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

My question is to the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy. I ask the minister whether he will concede that News Ltd Chief Executive, Kim Williams, is correct when he states that the minister's bills are unconstitutional, dangerous and contain a deeply troubling lack of detail. Will the minister come clean and admit the reason that so many of the terms, definitions and powers in the bill are so ill defined is to give the public interest media advocate significantly more power and control than he has admitted to date?

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

I thank the senator for his questions. The role of parliament in establishing underpinnings for regulatory frameworks for journalism has been a hot topic in this chamber for a couple of days. Mr President, you may remember the very famous news headline that came up recently in the Daily Telegraph. Some of you may be familiar with it. You may have even got my autograph on it by now. But I regret to inform the chamber that overnight a new villain has to be added to this list of despots, and his name is Mr David Cameron, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, who has rolled over to a Stalinist-type regime and introduced a statutory underpinning for a self-regulatory framework. In fact, it is not even self-regulatory; he has established a completely independent of the proprietors press council. So, if a conservative Prime Minister—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Order! Shouting across the chamber is disorderly. I remind you, Senator Brandis is entitled to be heard in silence.

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

Mr President, I rise on a point of order on relevance. On the question of direct relevance, the question was limited to the powers of the Public Interest Media Advocate. It cannot be directly relevant to that question to be commenting on what the government of the United Kingdom may or may not have done overnight.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, of course what occurs in the UK can be relevant!

Honourable senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Order on my right! When there is silence on both sides we will proceed. The minister has been going for one minute and eight seconds and still has 52 seconds remaining. I am listening closely to the minister's answer and I remind the minister of the question.

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

Thank you, Mr President. The question of Mr Kim Williams's testimony of whether or not the Public Interest Media Advocate's powers are objective or subjective has been debated all around the world. In Ireland they have had this very debate. I was interested to read the views of Michael McNiffe, then editor of the News Ltd publication, the Irish Sunon the Irish Press Council. He said that the Irish Press Council is independent of the governments and will be accessible to everyone, so people will not need to go to lawyers if they feel they have a complaint about newspapers.

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

Mr President, on a point of order and with only 12 seconds left for him to answer, the minister has told us about the United Kingdom legislation and he has told us about the Irish legislation. He was asked a question about the Australian legislation, a question specifically limited to the question of the Public Interest Media Advocate's powers. Can I respectfully submit that you should direct him to the question he was asked and to bring him back to Australia?

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The minister has 12 seconds remaining. The minister should come to the question.

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

Mr President, the objective test versus the subjective test has been debated all around the world, which includes countries like the United Kingdom and Ireland, and it even includes the US. (Time expired)

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

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. If he will not accept the concerns of Mr Williams, will he accept Fairfax chief executive Greg Highwood's assessment that his reforms are a nuclear option that have the potential to basically shut down news organisations?

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

That was a very broad observation by Mr Highwood. The sort of hysterical reaction that we have seen by News Ltd goes much, much further—

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is Fairfax, your friends!

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

Really, are you sure? I had not realised that, Senator. I have met Greg. I thought Greg had moved companies for a while—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Conroy, ignore the interjections and address the chair.

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

My apologies, Mr President, I should ignore those interjections. The public interest test is a concept that is not new. For 80 years it has existed in the United States of America. In the United Kingdom they have a public interest test and, as I have just described, overnight in the United Kingdom David Cameron signed up. (Time expired)

Senator Cormann interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Cormann, I am waiting to call your colleague who is on his feet.

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

Mr President, I ask a second supplementary question. If the minister insists on remaining blind to the concerns of industry, will he at least take stock of the statements of Mr Oakeshott, Mr Thomson, Mr Windsor, Mr Katter and Mr Wilkie and admit that this outrageous attack on media freedom is dead in the water?

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

A question like that, phrased as an 'outrageous attack' on the freedom of the press has a fairly broad base to work with. Therefore Mr Cameron, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is engaged in an outrageous attack on the freedom of the press in the United Kingdom, and we have a public interest test in the United States, so those senators in that Senate over there are in an outrageous attack on the public interest! There is an outrageous attack on freedom of speech in the United Kingdom and, as for those Irish, they are a disgrace! Really, those opposite just need to lift their heads from up underneath the table and look at what the rest of the world is doing. A public interest test is common and, as we are seeing increasingly as the power of the press around the globe is increasing, governments in those countries are looking to ensure a fair balance for ordinary citizens— (Time expired)