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

My question is to the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy. Is the minister aware that if his media restrictions are imposed the Gillard government will become the first government in this country to attempt to impose regulation in peacetime upon the content of newspapers since the New South Wales administration of Governor Darling attempted to license newspapers in 1827? Does the minister consider that standards of press freedom in a penal colony almost two centuries ago are an appropriate standard for 21st century Australia?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I utterly reject the comparison, the claim—it is utterly false. Let us look overseas. In 2003 the UK introduced laws aimed at ensuring a greater diversity of owners of media enterprises. The laws enable the UK secretary of state when they consider a merger raises public interest concerns to issue an intervention notice. Public interest considerations can range from the need for accurate presentation of news to the need for there to be sufficient diversity of control of media enterprises. So I guess the United Kingdom joins me in that argument. Following an intervention notice from the regulator, Ofcom must then provide a report to the secretary of state with advice and recommendations of the specified media public interest considerations. Ofcom must also report to the secretary of state on representations made with regard to the potential merger. Following receipt of the Ofcom report the secretary of state will consider whether to refer the test to the Competition Commission and will also have the final decision making power over whether the merger can proceed following the Competition Commission's report.

The presence of the public interest media advocate in the Australian law represents a significant improvement over the British model by ensuring that decision making is at arm's length from the government, unlike in the United Kingdom. (Time expired)

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

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. How does the minister justify giving just days to review his media reforms when in 2006 he stated with regard to previous reforms that, 'Announcements today represent an arrogant government that is ramming through the parliament the most significant changes in 20 years and they are only going to allow one month of consultations'? Given the minister is allowing just days of debate for regulations never previously undertaken in our democratic history, isn't the minister, according to his own test, engaging in the height of arrogance and hypocrisy?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Even Senator Joyce crossed the floor to oppose your watering down of the cross-media laws. Did you have a convergence review report for 12 months beforehand? No. Did you have a Finkelstein inquiry hold public hearings? No. Did you release those reports? No. Did you have public debate about those reports? No.

Mr President, just to be very clear about these overarching allegations: in the United States, the regulator, the Federal Communications Commission, has, since it was created, assessed whether media or telecommunications mergers would benefit or harm the public interest. I know those on that side are not interested in the public interest when it comes to this. They are more interested in looking after and sucking up to the press in this country and the owners of the press, particularly.

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

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Given the minister's reference to overseas examples, would the front page of today's Daily Telegraph, which highlights that regimes with a history of regulating media content include those of Stalin, Mao, Castro, Kim, Mugabe and Ahmadinejad, be a breach of the standards the minister seeks to uphold?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am hoping to be able to have a framed copy to put on my wall soon of today's front page. But let me be clear: in addition to media diversity rules in the UK and the US, media diversity safeguards have been legislated in Canada, Germany, South Africa and many other free democratic nations. So those opposite who want to say that this is somehow a unique intervention need to lift their head out of the Daily Telegraphlift their head out of page 4 and page 5—and actually have a look at what the rest of the world has done.

Those opposite watered down the cross-media laws and Senator Joyce crossed the floor and stood with us, because he knew that this was not a good policy to pursue. We said 5½ years ago that we would pursue this and we would introduce legislation to strengthen the media laws in this country. (Time expired)