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

Senator Fifield's motion today regarding free speech is an important issue. Let us face it, issues such as freedom of speech raise the ideological temperature of our parliament and they bring to the surface often latent differences between political parties and different streams of ideology. The debate this afternoon has brought to the surface some of the distinct differences between social democracy—as exemplified by the Labor Party—and liberal democracy—as exemplified by the Liberal Party and the National Party. Those differences have come to the surface this evening.

For what it is worth, I do not think that Senator Conroy is akin to Mao or Fidel Castro or Ahmadinejad or Robert Mugabe or Kim, or indeed even Joseph Stalin. Joseph Stalin is getting a good run at the moment. I do not think that Senator Conroy is akin to them one little bit. Indeed, I do not think that he is a Marxist. If the members of parliament—the senators in this chamber—are candid, we would accept that the press are not all angels. Let us face it, this is not a time to romanticise the media. I am not yet in the mood to cite Thomas Jefferson, but there is an important aspect of principle involved in this debate nonetheless.

To oppose the government's attempt to extend its reach over the media is not to idealise the media; that is a different thing. Practising politicians all know that the media can be good, but it also can be bad. It can be productive, but it can also be very destructive. It can be impartial, and yes it can be biased, I accept that. It can be educational and do great things, or it can be very lowbrow at other times. It can be fair, or sometimes the media can be malicious. It can be, I accept that. Sometimes the media just gets it awfully wrong. With freedom, it seems, good sometimes can come with a little bit of bad, or sometimes even a lot of bad. This is the price we have to pay for freedom.

The French writer, the Nobel laureate, Albert Camus, said:

A free press can, of course, be good or bad, but, most certainly without freedom, the press will never be anything but bad.

To me that summarises the argument. Press can be good, it can be bad. The media can be good. It can be terribly bad. But an unfree one is always terrible. Free media in the end is the democracy of the word. Just like no-one is arguing that we should restrict democracy because we do not always like the results—all of us have been subject to that in this chamber—we do not always like the result of democracy but none of us would say it should not apply. We should not argue that we should restrict free press because we do not like or agree with everything that we read, hear or see. Frankly, speaking personally for a second, while I have always been treated pretty fairly by the media, I have had colleagues on both sides that have not always been treated fairly by the media, they have been, in fact, hard done by.

It was probably rough treatment on poor Senator Conroy yesterday, on the front page of the Daily Telegraph, and I accept that. I suspect that colleagues of mine on this side of the chamber, in the coalition, have been treated very badly at times by the media. It just comes with the territory of democracy. It seems to be the price we pay, though sometimes it is a painful price indeed.

Are the existing mechanisms adequate? Many of the speakers this afternoon have touched on that—the mechanisms for regulation: are they adequate? Our contention would be that sometimes they may not seem to be adequate, but overall they work pretty well. There is no real evidence that they do not work well. There are many mechanisms that are currently in place to deal with situations where the media does the wrong thing, or just goes bad. There are internal standards that are enforced by the Australian Press Council—you would be aware of that, Madam Acting Deputy President, in the same way that many other professions self-enforce their own standards, whether that be in accountancy or the law.

Today I could not help but notice that Paul Whittaker, the editor of the Daily Telegraph, said in relation to the current regulatory mechanisms:

Since Professor Disney's appointment the Press Council's role has been strengthened significantly and this newspaper is committed to fully abiding by it.

Professor Disney, of course, is the chair of the Press Council. Paul Whittaker goes on to say:

Should a complaint be heard by the Press Council, we run its ruling in full and as prominently as possible, regardless of whether it is for or against us.

In the past year—

Mr Whittaker goes on to say—

this has happened three times. A ruling about headlines in our asylum seeker coverage that went against us we ran on page 6 (418 words), two other rulings that came down partly in our favour we ran on pages 18 (697 words) and 26 (573).

The point is that the system works. Sometimes it might seem a bit unfair—I accept that. But overall it works. Of course, if you have been defamed or slandered you can always go to the courts. That is always a possibility as well.

And finally, of course, there is competition, which means that if you do not like the way a certain media outlet operates increasingly you can always switch to myriad others. Contrary to what the government says—and I heard Senator Conroy today in question time—there has never been a greater diversity of media in this country. Like the 20th-century despots who stifled freedom of speech that the government resents being compared to, the government focuses solely on the old 20th-century media outlets: print, radio and television. I find this strange for a progressive party. Even putting aside the fact that these types of old media are now incredibly diverse due to the availability of so many more outlets, both domestically and internationally, thanks to the intranet, TV cable or satellite television, for a progressive party, really, increasingly the Labor Party is regulating the past.

Putting aside all that, the government ignores the huge impact of the internet, blogs and social media on the creation and dissemination of news and commentary. They are of course increasingly powerful agents of media, particularly among the young and, let's face it, even among the political classes. People like Mr Turnbull and Mr Rudd use tweeting all the time as part of their armoury of media. This, of course, has not even really been attacked or looked at by the government. The government is looking back and not forward.

Madam Acting Deputy President, if I am able to quote from the devil himself—the CEO of News Corp, Mr Rupert Murdoch—