Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise also to take note of answers provided in today's proceedings. I want to start off by indicating that I have had some involvement in working for the press for approximately six years—certainly not in the role of a journalist but over time through my involvement following that period of employment and moving into my position as a trade union official and having some exposure to them there. My interest in and my exposure to the press has developed over those years.

In terms of the companies I worked for in the eighties—Queensland Newspapers and, later on in the eighties, News Limited—we saw significant changes over that period. We saw changes from the production of a broadsheet newspaper to the production of a tabloid. Of course, we have seen changes as a result of a move to electronic media, social media and reaction that we see in today's hands. There is always a chance, an opportunity and a need to look at change and to scrutinise. There is a need to look at changes to media reforms in the bills that we will see come through this chamber shortly.

It is not about reframing or winding back on free speech. It is not about allowing people to have diversity of voices when it comes round to media outlets and organisations. You hear contributions by those opposite when they defend News Limited, because we know as a fact and I know most certainly that, when the opposition brought in their Work Choices legislation and introduced Australian workplace agreements, News Limited was one of the first organisations that took up the opportunity to put their employees on Australian workplace agreements. I wonder whether that is why the coalition are so defensive of News Limited, when it was the champion of one of their particular pieces of Work Choices legislation: Australian workplace agreements. I personally believe that might be a reason.

Over those years I had exposure to the press. Most recently a good friend of mine who works for Channel 9, a freelance journalist on the Gold Coast, Petrina Zaphir, explained to me about these particular changes. She explained to me her involvement in the media. She also spoke about her opportunities, including where she goes out with media cadets or journalist cadets and talks to them about the ethics. I do not think anyone should be frightened about discussing ethics when it comes to reporting news. I think it is important that we live in a society where we need to be free to hear what is ethically reported in the media. At times, I know that those opposite question the ethics of some of the media outlets on what they are reporting, and we do as well. But we should not be worried about this particular reform that we are looking at. We should not be concerned about where this is heading, because it is an example of where we are going to lead, in looking at some of the publications and news organisations that certainly conduct themselves professionally. We do, and they respect privacy and reporting with fairness and accuracy as well. We know that is the case out there and that no-one should be frightened of scrutiny and ethics, particularly in the media.

I just want to put on record the government's record when it comes to freedom of speech, because I think we were challenged today during question time on that. We should be reminded that the government have implemented the most important amendments to the Commonwealth shield laws for the protection of journalists' sources. Labor's decision to introduce journalist shield laws was, in part, motivated by the Howard government's disgraceful conduct towards News Limited journalists Harvey and McManus, who faced contempt of court. Our record stands when it comes to protections for and scrutiny of journalists in particular. Certainly, the protections for those particular journalists who were targeted by the Howard government demonstrate our commitment to the need for protection for journalists, rather than being a case of watering down examples of shield laws, protection for whistleblowers in the media, in times of need. (Time expired)