Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (Senator Conroy) to questions without notice asked by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Abetz) and Senator Birmingham today relating to proposed media legislation.

Both of those questions related specifically to the matter of media regulation. What we have in regard to media regulation is a tale of fact and fiction—a sorry and sad tale of fact and fiction—where the fiction that we are hearing comes from Senator Conroy's rhetoric in this chamber, in his various media interviews and in his diatribes, wherever he goes, about his proposed media regulation. The facts are found in the more-than-130 pages of legislation released last Thursday that demonstrate what a Trojan Horse for government intervention Senator Conroy's proposed new bureaucracy is. He is seeking to establish outrageously sweeping and potentially interventionist powers in government legislation.

Let me just deal quickly with three fictions told by those opposite—and Senator Conroy in particular. Firstly, and quickly, is the fact that this is not about vengeance or targeting anyone. That would be news to anybody who, like I, sat through the two different committee hearings that took place this morning in this parliament into media regulation. In the joint select committee, Mr Murphy of the other place sat there and, on every single occasion where he was given the call to ask questions, asked questions solely about the Murdoch family's media interests. Nothing about the detail of proposals under consideration of the committee; he was focused purely on the Murdoch family. Senator Cameron, chairing this Senate's inquiry into the legislation, ensured that when he was asking questions in the other inquiry there was a very clear focus that came back to the operations of News Limited. Today we saw Senator Cormann—whom I congratulate on the new arrival in his family—show a front page of today's Daily Telegraph, and you could see from Senator Conroy, when he was responding to News Limited's latest demonstration of the facts in terms of the impact of the carbon tax, that he just wants to shut down on this type of free speech and free media in Australia.

The next fiction from those opposite was the claim from Senator Conroy that the opposition would be consulted as to who would be appointed as his public interest media advocate and the statement that he did not believe that former MPs would be appropriate to be consulted. Yet, if you look at subclause 8(2) of the Public Interest Media Advocate Bill, it is very clear that anybody who has substantial experience or knowledge, or substantial standing, in the fields of media industry, law, business or financial management, public administration or economics could be appointed. There is no requirement to consult anyone other than ACMA or the ACCC, and certainly no requirement to consult the opposition—unlike what Senator Conroy guaranteed—and you could very clearly appoint any former MP if you wanted. In fact, as was canvassed in one of the hearings today, the former Attorney-General Ms Nicola Roxon could even be appointed. That would, of course, hardly be a demonstration of government impartiality in management of the media, though it is quite possible under Senator Conroy's legislation.

Senator Farrell interjecting—

There we have Senator Farrell saying, 'It would be a good choice.' That is what this government would love to do: they would love to appoint Ms Roxon, or her type—and we have seen her approach to interventionist regulation—to go and regulate Australia's media content.

The last fiction of those opposite is that the minister says there will be no changes to the existing operation of the Press Council or the Independent Media Council. Yet, when asked today whether he could guarantee that and whether there would be any instruction to this new advocate, he could not answer. In fact, this new advocate will have sweeping powers to determine whether or not the codes of those two bodies meet requirements of privacy, fairness, accuracy, whether their complaints handling processes are effective and the extent to which their standards reflect community standards. These are completely sweeping and vague terms that leave almost unfettered power within the hands of this sole person, this sole arbiter—from which there is no right of appeal—to determine how our free media in this country is regulated.

We see here that the facts tell a very different story from what Senator Conroy is saying, and once again we see this government with a complete desire to exact its vengeance on the media in this country. (Time expired)