Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the safest place for ALP caucus members this week is to be overseas. My question is to the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy. Given that the minister's proposed legislation clearly gives the public interest media advocate a role in determining what is and what is not in the public interest and given that this unelected official to be appointed by the minister will also oversee privacy standards, fairness and accuracy, how can the minister claim that this will not impose new restrictions on the media? And does the minister agree that what constitutes the public interest can be a matter about which different people can have genuinely different views?

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

Unfortunately, the premise of Senator Abetz's question is deeply flawed in its description of the role of the advocate as an overseer. Let me be clear. Those opposite have the view of: 'Don't worry, the Press Council's been working fine now and over the last few years—nothing to look at over here. The Press Council is working fine.' But, if you look at the evidence given at the Finkelstein inquiry by two former chairs of the Australian Press Council and the current Chair of the Australian Press Council, a different story emerges.

For those opposite who claim that the advocate's job is to oversee the Press Council, let us listen to some people who have chaired the Australian Press Council. This is what Professor Ken McKinnon, a former chair of the Australian Press Council, had to say: 'I had an editor say to me: "If you promise not to uphold any complaints from my paper we will double our subscription. Is that a deal?"' This is evidence given to an inquiry chaired by Mr Finkelstein. This is public evidence. No-one tried to suggest it was a joke. Everyone heard the evidence.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not relevant.

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

It is very relevant, Senator, because when you want to assert that there is an overseer function this is the sort of evidence which exposes the 'no problem over here, Mr President' line. What does Professor Dennis Pearce, a chair— (Time expired)

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I am not sure what that answer actually meant, but if the public interest media advocate has no role in determining what is in the public interest, as the minister sought to imply in that answer and, especially, on the Insiders program yesterday, why did the minister specifically include the words 'public interest' in the job title?

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

Despite Senator Abetz trying to twist and turn his way through that question because he did not get the answer he claimed to be quoting—he was even reduced to saying 'implied in that answer'—what did the current Australian Press Council chair, Mr Julian Disney, say in his submission? He said:

… the possibility of reduced funding remains a significant concern, fuelled on occasion by the comments of publishers who dislike adverse adjudications or other Council decisions.

…   …   …

The Council’s almost total reliance on funding from publishers, and especially from a few major publishers, is widely criticised as a crucial detraction from its real and apparent independence.

So when those opposite say, 'No problems here with the Press Council, it's working fine— (Time expired)

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a second supplementary question. I refer to the announcement yesterday by the CFMEU that it is establishing a weekly news bulletin that will be synced direct to CFMEU members via an app on their smartphones. Given the government's renewed interest in censoring the media, does the minister intend to ensure that the CFMEU's new app is not used to communicate CFMEU rorts, extortion, thuggery and intimidation tactics in real time?

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

That question probably reached a new low in trying to abuse trade unions and somehow tie it to freedom of the press. That question was a nonsense, an absolute nonsense. Let me be very clear: the criteria are set out very clearly. You need around 60,000 viewers—readers or viewers of the show—or you need 60,000 subscribers. Now, I do not know the membership base of the CFMEU, but if they were to be included then their publications would be just as covered and included as all the other proprietors' would be. This is a test across all of the sector. (Time expired)