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

I rise today to contribute to this debate, mainly in response to some of the hysteria that has been ventilated in this chamber from many of those opposite in the way they are addressing these media reforms. You would tend to think that we are trying to muzzle the media over this particular series of bills, but it is far from the truth. This is about scrutiny. This is about fairness. This is about ensuring that the people out there with access to media—print, and electronic and online—have the ability to have some involvement in what they are reading.

I indicated yesterday when taking note of answers provided in this chamber on this particular subject that I had the opportunity to work for the media outlets for several years in my past before I had the very fortunate chance to work for the trade union movement. I was fascinated by the change of reform going through media outlets during that period. One such company I was involved in was Queensland Newspapers. I saw the reforms move from broadsheet to tabloid newspapers, and the increase of social media and electronic media. The most significant changes that occurred during that time were when we moved from a reasonably independent Queensland company to one bought out by the Murdoch press.

I particularly noticed the lack of morale as a result of the acquisition of that particular newspaper by the Murdoch press. People who had worked for the company for many years—35 or 36 years of employment—had also noticed the result of change in that particular enterprise. We saw loyal, long-term employees who had for many years never taken a sick day resort to statements like, 'I'm going to exhaust my sick leave before I retire because this is the type of organisation I now work for.' The morale in the workplace was very depressing. I am only making this point as an example of how things change. It may have been as a result of the change in conditions or of the lack of confidence and happiness within the new organisation that we worked for. People should not be frightened of change. People should realise that change is good, provided it is the right course to take, and that is what these bills are about. I will go through them step-by-step.

If we look firstly at the Broadcasting Legislative Amendment (News Media Diversity) Bill 2013 and the Public Interest Media Advocate Bill 2013, they are really about providing these amendments to protect the diversity of news media voices through the creation of public interest tests, to be applied to mergers and acquisitions of news media voices of national significance. The purpose of the test is to seek no substantial lessening of diversity of control of significant news media voices. There is a direct example of the commitment of not lessening the diversity of those controls as a result of this particular bill, which we will see in this chamber at some stage in the future. The test will also apply to specified news media voices which will be registered if they have a significant national audience reach.

The Public Interest Media Advocate Bill 2013 will also create a public interest media advocate—an independent statutory recognised officer. The public interest media advocate will decide whether a transaction involving news media voices subject to the test may proceed, and has the power to accept court enforceable undertakings that mitigate against the loss of diversity. There is a series of examples in which it is not a case of us coming into the government wanting to overregulate or muzzle the media outlets, as those opposite will suggest. That is far from the truth.

If we look at the example of the media diversity public interest test, media ownership is already regulated. It is based on the policy rationale that a diversity of media ownership secures a diversity of views, opinions and ideas, and contributes to improved and informed public debate. It is important that it mentions the view and the involvement of public debate, and their involvement is one area that this set of bills will concentrate on.

However, these current rules do not reflect recent structural changes in the media industry, including the existence of online media and emergence of national significant voices. I am sure, Mr Acting Deputy President Edwards, that your children would be like mine and that they have adapted or moved to social media interaction not only with their friends but also on pages like Facebook, interacting with blogs and things they see, and responding to those. I think it is important that people have some responsibility for the manner in which they reflect and respond to those things that are online about certain material. Once again, this is not a case of putting a stop to that sort of interaction and that involvement by people that may wish to interact on social media outlets. The introduction of a public interest test for media mergers and acquisitions of news media organisations of national significance will ensure that the diversity of news media voices is maintained, complementing existing rules designed to promote competition and regulate media ownership.

The scope is that the public interest test will be applied to mergers and acquisitions of registered news media voices which meet a specified audience of subscriber threshold. Mergers or changes of control of a voice cannot proceed unless the Public Interest Media Advocate, PIMA, is satisfied that the transaction would not result in a substantial lessening of diversity in news or current affairs. Surely that speaks for itself in terms of the commitment of the PIMA when they advocate their decisions.

The test will not duplicate the substantial lessening of competition tests carried out by the ACCC and will operate in parallel with other media diversity safeguards. Also, if we look at news media voices, for the purposes of the register of news media voices, the following entities are voices: a commercial television service that provides news or current affairs programs, a commercial radio service that provides news or current affairs programs, a print publication that provides news or current affairs content, a subscription television broadcasting service that provides news or current affairs programs, a subscription television platform and online services that make available news or current affairs content targeted to an Australian audience and that have paying customers. Once again, it covers the ambit of the accessibility of media and information and news and current affairs that is available to the public.

Why are we doing this? As I indicated, I had some exposure to the media for several years. I worked for a media outlet, then moved into a professional role as a trade union official and subsequently became a union boss looking after workers. As a result I had more and more exposure to journalism and the media in terms of interviews. I have always found journalists to be extremely competent, very professional people in the manner in which they conduct interviews. I have never had a real issue other than a few minor matters I am not going to really bother about, because that is water off a duck's back.

But you find more and more these days that people are questioning the role of the media in certain decisions, in certain interviews and in certain elaborations of particular reports and matters. Just the other day as I was down at Avalon as the Chair of the Defence Subcommittee, and I was talking to one of my colleagues from across the chamber about a Four Corners program. His comment was, 'I never listen to Four Corners anymore.' He believes they are so biased. We were talking about a specific program that he, unfortunately, was not in a position to watch because he was not prepared to watch Four Corners. I had seen the program. I would have to agree with the gentleman from across the chamber that, watching that particular program on Four Corners,there may have been some bias as a result of what they were deliberating to the public in terms of the JSF program. One would have to watch the program, of course, and form their own view on it, but it just shows that there are those of us that have an issue when it comes to the media.

There are also people in the media that have an issue when it comes to having interviews, in particular with parliamentarians. Recently our Labor candidate in the seat of Fisher, Bill Gilssane, alerted me to an article in the Sunshine Coast Daily by the journalist Kathy Sundstrom. The headline reads 'Journalists cop mud from churlish pollies', and just in part it reads:

Instead of simply focussing on the accuracy of information, people started commenting on people.

Refusing to talk to a reporter who has written something they don't like is another childish tactic.

So often 'the media' is blamed for not reporting both sides. Yet, equally as often, the other side of the story is impossible to get hold of.

I can understand that. Sometimes it is difficult to get both sides. If a journalist is interviewing you it should be within your competence and commitment to demonstrate your position on particular things. The journalist went on in this article:

For someone with political clout to then refuse to talk to a reporter because they weren't happy with a report written, sometimes weeks or months ago, is churlish.

Members of the Noosa Independence Alliance are not the only ones guilty of this behaviour.

More and more politicians are resorting to a 'blame the reporter' mentality to switch the focus of their actions, or inactions.

And then she refers to:

Mal Brough is the latest politician referring to this kind of tactic.

That is the LNP candidate, of course, in that particular seat. So it is not just others out there from the other side who have indicated that there is some need to look at reforms in the media, it is also journalists themselves who are willing to consider changes.

This morning I was fortunate enough to talk to a good friend of mine who is a well-respected journalist, affectionately known as Flip, and she indicated to me that professional journalists ultimately work for the people of this great country. They are driven by respect for the truth; they believe in their media alliance union code of conduct; they aim to strive for honesty, fairness, independence and respect for the rights of others. One of the examples she provided to me was of a time when she was told by her news director to sneak into a hospital with a covert camera and film a child who had been assaulted during the schoolies festival on the Gold Coast. She refused on the grounds of that being invasive of privacy and totally unethical. That clearly demonstrates the ethics that are involved in journalism. People respect the code, they respect their profession and, once again, this is a clear example of a journalist not willing to go below when it comes to trying to get a story for a director who at a particular time considered it would be good news.

Unfortunately, sometimes I see on the television or in print a lot of bad news. I have spoken on many occasions at schools about the good work we are doing in Afghanistan, but you would rarely hear about or see that type of material in the Australian media. You hear, naturally, of the unfortunate occasions of death of our good, professional, hardworking men and women in the ADF but you very rarely hear about the good work that is happening on the ground in changing the attendance rate at schools. I recollect an example I was given when I travelled there a couple of years ago. When the Taliban ruled, there were approximately one million boys attending school—no girls; girls were not allowed to go to school—but as a result of our good work on the ground in Afghanistan with other forces that has changed. Now we see examples of approximately 7.3 million students attending school and of those 7.3 million there are about 2.7 million girls. I have told that story time and time again at opening functions that I attended for the Building the Education Revolution program, to explain to people the good work that we are doing not only for education at schools in countries like Afghanistan but also to indicate the good work we are doing there with our ADF personnel.

Quite often we come into this chamber and use media quotes and stories, but sometimes senators and members of the House of Representatives unfortunately do not have the opportunity to research some of the content. I will use one example: it was only last sitting week when Senator Macdonald was in the chamber talking about government documents. He referred to a particular quote from a person, but I would not refer to that person as a journalist. I would say the person was making a commentary to a newspaper about an issue associated with the union movement. It was unfortunate that Senator Macdonald relied upon this person as a genuine, competent and sincere person who was able to make comment. The first error I will pick up about this particular person, who probably promotes herself as a journalist, was her claim that she worked for the trade union movement, as she did. She claimed that she had 20 years' experience but that is not true. I know personally that this person had only six years' experience. However, Senator Macdonald referred to her as an insider in the union movement. That is far from the truth. This person worked for a couple of unions in Queensland and now has moved to Melbourne, generally on behalf of employers working against unionists, working against people who are trying to do the right thing in those environments.

I use that as an example to show why we should not use quotes in this chamber from someone who should be discredited for her involvement and role in the trade union movement. She is subsequently working for employers. In fact, the HR Nicholls Society referred to her as a person attending a function in a guest speaker's role who had played an instrumental role in Queensland's section of the resistance movement during the dispute between Patricks and the MUA. It said that 'Collier'—that is the person I am referring to—'is one of the core group that was arrested and charged for her role in the operations'. This is the type of person that Senator Macdonald referred to as being more or less an insider in the union movement. Why would someone come into this chamber and refer to someone who has been arrested, has probably been determined now as a criminal with a conviction—despite the fact that it was subsequently overturned—and rely on that person as being credible? That is why we need to be careful when we discuss matters that are printed in the media these days. That is why it is important that we consider these reforms, to make sure that these types of statements are not ventilated in the public and used as examples of those sorts of things.

She was later picked up in a case involving an industrial dispute and appeared in court. Apparently she took the opportunity to use a concealed microphone in her underwear, as I understand it from the Herald Sun, and the judge at the time, Justice Marshall, asked: 'Do you think she was in a James Bond movie or something?' Once again, this is about the credibility of someone that a senator from the other side uses for evidence when they come into this chamber to speak on matters.

I know for a fact that Senator Macdonald's senior adviser, Max Tomlinson, had resigned his position because he launched a misogynist attack on a Dr Carole Ford. It would be wrong for me to come in here and use that as an example, claiming that Senator Macdonald is a misogynist. And that is why I suggest we need to be careful. (Time expired)