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

Both of those questions related specifically to the matter of media regulation. What we have in regard to media regulation is a tale of fact and fiction—a sorry and sad tale of fact and fiction—where the fiction that we are hearing comes from Senator Conroy's rhetoric in this chamber, in his various media interviews and in his diatribes, wherever he goes, about his proposed media regulation. The facts are found in the more-than-130 pages of legislation released last Thursday that demonstrate what a Trojan Horse for government intervention Senator Conroy's proposed new bureaucracy is. He is seeking to establish outrageously sweeping and potentially interventionist powers in government legislation.

Let me just deal quickly with three fictions told by those opposite—and Senator Conroy in particular. Firstly, and quickly, is the fact that this is not about vengeance or targeting anyone. That would be news to anybody who, like I, sat through the two different committee hearings that took place this morning in this parliament into media regulation. In the joint select committee, Mr Murphy of the other place sat there and, on every single occasion where he was given the call to ask questions, asked questions solely about the Murdoch family's media interests. Nothing about the detail of proposals under consideration of the committee; he was focused purely on the Murdoch family. Senator Cameron, chairing this Senate's inquiry into the legislation, ensured that when he was asking questions in the other inquiry there was a very clear focus that came back to the operations of News Limited. Today we saw Senator Cormann—whom I congratulate on the new arrival in his family—show a front page of today's Daily Telegraph, and you could see from Senator Conroy, when he was responding to News Limited's latest demonstration of the facts in terms of the impact of the carbon tax, that he just wants to shut down on this type of free speech and free media in Australia.

The next fiction from those opposite was the claim from Senator Conroy that the opposition would be consulted as to who would be appointed as his public interest media advocate and the statement that he did not believe that former MPs would be appropriate to be consulted. Yet, if you look at subclause 8(2) of the Public Interest Media Advocate Bill, it is very clear that anybody who has substantial experience or knowledge, or substantial standing, in the fields of media industry, law, business or financial management, public administration or economics could be appointed. There is no requirement to consult anyone other than ACMA or the ACCC, and certainly no requirement to consult the opposition—unlike what Senator Conroy guaranteed—and you could very clearly appoint any former MP if you wanted. In fact, as was canvassed in one of the hearings today, the former Attorney-General Ms Nicola Roxon could even be appointed. That would, of course, hardly be a demonstration of government impartiality in management of the media, though it is quite possible under Senator Conroy's legislation.

Senator Farrell interjecting—

There we have Senator Farrell saying, 'It would be a good choice.' That is what this government would love to do: they would love to appoint Ms Roxon, or her type—and we have seen her approach to interventionist regulation—to go and regulate Australia's media content.

The last fiction of those opposite is that the minister says there will be no changes to the existing operation of the Press Council or the Independent Media Council. Yet, when asked today whether he could guarantee that and whether there would be any instruction to this new advocate, he could not answer. In fact, this new advocate will have sweeping powers to determine whether or not the codes of those two bodies meet requirements of privacy, fairness, accuracy, whether their complaints handling processes are effective and the extent to which their standards reflect community standards. These are completely sweeping and vague terms that leave almost unfettered power within the hands of this sole person, this sole arbiter—from which there is no right of appeal—to determine how our free media in this country is regulated.

We see here that the facts tell a very different story from what Senator Conroy is saying, and once again we see this government with a complete desire to exact its vengeance on the media in this country. (Time expired)

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I respond to the proposition of taking note on these answers. I have to say that I would much prefer to be talking on something that is far more relevant to the Australian community, and that is a response to a question that I put to Senator Wong, representing the Treasurer, about the economy and where we are heading in this country. I think what the Australian community are very interested in is hearing what the opposition's policies are, and, if we are to be guided by the Institute of Public Affairs—and we know that they are the brains trust of the coalition for those on the other side—we know that if the coalition were to get into government and sit on this side of the chamber, they will introduce savage cuts. We already know what Mr Abbott did when he was Minister for Health: we know he gutted health by $1 billion. Now we hear from the brains trust of the coalition that their intention is to counsel, in the first stage—

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

Mr Deputy President, you are well aware of the motion that is before the chair, and that was to take note to two specific answers in question time. Both of those related to media regulation and, much as Senator Polley may wish to canvas her question during question time, there is an opportunity for her to move a motion later on if she so wishes.

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

Thank you, Senator Birmingham. Senator Polley, I will draw your attention to the matter before the chair at the moment. I was giving you time to develop your arguments.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy President. I am developing my argument. I am painting a picture for the Australian community of what it would be like if those opposite were ever to sit on this side of the chamber.

We know that one of the most fundamentally shifting changes that will be made in this country as far as disability services are concerned will be threatened by those opposite. They will cut—and we know because this is coming from the brains trust themselves—the first stage of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We also know that they will abolish Fair Work Australia and Safe Work Australia.

But if we do turn our minds to the answers given today in relation to media reforms, we know that what the government has announced has been welcomed by mass hysteria from those opposite. You can write the script for them now—mass hysteria! Do not put the facts on the public record! But I will do exactly that. This government, in fact, the Labor Party, actually supports free speech, as we all know. The public understands that. But we also support accurate reporting, that there should be more Australian content on our televisions and that there should be no further reduction in media diversity. We also support the expansion of the capacities of the public broadcasters. These are the things, fundamentally, that the government supports.

No-one underestimates the importance of the role the media plays in providing the community with correct information. The operative words there are 'correct information'. People in the community rely every day on the news that is provided to them, whether it is in papers, through social media, through the intranet or whatever form of media. But it cannot be misleading and it must be accurate.

If you support diversity in the media and the upholding of press standards, then you will vote in support of the government's reform. Let us not forget that our package also includes items that go to increased Australian content for multichannels on your television, promoting Australian stories, updates to the ABC and SBS charters to ensure they can deliver services on platforms other than television and dedication to the public spectrum of community television. We know that those are very important elements in this bill.

But as I said, the response to this reform package has been one of hysterical proportions from those opposite. All we are doing is seeking to promote the principles of privacy, fairness, accuracy and diversity. The government passionately believes in the freedom of the press as a cornerstone of our democracy. That is the reality of the situation. At the same time, the government believes that in a democracy a diversity of voices within the media is essential. We all agree on that. The government's reform will support both of these important principles.

Media organisations are provided with certain exemptions from privacy legislation. The organisations obtaining these exemptions will be required to have satisfactory processes for enforcing media standards and handling of complaints. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with ensuring that complaints are handled in a process that is transparent? The government's proposal is that industry self-regulation is the appropriate pathway. The Office of the Public Interest Media Advocate's role is limited to authorising the schemes proposed by the industry. I cannot reiterate strongly enough that there is no way the minister can actually interfere in the daily directions of that role. So none, no direction— (Time expired)

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

I also rise to take note of answers given by Senator Conroy today to questions asked by Senator Abetz and Senator Birmingham. There is an atmosphere of tension and suspension in this building today. Everyone is keenly watching and waiting, eager to see which will be the first to go: Senator Conroy's media reforms or the Prime Minister's position as Labor leader. Already we have heard about dissension in the ranks. Indeed, by her own admission Senator Polley just said that there were more important issues than this: a clear defiance of the government's legislative priorities. We heard it first in this place, just a few moments ago.

When the book is finally closed on this sorry, shambolic Labor government, the period from December 2007 to September 2013 will not be remembered as a golden era for public policy making in our country. The list of abandoned schemes and embarrassments grows ever longer, yet the list of genuine achievement remains woefully short. The media reforms are just the latest effusion from a government that first lost its way, then lost its majority, then lost its values and has now lost its mind.

This proposal has broad ramifications for the operation of our media and, I would argue, disturbing ramifications for the operation of our democracy. Yet when it comes to the legislation, this government is behaving as though we are dealing with some minor, non-controversial technical legislation and refusing to allow anything resembling adequate scrutiny of the legislation by this parliament. The Prime Minister and Senator Conroy are treating this parliament with Olympian disdain.

As we have learned, it is not just the parliament the minister is treating with contempt; we now know that this legislation was not properly examined by the cabinet, we know that the media companies were not consulted in the preparation of the legislation and we know that the government has thus far been unable to point to a single clear example of the problem in the media it claims as a rationale for this legislation. I think it is important to reflect on the comments sent to senators just recently in the last few hours by the chief executive of News Limited, Mr Kim Williams. They are not a secret—they were sent to all senators in the last few hours. Mr Williams, in a letter to the minister, Senator Conroy, says:

The Bills constitute bad law.

…   …   …

Some of the problems in the Bills include the fact that they apply retrospectively, key legal concepts remain undefined, long established legal principles have been trampled on and the Bills establishing the PIMA make it clear that the PIMA's decisions cannot be repealed. It is also clear that the PIMA may release confidential information to you and your successors with no explanation.

So the chief executive of News Limited has said publicly that these bills constitute bad law. I spoke last week about the Orwellian overtones of the government's proposals in this legislation. Those of you who have read 1984 will understand that the concept of doublethink is central to that novel. George Orwell defined doublethink as being able to tell deliberate lies—

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You wouldn't know a communist if you fell over one.

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

You might be interested in this. George Orwell defined doublethink as being able to tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, and to forget any fact that has become inconvenient. I cannot be certain that the minister genuinely believes in anything he is saying, of course, but he has certainly got the part about forgetting inconvenient facts down to a fine art.

We have seen doublethink and doublespeak from this government time and time again. In relation to these proposals, we have had Minister Conroy prattling that these reforms are somehow designed to protect diversity. Apparently, the suppression of views that this government finds objectionable will somehow lead to improved diversity in our media. This is actually the crux of the government's thinking: fewer voices means more diversity. That kind of logic sits nicely with the party slogans on the Ministry of Truth's walls in 1984:

War is peace. Freedom is slavery.

Perhaps the slogan from the Ministry of Truth that really appeals to this minister and this government is the third one:

Ignorance is strength.

That would certainly explain the manner in which Senator Conroy is treating his cabinet and caucus colleagues in relation to this significant matter. It would explain the way the government is treating this parliament, and through it, the Australian people. (Time expired)

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers by Senator Conroy on the government's media reforms—reforms that have been taken way out of context by those opposite. Their language reminds me of their Chicken Little-like carry-on during the debate on pricing carbon.

These reforms strike a balance. We need to be clear here: the reforms proposed are not an attack on freedom of speech; these reforms are not rushed. There has been significant debate in the Australian community for many years, including two significant reviews conducted recently; a debate about how self-regulation of the media is working and how it is not working; a debate about local content on our screens, about hearing Australian voices and telling Australian stories; and a debate about the ownership of media organisations, about whether there is a need for a diverse range of owners to provide a diverse range of options.

The government has listened to these conversations and to the significant reviews, and has presented a reform package that reflects these. What the government is not doing is responding to the way those opposite are seeking to frame the debate. The government is not directly regulating what a journalist says. The current self-regulation, through the Press Council, is not working as well as it should. We are proposing to fix this issue to enhance the resources of self-regulation in order to give the Australian public more confidence in the news organisations that provide them with vital information about our society and ensure this information and the commentary associated with it is fair and accurate.

The new Public Interest Media Advocate will be a part-time role filled by the government on consultation with the opposition. The advocate will work with print and online media to ensure that journalists and news organisations are living up to the standards and codes of practice they have set up. For so long, we have heard that the current self-regulation system in the print media is not working. We hear that complaints are not followed up seriously and that breaches do not matter because there are no credible sanctions for breaking the codes of practice. We believe in a free and fair media, but we also believe in a government's role to assist the community in areas of concern. The Public Interest Media Advocate will also play an important role in regulating media ownership. As we are all aware, media ownership is already regulated but with structural changes within the industry, including the increase in online media, there is a need for a change to the system.

Australians know that a diversity of media ownership assists in promoting a diversity of views, opinions and ideas, and enhances the system to ensure that strong diversity in media ownership actually improves free speech. It does not diminish free speech, as those opposite continually state. There is a real risk in this country that over time there will be fewer and fewer organisations in charge of our news. This limits our nation's ability to have quality debate on the issues of significance or, in the language of those opposite, fewer news organisations limit our freedom.

Just as diversity of opinion is fundamental in news media, it is also vital that many Australian stories are told on our airwaves every day. Many people I speak to are concerned by the spread of more and more cheap overseas television, mostly from the USA, which tell American stories and use American phrasing. More Australian stories on television will mean our kids are growing up with crocodiles not alligators and meat pies not hot dogs. It will mean that our sense of an Australian identity will be further strengthened as our televisions move to high-definition digital and the network capacity allows for far more than the old five traditional stations.

The changes to the ABC and SBS charters bring these into line with the digital media services provided by these stations. We do have social media in 2013. We do have program delivery over the internet. It is important that the charters of our public broadcasters reflect these usage patterns. The changes to the charters reflect the role of our public broadcasters at the forefront of the Australian media transition to a new digital environment, once again, delivering on enhancing opportunities for debate, for discussions and definitely not limiting freedoms. These reforms have been taken way out of context by those opposite. At every turn, the opposition seek to strike fear into the hearts of the Australian people. The reforms proposed are not an attack on freedom of speech. They are not rushed. They will deliver well-considered reform to our media industry. (Time expired)

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to take note of answers given by Senator Conroy to questions asked by Senator Abetz and Senator Birmingham, mainly in response to the package of media reform bills. I only wish that I was as confident as Senator Urquhart of the intention of these particular reform bills in their ability to deliver such things as an increased amount of Australian content in our programs. I also wish that I was as confident as she was that it was not an attack on our freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

I notice that in many of the responses on the other side to this particular line of questioning today we keep on being referred to as 'this side'. It is not just this side making an issue of these reforms. It seems to be everybody in the media—the hundreds and hundreds of people who have trekked up here today to sit in front of the many inquiries that are going on—who seem to have a problem. So it is rather unusual that the blame seems to be on this side of the chamber for making any complaint. I would suggest that the complaints about this package of reform bills are much wider than just us.

The control of the press only by these bills is quite odd when you consider the amazing change in the media environment in recent times in social media. We do not appear to be addressing anything to do with social media, only the press. I contend that the social media actually provides a wonderful opportunity to assess what is going on and hold the media accountable. Instead, this particular range of bills seeks to appoint a public interest media advocate, a single person appointed by a minister who has direct control. It appears to me somewhat anomalous that this is the case.

I would also contend that this appears to be a direct conflict of interest. We have a government that is going to appoint a public interest media advocate to scrutinise the very media who may possibly want to criticise that government. As we all know, whether we are in government or in opposition, the media often criticise justifiably. So here we have the media that is possibly justifiably criticising the government, and then the government has a public interest media advocate who can then stand in judgement over that criticism. When it comes to the Public Interest Media Advocate, it appears as if there is no right of appeal against a finding of this advocate. Decisions do not appear to be subject to review. And what are the selection criteria? I heard Senator Birmingham speaking before about this. The person who could end up being the Public Interest Media Advocate could just about be anybody at all because of the wide-ranging selection criteria.

And what of the cost? This is just another person, another burden, another thing that has been put in on top of what is already an overburdened environment out there. Then there is the timing of these bills. I would question why after two years of debate and inquiry and the like that, all of a sudden, we have been given only a week to look at the suite of measures that supposedly have come back as a result of this process. Why? What are we trying to hide? What are we trying to push through? Why are we going in such a hurry? The cynical amongst us would probably suggest that we want to try to shut down the media in the lead-up to the election—but maybe that is not fair. Or is it merely retaliation for some unfavourable media reporting of recent times? Is it a matter of: I do not like what you are saying, so we will shut you down? Maybe the minister should think about fixing some of the problems that are already out there before we start coming up with new ideas.

I would just quickly like to draw the chamber's attention to the 2012 budget decision by the Gillard government and Senator Conroy when they forgot the $1.4 million per annum of funding to keep digital community radio alive. The government allocated $11.2 million in funding to plan, design, implement and operate infrastructure for community digital radio over three years. Community radio was assured that the introduction of this infrastructure would not cause them financial hardship. However it appears, according to some correspondence I have from Fresh FM about their audited accounts, that this is actually not going to be the case. It is going to have a major impact on the transmission expenses and will increase them significantly. How can we be expected to make good and informed decisions and sensible decisions on the issues that we have before us when we have not been given any time to consider these very fundamental and important issues, and with half the information, and very little time whatsoever to consider it?

Question agreed to.