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

I move:

That the Senate notes Labor's relentless attacks on free speech.

I begin this debate on the coalition's motion on free speech by reflecting on the fact that we have a government in Australia at present with many addictions. The Labor Party have many, many addictions indeed. The modern Labor Party and, in particular, the Rudd and Gillard—and possibly Rudd again—governments are addicted to wasteful spending. They are addicted to new taxes. Labor are addicted to telling, it seems, outright lies to the electorate. They are addicted to running deficit budgets. Labor are addicted to racking up huge debts. Labor are most definitely addicted to backstabbing each other—if anyone would like evidence of that I suggest they go and have a look at the press pack huddled outside the Prime Minister's office at present. And, indeed, the modern Labor Party are addicted to attacking freedom of speech.

We have seen these attacks on freedom of speech mount and increase in their ferocity during the life of the government as they have become more and more concerned with criticism of themselves. What is remarkable is that amongst the leaders in the attack on free speech and a free media by the government is none other than the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy. One would have thought that, in a sensible government, the minister for communications should be the champion of a free media, the person who seeks to ensure we have the greatest, most competitive, most diverse but most free media possible. Yet, under this government's watch, Australia's ranking by Reporters Without Borders in their Press Freedom Index has dropped significantly. Australia has dropped from being the 18th most free country in the world for media freedoms in 2010 to the 26th. Lord only knows how much further we will fall if this government gets its way with further media reforms.

Of course, it is not just in relation to the media that this government has a track record of failing when it comes to free speech. We saw it as well during the debate on its draft anti-discrimination legislation. That legislation would have a draconian impact on the right of everyday Australians to engage in the type of criticism and commentary they should be free to engage in.

The mark of free speech is whether you defend it and whether you stand up for it when you do not like what people are saying—whether you defend somebody's right to speak when you disagree with them. That is the mark of a champion of free speech. That is not the mark of the minister for communications, Senator Conroy. When he and his policies in his portfolio have been under attack, he has gone on a personal attack against the media outlets, media proprietors and journalists who have been engaged in any criticisms of his policies, his conduct or the conduct of the government.

Those are the moments when a good communications minister—somebody who genuinely believes in free speech or a free media—would have stood up and said: 'I may disagree with what they are writing, but I defend their right to keep writing it. I may disagree with what they are publishing, broadcasting or saying about me, but I defend their right to keep doing so.' Senator Conroy has done no such thing. Senator Conroy, in fact, seems to have undergone some sort of miraculous conversion during his deliberations on media reform. He once acknowledged that there were, in fact, increasing voices in the modern media landscape. He acknowledged that we were seeing increased opportunity for more people to have their say in what is happening around the world and to influence it in more ways than ever before. Yet now he claims we face a threat to diversity. Senator Conroy once highlighted the rise of new media platforms and all the available opportunities on the internet for people to avail themselves of in ways of communicating to others and criticising, analysing and assessing traditional media content. Yet now, rather than recognising that the media landscape is completely changing and altering because of the rise of those new media platforms, he is completely distracted with how to regulate media content.

Media reform, when it was first discussed by this government a couple of years ago, was welcomed as a chance to modernise regulatory frameworks. Back in 2010, Senator Conroy said that the Convergence Review would take 'a fresh look at Australia's existing regulatory frameworks with a view to modernising them'. Instead, in the legislation—the six bills presented to the parliament today and the more than 130 pages of legislation that has been dropped on the table—we do not see any effort at modernising media regulation from this government; we simply see new layers of bureaucracy and attempts to regulate the media—and, in particular, the print media—in ways that have never before been attempted in peacetime Australian history.

So what changed since Senator Conroy first started his media reform process back in 2010? The answer, of course, is simple: the hate media. That is what Senator Conroy and those opposite have dubbed it: the hate media. It started out being perhaps just one or two News Ltd publications, but it has spread since then into the views of the Financial Review in the Fairfax stable and concerns about anybody who dares to criticise the policies and failures of this government.

Labor's reforms which they now propose to the media have been drafted purely and simply to meet their desire for revenge against their perceived enemies in the fourth estate rather than tackling the many regulatory issues facing our changing media landscape. This is far more than a package of reforms in media. This is far more about vengeance than it is about vision. Egged on by their friends in the Australian Greens, the Labor Party sidetracked the Convergence Review, which was established to take a sweeping analysis of media regulation, with the establishment, out of the blue, of the Finkelstein report, which looked specifically at news media content and how that was regulated. This was not part of the original plan, but Senator Conroy, in cahoots with the then Greens leader, Senator Bob Brown, suddenly established a second report—a report that seriously derailed this process of media reform. Instead of streamlining media regulation, Senator Conroy now proposes to subject both media ownership decisions and media complaints-handling processes to oversight by the rather Orwellian-sounding Public Interest Media Advocate.

This is by no means a reform driven by the public interest; it is a reform driven by the government's interest—by the Labor Party's interests—first and foremost. This new bureaucracy—the Public Interest Media Advocate—will be headed by a hand-picked government-appointed regulator who will assess who can own media outlets and who will influence what can be said by media outlets. This is a clear threat to the freedom of the media and to the operation of a free press and it is a threat unprecedented in modern Australian history.

As I highlighted yesterday in question time, not since 1827—when Governor Darling in New South Wales proposed legislation to establish a licence system for newspapers, providing for the forfeiture of such licence upon any conviction for any blasphemous or seditious libel, and conferring upon himself as Governor an unconfined discretion to revoke a newspaper licence—have we seen a government in Australia attempt to regulate and license the existence of newspapers. Senator Conroy's reforms are a very clear step in the path towards such a licensing regime. His reforms, in establishing this Public Interest Media Advocate, will see organisations like the Press Council subjected to scrutiny—and an unclear level of scrutiny, because the types of reforms being talked about by this government are at best vague, and vague reforms can lead to enormous powers for new regulators.

We now know from the detail of the legislation that the assurances we get from the Prime Minister and from Senator Conroy about this reform process are not worth a scrap. These assurances cannot be trusted any more than the Prime Minister's promises about not having a carbon tax could be trusted. The Prime Minister and Senator Conroy said yesterday that the opposition of the day would be consulted over the appointment of the advocate. Yet that is not contained or required in any of the proposed legislation. Senator Conroy says he cannot imagine that a former member of parliament would be appointed to the position of advocate. Yet, unlike appointments he made to the ABC board, there is no requirement in this legislation that would prevent a former member of parliament being appointed to this position. This will simply be a regulator who can be appointed by the government of the day, who can be dismissed by the government of the day and therefore who can be influenced by the government of the day, who will have the power to influence media-complaints-handling processes, as well as of course media acquisitions or purchases.

These regulatory ambitions have been promoted with quite a degree of rhetorical flourish by many of Senator Conroy's colleagues. The member for Bendigo, Mr Gibbons, when he was not on Twitter, called for reforms to 'bring dodgy media outlets to heel', while his colleague Mr Murphy described certain media outlets as 'a cancer on our democracy'. Mr Perrett just yesterday, reflecting on the reforms that were proposed, said, 'You can't have unchecked freedom.' We do not have unchecked freedom; we have some of the world's toughest defamation laws. We have some of the world's toughest restrictions to ensure that there is a right for citizens who believe they have been wronged by the media to address those wrongs. But we should have unchecked freedom when it comes to the right of the media to criticise governments, oppositions and the workings of this place. That is at the centre of any effective democracy. Far from Mr Murphy's claim that certain media outlets are a cancer on our democracy, it is these reforms that pose the greatest threat to our democracy.

The reality of course is markedly different from the tainted perceptions of those opposite. In our rapidly- changing media landscape the number of voices that can be heard or opinions that can be expressed have risen daily. Even the ABC managing director, Mr Mark Scott, has argued:

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

Similarly, anyone with a keyboard and internet connection can be a publisher. Increasingly, we see across the internet new and existing media outlets of all sizes operating as both publisher and broadcaster, and citizens from around the world not just acting perhaps as publisher or broadcaster themselves, through blogs, tweets and the like, but also acting very importantly as media critics, watchdogs and guards on the internet and on the media themselves. Senator Conroy's 'fewer voices' arguments simply do not stack up.

While the case for a government appointed regulator, administering what will be a very subjective and vague public interest test over media ownership, is weak, the risks of this proposed regulation of media ownership are quite profound. This is an interventionist approach and, like any new form of government regulation and any such intervention, it does risk stymieing investment in the media sector. This is an increasingly globalised sector and is a very dynamic sector and, if government regulation in Australia holds up the type of change in reform in this sector, we will most likely see more Australian eyeballs shift to internationally sourced content, to the detriment of an Australian media industry that is already shedding thousands of jobs.

Senator Conroy wants his same government appointed regulator to also accredit media-complaints-handling procedures. While this may be one step removed from the highly interventionist News Media Council, recommended by the Finkelstein report, the words of that report still ring true, where it said:

… whatever mechanism is chosen to ensure accountability speech will be restricted … that is the purpose of the mechanism …

This quote has been put to Senator Conroy in recent days and he has not denied it, not refuted it. Mr Finkelstein was at least honest in his ambitions and honest in the recognition that any reform to media laws and any new mechanism to restrict or regulate or manage in any way the Australian media would be a restriction on speech, because that is the very purpose of the mechanism. It is just amazing to hear Senator Conroy come into this place and proclaim: 'No, no, you're all prophets of doom—no, it's not actually happening, it won't have any effect and in fact it won't make a single change to the existing self-regulatory arrangements.' There is nothing in the proposed legislation that guarantees that. There is nothing that makes certain that this regulator will not recommend, request or enforce changes to existing self-regulatory arrangements. There is a very real risk that it will have an impact there. The alternative is that it is a toothless tiger, and then what is the point of these reforms? If Senator Conroy is to be believed that it will have no impact whatsoever, what is the point of going down this path? The point is that the government knows and Senator Conroy knows it will have an impact and it will be the first step of what this government hopes will be many towards greater regulation of the media.

Former Labor Premier Steve Bracks knows what accountability mechanism for the media works best. He recently wrote, 'Consumer driven feedback, in particular through social media, has arguably become far more effective in influencing media behaviour than any belated actions by the regulator.' This is a salient point and one that everyone interested in this debate should reflect upon. The growth in digital and online media has not only spawned countless new sources of news, entertainment and information but generated even more empowered critics of media content regardless of its platform or medium.

When the media do wrong nowadays, the public hold them to account far better than any regulator does. That is where we should be placing our faith. We should place our faith in the public. We should back free speech and a free media to the hilt. We should put some vision behind media reforms rather than the vengeful approach of those opposite who simply target those who report that which they do not wish to hear.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not really surprised that the opposition have come into this place and engaged in the kind of hysteria they have over the issue of media reforms. It is the same kind of Henny Penny—'The sky is falling!'—attitude that they take to every other issue. It is hysteria from an opposition that claimed that Australia would go into recession, that we would kill the mining boom and that Whyalla would be wiped off the map. Now they have the audacity to bring forward a motion that says:

That the Senate notes Labor's relentless attacks on free speech.

How can we be expected to have a reasoned debate with hysterical claims like that? How can we be expected to have a reasoned debate with papers like the Daily Telegraph comparing the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy, to Chairman Mao, Joseph Stalin and Robert Mugabe? Given the hysteria that this has been met with, anyone would think that the government was planning to censor the media in the manner of Frank Bainimarama or that we were proposing some kind of Syrian style police state.

If we are going to have a reasoned debate, perhaps we should recognise a few facts that even the opposition would not disagree with, such as the fact that there has never been a right to unfettered free speech in Australia and nor should there be. Even those opposite would agree with that. We have defamation laws that stop unwarranted attacks against the reputation or character of other persons. We have laws under the Trade Practices Act which stop corporations making misleading or deceptive claims in their advertising. We have laws which stop people from revealing the names of minors involved in criminal court matters. Even in the United States, where the right to free speech is protected under their constitution, there are rules around what people can and cannot say, just as there are in any liberal Western democracy.

Along with the rights to free speech, there are responsibilities. Where could these responsibilities be more important than when it comes to the media? The print, online and broadcast media are the most powerful instruments for influencing public opinion in Australia, and the community therefore rightly expects certain standards of the media. They expect that the media will respect their privacy, report with fairness and accuracy, and provide a diversity of voices. Freedom of the press is the cornerstone of our democracy, but it is too much for the Australian public to expect that the media, in addition to having the freedom to report, will report with accuracy and not attempt to mislead the public.

It should be pointed out to the opposition that the government's media reform proposals were informed by two independent reviews: the independent media inquiry led by Mr Ray Finkelstein QC and the Convergence Review. Mr John Hartigan of News Ltd said in evidence to the Finkelstein inquiry that there was no need for regulation of the news media and that any suggestion of bias by News Ltd against the government was an insult to readers who are capable of making up their own minds. But here is what Mr Finkelstein had to say in his report about Mr Hartigan's claims. He said:

Often, however, readers are not in a position to make an appropriately informed judgment. They expect news stories they read to be accurate. Usually only the authors/publishers, and the subjects of the story, know the extent to which a story lives up to that expectation.

Mr Finkelstein presented a wide range of evidence, including opinion polls and studies into the conduct of the media, to demonstrate that the media does not live up to community expectations. For example, Professor Robert Manne from the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism examined articles in the Australian on climate change and found that the articles unfavourable to action on climate change outnumbered favourable articles by a ratio of four to one. A report by Victoria's Office of Police Integrity into a media campaign against the former Chief Commissioner of Police Simon Overland, while focused on the conduct of police officer Tristan Weston, also found that the media's role in the affair warranted investigation. In his report into corruption in Queensland, Mr Tony Fitzgerald QC commented that the media are able to be used by politicians, police officers and other public officials who wish to put out propaganda to advance their own interests and harm their enemies if journalists do not search for motivation or check information from their sources for accuracy.

A survey in 2000 by ACNielsen asked voters whether the media exercised its power responsibly or irresponsibly. Fifty-two per cent, a bare majority, said they exercised it responsibly and 43 per cent said they exercised it irresponsibly. But a parallel survey of voters and journalists in 2004 found distinct differences between the two sets of respondents in their responses to ethical questions in relation to privacy and deception. Ninety-two per cent of voters said it was never right to take a picture of someone in their backyard from outside the property without their knowledge and consent, but only 38 per cent of journalists agreed. On deception, 85 per cent of voters but only 38 per cent of journalists said it was never right to obtain access by pretending to be someone other than a journalist. Anyone who doubts the lack of standards within much of Australia's media only has to watch the weekly episodes of ABC's Media Watch. In looking at the evidence, Mr Finkelstein concluded:

…there is a widely-held public view that, despite industry-developed codes of practice that state this, the reporting of news is not fair, accurate and balanced.

This is an important conclusion when it comes to the debate about free speech raised by the motion currently before the Senate. Free speech is not just about the rights of the media; it is also about the rights of those who wish to access the media to have their voice heard. If stories that are in the public interest are being shut out or not given an airing by the media, free speech suffers. Free speech is not promoted by the news media deciding what it does and does not publish according to its own commercial interests. Free speech is promoted by news reporting that is fair, balanced and accurate. Free speech is promoted through having a news media industry with a diversity of voices.

It should be acknowledged that the government did not go nearly as far as Finkelstein or the convergence review proposed, a point that seems to be fairly lost on the opposition. While the Finkelstein inquiry proposed a statutory body to perform the functions of the Australian Press Council and the news and current affairs standards function of the ACMA, we have opted instead for self-regulation overseen by an independent Public Interest Media Advocate, a position that will be a bipartisan appointment. The proposed Public Interest Media Advocate does not control the news media. It does not handle independent complaints against journalists or news outlets. It simply authorises the regulatory schemes proposed by the industry itself.

News media that participate in schemes authorised by the Public Interest Media Advocate will be able to maintain their exemptions from privacy law. I do not hear anyone from the opposition or the Murdoch media acknowledging these facts, but I suppose to rail against the great Stalinist conspiracy to allow the media to self-regulate does not really have the same ring to it. We are not determining what the media can and cannot publish. We are not even defining the standards to which they are to adhere. In fact, we are allowing the media to develop their own standards, which are expected to maintain fairness and accuracy. The decisions as to whether those standards are adequate is made by the independent authority at arms-length from government.

I will just briefly go through the arrangements that the Public Interest Media Advocate would require in an independent standards and complaints body. And in doing so, I challenge the next coalition spokesperson in this debate to explain which of these arrangements they find so objectionable. This is what the advocate would require: standards of practice which reflect community standards and expectations about news and current affairs, and to which all members of organisations would be required to adhere; appropriate and responsive complaints handling provisions; arrangements to require that the body publish agreed standards and publish decisions, performance and compliance statistics in relation to complaints lodged with the body; appropriate remedies and measures for enforcing decisions of the body; appropriate governance arrangements that ensure independence from news media organisations, including appropriate arrangements for appointing members of the body; suitable funding arrangements which would include requirements for each member of the body to contribute funding with the specific arrangements to be determined by the body itself. I ask once again—and when the next coalition speaker takes the floor, I would be keen to hear the explanation—which of these arrangements do they find so objectionable? Which of these requirements of the Public Interest Media Advocate represents a relentless attack on free speech?

I will go to the other aspect of this package of legislation that the opposition has criticised, and that is the strengthening of diversity in the media. They say about our proposed public interest test, 'Why not just leave it to the competition policy?' What this approach ignores is that competition and diversity are two different things. When we talk about news media we are not just talking about any other commodity. We are talking about something which has the potential to dramatically influence public opinion. The public interest test, like the authorisation of the regulatory schemes, is made by the Public Interest Media Advocate, which I stress again, is an independent role. Those opposite accuse us of attacking free speech, but I cannot think of anything that furthers the cause of promoting free speech than maintaining a diversity of voices in the media.

In fact, if we are going to talk about genuine attacks on free speech, let us talk about the Howard government's watering down of cross-media ownership rules. Surely, if there is anything that is going to stifle free speech in Australia it would be the further concentration of media ownership. It is what those opposite did in government, and they have the gall to accuse us of attacking free speech. It just goes to show that there is no shortage of hypocrisy when it comes to those on the other side.

Those who would like to make out our media reforms to be some kind of radical proposal would do well to examine what happens in other countries. In 2003, the United Kingdom introduced laws aimed at ensuring a greater diversity of owners of media enterprises. The laws enable the UK Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, when they consider a merger raises public interest concerns, to issue an intervention notice. Following an intervention notice, the regulator, Ofcom, must then provide a report to the Secretary of State with advice and recommendations on the specified media public interest considerations and 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 final decision-making over whether the merger can proceed following the Competition Commission report.

The Australian model is an improvement on the UK model because it keeps the decision-making at arms-length from the government. In the United States, the Federal Communications Commission has, since its creation, assessed whether media or telecommunication mergers would benefit or harm the public interest. 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.

While this debate has focused on media reforms, let us have a good look at our record when it comes to free speech in other areas compared to that of the coalition. When it came to relentless attacks on free speech, the Howard government took the cake. Just yesterday, the government in the other place introduced the Not-for-profit Sector Freedom to Advocate Bill 2013 into parliament. This bill bans gag clauses in government contracts with not-for-profit organisations, effectively ensuring that the not-for-profit sector has an independent voice in advocating for those in the community most in need. This builds on our action to remove gag clauses from all government contracts with the not-for-profit sector in 2008. I ask those opposite: is this the action of government that does not stand up for and defend free speech? No.

If you want to see the actions of a government that relentlessly attacks free speech, as this motion suggests, you should look at the previous, coalition government, which widely used gag clauses to try to silence the not-for-profit sector. If the opposition want to put themselves forward as the virtuous defenders of the free media then I would like to ask them: where were they when the press were joined by NGOs and lawyers to complain about the Howard government's freedom of information laws? Where were they when the government ministers, through the issue of conclusive certificates, were able to withhold documents according to whatever they deemed to be the public interest? Our reforms to freedom of information laws, including the abolition of conclusive certificates, allowed the release of documents when the public interest is genuinely served, not just at the whim of ministers. This is another great example where we have the runs on the board when it comes to protecting free speech.

I could reel off several other examples, but I think we all get the point about the opposition's hypocrisy in lecturing us about free speech. Instead I am going to use my remaining few minutes to talk about what this debate is really about. This debate is not about free speech. This debate is about cowardice. It is about the cowardice of those opposite when it comes to promoting the public interest over the interests of media moguls. It is about the federal opposition doing their best to curry favour with the major players in the news media.

We require no more from the media than a self-regulatory regime that has some teeth, a regime that ensures fairness and accuracy. But the federal opposition do not want fairness and accuracy in reporting, because it does not suit their interest. They do not want a diversity of voices in the news media, because it does not suit their interest. Those on this side of the chamber know from the surveys and submissions considered by the Finkelstein inquiry that it is what the Australian public want. We know they want diversity. We know they want fairness. We know they want accuracy. Not only do they want these things; they demand them.

The characterisation of our reform proposals as an attack on free speech is just another red herring. The coalition's behaviour in government demonstrates that they are not serious about protecting free speech. All they are interested in is bending to powerful media interests in return for favourable reporting. As I have said, while this debate is focused on media reforms, we really should have a good look at what those on the other side have done. When it comes to relentless attacks on free speech, the Howard government took the cake. I mentioned that just yesterday the Gillard government introduced the Not-for-profit Sector Freedom to Advocate Bill 2013 into this parliament and how important that is. I have also asked where the government ministers were through the issue of conclusive certificates. I am not quite sure there; where were they?

Our reforms to the freedom of information laws, including the abolition of conclusive certificates, allowed the release of documents when the public interest is genuinely served, not just at the whim of ministers, as those on the other side wanted. As I said, this is just another great example where we have the runs on the board when it comes to protecting free speech. It is a beat-up. It is hypocrisy. It is the opposition once again coming in. 'The sky is falling.' 'Whyalla's going to be wiped off the map.' 'The world's ending.' But they know in their hearts that it is just them coming in and attacking for no real reason. It is because that is what they want to do, because it does not suit their interest.

The characterisation of our reform proposals as an attack on free speech is a red herring. The coalition's behaviour in government demonstrates that they are not serious about protecting free speech. All they are interested in, as we all know and the Australian public certainly know, is kowtowing to powerful media interests in return for favourable reporting. Unlike those opposite, we on this side are on the side of the public.

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

The previous speaker in this debate betrayed the government's agenda. The first half of the speech was a litany of complaints about the way the government had been treated. It was a litany of complaints about how News Limited newspapers in particular had criticised and dared not show deference to the wisdom of this government, this Prime Minister and this Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy. That is at the core of what this is about. If the Labor Party wish to go around the community and accuse us of rabidly defending free speech, of raising the stakes in this debate, then it is an accusation that I will agree with, because this is a critical issue.

We are seeing proposed by this government a philosophy that has changed within the Labor Party. Years ago there were some on the left who opposed censorship along with Liberals, and we saw changes to our news reporting, we saw changes to the culture of journalism and we saw changes to the way things were published in Australia. Since that moment—since the development of the new left in Australia—we have seen a profound change. First it was the disease that infected the Greens; but, as we know, that has embedded itself in the soul of the Labor Party. It was so amusingly consecrated by the signing ceremony between the current Prime Minister and the former Leader of the Australian Greens. Now the Labor Party has this view that there is appropriate and inappropriate speech.

If the previous speaker wants to talk about appeasing media moguls and the public interest, let's go back to what formed Australia's largest news organisation, News Limited. It was the takeover of the Herald and Weekly Times signed off by Paul Keating and Bob Hawke. Paul Keating created the legislation that led to the so-called 'princes of print' and 'queens of the screen', and why did he do that? Labor people have written about this, so it is no secret. They did that because the Herald and Weekly Times, in particular the Melbourne Herald, ran a campaign against Labor's broken promise on the pension assets and means test in 1984.

The Labor Party is never scared of bragging about its power nor about the threats it wants to carry out on those who disagree. We will give them credit for that. In the mid-1980s we saw the formation of News Limited and we saw that not because the Labor Party thought it was going to improve Australia's media environment but out of a sheer vindictiveness, a vindictiveness towards one newspaper, the Melbourne Herald. A great newspaper it was too. So the Labor Party has form, and if the only thing they can do is criticise the previous government for relaxing cross-ownership laws that reflected a changing media environment and changing technology that the vindictive laws passed by Hawke and Keating were no longer suitable for, that is an accusation that I am happy to have levied.

What we have heard from the previous speaker and from every Labor Party member that talks about this is a litany of complaints about News Limited or about how somehow we cannot trust journalists to write the truth. At the heart of this is the claim of bias, the hate media, the idea that the Australian newspaper or another newspaper dares criticise the incompetence, the malfeasance or the sheer untruthfulness of this government. All I will say to that is that it has been a joke around Melbourne since the days of Bolte that Liberals have had to cope with the Age being potentially, from the perspective of some, slightly left of centre. But if you are a politician you thrive on criticism because it gives you a chance to put your case, it gives you a chance to make your argument. Not all of it is welcome; I doubt there is anyone in here who has been happy with everything that has been written or said about them on blogs, websites, newspapers, radio or TV. But what is the alternative? The alternative is a bureaucrat appointed by a politician effectively determining the sort of speech we are going to have in this country, the things that journalists can write, the things that can be printed in our newspapers. That represents a dramatic departure from the history of a liberal democracy and one as old as Australia and one that has a relatively fine tradition of protecting freedom of speech.

At the heart of this by the Labor Party is a conceit—Hayek called it the fatal conceit—that they can decide or a bureaucrat they appoint can somehow improve the work of thousands of journalists, writers and bloggers all around the country; that there is an appropriate form of speech and an appropriate dispute resolution mechanism and that is the one that shall be enforced upon all. They talk about an independent monitor but it is still an agent of government, it is still an agent of the state, it is still appointed by a politician, it still operates under rules set by politicians. I am humble enough to say I should not be setting those rules and neither should anyone in this place. It shows the conceit of the Labor Party that they think they have a role to do so.

The previous speaker talked about other countries. When it comes to freedoms, Australia was the second country in the world to grant women the ballot and one of the first countries in the world to grant universal franchise to men. We have never compared ourselves to other countries that were decades behind us in some of those developments. At the turn of the 20th century, as well as having the highest standard of living in the world, this country was a social laboratory and it was a laboratory of public policy. Yet now the best that can be done by those opposite is to throw a few failed European economies at us and justify this as the basis for a new series of regulations upon the media.

We hear the bleating about the gag rules, and it shows a real lack of understanding. You are not proposing just regulating those who operate with public funds; you are saying to someone who owns a newspaper that is not dependent upon spectrum, which is a public asset, that has no public interest involved whatsoever other than someone owning a printing press, employing journalists and being willing to put their name as the publisher behind a publication. You are saying that you have a right to regulate that. There has historically been a legal and moral right to regulate radio and television because public spectrum is limited. We have long applied codes to that, whether it be about adults only viewing times or burdens like local content requirements, because spectrum is a limited commodity. It is a public good in that sense. But there is no similarity between that and a newspaper, a newspaper that is produced, funded and sold privately without any involvement from the government: until today, where they have to sign up to a series of regulations or the government will put the gun to their head with all the power of the state and the force of law. There is that great Labor tradition of handing out money. They talk about gag rules; what about your history of putting people on the drip, putting people on the government funded drip as they go out there and say what you want, which always proposes more regulation and less freedom, and always proposes greater government involvement in the economy. Just by coincidence, the very people you seek to defend happen often to have previously worked for a union or they are always asking of government more, because there is a natural inclination of a lot in that sector to seek greater and greater roles for themselves at the expense of the public leading their own lives.

These attacks on freedom of speech are unprecedented, an effective licensing of the media. They do not have the guts to actually say they going to license media because the High Court would probably say they could not following the television advertising case just over two decades ago. The High Court would probably have something to say about that. What they will do is create an undue burden on those who do not sign up to the government scheme approved by the bureaucrat that the politicians appoint. I do not care if you consult with the opposition—no opposition or government should have a role in this. I do not want one. It is not for us to decide. Yet when a newspaper says, 'That is not for us,' you are going to apply the full force of law, threaten them with all your plaintiff lawyer mates, allow people to tackle them in ways that they cannot tackle another newspaper purely because one newspaper signs up to the government's preferred scheme. You may not call it licensing but it is effective licensing. It is the modern day Stamp Act, where you have to get a stamp of approval from the government to actually publish something or there will be a different burden placed upon you. The government obfuscates with claims about diversity but every action it undertakes is about suppressing it, every action it undertakes is about approving certain forms of media. The language in this debate today is all about appropriate reporting by journalists, as if it is up to them to decide.

They have constantly attacked one particular media segment or one particular media organisation. But I remember the bleating, Senator Kim Carr, from your Victorian colleagues when Jeff Kennett dared to criticise the Age. He only criticised them; he did not propose to license them or subject them to state privacy laws. He did nothing of the sort. One day he threatened to pull some government ads from them, and I think he unsubscribed from the newspaper, and the Labor Party were out there screaming about attacks on freedom of speech. Yet the modern day Labor Party have come here and proposed that some journalists will be licensed and some will not. Some will have to think, 'Does this law apply to me in a different way than it does to my colleague?'

If anyone here does not think that that is going to have a chilling effect, just think of a press conference with, for example, Senator Conroy being quizzed about the latest government blowout, disaster, scandal or whatever it may be. One journalist from the approved media feels they can ask a certain question but another journalist whose newspaper's boss has not signed up to the state sanctioned dispute resolution mechanism—the bureaucrat appointed by politicians to decide whether complaints are appropriate or inappropriate—does not have that protection. They can have all their notes seen and have the full force of the Privacy Act applied to them. Do you think it is going to lead to any difference in questioning? I am sure it wouldn't. Even though I disagree with a lot of journalists a lot of the time, journalists have shown a willingness to defend their position and their role in our society.

This approach reflects the creep of restrictions on speech that the new left have driven over the last few decades—that whole idea that there is appropriate or inappropriate speech. This debate is wider than just about the media reforms—and I do want to note the contribution in great detail by Senator Birmingham, who spoke before me for the coalition. Let's go back and look at the antecedents of this view that there is appropriate and inappropriate speech. A couple of decades ago universities started developing speech codes and certain forms of debate could be had and some could not. We had people, usually from the left and now in the Greens or members of the Labor Party left, Senator Kim Carr, who would have protests on campus because they did not think that a certain person was appropriate to come and speak. I saw Gareth Evans a victim of that and I saw Jeff Kennett a victim of that—'Those people should not be allowed to speak, because we find their view offensive.' That was the culture of our universities in the 1980s and 1990s.

That started to be reflected even in university policies, where there was appropriate and inappropriate speech. There was a famous style guide at Melbourne University. They had a whole section on how to correctly refer to Indigenous Australians. You could lose marks for, despite all best endeavours and intentions, inadvertently offending someone, because it was not about whether it was offensive or not; it was a subjective assessment of whether the deemed victim group felt offended.

We have seen that result in the Racial Discrimination Act—the infamous section 18C, put in place in the dying days of the last Labor government, that saw an Australian journalist hauled before a court for an opinion. I really hope that in the future that is not reflected upon as a turning point in this country—that we look back at the Bolt case and think that that was the time that we started down the European path, that that was the time that we started to restrict speech because we in this place were not humble enough to accept that it is not up to us to determine what is appropriate and inappropriate.

Professor Don Aitkin was hauled through legal processes for inadvertently offending someone that he did not even seek to offend. He was not even trying to make a particular point. Last year I made a speech regarding this issue. What we have to understand is the chilling effect of codes on speech and restrictions on it. If I said something that Don Aitkin said and that gentlemen, Mr Mortimer, was out there and he decided to go get a friendly plaintiff lawyer—from a Labor aligned firm, I am certain—to come and launch an action against me, I would have no means of defending myself. Most Australians do not have the means of defending themselves against a legal action—probably using public funds indirectly to do it. What is the capacity of someone who writes a blog to defend themselves against an action that might be completely superfluous? It might be without foundation but you still have to hire lawyers—which could easily cost you more than $10,000. That is the chilling effect that that law has. This law proposed by Senator Conroy will have the same effect—and I dare say that is its intention.

It is sad that today a case for free speech needs to be made. Why is free speech so important? It is important not only because it is the basis of a free society; there is actually no more critical right in our society. It is reflected in the famous words of the US First Amendment: 'Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech, or of the press.' I will come back to that in a minute. Speech is the expression of our thought, our identity, our ideas and our dignity as individuals. There is no point having freedom of conscience if you cannot express it. The words on the Thomas Jefferson memorial in Washington encapsulate this. Thomas Jefferson had a very extreme view on freedom of speech—one that I am personally quite comfortable with. He said:

... I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.

We have to accept that the US, more than any other country on earth, actually has a record on freedom of speech that is unparalleled.

So why is it so important? Freedom of speech was not the first right we were granted; that was actually property. It came along at about the same time, or sometime after, freedom of religious conscience was granted. What we would often regard as the most important right we have as citizens, the right to vote, actually came along after we were given the right to demand it. The right to vote did not happen without people in the UK—before the great reform acts—and people in Australia, after the Eureka Stockade, demanding it. Women were given the right to vote because the right to demand it was there. We reversed the ban that we put on Indigenous voting in 1902 in 1961 or 1963 because we had the right to demand it. In the US during the civil rights crisis, it was the First Amendment that kept the campaign alive, even when the arms of the state—the police, dogs and bullets—were hailing down upon the civil rights protestors.

I do not mean to be melodramatic, but this is why speech is important. The most important aspect of it is that it challenges prevailing wisdom. An example is Alan Missen, a former member of this place, decades before he came here campaigning as an official of the Liberal Party in Victoria against Robert Menzies' referendum to ban the Communist Party—which was on the front page of the Argus and the Melbourne Herald. Challenging prevailing wisdom is what speech is about. I dare say that, as Liberals, we are more used to it, as survey after survey tends to show that journalists are probably closer to the left than the right of politics. I do not say it necessarily infects their writing, but Liberals are used to criticism, whether it be at universities, in workplaces or in politics generally. The voice of people and the freedom to say unpopular things, the freedom to say things politicians do not like and the freedom to say things lawyers and judges do not like is what drives social change. That is what this government is uncomfortable with: things it does not like being said. We have to go back to these core principles.

What we saw with the Andrew Bolt case was someone dragged before the court for an opinion. In the judgement of the case, some interesting words were used. I quote Justice Bromberg:

At the core of multiculturalism is the idea that people may identify with and express their racial or ethnic heritage free from pressure not to do so. People should be free to fully identify with their race without fear of public disdain or loss of esteem for so identifying.

That is not an appropriate definition for limits on speech for our society. No-one is free from disdain, and if we are going to have a personalised judgement on what is offensive, with that being the basis of law, then we are undermining the very concept of the rule of law. That is where our society is going.

In my last minute I turn to why the media is so important. The media is the institutional expression of freedom of speech. It has always had a special role. The US's first amendment recognises that role by specifically including freedom of the press. Whether in civil rights, the Pentagon papers, Watergate or the Vietnam War, all those protections were critical to delivering a different outcome than there would have been if journalists were not free to write. I do not necessarily agree with all the outcomes, but society is better for me not having that choice and for no-one in this place having a choice.

It was many years ago that the self-declared experts in the Labor Party started to determine what is and what is not appropriate in speech. Every Australian is going to realise that this government's intention is to determine what is appropriate and inappropriate in their lives, in their thoughts and in their words. It is a threat to our liberal democracy. It will be opposed with every breath in the bodies of the people on this side of the chamber, and I urge the government to reconsider and crossbenchers to oppose it.

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

I rise today to contribute to this debate, mainly in response to some of the hysteria that has been ventilated in this chamber from many of those opposite in the way they are addressing these media reforms. You would tend to think that we are trying to muzzle the media over this particular series of bills, but it is far from the truth. This is about scrutiny. This is about fairness. This is about ensuring that the people out there with access to media—print, and electronic and online—have the ability to have some involvement in what they are reading.

I indicated yesterday when taking note of answers provided in this chamber on this particular subject that I had the opportunity to work for the media outlets for several years in my past before I had the very fortunate chance to work for the trade union movement. I was fascinated by the change of reform going through media outlets during that period. One such company I was involved in was Queensland Newspapers. I saw the reforms move from broadsheet to tabloid newspapers, and the increase of social media and electronic media. The most significant changes that occurred during that time were when we moved from a reasonably independent Queensland company to one bought out by the Murdoch press.

I particularly noticed the lack of morale as a result of the acquisition of that particular newspaper by the Murdoch press. People who had worked for the company for many years—35 or 36 years of employment—had also noticed the result of change in that particular enterprise. We saw loyal, long-term employees who had for many years never taken a sick day resort to statements like, 'I'm going to exhaust my sick leave before I retire because this is the type of organisation I now work for.' The morale in the workplace was very depressing. I am only making this point as an example of how things change. It may have been as a result of the change in conditions or of the lack of confidence and happiness within the new organisation that we worked for. People should not be frightened of change. People should realise that change is good, provided it is the right course to take, and that is what these bills are about. I will go through them step-by-step.

If we look firstly at the Broadcasting Legislative Amendment (News Media Diversity) Bill 2013 and the Public Interest Media Advocate Bill 2013, they are really about providing these amendments to protect the diversity of news media voices through the creation of public interest tests, to be applied to mergers and acquisitions of news media voices of national significance. The purpose of the test is to seek no substantial lessening of diversity of control of significant news media voices. There is a direct example of the commitment of not lessening the diversity of those controls as a result of this particular bill, which we will see in this chamber at some stage in the future. The test will also apply to specified news media voices which will be registered if they have a significant national audience reach.

The Public Interest Media Advocate Bill 2013 will also create a public interest media advocate—an independent statutory recognised officer. The public interest media advocate will decide whether a transaction involving news media voices subject to the test may proceed, and has the power to accept court enforceable undertakings that mitigate against the loss of diversity. There is a series of examples in which it is not a case of us coming into the government wanting to overregulate or muzzle the media outlets, as those opposite will suggest. That is far from the truth.

If we look at the example of the media diversity public interest test, media ownership is already regulated. It is based on the policy rationale that a diversity of media ownership secures a diversity of views, opinions and ideas, and contributes to improved and informed public debate. It is important that it mentions the view and the involvement of public debate, and their involvement is one area that this set of bills will concentrate on.

However, these current rules do not reflect recent structural changes in the media industry, including the existence of online media and emergence of national significant voices. I am sure, Mr Acting Deputy President Edwards, that your children would be like mine and that they have adapted or moved to social media interaction not only with their friends but also on pages like Facebook, interacting with blogs and things they see, and responding to those. I think it is important that people have some responsibility for the manner in which they reflect and respond to those things that are online about certain material. Once again, this is not a case of putting a stop to that sort of interaction and that involvement by people that may wish to interact on social media outlets. The introduction of a public interest test for media mergers and acquisitions of news media organisations of national significance will ensure that the diversity of news media voices is maintained, complementing existing rules designed to promote competition and regulate media ownership.

The scope is that the public interest test will be applied to mergers and acquisitions of registered news media voices which meet a specified audience of subscriber threshold. Mergers or changes of control of a voice cannot proceed unless the Public Interest Media Advocate, PIMA, is satisfied that the transaction would not result in a substantial lessening of diversity in news or current affairs. Surely that speaks for itself in terms of the commitment of the PIMA when they advocate their decisions.

The test will not duplicate the substantial lessening of competition tests carried out by the ACCC and will operate in parallel with other media diversity safeguards. Also, if we look at news media voices, for the purposes of the register of news media voices, the following entities are voices: a commercial television service that provides news or current affairs programs, a commercial radio service that provides news or current affairs programs, a print publication that provides news or current affairs content, a subscription television broadcasting service that provides news or current affairs programs, a subscription television platform and online services that make available news or current affairs content targeted to an Australian audience and that have paying customers. Once again, it covers the ambit of the accessibility of media and information and news and current affairs that is available to the public.

Why are we doing this? As I indicated, I had some exposure to the media for several years. I worked for a media outlet, then moved into a professional role as a trade union official and subsequently became a union boss looking after workers. As a result I had more and more exposure to journalism and the media in terms of interviews. I have always found journalists to be extremely competent, very professional people in the manner in which they conduct interviews. I have never had a real issue other than a few minor matters I am not going to really bother about, because that is water off a duck's back.

But you find more and more these days that people are questioning the role of the media in certain decisions, in certain interviews and in certain elaborations of particular reports and matters. Just the other day as I was down at Avalon as the Chair of the Defence Subcommittee, and I was talking to one of my colleagues from across the chamber about a Four Corners program. His comment was, 'I never listen to Four Corners anymore.' He believes they are so biased. We were talking about a specific program that he, unfortunately, was not in a position to watch because he was not prepared to watch Four Corners. I had seen the program. I would have to agree with the gentleman from across the chamber that, watching that particular program on Four Corners,there may have been some bias as a result of what they were deliberating to the public in terms of the JSF program. One would have to watch the program, of course, and form their own view on it, but it just shows that there are those of us that have an issue when it comes to the media.

There are also people in the media that have an issue when it comes to having interviews, in particular with parliamentarians. Recently our Labor candidate in the seat of Fisher, Bill Gilssane, alerted me to an article in the Sunshine Coast Daily by the journalist Kathy Sundstrom. The headline reads 'Journalists cop mud from churlish pollies', and just in part it reads:

Instead of simply focussing on the accuracy of information, people started commenting on people.

Refusing to talk to a reporter who has written something they don't like is another childish tactic.

So often 'the media' is blamed for not reporting both sides. Yet, equally as often, the other side of the story is impossible to get hold of.

I can understand that. Sometimes it is difficult to get both sides. If a journalist is interviewing you it should be within your competence and commitment to demonstrate your position on particular things. The journalist went on in this article:

For someone with political clout to then refuse to talk to a reporter because they weren't happy with a report written, sometimes weeks or months ago, is churlish.

Members of the Noosa Independence Alliance are not the only ones guilty of this behaviour.

More and more politicians are resorting to a 'blame the reporter' mentality to switch the focus of their actions, or inactions.

And then she refers to:

Mal Brough is the latest politician referring to this kind of tactic.

That is the LNP candidate, of course, in that particular seat. So it is not just others out there from the other side who have indicated that there is some need to look at reforms in the media, it is also journalists themselves who are willing to consider changes.

This morning I was fortunate enough to talk to a good friend of mine who is a well-respected journalist, affectionately known as Flip, and she indicated to me that professional journalists ultimately work for the people of this great country. They are driven by respect for the truth; they believe in their media alliance union code of conduct; they aim to strive for honesty, fairness, independence and respect for the rights of others. One of the examples she provided to me was of a time when she was told by her news director to sneak into a hospital with a covert camera and film a child who had been assaulted during the schoolies festival on the Gold Coast. She refused on the grounds of that being invasive of privacy and totally unethical. That clearly demonstrates the ethics that are involved in journalism. People respect the code, they respect their profession and, once again, this is a clear example of a journalist not willing to go below when it comes to trying to get a story for a director who at a particular time considered it would be good news.

Unfortunately, sometimes I see on the television or in print a lot of bad news. I have spoken on many occasions at schools about the good work we are doing in Afghanistan, but you would rarely hear about or see that type of material in the Australian media. You hear, naturally, of the unfortunate occasions of death of our good, professional, hardworking men and women in the ADF but you very rarely hear about the good work that is happening on the ground in changing the attendance rate at schools. I recollect an example I was given when I travelled there a couple of years ago. When the Taliban ruled, there were approximately one million boys attending school—no girls; girls were not allowed to go to school—but as a result of our good work on the ground in Afghanistan with other forces that has changed. Now we see examples of approximately 7.3 million students attending school and of those 7.3 million there are about 2.7 million girls. I have told that story time and time again at opening functions that I attended for the Building the Education Revolution program, to explain to people the good work that we are doing not only for education at schools in countries like Afghanistan but also to indicate the good work we are doing there with our ADF personnel.

Quite often we come into this chamber and use media quotes and stories, but sometimes senators and members of the House of Representatives unfortunately do not have the opportunity to research some of the content. I will use one example: it was only last sitting week when Senator Macdonald was in the chamber talking about government documents. He referred to a particular quote from a person, but I would not refer to that person as a journalist. I would say the person was making a commentary to a newspaper about an issue associated with the union movement. It was unfortunate that Senator Macdonald relied upon this person as a genuine, competent and sincere person who was able to make comment. The first error I will pick up about this particular person, who probably promotes herself as a journalist, was her claim that she worked for the trade union movement, as she did. She claimed that she had 20 years' experience but that is not true. I know personally that this person had only six years' experience. However, Senator Macdonald referred to her as an insider in the union movement. That is far from the truth. This person worked for a couple of unions in Queensland and now has moved to Melbourne, generally on behalf of employers working against unionists, working against people who are trying to do the right thing in those environments.

I use that as an example to show why we should not use quotes in this chamber from someone who should be discredited for her involvement and role in the trade union movement. She is subsequently working for employers. In fact, the HR Nicholls Society referred to her as a person attending a function in a guest speaker's role who had played an instrumental role in Queensland's section of the resistance movement during the dispute between Patricks and the MUA. It said that 'Collier'—that is the person I am referring to—'is one of the core group that was arrested and charged for her role in the operations'. This is the type of person that Senator Macdonald referred to as being more or less an insider in the union movement. Why would someone come into this chamber and refer to someone who has been arrested, has probably been determined now as a criminal with a conviction—despite the fact that it was subsequently overturned—and rely on that person as being credible? That is why we need to be careful when we discuss matters that are printed in the media these days. That is why it is important that we consider these reforms, to make sure that these types of statements are not ventilated in the public and used as examples of those sorts of things.

She was later picked up in a case involving an industrial dispute and appeared in court. Apparently she took the opportunity to use a concealed microphone in her underwear, as I understand it from the Herald Sun, and the judge at the time, Justice Marshall, asked: 'Do you think she was in a James Bond movie or something?' Once again, this is about the credibility of someone that a senator from the other side uses for evidence when they come into this chamber to speak on matters.

I know for a fact that Senator Macdonald's senior adviser, Max Tomlinson, had resigned his position because he launched a misogynist attack on a Dr Carole Ford. It would be wrong for me to come in here and use that as an example, claiming that Senator Macdonald is a misogynist. And that is why I suggest we need to be careful. (Time expired)

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are debating an unprecedented attack on the freedom of the community's right to know. Freedom of speech is—as you would be acutely aware, Madam Acting Deputy President Moore—a fundamental Enlightenment principle that has been fought for in many battles and wars by our forebears, both physical and intellectual, but one which Senator Conroy and this government clearly are prepared to whittle away through this draconian legislation.

In looking clearly at Senator Conroy's views on the principles of the Enlightenment, I can go no further in setting the tone for this contribution than quoting Evelyn Beatrice Hall's comments when she was trying to describe Voltaire's belief—and I know that you would be acutely aware of these words, Madam Acting Deputy President: 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' And John Stuart Mill said:

If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.

I cannot describe to this chamber how extraordinary it is that we are required to debate this matter today: that the great Australian Labor Party—which bases itself on defending the rights of those who are underprivileged and downtrodden—and this minister and this Prime Minister are throwing all these principles out for the sake of a cheap political stunt, the ramifications of which will be felt by this country for decades. That is, quite frankly, utterly distressing.

I am distressed by what the government is attempting to do, and the media is distressed by what the government is attempting to do. But this debate is framed around the relationship with the media. This debate should be framed around the fact that it is the Australian people who are the great losers from this. They are great losers because of the muzzling of the press. But ultimately it is the Australian community which will wear the odium of this particular piece of legislation. And to hear Senator Conroy today stand up in question time and try and justify the unseemly haste with which this legislation is being debated and discussed again filled me, quite frankly, with horror.

Let us cut to the chase on what this is all about. Let us cut to the chase and describe why there was an emergency cabinet meeting on Tuesday morning to ram through these changes. Let us talk about what happened in caucus in relation to this matter and the anger of the caucus chairman who sits in this chamber, Senator Marshall. And let us go back and see what this is all about. I will tell you what this is about, and to do so I am going to go back to something called 'drag hunting'. I will describe to the chamber what drag hunting is. It is a sport dating back to the early 19th century. A group of dogs, usually foxhounds or beagles, chases a scent that has been laid or dragged over a course with a defined beginning and end before the hunt. The scent usually is a combination of aniseed oil and possibly animal meats or urine. It is dragged along the terrain by a volunteer for a distance. And indeed what we saw on Monday and Tuesday was the modern day drag-man, driving around Canberra and the Lodge in a utility full of meat. And this was a drag hunt deliberately inspired by the actions of the Prime Minister and the minister as a tactic to divert attention from the issues, including the leadership issues, facing the Australian Labor Party. The drag master, Senator Conroy, had that utility full of meat and he set the media off on another chase, away from the issue with the Prime Minister and the leadership. The media were not to know that the drag master was leading them into the most draconian piece of legislation that we have ever seen in this country, and they were not to know that the drag master was driving that utility to get the media off their backs on the leadership issue—they were not to know what was going to be confronting them the next day.

When you read media reports—and I find extraordinary the comments of Senator Furner, who said that this is not a muzzling piece of legislation—the Australian Labor Party, and Senator Furner, were muzzled in relation to this matter. The chairman of caucus said that he was muzzled in relation to this matter. And you would be acutely aware yourself, Madam Acting Deputy President, of the quotes from some of your cabinet colleagues. This was quoted in the media:

"It would be fair to say there was very limited discussion," one cabinet source said, confirming proper process had been scrapped at the meeting.

A small number of ministers are believed to have been kept in the loop, including Treasurer Wayne Swan and Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

The very people who are trying to fight off a leadership spill in this fortnight! And when the Fairfax poll comes out on Monday, if that is not favourable to the Prime Minister, will we again see someone like drag master Conroy out in the utility with a tray full of meat trying to change the outcome and keep the media off the track of what is going on? We will see on Monday where the ute is going and how much meat is in the back of it. Will the Australian community be forced to succumb to another such piece of legislation on Monday? Who will know.

I want to turn now to an editorial in the Geelong Advertiser this morning. I will read it in toto so there can be no allegation that I am selectively quoting. It says:

THERE is no more important principle in a free society than freedom of speech.

This inherent right underpins and underwrites our democracy.

For the media, it allows us to tell you what is going on in the world.

It allows us to investigate wrongdoing on your behalf.

It allows us to expose those who do no good and, above all, it allows us to give you the information needed to live your lives.

Right now this most important principle is under threat because of the Federal Government.

If the new laws proposed by Communications Minister Senator Stephen Conroy are passed by the Parliament, the media including your newspaper, the Addy, will not be able to do its job.

We will not have the freedom to publish without fear or favour.

I will repeat that: 'We will not have the freedom to publish without fear or favour.' The editorial goes on:

We will be controlled by the Government, an appalling state of affairs that has more in common with the Soviet Union of the Cold War era.

Under the draconian laws proposed by the Gillard Government, the media will now be controlled by a government-appointed Public Interest Media Advocate.

This person, appointed by the Government, will decide if media organisations are acting within standards and, if it deems they are not, will be able to take action.

That action would include removing the media organisation's exemption from privacy laws.

Those laws allow us to bring you the stories that the powerful do not want us to report, that governments want to keep secret and that you need to know.

Our concerns over these proposed media laws are further heightened by the appalling haste with which the Federal Government is seeking to pass them.

This attack on freedom will have only a week to be passed, Senator Conroy warns, or it will be scrapped.

Do the Australian people not deserve more time to scrutinise these changes?

Is our democracy not worth more than that?

The absolute haste and brinkmanship being shown by this government is testimony to its increasingly panicked, desperate and deeply antagonistic attitude to the media.

When any government attacks the media, it is a sure sign it is in strife and struggling for survival.

This government's desire to shoot the messenger is unprecedented in our country's history.

The Geelong Advertiser says this ham-fisted assault on democracy must be stopped and we look to the members of Federal Parliament to show their character when the vote is called.

We want to see if our elected representatives care and value the society's, and this community's, inalienable right to free speech and a free press.

That is the Geelong Advertiser editorial today. I have heard some terrific speeches by my colleagues on this side of the chamber today but I do not think anyone has better encapsulated this issue than those comments from the Advertiser today.

I am not going to be overtly political in relation to this, but I will throw out a challenge to two people: the member for Corio and the member for Corangamite. They have been told by their own newspaper that what they are going to sign up to is a destruction of the freedom of the press. Are they going to sit back and let this happen? Are they going to read that editorial in the Advertiser today and acknowledge the comment of the editorial:

We want to see if our elected representatives care and value this society's, and this community's, inalienable right to free speech and a free press.

That is the enormous challenge for Mr Marles and Mr Cheeseman from the other place. Those two gentlemen, as people from Geelong know, rely on the Geelong Advertiser to sell their message. In one fell swoop they are going to deny their local newspaper, as it says, its inalienable right to report. And if they do pass this legislation then they stand completely and utterly condemned.

I noticed with great interest the comments of Senator Furner about a discussion he allegedly had with someone from this side—I am not saying he did not have it—about Four Corners. He told the chamber that the member from this side had said he no longer watches Four Corners anymore because he thinks it is biased. Isn't it remarkable that the person who thinks it might be biased is part of the coalition that is defending the right of the ABC to be biased, if indeed that is what they are? That is the remarkable outcome of what is happening. Senator Furner is damned by his own words. It is this side of the chamber that is protecting the right of the ABC and the right of every other media outlet to report, and to report appropriately.

How we in this country can cede to a public interest media advocate the oversight of media in this country absolutely beggars belief. We are putting in the hands of a public servant the right to determine the very things that people have fought for and died defending. How can we possibly, as a country in 2013, countenance the ceding of that inalienable right to the freedom of the press to a paid public servant appointed by the government of the day? I do not care whether that person is appointed by a coalition government or a Labor government; it is wrong. I would never defend the right of a coalition government to appoint a soviet czar such as this, and I would not with the Labor Party, and we are not going to sit back and let this happen. We are not going to sit back and let a government in decline come through this parliament to take the focus off a leadership challenge by destroying the very things that people have fought and died for. I think that anyone who has fought to defend those principles of freedom will be absolutely gutted by what has been attempted here today.

There has been a lot of commentary, and of course the Australian Labor Party would like to close them down, because they do not agree with them. We defend the right of the left-wing press to do their job. We might not agree with them—in the main I am sure we do not—but we are determined to protect their right to say it. I was fortunate to look through a media release today from Mr Chris Berg of the IPA, a conservative commentator and proudly so. Chris Berg said:

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy's proposals for media regulation are a de facto licensing scheme for the print media and a fundamental threat to freedom of the press

They are indeed a de facto licensing scheme. And who was it, several years ago, who called for reforms calling for the Crown to license newspapers? It was none other than the former leader of the Greens, Mr Bob Brown. At that stage, Senator Conroy refused to rule it out as an option and he now seems to be trying to implement it one step at a time. Now I am not a conspiracy theorist—never have been, hope I never will be. But is it not remarkable that the apparently divorced left-wing section of the Labor Party, the Australian Greens—of course, no one believes it is a divorce; it is a temporary separation for purely political purposes—are not speaking on this matter this afternoon? Is there one speaker from the Australian Greens who is going to stand up today and debate this matter? Are they going to debate the motion regarding Labor's relentless attacks on free speech? Is there one person from the Greens who is doing that? No, there is not. They are absolutely complicit in Senator Conroy's attempts to license the print media. They are part of this. I have absolutely no doubt that this is part of a grubby deal between the Prime Minister and Senator Conroy and the Greens. That grubby deal is going to deny the people of this country the absolute freedom which people have lived and died for, and I can only beg and plead with those opposite to make sure that this never, ever becomes law.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it is completely hypocritical for the opposition to launch this attack today, as if they have all the moral virtue in relation to free speech in this country, because I am here to tell you they do not. Freedom of speech in this country is indeed an important right, but it is not a right that is without limits, and the coalition accepts that, although I think the coalition should accept that because Tony Abbott has put on record—

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Abbott, Senator Pratt.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Abbott, yes, indeed. Madam Acting Deputy President, you are indeed right to correct me. Mr Abbott has placed on record his desire to repeal racial vilification laws in this country. Now there is a very clear limit on free speech in this country and it is indeed a just and right limit that Mr Abbott wants to withdraw. But when does the coalition say, 'Yes, we will put limits on free speech?' When do they do it? They do it when it suits them politically. They do it when they want to gag non-government organisations—when they want to gag criticism. They did it to the peak Youth Affairs Council under the Howard government. They gagged them and said: 'You cannot criticise the government. You cannot be the voice of young people in this country. You can advise and you can consult with us, but we will not let you be the independent voice of young people in this country.' They did that to so many non-government organisations in this country. So it is no surprise, I guess, that the Newman government is treading down the path of putting gag clauses in the contracts of organisations in Queensland.

So the Gillard government, very importantly, has looked to introducing legislation to ban gag clauses in federal government contracts with the not-for-profit sector. This is going to cause a really interesting conundrum in Queensland. I am not entirely across how this is going to be resolved, because the Queensland government is insisting that any organisation that has 50 per cent or more of its funding coming through the Queensland government will be gagged. But many organisations, as we know, have funding from both Commonwealth and state levels. They will have a combination of funding, so the Gillard government can uphold the right of these organisations to speak freely. Nevertheless, while we give them that right, I dare say they are going to be constrained anyway because they are still going to have to look to those gag clauses in Queensland because their incomes will depend on it. We are not necessarily going to be able to save them from this.

We do not believe, like the Liberals, in silencing those who advocate on behalf of the community and those most in need. Of all things to silence, when we talk about free speech in this country, it should not be the organisations that stand up for the most vulnerable and the most in need. Who are you, on the other side of this chamber, to lecture us on free speech when these dreadful gag clauses were promulgated by the Howard government and are now being promulgated in Queensland? They certainly also existed in Western Australia under the Court government. These are severe impingements on free speech in this nation.

I support the Gillard government's call on all the state premiers and territory chief ministers also to ban the use of gag clauses in their government contracts. Why would they need these gag clauses? They are simply for political purposes, because they want to silence organisations from criticising their savage cuts to health and education. They simply want to silence those who want to speak out. These are draconian measures that Queensland has put in place, and it is right that the Gillard government should want to respond and protect these organisations; to protect their right to freely express their views, to protect their right to stand up for vulnerable Australians who need a fair go.

Unfortunately, though, I really think that gag clauses are a fundamental part of Liberal Party DNA. So much for free speech. They do not respect the independent voices of people in Australia's not-for-profit sector. They have proven that over and over and over again, government by government around the country that have put these clauses in. We see them in Queensland. I have seen them in WA and we saw them under the Howard government. There were wide uses of these gag clauses by John Howard. I have every expectation—despite all the protests over on the other side of the chamber about free speech—that you would reintroduce those in the future should you ever be given the chance to rule this country again. It would be a crying shame to see those voices silenced. That is why we will fight tooth and nail to stop you from doing that. Gag clauses silence those who most need to be heard.

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

So I am very, very happy that the Gillard government has introduced a bill to prevent the application of gag clauses. If those opposite want to introduce gag clauses again and make not-for-profit organisations vulnerable to those gag clauses then you will have to repeal that legislation. You will have to justify your desire to gag organisations that disagree with you, to gag organisations that stand up for the vulnerable and for the needy.

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

I wish I could gag you from interjecting on this, Senator Macdonald. I want the prevention of gag clauses enshrined in law, so that those opposite, if they ever want to undo this, will have to stand up in here and justify themselves. I would like to see you try, but I have every expectation that you will.

I am dismayed that the Queensland Minister for Health defended the idea of a gag clause, saying the tighter grant rules are about 'stopping abuses that occurred under the previous Labor government'. That is a nonsensical statement. These are some of the things that are included in the gag contracts:

The Organisation must also not include links on their website to other organisations' websites that advocate for State or Federal legislative change.

That is what a copy of one of the agreements stated.

Queensland Health have a really proud history of funding organisations proactively to advocate on public health measures. It is their job to advocate. It should be in their DNA to advocate. We rely on these organisations to create community and cultural change over time, to drive change in our community, so that we in parliament can listen and respond to the things that need to be changed. Yes, sometimes it is hard to be criticised; sometimes we do not like it. But that is how change happens in this country. That is how good emerges. It is how we amend and change our laws to advocate for better things in the future. Imagine these kinds of gag clauses on a state disability service. What would that actually mean? What would that mean when it comes to something like advocating for the NDIS or for better results for people with disability? I do not think the coalition have any respect for freedom of speech in this country; otherwise they could not possibly entertain the idea of gagging organisations like this.

The Newman government has argued it wants to fund outcomes and not advocacy. I am here to tell you outcomes and advocacy are intrinsically linked. You do not get the outcomes without public debate, public engagement and public understanding of the issues that are being discussed. You can raise awareness about issues and advocate along those lines. With raising awareness comes the need to be critical, the need to criticise and the need to sometimes object. The importance of advocacy cannot be understated.

It is the groups on the front line delivering these services who most often know what changes need to be made in our public policy or in legislation. The idea of gagging these organisations is a complete corruption of free speech in this country. We want to partner with not-for-profit organisations to develop policy reforms and this means we need critical public debate in this country. It means that the government needs to vocalise its views and the not-for-profit sector also needs to vocalise its views, and we may not always agree. The Howard government gagged non-government organisations for many, many years. They were very dark, dark days under the last coalition government when Mr John Howard attacked the legitimate right of the not-for-profit sector to represent and advocate for its members and for vulnerable people. When those opposite try to lecture us on this side of the chamber about free speech, it is really very rich.

But let us look to some of the other things that are shocking about the coalition's position on free speech in this country. Let us take, for example, the shadow communications minister. Yesterday, on his Facebook page, he was found to be encouraging Senator Conroy to sue News Ltd for defamation. He also used a defamation writ to stop the Sydney Morning Herald reporting allegations about an ex-girlfriend's cat. Talk about taking your opposition to free speech a little far! I do not want to be lectured on free speech by all of those opposite. The shadow communications minister even used a defamation writ to stop his political opponents questioning whether he was fit for public office. The shadow communications minister has a deep desire to limit free speech when it is critical of him. It is utter hypocrisy for the coalition to be expressing these views.

Freedom of speech in this country is something that I think will be well served by greater diversity laws in the media. These laws are currently vulnerable. They currently do not go far enough. They need strengthening. Indeed, a public interest test is an important addition to media regulation in this country. Diversity in media is in fact an important principle in the promotion of free speech. It is consistent and an enhancement of free speech, but it is not surprising to me that vested interests in this space might seek to speak up against it and it is not surprising to me that those opposite should be captured by those vested interests.

We know that the Howard government watered down cross-media laws in the country. We also know that today there are economic pressures on a great many media outlets—economic pressures that are seeing some smaller outlets quite vulnerable to being gobbled up by larger entities. The idea that we should seek to strive for some balance in an environment like that and the idea that you could argue that that was a threat to free speech to me seems quite ridiculous and it seems to me to simply be an illustration of those opposite being captured by vested interests.

This government want to stand up for free speech. I will give you a very clear example of that—that is, our commitment to journalist shield laws. This is a very important provision. Just this week in parliament we have seen an inquiry into allegations of a breach of parliamentary privilege in relation to a committee report. We know the importance of shield laws and what protection a journalist may or may not have. I am not going to get into an in-depth debate about whether privilege was or was not breached in this circumstance because I do not have a view about it, but what this illustrates is that the desire for journalists to protect their sources is a very live issue.

Under Labor, journalist shield laws were introduced to protect journalists and the confidentiality of their sources. We decided to introduce shield laws because we were motivated by what I think was disgraceful conduct by the Howard government towards News Ltd journalists. They were Michael Harvey and Gerard McManus. Those journalists faced contempt of court proceedings when they did not reveal the identity of whistleblowers that sought to expose the gross maladministration of veterans' entitlements by the Howard government. There you go—an example of those opposite clearly abrogating a responsibility towards free speech in this country. And why were they trying to avoid free speech? Why were they trying to oppress the rights of these journalists to protect a whistleblower? Because it was in their narrow sectional political interests to do so. We get nothing but hypocrisy from the coalition on this question of free speech. Indeed, even Malcolm Turnbull has been using—

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Turnbull, Senator.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Mr Turnbull. I apologise for consistently breaching this standing order. I will try to do better. Mr Turnbull has consistently used defamation to silence critics. Under Turnbull, when he was minister—

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator!

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When Mr Turnbull, the member for Wentworth, was the relevant minister for freedom of information, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority refused to process an FOI request from Peter Garrett. They refused to process it unless he paid $12,000 in fees. Mr Garrett put in an FOI request for simple documentation and it was a $12,000 set of charges. The member for Wentworth and his department refused to reduce these fees on public interest grounds because they said it would help the ALP during the 2007 election campaign. How is that a proper test of public interest? What we are talking about in media laws is indeed a proper test of public interest. To conclude, it is completely hypocritical for those opposite to carp on about freedom of speech in this country in the way that they have today. Freedom of speech is a nuanced thing; we do have some limitations on it in things like racial vilification. (Time expired)

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

Senator Fifield's motion today regarding free speech is an important issue. Let us face it, issues such as freedom of speech raise the ideological temperature of our parliament and they bring to the surface often latent differences between political parties and different streams of ideology. The debate this afternoon has brought to the surface some of the distinct differences between social democracy—as exemplified by the Labor Party—and liberal democracy—as exemplified by the Liberal Party and the National Party. Those differences have come to the surface this evening.

For what it is worth, I do not think that Senator Conroy is akin to Mao or Fidel Castro or Ahmadinejad or Robert Mugabe or Kim, or indeed even Joseph Stalin. Joseph Stalin is getting a good run at the moment. I do not think that Senator Conroy is akin to them one little bit. Indeed, I do not think that he is a Marxist. If the members of parliament—the senators in this chamber—are candid, we would accept that the press are not all angels. Let us face it, this is not a time to romanticise the media. I am not yet in the mood to cite Thomas Jefferson, but there is an important aspect of principle involved in this debate nonetheless.

To oppose the government's attempt to extend its reach over the media is not to idealise the media; that is a different thing. Practising politicians all know that the media can be good, but it also can be bad. It can be productive, but it can also be very destructive. It can be impartial, and yes it can be biased, I accept that. It can be educational and do great things, or it can be very lowbrow at other times. It can be fair, or sometimes the media can be malicious. It can be, I accept that. Sometimes the media just gets it awfully wrong. With freedom, it seems, good sometimes can come with a little bit of bad, or sometimes even a lot of bad. This is the price we have to pay for freedom.

The French writer, the Nobel laureate, Albert Camus, said:

A free press can, of course, be good or bad, but, most certainly without freedom, the press will never be anything but bad.

To me that summarises the argument. Press can be good, it can be bad. The media can be good. It can be terribly bad. But an unfree one is always terrible. Free media in the end is the democracy of the word. Just like no-one is arguing that we should restrict democracy because we do not always like the results—all of us have been subject to that in this chamber—we do not always like the result of democracy but none of us would say it should not apply. We should not argue that we should restrict free press because we do not like or agree with everything that we read, hear or see. Frankly, speaking personally for a second, while I have always been treated pretty fairly by the media, I have had colleagues on both sides that have not always been treated fairly by the media, they have been, in fact, hard done by.

It was probably rough treatment on poor Senator Conroy yesterday, on the front page of the Daily Telegraph, and I accept that. I suspect that colleagues of mine on this side of the chamber, in the coalition, have been treated very badly at times by the media. It just comes with the territory of democracy. It seems to be the price we pay, though sometimes it is a painful price indeed.

Are the existing mechanisms adequate? Many of the speakers this afternoon have touched on that—the mechanisms for regulation: are they adequate? Our contention would be that sometimes they may not seem to be adequate, but overall they work pretty well. There is no real evidence that they do not work well. There are many mechanisms that are currently in place to deal with situations where the media does the wrong thing, or just goes bad. There are internal standards that are enforced by the Australian Press Council—you would be aware of that, Madam Acting Deputy President, in the same way that many other professions self-enforce their own standards, whether that be in accountancy or the law.

Today I could not help but notice that Paul Whittaker, the editor of the Daily Telegraph, said in relation to the current regulatory mechanisms:

Since Professor Disney's appointment the Press Council's role has been strengthened significantly and this newspaper is committed to fully abiding by it.

Professor Disney, of course, is the chair of the Press Council. Paul Whittaker goes on to say:

Should a complaint be heard by the Press Council, we run its ruling in full and as prominently as possible, regardless of whether it is for or against us.

In the past year—

Mr Whittaker goes on to say—

this has happened three times. A ruling about headlines in our asylum seeker coverage that went against us we ran on page 6 (418 words), two other rulings that came down partly in our favour we ran on pages 18 (697 words) and 26 (573).

The point is that the system works. Sometimes it might seem a bit unfair—I accept that. But overall it works. Of course, if you have been defamed or slandered you can always go to the courts. That is always a possibility as well.

And finally, of course, there is competition, which means that if you do not like the way a certain media outlet operates increasingly you can always switch to myriad others. Contrary to what the government says—and I heard Senator Conroy today in question time—there has never been a greater diversity of media in this country. Like the 20th-century despots who stifled freedom of speech that the government resents being compared to, the government focuses solely on the old 20th-century media outlets: print, radio and television. I find this strange for a progressive party. Even putting aside the fact that these types of old media are now incredibly diverse due to the availability of so many more outlets, both domestically and internationally, thanks to the intranet, TV cable or satellite television, for a progressive party, really, increasingly the Labor Party is regulating the past.

Putting aside all that, the government ignores the huge impact of the internet, blogs and social media on the creation and dissemination of news and commentary. They are of course increasingly powerful agents of media, particularly among the young and, let's face it, even among the political classes. People like Mr Turnbull and Mr Rudd use tweeting all the time as part of their armoury of media. This, of course, has not even really been attacked or looked at by the government. The government is looking back and not forward.

Madam Acting Deputy President, if I am able to quote from the devil himself—the CEO of News Corp, Mr Rupert Murdoch—

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just clarifying the definition, Senator!

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

from his Boyer lecture in 2008:

This competition is becoming more intense every day. Because technology now allows the little guy to do what once required a huge corporation. Look at the Drudge Report. Matt Drudge doesn't really create content. Instead, he finds content that he thinks is interesting, and puts it up on one of the internet's simplest pages. Readers come because they trust his judgment. And he is showing that good news judgment is something that can add value.

Even those who don't like him—

This is referring to Mr Drudge—

including many editors and reporters—click on to his website every day. In other words, with his single webpage, Drudge has succeeded in challenging the leading media companies of our day—including mine. And he has done it all with minimal start-up costs—a computer, a modem, and some space on a server.

That is the new technological terrain that the government has not even looked at. That is of course where influential media is going.

This debate about freedom of speech does reveal a real tension between liberal democracy and social democracy. Labor and social democracy parties of the Centre Left are largely statist. Ultimately, they always question the judgement of individuals, whether in welfare or in the area of the economy. Statist political parties such as the Australian Labor Party question the choices of individuals in welfare, in the economy and indeed even in the media.

This rhetoric of freedom of speech is always slightly threatening to the Centre Left. Pluralism, vigorous democracy and competition always worry the Left far more than it does the Centre Right. Always the Centre Left thinks, 'Oh, people's choices are wrong. People's understanding is incorrect; they might get it wrong. Freedom of choice is only good so long as the choice is something that the government—that is, the state—would agree with.'

I am going back to my university days here—it is a long time ago—but I do remember looking at the roots of social democratic parties—

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A long time ago!

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

A long time ago. Marxists talk about false consciousness. You would be aware of that, Madam Acting Deputy President. They said that the people, the citizens of the country, had to be guided to a correct solution, because the correct answer, the correct choice, they would not understand, they could not appreciate; they had to be guided by the commissars, and they had to be guided by the state. We might think today that is rather elitist. We might even see it as a little condescending, but it underlies much of social democracy today.

Social democrats and labour parties can be particularly condescending; whether it is the dialogue of human rights or freedom of the press, the left is always uncomfortable with vigorous pluralism, with competition, with freedom and with choice. For all the problems of liberalism—and there are many problems with liberalism—we have in the end one of the great confidences, and it is this: our great strength, liberalism's great strength, is to let freedom rip. And they cannot say that. The government does not have the confidence to let freedom rip.

Sometimes, sure, we do it in the economic sphere and it may create a lot of wealth but it sometimes creates inequality. It is not perfect; I am not suggesting it is perfect. But we have the confidence that people make choices and we have the confidence to let freedom rip. The Labor Party will never have that confidence in freedom. We always win that debate. We may lose others but we win that debate. That is liberalism's greatest strength.

We are not utopian. Again, for all our faults, liberals and conservatives are not utopian. We do not believe that mankind is perfectible. We do not believe that the state can shape mankind and make us perfect. We do not believe that. Our side knows that people will make wrong choices. We all accept that. It is part of democracy. It is part of freedom. But we are prepared to live with wrong choices, even bad choices, because they are the price of democracy and they are the price of freedom. Better that people, better that our citizens, or even the press, get it wrong than that the state dictate what is right. It is always far better. And again we can say that with confidence; the Labor Party never can.

As I looked forward to this debate this afternoon I did something that I have not done for a long time. My friend Senator Ludwig would remember this; I pulled out my first speech—that is a long time ago too—because it does reflect on quite compulsive tensions between the Centre Left and the Centre Right. In my first speech I quoted the distinguished British historian Paul Johnson, who you would be aware of, Madam Acting Deputy President. He said:

The experience of our century shows emphatically that Utopianism is never far from gangsterism.

We have learnt that 'the destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well intentioned, almost limitless'.

When it comes to the crunch, it is better that individuals get it wrong, even that the media get it wrong, than that the state muzzle our right to get it wrong. In the end, that is the price all of us pay for democracy. I say, we say, let freedom rip.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Sterle, you have the call, but there are only a few minutes remaining for this debate.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I did listen intently to Senator Mason's contribution. Even though I did wish he would hurry up so I could have a go. Thank you, Senator Mason.

I rise too to make my contribution. The responses to the legislation announced by Minister Conroy yesterday from sections of the media, I have to tell you, were absolutely gobsmacking. It would be irresponsible of me to not refer to the front page of yesterday's Daily Telegraph before I go into the context of the bill.

I am absolutely disgusted that those at the Daily Telegraph can actually think that it is intelligent journalism to compare Senator Conroy, our esteemed Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, to absolute despots. There are a number of despots in our sad history but when I saw that horrible head of Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, I was sickened. Whoever thought this was a great idea at the Daily Telegraph is an absolute disgrace.

I have to tell you, as chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Australia and Israel and as someone who has been to Israel three times, I am trying to watch my tongue, because there are a number of words I could use about this. I think I would be within my rights to compare certain parts of the anatomy to the low-life at the Daily Telegraph who thought he or she or whoever it may be—

Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let it rip!

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, Senator Heffernan and I have had some wonderful conversations and we have referred to each other in wonderfully warm exchanges using certain names, but for the life of me I do not think I would have enough words to wrap my tongue around the words in the terms I would need to refer to the low-life that wrote—

Debate interrupted.