Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is totally relevant because we are showing the dynamics of the votes. I have stated before that I have a bit of a concern that we might have an Oilcode set-up here. We may actually see all the Labor Party cross the floor to make effective amendments. We might have calls from the major oil companies to say, ‘You’ve got to stand in line today.’ They might do that; you have to keep your eye on them. You never know when the whole of the Labor Party will cross the floor and vote with the government. It is a bit of a problem; you have to watch out for them.

But, today, we have a chance of getting tighter controls. We are still looking for tighter controls on voice and the related entity test. I am prepared to do that, because I believe in my obligation to my state in Queensland to try to get the best possible outcome and, if that involves going over there to vote, then I will do that. I am trying to do it because it is best for my state. It is why we are in this place; we are supposed to represent our state, not a political party, but that is a debate for another day.

We have now got to the position where what the National Party has attained would mean voting against the hard work we have put into this. That hard work has been put in by a whole range of people. Right from the word ‘go’, when we started with this resolution at the state conference in Queensland through to here in this place, Paul Neville has been an absolute workhorse. He is an absolutely passionate believer in protecting our democratic process. I would like to acknowledge the work that Mr Neville has done, because, without that sort of assistance, it would have been much harder. It is a very complicated piece of legislation, and I have had my suspicions through the process of this debate as to why we have not seen more of this discussion in the media, from the fourth estate. Why it has not been front-page news on some of the major papers has been a concern. In fact, it raises suspicions as to why we must keep a control on the diversity of opinions. If we get it wrong, it will be one of the most fundamental changes to our democratic processes you could ever have.

I also believe that the statement that the ACCC in its current form has the ability to be the arbiter of voice, the arbiter of opinion in the public field, is an absolute load of rubbish. You cannot possibly do that; that is impossible. The ACCC and the Trade Practices Act have been set up for the purpose of dealing with goods and services; it is not there to look after opinion. That is why we have to go through the mechanism of putting some benchmarks in this legislation for that role. I look forward to the day when we strengthen the role of the ACCC and strengthen the Trade Practices Act so that we do not have predatory pricing laws that allow one media organisation to cut advertising to the bone and put other papers out of business. I look forward to the day we bring in a stronger section 46, but that is a debate for another day and for another piece of legislation. Unfortunately, all we can deal with in this legislation are the issues before us now.

I look forward to this issue going to committee, because there are still changes that could be made to make it better. A tightening of the voice test would be a true acknowledgement that you will not get an investigative journalism program on a music station.