Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

By leave—I move:

That orders of the day Nos 2 to 5, government business, be discharged.

The Minister for Communications and the Digital Economy, when announcing this package of legislation relating to the media, made it clear that the government would not be pursuing these reforms beyond this week if it did not secure the support of the parliament. It is clear to me that it does not have the support of the House of Representatives to proceed. Therefore, I move this motion. I thank the shadow minister for communications for the cooperative way in which he has dealt with the procedural issues around this legislation even though we have different policy positions on some of the issues before the House.

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

This is a humiliating backdown by the government today. Only a week ago the communications minister and the Prime Minister announced a set of so-called reforms to the media laws of this country that would for the first time in our history put a government official in a position where he or she was able to influence, indeed, control the content of newspapers and other media that has never been regulated by government in our history. We were told that there would be no bartering with the cross benches, that this was a take-it-or-leave-it proposition.

Over the last 48 hours the bartering with the crossbenchers has been so intense that, as recently as this morning, the government was proposing to support an amendment by Mr Katter that would have had the result of the so-called Public Interest Media Advocate—this all-powerful media regulator—being appointed by a panel of 12 people, who would have in turn been appointed by the Council of the Order of Australia, which is a body composed of representatives of states, territories and the Commonwealth for the purpose of awarding Australian honours.

This was policy on the run. It was galloping along in a desperate effort to preserve the Prime Minister's position, to preserve Julia Gillard. The government had become the Julia Gillard Preservation Society. The Labor Party had so lost control of itself, had so lost control of any sense of responsibility, good government and due process that it was going to outsource its policy-making functions to the member for Kennedy—or, indeed, to anyone else on the crossbench who could come up with an interesting idea that might just be able to get something across the line.

It was a reminder of the same chaotic performance that we saw from this Prime Minister after the collapse of the original resource super-profits tax that Prime Minister Rudd had proposed. When that fell over, in desperation to get something done after she had deposed Mr Rudd, what did she do? She sat down with the three largest mining companies in the country, sent the officials out of the room and allowed them to write the tax law. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer, the champions of the people, so they assert, standing up against the billionaires, advocates for the proletariat, these defenders of the horny-handed sons of toil, these Labor heroes, were allowing the biggest mining companies in Australia to write the tax. And that was because they were desperate to get anything passed.

And that is what we nearly had today—exactly the same desperation, except instead of the mining companies it was in fact the member for Kennedy and any other crossbenchers that were prepared to be involved. But, as the member for Denison said, this process has been completely shambolic. It was too humiliating, too embarrassing; it demeaned the parliament to be debating a bill only a few days ago which gave enormous powers to a Public Interest Media Advocate, the nature of which, the appointment of which, the term of which, the number of which, was completely up in the air as they were doing backroom deals with the Independents.

At some point the shame, the humiliation, the embarrassment became too much. What the Leader of the House has done today is acknowledge that these bills are too much of an embarrassment even for this government and they have been abandoned—utterly abandoned. Connected to that, no doubt, is Simon Crean's call for there to be a spill, in order to reinstate the member for Griffith as the leader of the Labor Party and presumably Prime Minister. This is a chaotic and humiliating moment, perhaps one of the last moments, for a government that has betrayed every ounce of responsibility, of due process and of good government. The best decision the new Prime Minister could make—if indeed the member for Griffith does return as Prime Minister—is to go straight to Government House and let the Australian people cast their judgment on this sorry Labor mess.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I claim to have been misrepresented.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, there are forums in which—

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But if I have the call, I will take advantage of it.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, you—

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do I have the call?

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have the call to speak on the motion that has been moved by the Leader of the House. The Leader of the House?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am just concluding the debate and then, if the member wants to make a personal explanation, he is certainly entitled to do so.

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

He is entitled to speak on the motion if he wishes, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear what the Leader of the House said. The member for Kennedy: if you wish to speak on the motion, you have the call.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much. The previous speaker made a number of allegations about me which were entirely incorrect. Not only were they incorrect but he knew they were incorrect. He is an intelligent person; no-one would ever deny that—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! You will be speaking to the motion before the House. If you want to make a personal explanation, that is a different matter.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, it is not a personal explanation—I am speaking to the motion.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Kennedy has the call.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But, in speaking to the motion, my position—once I could understand what was taking place here—was taken behind closed doors. Our decision was made behind a locked door. It was not made in conjunction or negotiation with the Liberal Party or the Labor Party. I most certainly spoke to all of those people; it would have been improper if I had not spoken to them. I spoke to the honourable opposition spokesman. I spoke to the people on the other side as well. But my decision was taken behind a locked door—and that was not to accept the Liberal Party position, which was to continue with a corporate lapdog called the Press Council.

If the honourable spokesman comes into this place and wants to look after the interests of the corporates, from which he comes—his own group and his own background—then I applaud him for at least being honest. But don't come in here and try and portray me as going along with the ALP proposition. The whole of the Australian public saw the ALP proposition as the Thought Police—let's be honest. So this mob wants a corporate lapdog, and this mob want a government attack dog. It would be nice if someone in this place thought that the people of Australia might have a watchdog to protect their interests. At all times I moved my own piece of legislation saying that the watchdog would be set up by an entirely independent body—nothing to do with government—and that body would have some teeth to stop media concentration.

The honourable spokesman for the opposition, let's face it, would have been talking to these people. He would already know the media concentrations that they are moving towards. That may be in the interests of the corporate classes in Sydney; it is most certainly not in the interests of any single person in this country outside the corporate interests in Sydney, which the honourable member obviously represents.

We put forward a proposition—and how could anyone think this was unreasonable?—that a panel be appointed by the Australian Press Council. They are entitled to some representation. Most certainly and importantly, the Australian journalists association are entitled to some representation. Then, finally, six of those positions would be selected by the Australian people, not by politicians but by people at a great distance. Who can you pick out in Australia to do that job who are respected? I think the people that decide upon the decorations—the people who give out the OAMs and the AMs—have done a marvellous job over the years. They are very much at distance from government. They have absolutely nothing to do with government. They have an independent appointment.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Member for Kennedy, reluctant as I am to interrupt, I know you are talking about the bills, but we are now talking about the motion, which is to discharge orders of the day Nos 2 to 5. I bring you to the motion before the House. I have been very generous in giving you the call and allowing you to continue in the way you have. I ask the member to come to the motion before the chamber.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not against the withdrawal of the bills. They were contaminated by a position called PIMA. My legislation will go forward. If no-one in this place decides to support it, so be it. Let the people of Australia judge them. Perhaps they think we should continue with a corporate lap-dog and that there should be a free-fire zone where a concentration of media power can reach the same outcome that we have got with Woolworths and Coles, where farmers are paid nothing and our food prices are amongst some of the highest in the world. I use an example of concentration of market power. When you deregulated the dairy industry the price for farmers went down 30 per cent and within 18 months it went up 41c.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Member for Kennedy.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, Mr Speaker, please, let me continue.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are a long way off the motion before the House—

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I am not. Deputy Speaker, with due respect—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, the motion is to discharge orders of the day Nos 2 to 5 of government business, and that is the motion we are debating.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know, Mr Speaker, but the essence—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Kennedy will resume his seat. The motion before the chamber is quite clear. It has been moved by the Leader of the House to discharge orders of the day Nos 2 to 5, government business. I know there are other issues to do with dairying and other things, but those things are not part of the motion that we are debating. You have to be relevant to the motion before the House. I call the member for Kennedy and ask him to confine his remarks to the motion before the House.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To complete my sentence, the issue of food is very important, Mr Deputy Speaker, and you would agree that it is very important. But just as important are the workings of democracy. The High Court has held again and again that there must be fairness. If you have a monopoly position in the media then you must act as if you do not have a monopoly position. I quote the Wire and BHP case, where the High Court held almost unanimously that you must act in a fair and responsible manner. But if you have a concentration of media power then, quite frankly, you can do what you like. You are answerable to nobody. I most certainly would not be game to take on the press barons, and I do not think anyone else here with a sense of personal survival would be game to do so.

If we put in place a watchdog, a protective mechanism, that would be a good outcome. I must be fair to the government and say that, whilst they contaminated beyond belief a good proposal that there be some restrictions upon the concentration of media power and whilst they contaminated it with the PIMA proposal, let us have a watchdog over the concentration of media power and let that watchdog be set up by people who are visibly at a distance, at arm's length, from the government, and I will be proceeding with that legislation. If people in this place are genuine then I think I will receive unanimous support. If they are playing party games then I think I won't.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the members for their contribution.

Question agreed to.