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

I move:

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

I am very fond of Senator Conroy, and so is the Daily Telegraph. I am stuck with the Media Monitors version. I tried to get an original copy of the Daily Telegraph but they have sold out at Aussie's. I am told they are sold out in the CBD in Sydney. I even rang my office in Brisbane, and they have sold out up there. They have become collectors' items already. I understand there are several hundred copies in Senator Conroy's office. So he appreciates it. I have no doubt that Senator Conroy is outraged at being compared to various despots on the front page of the Daily Telegraph: Stalin, Mao, Castro, Ahmadinejad, Mugabe and Kim. Because of the pixelation, I am not sure if 'Kim' is Kim Carr or Kim Jong-un.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Mason, refer to senators by their correct title.

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

I believe it is Senator Carr, but Senator Bernardi tells me it is Kim Jong-un. It could be an early picture of Senator Kim Carr without a beard. The point is very obvious. It does not really matter; unreconstructed Marxists could never be compared to Senator Conroy, could they? He would hate that.

This is not a laughing matter. This is a very serious matter. What Senator Conroy is proposing effectively is a media tsar: the 'public interest media advocate', George Orwell at his very best—an Orwellian titular head, something that circumscribes the media in this country. The proposed legislation will establish a statutory authority to rule on the way the Australian Press Council and similar bodies adjudicate complaints against the press. It will have the power to approve or reject the standards enforced by those bodies.

What do we have? We have this: ultimately a statutory authority appointed by the executive will tell the Press Council whether they have done a good job. This in fact is government by another name. This is the executive ultimately telling the press how to behave, not a court. There is no separation of powers argument here. This is the executive telling the press how to act. That signifies, all senators would understand, a huge power shift from the media, from the press, to the executive government. That, in a sentence, is what is occurring. In effect what we have—and I think Senator Birmingham pointed this out in his question—is a government seeking to license newspapers and other media. I think Senator Birmingham mentioned that Governor Darling was the last person to do that. I am told in Britain it has not happened since the 17th century, the century in which they used to lop off the heads of kings. I am not sure if Senator Conroy is more like Charles I or Oliver Cromwell. Nonetheless he has not done very well.

Can I just say this: it is actually getting worse, because the protections under the Privacy Act seek to protect the press, but they will go in many instances in this case. What will happen is that the confidentiality requirements will be obliterated and potentially the press will have to give up their sources. They may be forced to disclose confidential information and details about articles before they are even published.

The concern of the opposition is simple: this is a huge power grab by the government against the press. There is no demonstrated case for this. The current regulatory arrangements do work and have worked very well. I know that Senator Conroy consistently said this is about media diversity, greater and greater diversity. Of course he did not talk about the internet and blogs and tweets that offer all that enormous diversity. As Mr Turnbull has said repeatedly over the last few days, the media in this country has never been more diverse in its entire history, since the founding of this nation—nor has the government, of course, been more unpopular.

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise also to take note of answers provided in today's proceedings. I want to start off by indicating that I have had some involvement in working for the press for approximately six years—certainly not in the role of a journalist but over time through my involvement following that period of employment and moving into my position as a trade union official and having some exposure to them there. My interest in and my exposure to the press has developed over those years.

In terms of the companies I worked for in the eighties—Queensland Newspapers and, later on in the eighties, News Limited—we saw significant changes over that period. We saw changes from the production of a broadsheet newspaper to the production of a tabloid. Of course, we have seen changes as a result of a move to electronic media, social media and reaction that we see in today's hands. There is always a chance, an opportunity and a need to look at change and to scrutinise. There is a need to look at changes to media reforms in the bills that we will see come through this chamber shortly.

It is not about reframing or winding back on free speech. It is not about allowing people to have diversity of voices when it comes round to media outlets and organisations. You hear contributions by those opposite when they defend News Limited, because we know as a fact and I know most certainly that, when the opposition brought in their Work Choices legislation and introduced Australian workplace agreements, News Limited was one of the first organisations that took up the opportunity to put their employees on Australian workplace agreements. I wonder whether that is why the coalition are so defensive of News Limited, when it was the champion of one of their particular pieces of Work Choices legislation: Australian workplace agreements. I personally believe that might be a reason.

Over those years I had exposure to the press. Most recently a good friend of mine who works for Channel 9, a freelance journalist on the Gold Coast, Petrina Zaphir, explained to me about these particular changes. She explained to me her involvement in the media. She also spoke about her opportunities, including where she goes out with media cadets or journalist cadets and talks to them about the ethics. I do not think anyone should be frightened about discussing ethics when it comes to reporting news. I think it is important that we live in a society where we need to be free to hear what is ethically reported in the media. At times, I know that those opposite question the ethics of some of the media outlets on what they are reporting, and we do as well. But we should not be worried about this particular reform that we are looking at. We should not be concerned about where this is heading, because it is an example of where we are going to lead, in looking at some of the publications and news organisations that certainly conduct themselves professionally. We do, and they respect privacy and reporting with fairness and accuracy as well. We know that is the case out there and that no-one should be frightened of scrutiny and ethics, particularly in the media.

I just want to put on record the government's record when it comes to freedom of speech, because I think we were challenged today during question time on that. We should be reminded that the government have implemented the most important amendments to the Commonwealth shield laws for the protection of journalists' sources. Labor's decision to introduce journalist shield laws was, in part, motivated by the Howard government's disgraceful conduct towards News Limited journalists Harvey and McManus, who faced contempt of court. Our record stands when it comes to protections for and scrutiny of journalists in particular. Certainly, the protections for those particular journalists who were targeted by the Howard government demonstrate our commitment to the need for protection for journalists, rather than being a case of watering down examples of shield laws, protection for whistleblowers in the media, in times of need. (Time expired)

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

As Senator Furner has just, once again, alluded to, following in the footsteps of Senator Cameron previously and Mr Murphy in the other place, these reforms are about vengeance, not vision. These reforms are coming from a government that does not like what the print media and other media outlets have said about it and reported about it and, as a result, it is out to get them. That is the simple fact here: these reforms are about vengeance.

Senator Conroy is proposing to establish the Orwellian titled Public Interest Media Advocate. This will not be an advocate for the public interest; it will be an advocate for the government's interest. That is what Senator Conroy is hoping he gets here. He claimed in answer to questions today that this new statutory body that he proposes to establish would not be a regulator. Yet what he is proposing this advocate will do is to actually accredit media complaints processes, as well as to assess proposals for media acquisitions and mergers against a vaguely defined public interest test. If that is not a new regulator, I do not know what is. It is going to regulate the process of media acquisitions and mergers. It is going to regulate and oversee the processes of media complaints processes. It is very clearly a new regulator. It is a new regulator who will be appointed by the government of the day, could be removed by the government of the day, could be a mate of the government of the day—

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Fair Competition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They wouldn't appoint a mate!

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

Senator Ryan, I am amazed at your shock, but this government has form.

Lin Thorp (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He's feigning it!

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

I suspect you could be right just this once, Senator Thorp. Senator Conroy and the Prime Minister claimed that the opposition will be consulted about the appointment. We have no detail to these reforms, but there has been absolutely no commitment on whether such consultation will be mandated, whether it will be a requirement that the opposition actually agree to the appointment or how such processes will work. In the end, there is every chance this will be a dog of the government and the government will tell it how and when to bark.

Equally, Senator Conroy claims that these reforms are about protecting a diversity of voices. Do not take my word for the fact that we have greater diversity than ever before. Do not take Mr Turnbull's word for it. How about we take the managing director of the ABC, Mr Mark Scott, who said, way back in 2010 when these reform processes were started:

Now there are multiple players. Anyone with a mobile phone, laptop or camcorder can be a broadcaster.

That is right, Mr Deputy President: anyone can be, just as anyone with a keyboard and an internet connection can be a publisher and just as we have, of course, millions of people worldwide through Twitter and other fora who are ensuring their voices are heard. The opportunity and the capacity for people to have their voices heard, and for them to be critics of the media, are greater than ever before—they have greater opportunities than ever before.

Senator Conroy says we should look to what the rest of the world is doing, and in doing so I note he says that he will proudly frame the front page of today's Daily Telegraph, which does indeed highlight what some other parts of the world have sadly done with press freedoms. Rather than looking to what the rest of the world is doing when it comes to media freedom, I would prefer we lead the rest of the world when it comes to media freedom. As I believe the Convergence Review was initially intended to do—before it was sidetracked by the claims around the hate media and by the Finkelstein review that was just bolted on at short notice to the whole Convergence Review process to address the gripes of the Greens and some in the Labor caucus about what they saw as unfair treatment—I believe that we should recognise that we live in a world with more voices than ever before and more opportunity than ever before. Far from needing more regulation and control over the media, this is an era in which we should be seeing less regulation and greater freedom for expression and greater freedom of the media. Indeed, as Senator Bob Carr even told this Senate recently—in terms of what is needed in Fiji—we should be having robust freedom of expression, association and the media. (Time expired)

Lin Thorp (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In rising here today I must express a certain amount of—the perfect word is not coming to me, but it seems to me there is a mismatch in the arguments coming from the other side when it comes to the issue of freedom of speech, because it is those opposite who were responsible for the legislation that required not-for-profit organisations to have gag clauses in their contracts. These organisations are groups that look after issues such as welfare, job seekers or people who are involved in juvenile justice or in sexual assault. They are community groups, environmental groups, child protection groups—the list goes on. All of these front-line people know very well the reality of what is happening out in the real world and have an opportunity to give feedback to any government of the day about the reality of their work, yet it was those opposite whose government made sure that those people would not get funded for the important community work that they do, unless they signed a gag clause in their contracts. To come out from a position like that and then turn around and say that the legislation that we are talking about here is a restriction on freedom of speech is to completely misrepresent what is going on and in fact, I would have to say, is disingenuous.

In doing so, those opposite have proven once again that they care more about the interests of media moguls than the public good. They do not care about diversity or quality journalism and they clearly do not care about freedom of speech. What they really care about is protecting their big business buddies against any moves to secure diversity in the public arena. When we have an environment where two newspaper companies hold 86 per cent market share, it is entirely appropriate for an independent regulator to make judgements upon further consolidation of media companies. We know that the smaller the number of newspapers and other media owners, the less opportunity the Australian people have to hear a range of points of view. As a result, clearly, they are less able to form an opinion based on fact, which has a terrible impact on their ability to make effective decisions on issues that affect them.

This bill will help to ensure that we do not lose this vital diversity from our community—factors like audience reach. As opposed to what the honourable senator opposite said about everyone today being a writer, that is one thing, but not everybody is part of that audience that is getting its information from these two sources that I just mentioned—86 per cent of audience reach. We have to talk about the frequency and depth of services and the cumulative impact. They all have to be taken into account before we accept any moves that will reduce the diversity of media in this country. What the proposed bill will do is to ensure that smaller voices do not get drowned out and that a multiplicity of voices are communicated through our media.

I want to be clear here: this is not an attack on freedom of speech, despite the way some have attempted to portray it. Freedom of the press and freedom of expression are a cornerstone of our democracy and something that this government supports passionately. This government is not directly regulating in any way the activities of journalists, and the bill will in no way take away from individual journalists the benefit of shield laws, as my colleague said earlier. It simply is not true and all the reframing in the world from those opposite will not make it true. Similarly, the bill will make absolutely no changes to the standards that are applied to journalists. It is not about making new standards; it is about making sure the standards that we currently have are adhered to. There have long been concerns about how self-regulation is working through the Press Council, and this bill is an important part of addressing some of those weaknesses.

You only have to look at the News of the World debacle that happened last year to realise the mistakes that can be made with self-regulation. Those opposite also conveniently omitted the fact that they themselves would be involved in the public interest media advocate appointments.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We don't want them!

Lin Thorp (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, to participate in democracy is a privilege and a right. This bill is an important step forward for the diversity of voices in our public sphere and for the quality of journalism. Frankly, all the baying and howling that we have seen today from those opposite is just a desperate attempt to protect those with the most to lose.

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Fair Competition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If we on this side are going to be accused of baying and howling in defence of freedom of speech, I plead guilty. For the modern-day Labor Party to come in here and say this side of parliament is trying to take care of media moguls, given their own history, shows the bankruptcy of their knowledge of their behaviour when they were last in office. Everyone here remembers what the Labor Party did to the Herald and Weekly Times, Australia's largest and oldest media group, and it was referred to on Melbourne radio this morning. Because the Melbourne Herald held Labor to account in 1984 and because it attacked Labor for introducing a pension assets and means test which Labor had promised not to introduce, Paul Keating went out and made sure Labor fixed the Herald and Weekly Times. He changed the law to create the so-called princes of print or queens of the screen, all as a means to go after the then independent Herald and Weekly Times, which was the owner of most of the popular mastheads in Australia. That has been preached about by Labor Party luminaries. That is not a secret, so the Labor Party's behaviour about appeasing moguls and trying to buy favours is well established. And Australia, as many people have said for a long time, is at a loss for the loss of the Herald and Weekly Times. Everyone who worked there will tell you what it was about: it was about Labor going after the independent Herald and Weekly Times because they dared oppose the Hawke government and were holding it to account for breaching a promise.

Senator Conroy's hypocrisy here is equal in doses to what we have had from every other Labor speaker. This is something Senator Conroy said in 2006 and it was tweeted today:

Helen Coonan's announcements today represent an arrogant Government that's ramming through the Parliament the most significant changes in 20 years, and they are only going to allow one month of consultations for the public, despite them spending 12 months having private consultations with all the media moguls.

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

A whole month!

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and Fair Competition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

An entire month for the public to consider it, let alone the parliament to consider it, when Senator Conroy is announcing to the people of Australia: 'We're going to regulate the media, we're going to set up an effective licensing regime for journalists and we are going to give you eight days to think about it.' If you actually raise any questions, if you dare to express a concern about the regulation of journalistic behaviour, then the government will not listen to it because Senator Conroy, wise as he is, has made his decision. This is a vehicle for regulation.

The Labor Party will obfuscate and try and muddy the waters by asserting in Orwellian tones: 'This is not regulation. We're not licensing journalists.' Yet when every significant media player in this country, whether it is Business Spectator, the Fairfax press, the ABC or News Ltd, is saying what a chilling effect this will have on the independence of the free press we know what the real impact is. This government, to its credit, has never, with its Greens cousins and allies, hidden its agenda. You dare criticise them and they will come after you, except if you happen to go skiing at Aspen, or wherever Senator Conroy went skiing and halved the licence fee. Apparently that is not doing a deal with a media mogul, but imagine if it happened elsewhere. I should say, before he corrects the record, it was snowboarding and not skiing.

This is a threat, because what we have is a threat by the government to use the power it has to pass laws to provide extra regulations for journalists and press organisations if they do not comply with what the government deems to be an appropriate regulatory mechanism. That is the gun to the head of an independent media. The other side rightly quotes the shield laws. We rightly have long had special rules and principles for a free media. They are not called the fourth estate for nothing, because even though we will all be criticised by them they play the most valuable role in a free democracy. Freedom of speech, along with freedom of property and freedom of religion—two other rights under threat by this government—is the very basis of a liberal democracy. Freedom of the ballot came along after we had freedom of speech and people could demand it. But that is not good enough for this government. That is not good enough for Senator Conroy, who seeks to regulate the behaviour of journalists, because they have been critical of a government that deserves it.

I could not go past this debate without a couple of Orwellian quotes. In Animal Farm there is a famous character called Comrade Napoleon. If it were parliamentary I would refer to him as Senator Napoleon, but that would not be parliamentary. Comrade Napoleon says all animals are equal. He goes on:

He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?

We would be in a free and liberal society which is under threat from Senator Conroy's vindictive measures.

Question agreed to.