Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Hansard source

I believe it is Senator Carr, but Senator Bernardi tells me it is Kim Jong-un. It could be an early picture of Senator Kim Carr without a beard. The point is very obvious. It does not really matter; unreconstructed Marxists could never be compared to Senator Conroy, could they? He would hate that.

This is not a laughing matter. This is a very serious matter. What Senator Conroy is proposing effectively is a media tsar: the 'public interest media advocate', George Orwell at his very best—an Orwellian titular head, something that circumscribes the media in this country. The proposed legislation will establish a statutory authority to rule on the way the Australian Press Council and similar bodies adjudicate complaints against the press. It will have the power to approve or reject the standards enforced by those bodies.

What do we have? We have this: ultimately a statutory authority appointed by the executive will tell the Press Council whether they have done a good job. This in fact is government by another name. This is the executive ultimately telling the press how to behave, not a court. There is no separation of powers argument here. This is the executive telling the press how to act. That signifies, all senators would understand, a huge power shift from the media, from the press, to the executive government. That, in a sentence, is what is occurring. In effect what we have—and I think Senator Birmingham pointed this out in his question—is a government seeking to license newspapers and other media. I think Senator Birmingham mentioned that Governor Darling was the last person to do that. I am told in Britain it has not happened since the 17th century, the century in which they used to lop off the heads of kings. I am not sure if Senator Conroy is more like Charles I or Oliver Cromwell. Nonetheless he has not done very well.

Can I just say this: it is actually getting worse, because the protections under the Privacy Act seek to protect the press, but they will go in many instances in this case. What will happen is that the confidentiality requirements will be obliterated and potentially the press will have to give up their sources. They may be forced to disclose confidential information and details about articles before they are even published.

The concern of the opposition is simple: this is a huge power grab by the government against the press. There is no demonstrated case for this. The current regulatory arrangements do work and have worked very well. I know that Senator Conroy consistently said this is about media diversity, greater and greater diversity. Of course he did not talk about the internet and blogs and tweets that offer all that enormous diversity. As Mr Turnbull has said repeatedly over the last few days, the media in this country has never been more diverse in its entire history, since the founding of this nation—nor has the government, of course, been more unpopular.