Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers given by Senator Conroy to questions asked by Senators Sinodinos, Birmingham and Mason. To those people who might be listening from the gallery or reading the Hansard at another time, if you read nothing else in the Hansard of the Senate today and nothing else in the Senate Hansard for the rest of the year, then I absolutely implore you to read the comments of my colleague Senator Brandis, who very persuasively lifted the veil of the flawed intellectual foundation of this government's media reforms. I also congratulate Senator McKenzie for her very articulate representation of why regional people, particularly those in Victoria and Western Australia, should be concerned about these particular reforms.

We heard from Senator Conroy earlier that you cannot believe everything you read in the Daily Telegraph. I say you cannot believe anything you hear from this government. Indeed, if the government does get its way with these reforms, you most definitely will not be able to say anything or write anything. These reforms are treacherous, absolutely. Who would have thought that the year 1984 would equal the year 2013? Who would have thought that the fictional character Comrade Napoleon would in fact be a real life Australian Labor parliamentarian by the name of Senator Stephen Conroy? It is not good enough to have the unions advocating for this government; they now want to silence and sideline media outlets for their scrutiny of this government's poor performance. It is worth remembering what Orwell in 1984 was prophesising. In his view of things, totalitarianism was not merely a theoretical threat from a fictional future. The urgency of 1984 and of much of Orwell's wartime and postwar writing springs clearly from his sense that totalitarianism was already proving dangerously attractive to many on the Left, not least intellectuals. I would not go so far, Senator McKenzie, as to suggest that this government was intelligent but this is a very, very timely warning.

The Labor government's proposal to establish the Orwellian type of public interest media advocate will begin and end its life as a government advocate dressed up as an advocate for the public interest. We all know it will be an advocate for the government's interests and no-one else. We have been told that this new statutory body that Labor proposes to establish will not be a regulator, but these are the facts: the public interest media advocate will accredit media complaint processes as well as assess proposals for media acquisitions and mergers against a vaguely defined public interest test. It is going to regulate and oversee the process of media complaints. It is very clear that it is a new regulator. It is very clear that it will be appointed by the government of the day, could be removed by the government of the day, and could, in typical Labor style, be a mate of the government of the day. We know there will be no shortage of disgraced Labor Party candidates and union officials to take the job of the Public Interest Media Advocate.

When the Independent, Mr Rob Oakeshott, the Independent, Mr Wilkie, and the Greens have all been scathing about Labor's proposal, you have to say that there must be something in this. When the Independents and the Greens are opposed to this proposal, you know you have to pay more attention to what is a rare moment of good thinking on the part of the Independents and the Greens. The comments of my colleague Senator Birmingham yesterday reminded me of the other Orwellian masterpiece, Animal Farm.Senator Birmingham said yesterday, with great accuracy, that in the end this will be a dog of the government and the government will tell it how and when to bark.

Let us be clear: there is no demonstrated case for this proposal. The current regulatory arrangements do work and have worked well. More importantly, on the issue of diversity, I reinforce the comments of the very, very able member for Wentworth, who said that the media in this country have never been more diverse. I would add, as others have, that this government has of course never been more unpopular. What this country needs is more freedom, less regulation and, particularly, greater freedom of expression. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.