George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to 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 Senators Sinodinos and Birmingham today relating to proposed media legislation.

Yesterday morning, the Sydney Daily Telegraph—a famous and very popular Australian newspaper—published what will, no doubt, be one of the great front pages in the history of Australian journalism. It compared Senator Stephen Conroy to six odious dictators—one of them, Joseph Stalin. This morning, on page 2, the Sydney Daily Telegraph published an apology, not to Senator Stephen Conroy but to Joseph Stalin, because, as the scribe who wrote that apology pointed out, at least when Stalin sought to muzzle the media, he was not so two-faced, hypocritical and mealy-mouth as to pretend to believe in freedom of the press—but such was the performance of Senator Stephen Conroy in question time both yesterday and today.

Madam Acting Deputy President, you might think that what the editorial writers of the Sydney Daily Telegraph essayed yesterday and today was a piece of frivolous fun, unless you were to actually study the Finkelstein report, which is the fons et origo of what the government proposes to do to the Australian media. If one turns to page 46 of the Finkelstein report this is what we read:

... the intellectual climate of the 20th century was radically different from that of the 17th and 18th centuries when Libertarian ideals flourished. The new intellectual climate placed higher store in collectivist … values and less on individualistic values.

Mr Finkelstein went on to express the view in the balance of chapter 2 of his report that the 'new intellectual climate', which favours collectivist values over individualist values was the way of the future and ought to be providing the intellectual grounding of the model for press regulation, which his appalling report recommended and which this government has, at least in part, adopted. I might be old-fashioned, but I believe in the old intellectual climate which favoured libertarian and liberal intellectual values rather than the collectivist values of which Mr Finkelstein and the Labor Party are so enamoured. In being enamoured of those collectivist values of the 'new intellectual climate' enamoured by Mr Finkelstein, the Labor Party shares company with Stalin and with all of the odious dictators and the odious customers who disfigured the 20th century with their collectivist values. Yet here we have an Australian government in the early days of the 21st century embracing as its model for the regulation of the Australian media a collectivist notion, a collectivist philosophy.

As my friend Senator Birmingham pointed out yesterday, this will be the first time that an Australian peacetime government sought to regulate the content of the newsprint media since Governor Darling sought to license newspapers in the colony of New South Wales in 1827.

Senator Wong interjecting—

Senator Penny Wong, I know you have a bit of a taste for authoritarianism yourself—you would not be a member of the left wing of the Australian Labor Party if you did not—but let me say that the way to deal with the press is to begin and end by respecting its freedom: its freedom to criticise, its freedom to condemn, its freedom to ridicule both government and opposition. Frankly, Senator Penny Wong, if people on my side could put up with the ABC and the Fairfax press then people on your side ought to be able to put up with the occasional jibe from the News Limited press. But you cannot, because one of the fundamental philosophical differences between my side of politics and Senator Stephen Conroy's side of politics is we understand that in a robust democracy you have to be able to take it on the chin and respect the freedom of others. (Time expired)

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

We have just had a brief tirade—

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was not a tirade; that was a discourse.

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

No, it was a tirade, not a discourse. It was not a learned discourse. It was not any sort of discourse. It was a tirade which is accurately described as an example of the original straw man. Senator Brandis commenced with a flourish when referring to yesterday's paper depicting six odious dictators, and then he did a quantum leap in logic and runs to some obscure quote running to three lines from a 400-page report addressing the issues of collectivism and individualism as philosophical movements. On those two legs of a stool he manufactured his argument to say that, somehow or other, the proposition advanced by Senator Conroy on behalf of the government is on par with all the activities undertaken by those six men featured on the pages of the Daily Telegraph yesterday.

Let us say at the outset, from the perspective of the Australian Labor Party and the perspective of the government, that where freedom of the press is concerned, where freedom to speak and freedom of individuality are recognised, we stand 100 per cent behind those principles and those commitments. We always have and we always will. But we also say that there is another set of important matters that the government will bring to this chamber in due course for discussion and debate. They are also values along with collectivism, individualism and privacy. Those additional values are privacy, fairness, accuracy and diversity—diversity of voice, diversity of choice. They are things that are important in any intelligent, reasoned debate and in any matter that needs discussion and progress, particularly in this chamber but also in the wider community around Australia.

We say at the outset that we accept and are proud to accept matters addressing freedom of choice, the spread of discussion, matters of knowledge and issues going to communication. We do not in any way think that they should be restricted, whether they be on the internet, in the media or in social media platforms. Along with that, in this modern age citizens, companies, individuals, those engaged in public discourse and those who have responsibilities in a public sense also have a right to privacy, to fairness of reporting, to accuracy of reporting and, as is always happening in the media market, to different perspectives and different viewpoints that come from diversity of voice and diversity of choice.

In fact, it is a burgeoning market. What is happening in social media—in Facebook, in Twitter and in all of the other platforms that have taken over the world in the last five to 10 years—is something we think is a good thing. It is a democratisation of choice, a spread of information and a disclosure of knowledge. None of that impacts upon the proprietors of newspapers in this country, who are outraged as their market share shifts, as the volume of papers they sell declines, as the cash flows that established their companies decline, as their margins are compressed and as they engage in cost-cutting on a scale unprecedented in the media industry in this country. Their market share has declined and they can no longer afford to vest necessary capital or pay cash cost going to wages because we already have the spread of knowledge; the information is widely dispersed in the community.

That is why the proposition that Senator Conroy took to cabinet on Tuesday morning, that will come to this chamber in due course, addresses those sorts of principles in the modern age and in a modern context. Those principles, as I said, go to matters of privacy, fairness, accuracy and diversity. You could not ask for a more modern and up-to-date— (Time expired)

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to take note of answers to questions to Senator Conroy from Senators Sinodinos and Birmingham. Freedom of speech and the press are bedrocks, values of our free and democratic society. The minister has been clear in his condescension and contempt. Even today, owners of media are not happy. Yesterday we had Senator Conroy regaling the Senate with the amount of talks that have been had right around the country and the amount of submissions to the Convergence Review and the Finkelstein review. Senator Conroy was talking a lot yesterday and again today about the missing voices. One of the missing voices, if we read the Adelaide Advertiser, is Kim Williams. He says, and I quote, 'Not a single senior newspaper executive or industry representative has had a meaningful consultation with the government' over these particular reforms. I think that is of particular concern, especially when we are talking about the amount of people employed in this industry and the changes being purported.

Senator Conroy also has contempt for regional Australians. Senator Bishop was speaking about diversity of choice, but diversity of choice in media consumption in the regional areas is not at the same level as it is in urban areas. We have 12,200 people employed in regional media, telling our stories, our news and reporting on our sport and our natural disasters and emergencies. This represents not only important information that we need to have at a local and regional level; it also provides a point of critique. These media providers at the local level are also a key aspect of skill expertise within our local communities. Any moves within this legislation to restrict the content, to reduce the diversity of voices available around media in regional areas is of severe concern to the National Party.

Senator Conroy also has contempt for journalists. I just adored this piece from Miranda Devine today, headed 'Is there anything this government will not tamper with?' It said:

In its mistaken belief that more legislation equals good government we are witnessing one of the most frenetic and interventionist administrations our country has ever endured.

And of the laws that have been rushed through:

This bastard child born of revenge and hubris is a threat to free speech and democracy.

That is from the journalists. Senator Conroy also has contempt for cabinet. Senator Sinodinos has prosecuted that very successfully in terms of what cabinet knew and when, in terms of making significant decisions around what can be said and how in our country—his caucus, tick and flick, and his contempt for the Senate. Today the Senate is given four days to examine six pieces of legislation, 133 pages of new regulation. It has been referred to the Senate Environment and Communications Committee—four days to give that a going over. Whilst the minister might spruik the amount of consultation he has gone through before he made a decision, that is one thing. But to give all of Australia, represented here in the Senate, the chance to examine the legislation and the impact it will have on their communities—it is just not good enough.

Minister Conroy today in his answer spoke of conspiracy theories, but the only paranoia is completely in his head, as evidenced by his approach. This is the first direct government intervention in peacetime into what gets printed, said and spoken in peacetime. I did not know we were at war but, according to Senator Conroy, we are at war, because words matter. He does not like what is being said, he does not like what is being shown but that is the price of freedom. You cannot legislate for people to be nice. We should not be legislating journalists to be sanctioned by government and I, like so many Australians right throughout our great country, do not want a government telling me what is in my personal interest.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to take note of answers given by Senator Conroy to questions from Senator Sinodinos and Senator Birmingham. I would like to point to remarks that Senator McKenzie has just made in relation to local content. I know that she is a supporter of local content and I would hope that, when she is talking about the new media reforms that Senator Conroy was answering questions about, she would be aware that in fact what these reforms entail is more Australian content on TV. It is actually Labor that wants more Australian content—not less but more. On the issue of PIMA, the public interest media advocate, that is not something that is new just to Australia. The US has had a public interest test under its communications act for almost 80 years. This is not some kind of new thing that only Australia is going to be restricted by some kind of public interest test—it is to the contrary.

I cannot quite understand where the coalition is coming from with any of this, other than to just drum up the usual fear and the usual frenzy that they like to get into. They like to get a headline and they like to get some kind of political point-scoring in this whole policy area. I think if we actually look at what is on the table here, there are some really sensible policy reforms for the media for the 21st century. I note that Senator Brandis admitted that he is old-fashioned. I am pleased he admitted he is old-fashioned because, in saying so, he acknowledges that he is not perhaps up with the 21st century way of communicating through various forms of media platforms.

We do have social media. It is an incredibly growing, highly used form of communication, not only for young people but also for members of parliament, for us as senators. There is a whole range of media, a whole range of NGOs, business—you name it—who are using social media. So, he may be old fashioned but he is just going to have to get with the times and realise that this is 2013. This is the way we communicate. Therefore, the ABC's charter and SBS's charter will need to be updated to include those kinds of online platform to the way they communicate because at the moment their charters do not reflect that. That is because they were written at a time when such online platforms did not exist. But they do exist now and therefore we need to do something about that. That is what these reforms do. They are good things.

I know the coalition talks about freedom of speech, and Senator Brandis was talking about being a libertarian and having libertarian values. I think it is a bit late for Senator Brandis to claim himself as a libertarian when he has certainly shown himself to be more of a conservative, very much so, than that. But he talks about free speech. We are all for free speech. No-one here is denying free speech. Free speech has been a mainstay of Labor. We in fact were the government that introduced the most significant pro-disclosure forms in the Freedom of Information Act. Since its commencement some decade ago we have removed the application fees, which the coalition used in government to discourage freedom of information to the press; we have introduced free decision making time for journalists to promote openness and transparency. Freedom of speech: we have runs on the board in this area. The coalition's 'freedom of speech' posturing is simply whipping up a frenzy, trying to turn the reforms that we have in front of us into some kind of political point scoring rather than looking at the detail.

Talking of detail, I am pleased that Senator Brandis brought the Finkelstein report into the Senate and looked as though he was referring to it, or reading from it, even though I know he does not like any part of it. He may have actually learned something through that process. We have been quite clear that we have not adopted all of the Finkenstein report's recommendations. We rejected the recommendation that called for direct government setting of press standards. We rejected that outright. That was the dividing line, I suppose, between government control and industry self-regulation, and that is why you have a really good set of reforms on the table that the coalition needs to get its head around and read before politically point scoring every single detail.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers given by Senator Conroy to questions asked by Senators Sinodinos, Birmingham and Mason. To those people who might be listening from the gallery or reading the Hansard at another time, if you read nothing else in the Hansard of the Senate today and nothing else in the Senate Hansard for the rest of the year, then I absolutely implore you to read the comments of my colleague Senator Brandis, who very persuasively lifted the veil of the flawed intellectual foundation of this government's media reforms. I also congratulate Senator McKenzie for her very articulate representation of why regional people, particularly those in Victoria and Western Australia, should be concerned about these particular reforms.

We heard from Senator Conroy earlier that you cannot believe everything you read in the Daily Telegraph. I say you cannot believe anything you hear from this government. Indeed, if the government does get its way with these reforms, you most definitely will not be able to say anything or write anything. These reforms are treacherous, absolutely. Who would have thought that the year 1984 would equal the year 2013? Who would have thought that the fictional character Comrade Napoleon would in fact be a real life Australian Labor parliamentarian by the name of Senator Stephen Conroy? It is not good enough to have the unions advocating for this government; they now want to silence and sideline media outlets for their scrutiny of this government's poor performance. It is worth remembering what Orwell in 1984 was prophesising. In his view of things, totalitarianism was not merely a theoretical threat from a fictional future. The urgency of 1984 and of much of Orwell's wartime and postwar writing springs clearly from his sense that totalitarianism was already proving dangerously attractive to many on the Left, not least intellectuals. I would not go so far, Senator McKenzie, as to suggest that this government was intelligent but this is a very, very timely warning.

The Labor government's proposal to establish the Orwellian type of public interest media advocate will begin and end its life as a government advocate dressed up as an advocate for the public interest. We all know it will be an advocate for the government's interests and no-one else. We have been told that this new statutory body that Labor proposes to establish will not be a regulator, but these are the facts: the public interest media advocate will accredit media complaint processes as well as assess proposals for media acquisitions and mergers against a vaguely defined public interest test. It is going to regulate and oversee the process of media complaints. It is very clear that it is a new regulator. It is very clear that it will be appointed by the government of the day, could be removed by the government of the day, and could, in typical Labor style, be a mate of the government of the day. We know there will be no shortage of disgraced Labor Party candidates and union officials to take the job of the Public Interest Media Advocate.

When the Independent, Mr Rob Oakeshott, the Independent, Mr Wilkie, and the Greens have all been scathing about Labor's proposal, you have to say that there must be something in this. When the Independents and the Greens are opposed to this proposal, you know you have to pay more attention to what is a rare moment of good thinking on the part of the Independents and the Greens. The comments of my colleague Senator Birmingham yesterday reminded me of the other Orwellian masterpiece, Animal Farm.Senator Birmingham said yesterday, with great accuracy, that in the end this will be a dog of the government and the government will tell it how and when to bark.

Let us be clear: there is no demonstrated case for this proposal. The current regulatory arrangements do work and have worked well. More importantly, on the issue of diversity, I reinforce the comments of the very, very able member for Wentworth, who said that the media in this country have never been more diverse. I would add, as others have, that this government has of course never been more unpopular. What this country needs is more freedom, less regulation and, particularly, greater freedom of expression. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.