Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

We are debating an unprecedented attack on the freedom of the community's right to know. Freedom of speech is—as you would be acutely aware, Madam Acting Deputy President Moore—a fundamental Enlightenment principle that has been fought for in many battles and wars by our forebears, both physical and intellectual, but one which Senator Conroy and this government clearly are prepared to whittle away through this draconian legislation.

In looking clearly at Senator Conroy's views on the principles of the Enlightenment, I can go no further in setting the tone for this contribution than quoting Evelyn Beatrice Hall's comments when she was trying to describe Voltaire's belief—and I know that you would be acutely aware of these words, Madam Acting Deputy President: 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' And John Stuart Mill said:

If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.

I cannot describe to this chamber how extraordinary it is that we are required to debate this matter today: that the great Australian Labor Party—which bases itself on defending the rights of those who are underprivileged and downtrodden—and this minister and this Prime Minister are throwing all these principles out for the sake of a cheap political stunt, the ramifications of which will be felt by this country for decades. That is, quite frankly, utterly distressing.

I am distressed by what the government is attempting to do, and the media is distressed by what the government is attempting to do. But this debate is framed around the relationship with the media. This debate should be framed around the fact that it is the Australian people who are the great losers from this. They are great losers because of the muzzling of the press. But ultimately it is the Australian community which will wear the odium of this particular piece of legislation. And to hear Senator Conroy today stand up in question time and try and justify the unseemly haste with which this legislation is being debated and discussed again filled me, quite frankly, with horror.

Let us cut to the chase on what this is all about. Let us cut to the chase and describe why there was an emergency cabinet meeting on Tuesday morning to ram through these changes. Let us talk about what happened in caucus in relation to this matter and the anger of the caucus chairman who sits in this chamber, Senator Marshall. And let us go back and see what this is all about. I will tell you what this is about, and to do so I am going to go back to something called 'drag hunting'. I will describe to the chamber what drag hunting is. It is a sport dating back to the early 19th century. A group of dogs, usually foxhounds or beagles, chases a scent that has been laid or dragged over a course with a defined beginning and end before the hunt. The scent usually is a combination of aniseed oil and possibly animal meats or urine. It is dragged along the terrain by a volunteer for a distance. And indeed what we saw on Monday and Tuesday was the modern day drag-man, driving around Canberra and the Lodge in a utility full of meat. And this was a drag hunt deliberately inspired by the actions of the Prime Minister and the minister as a tactic to divert attention from the issues, including the leadership issues, facing the Australian Labor Party. The drag master, Senator Conroy, had that utility full of meat and he set the media off on another chase, away from the issue with the Prime Minister and the leadership. The media were not to know that the drag master was leading them into the most draconian piece of legislation that we have ever seen in this country, and they were not to know that the drag master was driving that utility to get the media off their backs on the leadership issue—they were not to know what was going to be confronting them the next day.

When you read media reports—and I find extraordinary the comments of Senator Furner, who said that this is not a muzzling piece of legislation—the Australian Labor Party, and Senator Furner, were muzzled in relation to this matter. The chairman of caucus said that he was muzzled in relation to this matter. And you would be acutely aware yourself, Madam Acting Deputy President, of the quotes from some of your cabinet colleagues. This was quoted in the media:

"It would be fair to say there was very limited discussion," one cabinet source said, confirming proper process had been scrapped at the meeting.

A small number of ministers are believed to have been kept in the loop, including Treasurer Wayne Swan and Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

The very people who are trying to fight off a leadership spill in this fortnight! And when the Fairfax poll comes out on Monday, if that is not favourable to the Prime Minister, will we again see someone like drag master Conroy out in the utility with a tray full of meat trying to change the outcome and keep the media off the track of what is going on? We will see on Monday where the ute is going and how much meat is in the back of it. Will the Australian community be forced to succumb to another such piece of legislation on Monday? Who will know.

I want to turn now to an editorial in the Geelong Advertiser this morning. I will read it in toto so there can be no allegation that I am selectively quoting. It says:

THERE is no more important principle in a free society than freedom of speech.

This inherent right underpins and underwrites our democracy.

For the media, it allows us to tell you what is going on in the world.

It allows us to investigate wrongdoing on your behalf.

It allows us to expose those who do no good and, above all, it allows us to give you the information needed to live your lives.

Right now this most important principle is under threat because of the Federal Government.

If the new laws proposed by Communications Minister Senator Stephen Conroy are passed by the Parliament, the media including your newspaper, the Addy, will not be able to do its job.

We will not have the freedom to publish without fear or favour.

I will repeat that: 'We will not have the freedom to publish without fear or favour.' The editorial goes on:

We will be controlled by the Government, an appalling state of affairs that has more in common with the Soviet Union of the Cold War era.

Under the draconian laws proposed by the Gillard Government, the media will now be controlled by a government-appointed Public Interest Media Advocate.

This person, appointed by the Government, will decide if media organisations are acting within standards and, if it deems they are not, will be able to take action.

That action would include removing the media organisation's exemption from privacy laws.

Those laws allow us to bring you the stories that the powerful do not want us to report, that governments want to keep secret and that you need to know.

Our concerns over these proposed media laws are further heightened by the appalling haste with which the Federal Government is seeking to pass them.

This attack on freedom will have only a week to be passed, Senator Conroy warns, or it will be scrapped.

Do the Australian people not deserve more time to scrutinise these changes?

Is our democracy not worth more than that?

The absolute haste and brinkmanship being shown by this government is testimony to its increasingly panicked, desperate and deeply antagonistic attitude to the media.

When any government attacks the media, it is a sure sign it is in strife and struggling for survival.

This government's desire to shoot the messenger is unprecedented in our country's history.

The Geelong Advertiser says this ham-fisted assault on democracy must be stopped and we look to the members of Federal Parliament to show their character when the vote is called.

We want to see if our elected representatives care and value the society's, and this community's, inalienable right to free speech and a free press.

That is the Geelong Advertiser editorial today. I have heard some terrific speeches by my colleagues on this side of the chamber today but I do not think anyone has better encapsulated this issue than those comments from the Advertiser today.

I am not going to be overtly political in relation to this, but I will throw out a challenge to two people: the member for Corio and the member for Corangamite. They have been told by their own newspaper that what they are going to sign up to is a destruction of the freedom of the press. Are they going to sit back and let this happen? Are they going to read that editorial in the Advertiser today and acknowledge the comment of the editorial:

We want to see if our elected representatives care and value this society's, and this community's, inalienable right to free speech and a free press.

That is the enormous challenge for Mr Marles and Mr Cheeseman from the other place. Those two gentlemen, as people from Geelong know, rely on the Geelong Advertiser to sell their message. In one fell swoop they are going to deny their local newspaper, as it says, its inalienable right to report. And if they do pass this legislation then they stand completely and utterly condemned.

I noticed with great interest the comments of Senator Furner about a discussion he allegedly had with someone from this side—I am not saying he did not have it—about Four Corners. He told the chamber that the member from this side had said he no longer watches Four Corners anymore because he thinks it is biased. Isn't it remarkable that the person who thinks it might be biased is part of the coalition that is defending the right of the ABC to be biased, if indeed that is what they are? That is the remarkable outcome of what is happening. Senator Furner is damned by his own words. It is this side of the chamber that is protecting the right of the ABC and the right of every other media outlet to report, and to report appropriately.

How we in this country can cede to a public interest media advocate the oversight of media in this country absolutely beggars belief. We are putting in the hands of a public servant the right to determine the very things that people have fought for and died defending. How can we possibly, as a country in 2013, countenance the ceding of that inalienable right to the freedom of the press to a paid public servant appointed by the government of the day? I do not care whether that person is appointed by a coalition government or a Labor government; it is wrong. I would never defend the right of a coalition government to appoint a soviet czar such as this, and I would not with the Labor Party, and we are not going to sit back and let this happen. We are not going to sit back and let a government in decline come through this parliament to take the focus off a leadership challenge by destroying the very things that people have fought and died for. I think that anyone who has fought to defend those principles of freedom will be absolutely gutted by what has been attempted here today.

There has been a lot of commentary, and of course the Australian Labor Party would like to close them down, because they do not agree with them. We defend the right of the left-wing press to do their job. We might not agree with them—in the main I am sure we do not—but we are determined to protect their right to say it. I was fortunate to look through a media release today from Mr Chris Berg of the IPA, a conservative commentator and proudly so. Chris Berg said:

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy's proposals for media regulation are a de facto licensing scheme for the print media and a fundamental threat to freedom of the press

They are indeed a de facto licensing scheme. And who was it, several years ago, who called for reforms calling for the Crown to license newspapers? It was none other than the former leader of the Greens, Mr Bob Brown. At that stage, Senator Conroy refused to rule it out as an option and he now seems to be trying to implement it one step at a time. Now I am not a conspiracy theorist—never have been, hope I never will be. But is it not remarkable that the apparently divorced left-wing section of the Labor Party, the Australian Greens—of course, no one believes it is a divorce; it is a temporary separation for purely political purposes—are not speaking on this matter this afternoon? Is there one speaker from the Australian Greens who is going to stand up today and debate this matter? Are they going to debate the motion regarding Labor's relentless attacks on free speech? Is there one person from the Greens who is doing that? No, there is not. They are absolutely complicit in Senator Conroy's attempts to license the print media. They are part of this. I have absolutely no doubt that this is part of a grubby deal between the Prime Minister and Senator Conroy and the Greens. That grubby deal is going to deny the people of this country the absolute freedom which people have lived and died for, and I can only beg and plead with those opposite to make sure that this never, ever becomes law.