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

I was about to begin by saying that lately I am wondering whether there is something in Australia's drinking water. We have seen, I think, another example of it just in the last few seconds. I speak with some authority on that matter, given I am a member of the Standing Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests, and I suggest that the matter raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is not in conformity with the consensus view of the privileges committee. But we are here this afternoon to talk on this matter of public importance with which the opposition has led its attack on the government's current proposals for media reform.

I did not hear the quote from the member for Higgins, but I heard her quoting Sir Winston Churchill. Because I did not hear the exact quote, I am not sure where he made the quote she shared with the House—but I know it would not have been on the internet and it would not have come off YouTube; it was more likely broadcast live on the wireless. You might recall that. That is the thing before we had transistor radios and even before Video Killed the Radio Star.

I make the point that the world has changed somewhat in technological terms and in broadcast terms since the days of Winston Churchill; maybe some of those on the other side might want to keep up with some of those changes. I am wondering what this debate over the course of the last few days is really all about. I have with me two reports. They cannot be seen by those listening on radio, but one is the inquiry report of the Hon. R Finkelstein QC. It is 468 pages long. It is a weighty document and one I can claim to have read maybe 70 per cent of. I am not going to claim 100 per cent. It is weighty and time consuming, but I suspect that there are very few others—

Mr Murphy interjecting—

Reid, of course. I am confusing the seats; there have been all these changes. But I know the member for Reid has read it. He holds a great expertise in these areas.

The second document is the convergence review, which is another 176 pages. Again, I think I can claim to have read almost all of that report. Again, I have seen no evidence whatsoever that anyone on the other side who has participated in this debate has read any of those documents at length. I am even more sure that no-one who has contributed from the other side has even read the proposals put forward by the government in any great detail; because, if they have, they have completely misunderstood them or otherwise have sought to deliberately misrepresent them.

The other great thing which has changed since Sir Winston Churchill's days is that the media—the print media in particular, although radio does a pretty good job—has become increasingly bold in its reporting of matters that in Winston Churchill's time would have been considered private and therefore sacred and not for publication. The intrusion of the media into our public lives has grown extensively in recent years. That is something that cannot be challenged by those who sit opposite. That is why I am disappointed that the government has not yet further progressed the idea of a statutory tort in privacy, giving people who have had their privacy breached by media organisations or any other individual a statutory course of action.

Back to my theory about there being something in our drinking water: the campaign that was waged against Ray Finkelstein's recommendations and his report was really extraordinary, in my view. It was completely over the top and they must have been shocking to such a learned individual. They must have been a real lesson for him in the way politics works in this country. But the present self-regulatory arrangements, of course, suit Australian newspaper proprietors and, therefore, he should not have been surprised by the ferocity of some of the responses.

The Australian Press Council is a creature of the industry and is funded by the industry. It causes our newspaper owners little grief, no matter how extreme they might become from time to time in their reporting. We saw an example of that earlier this week, where the minister was depicted as Stalin and a number of other despotic leaders. As Finkelstein points out, the APC 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 and order their funding as they see fit. Since the beginning this debate, they have changed some of those things in the hope of holding an intervention from government at bay, but the change has been very, very small indeed.

Letting our media police themselves is obviously, from my point of view, a mistake. It has left victims of their exaggerations and misinformation with no other option than to find redress through the courts. But, as Finkelstein points out, these processes are 'protracted, expensive and adversarial, and offer redress only for legal wrongs and not for the more frequent complaints about inaccuracies and unfairness'. While it has never delivered the desired outcomes, self-regulation is becoming less and less efficient.

Finkelstein's response was to advocate for a public regulator—a regulator completely at arm's length from the government of the day, a regulator which would be publicly funded so as not to be captured by the media proprietors themselves. I thought that was a perfectly sensible recommendation, and Finkelstein of course stands by it, but there was a huge amount of opposition from media outlets towards this public regulation and a very public campaign. The government has heard those complaints. They have taken them on board and said, 'Okay, we'll allow the industry to continue to regulate itself.' That should have been welcomed very loudly by the industry, but we put one condition on it, and that is effectively what this debate is all about. We have asked that, in future, when they construct their regulatory regimes and when they construct their processes for enforcing the standards—the standards set by themselves—those standards and those processes will be ticked off by an independent advocate looking after the public interest, an independent advocate which will take into account community expectations. This is not rocket science.

It is pretty clear to me that the front page we saw on the Telegraph this week involving Minister Conroy would surely not meet community expectation. I doubt anyone on the other side would defend that front page. This is no conspiracy. This is an independent expert, someone highly regarded in the community—it might be a former judge, for example—inviting media proprietors to come to him or her and ask, 'What are the standards as you see them? What are the standards acceptable to the Australian community?' He or she would look at those and tick them off, saying, 'I agree. I think that is a good approach. I congratulate you on your effort,' and then he or she would ask, 'How would you go about your corporate governance—your processes to ensure these standards are upheld?' and, I suppose, 'How would you ensure that any journalist or editor breaching your own standards would be dealt with?'

Those on the other side would have you believe that this is some form of government intervention. I do not think anyone on the street around our cities and towns would share that view. This is a crazy reaction to what is a fairly soft policy, certainly compared to Finkelstein's recommendations and, indeed, some of the recommendations in the convergence report. But, notwithstanding that, for some reason media proprietors have gone to war. Those on the other side, of course, see a political opportunity in that. Isn't it a shame? That is despite the fact that in my communities people are now saying we are becoming more like Fleet Street every day, the media is out of control and you cannot trust what they are saying. You would have thought that those on the other side would take a bipartisan approach and work with us to see whether we can fix these problems.

I just want to make this point, though: I believe this will restore confidence in our media publications. This will allow people to appreciate and find confidence in the fact that someone is looking over self-regulation. That restoration is a good thing for the media proprietors. The sooner they work that out the better for them and the better for the Australian community.

Debate adjourned.