Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I want to in part address some of the issues raised by Senator Brandis in this discussion of a matter of public importance concerning the issue of freedom of speech. As he outlined, not in his detail and not in his conclusions, the concept itself is indeed worthy of discussion and worthy of contribution. But along with freedom of speech, there are also other matters in this discussion that are worthy of public airing, and they go to issues of control, appropriate forms of regulation, matters of diversity, matters of privacy and matters of access.

Really, over the past five days, if one was to characterise this debate, it would be fair to say that it has been mostly ignorant, generally hysterical, often ill-advised and, when you dig down to the roots of the plea put by Senator Brandis on behalf of the opposition—put but not explained—you find it is a desperate yearning characterised as a tirade for continuation and maintenance of the status quo in the form of regulation that we have for the media and other interests in this country, most of which were created 100 or 120 or 140 years ago and do not reflect the diversity of information sources that we all access and realise and rely upon every day.

What is the status quo that I refer to in this debate? It is generally old media—TV networks, publishing houses, newspaper magnates—all of whom have one common thread in their business interests, that is, their business interests are of declining value and of such declining value that they are heading at a rate of knots to zero. Like cigar rollers and cigarette manufacturers 100 years ago in New York when there were 50,000 of them, so are modern media houses racing, at a rate of knots, towards extinction, and Senator Brandis chooses to parade their arguments for protection, for subsidies, for industrial protection under the guise of freedom of speech.

All of those units I referred to—TV networks, publishing houses, newspaper magnates—have assets of declining value. TV stations with minimal or negative cash flow; newspapers with declining sales and with share prices tumbling by 50 per cent, 80 per cent and 100 per cent every three months; newspaper concerns that are subsidised by content and information from non-newspaper sources in the process of restructuring themselves to maximise hidden value remote from their ongoing significant newspaper losses.

Not since the spread of printing presses in the 15th century have we seen a threat to the control of and access to information similar to the control and distribution that we see today. And the old guard—those houses, those individuals, those companies, those units that I referred to—object strongly to the spread of that information. In the 15th century it was away from churches, away from abbeys, away from the central authority of the crowns in Europe and the United Kingdom, which controlled the creation and the dispersal of information via, generally, the churches.

Now the government's reaction has been manifold to that today. The government's reaction over the past few years to new forms of media, new forms of distribution of content, new forms of publishing has been to note ongoing industry changes but not to interfere with the market; note the declining value of mostly media assets, but, again, not interfere or seek to maintain them; and, most importantly, to note the growth of new forms of media, generally transmitted through the internet, social media, blogs, websites, online newspapers and online discussion forums. Most members of parliament, in the lower house and in the Senate alike, maintain web pages and Facebook pages and use YouTube for production media. All of those have regular forums for discussion. All of those are about the creation, maintenance and distribution of information on a whole range of areas. There is no restriction and you can do it without paying a fee. There is no threat to any of those developments. The common threads that run through those new forms of distribution of information are mass participation, no single control, self-regulation, easy access and multiple forums.

When addressing the bills that are the subject of inquiry in two committees today, the bills that are behind this matter of public importance before the chair at the moment that has been raised by the opposition, our reaction, the progressive reaction and the thoughtful reaction is to concentrate on four key principles as the old forms of media go into decline, as hundreds of thousands of people no longer purchase newspapers every day, as people no longer rely on free-to-air TV for the evening news and as individual consumers choose to access information from the sources they prefer. Our concern is not to get even with imaginary old enemies, as is characterised by Senator Brandis referring to authoritarian control in the context of freedom of speech; our concern is to ensure that as we go forward in the next 10, 20, 40 or 50 years we have an appropriate regime that allows for the continued growth of mass forms of participation in information distribution, that allows alternative sources to grow readily and to spread easily and that allows individuals to access social media, the net, blogs or whatever form is yet to be invented.

What are the matters that are more important than the declining value in the shares of Fairfax? TV networks around Australia are effectively insolvent with billions and billions of dollars of debt and have to be sold off to private interests via New York City, but what is more important are four principles. They are the four principles being discussed in the committees and which Senator Brandis chose to ignore today in this discussion: privacy, fairness, accuracy and diversity. We are simply about promoting the principles of privacy, fairness, accuracy and diversity. All of the other consequences Senator Brandis referred to in his contribution were merely straw men that he erected to defend the financial interests of those in other areas who through their own activities have ruined the share price of their own companies.

It needs to be said, and we will say it as often as it needs to be said, that the government believe in freedom of the press. We believe in it passionately. We believe it is a cornerstone of our freedoms. We do not quarrel with anything that newspaper proprietors, newspaper companies, TV stations, radio stations or whatever the form choose to write, print or broadcast. They do it every day of the week. It does not matter. If it is fair, truthful and accurate, it will be received and perceived as such. If it is not fair or accurate, it is useless and it will be received as such.

As well as saying that freedom of the press is essential and nonprotection of existing asset holders is neither here nor there, we believe quite passionately and strongly in a diversity of voices within the media. We believe a democracy of output, a diversity of perspectives and a diversity of voices in the media going forward are essential. That is why we say the four principles I referred to—privacy, fairness, accuracy and diversity— (Time expired)