent or do whatever it takes to create a headline for circulation's sake.

From our media we expect many things. At the very least we expect quality, we expect truth and we expect diversity. Sadly, all those three things have been lacking in the UK of late, and we have certainly found ourselves searching for them here in Australia. When the media gets it wrong, those adversely affected deserve the opportunity to have those wrongs addressed. At the moment in this country that is very, very difficult. We have defamation laws and all the proceedings and costs that go with them, which people know to be costly, cumbersome, protracted and, on many occasions, unsatisfactory. Of course, they can go to the Australian Press Council, an industry led body that is fully funded and controlled by the industry, but, to do so, they have to forgo their right to take defamation action if they are not successful there.

As the Finkelstein inquiry points out, 'The Australian Press Council suffers from serious structural constraints. It does not have the necessary powers or the required funds to carry out its designated functions. Publishers can withdraw when they wish or alter their funding as they see fit.' The media proprietors have acknowledged the inadequacies of the Press Council in recent times by making adjustments themselves, some of which have been welcome. The three-year warning required to walk away from the Press Council is a good example, and I have noted some more high-profile corrections in the papers under the APC logo. These are welcome changes but, from my perspective, they are not enough.

The Finkelstein and convergence reviews are both very complex and very voluminous in their presentation, but two issues really stand out: what to regulate and who regulates. There seems to be an emerging consensus that we do not need myriad regulators, but one regulator covering all platforms. The big debate today both inside and outside of this place is: who is doing the regulating. It is very clear that the self-regulatory regime has not met the expectations of the Australian community despite the best efforts of proprietors in recent times to tidy them up.

It is clear to me that we do need a publicly funded regulator as Finkelstein recommended; one of course at arm's length from the government. This idea that the government is going to be briefing these independent regulators and telling them what to do is, in my view, folly.

On that basis, I support the motion put forward by the member for Bendigo as the best way not only to protect the standards and diversity of our media, not only to protect those who have been adversely affected by wrongs perpetrated upon them by the media, but also to protect the media itself. The best way to restore confidence in the media in this country is to demonstrate to people that the government has put in place an independent regulator capable of protecting media interests and broader Australian interests. (Time expired)

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We can all agree on the principle that a vibrant, independent news media is vital to a healthy democracy; it is vital in keeping citizens informed; and it operates generally by testing and holding up to scrutiny the government's policies and actions. It offers a forum for dissenting voices to be heard and it often discloses information that the government of the day may regard as inconvenient. In fact, it is a universal truth that governments of all persuasions are generally unhappy with the media coverage they receive. This government has been unhappy across a whole range of issues, be it pink batts, be it Building the Education Revolution or be it the inconsistency between its pre-election promise on a carbon tax and its actions after the election. So it is not surprising that this government has been frustrated with the press coverage it has received. Perhaps it is timely to remember the maxim of Lord Northcliffe, who said, 'News is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress; all the rest is advertising.'

There can be no question that reporting is a messy business, and journalists and news outlets will often make mistakes, sometimes with very serious consequences—for example, people who are the subject of false allegations or imputations. But the question presented by this motion is whether further regulatory intervention is desirable to foster a vibrant, independent news media—regulatory intervention such as that proposed in the Finkelstein report to establish a new regulator to be called the News Media Council. I believe the answer to that question is 'No', firstly on the grounds that I doubt the government's motives in proposing such greater regulation of the media, and secondly on the grounds that I doubt the merits of the proposal.

Let us turn firstly to the government's motives. Who can forget the then Leader of the Greens, Senator Bob Brown describing criticism of his party by the Australian as the work of the News Limited 'hate media'. We know that the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy, is furious with the Australian for its coverage of the NBN. In fact, in Senate estimates he accused the Australian newspaper of 'waging a war' against Labor and trying to destroy the NBN.

So the so-called independent media inquiry was a perfect piece of political payback from an experienced practitioner of that particular art. We might ask the question: if an inquiry was truly needed, why was its principle focus on the print and traditional media, as opposed to, for example, the booming online sector? Is it because that is about the closest you can come to having an inquiry into News Limited without expressly stating that you are targeting that company?

There has been some link suggested to the phone hacking scandal in Britain, but absolutely no evidence or credible allegations of similar conduct in Australia. Senator Conroy said that this inquiry would deal with the impact of technological change, for example, the migration of digital to digital and online platforms. But why is this necessary? Why was such an inquiry necessary when he already had an inquiry underway to consider these very issues, the Convergence Review announced in December 2010?

If we can question the government's motives, the merits of its proposal are even more questionable. What we can all agree on as the terms of the motion before us suggest, is that the business models of newspapers are under pressure. Newspapers have a commercial interest in surviving, but there is a great public interest in the survival of newspapers as well; if newspapers disappear and nothing replaces them, there is a risk that our citizens will be less well informed and our democracy will suffer.

The motion appears to suggest that falling revenue is some kind of evidence of a loss of the social licence to operate due to lower editorial standards. If that were true, then presumably the problem would solve itself, as the mover sees it, because newspapers would collapse and this evil would no longer go on.

In fact, that analysis is completely wrong. The real issue is that the business model of expensive journalism, cross-subsidised by classified advertising revenue, is no longer sustainable and newspapers are struggling to find a new and workable business model. Like many Australians, I am very concerned about this and I very much hope the transformation exercise currently being carried out by the management of companies like News Limited, Fairfax, APN and others is successfully achieved.

The key issue is this: if you want to maximise the prospects of success and survival of the newspaper sector, the last thing you would do at this stage is burden them with additional expensive regulatory compliance. The fundamental reason that we on this side of the House object to the proposed new model is that a robust, inquisitive, unconstrained free press is critical to our democracy. It is not surprising that it gets up the government's nose. But that is not the question; the question is about sustaining a robust free press.

Debate interrupted.