Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party, Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (Senator Conroy) to questions without notice asked by Senators Brandis, McKenzie and Birmingham today relating to proposed media legislation and to the National Broadband Network.

In The Castle there is a bloke called Steve who is an ideas man. That is why his dad calls him an ideas man. He has lots of ideas, like a motorcycle helmet with brake lights on it. Steve also has other ideas. Instead of a motorcycle helmet with brake lights on it, he can put underpants on his head. He is an ideas man. That is why we like ideas men. He has some great ideas.

Another idea of his was the NBN. Some of his best ideas have been in media policy. He is just an incredible ideas man. You have to understand that he is across it all. He has got it all worked out: 'It's the Constitution. It's the vibe. It's Mabo. It's the law.' It is the vibe—that is what it is all about. That is what the ideas man is all about.

We are so proud to have an ideas man like Senator Conroy. We are so lucky. Unfortunately, the ideas man is not very Apollonian in his ways. I always think of the ideas man as a little more Dionysian in how he goes about things. We are just trying to make sense of this absolutely chaotic state of the unconstructed. This ideas man has been coming up with some marvellous ideas of late. I want to go through a couple of them.

Removing the reach rules is a wonderful idea by the ideas man. We actually do have diversity in regional areas. We do have the capacity to inhibit centralisation. The ideas man has come up with the idea of basically removing the reach rules so that we can start having centralisation in the regional market.

His latest idea is a rather truncated idea. The idea he dropped on us on Thursday last week was new media laws and we have to vote for it—take it or leave it—by the next Thursday. On Monday we found out that some of the key players, such as Mr Kerry Stokes, do not have any idea what the ideas man is up to. He found out about it only on Monday. On Monday he found out that something that was instrumental to the media market was being devised by none other than his eminence, 'Mr Underpants on His Head', Senator Stephen Conroy.

What else have we got? Now the ideas man has a bit of a problem because his take-it-or-leave-it deal has turned into a 'I'll take anything to get it done' deal. We now find that they are desperately looking around for somebody who might agree with the ideas man. Where are we now? We are a couple of days away from when we find out whether the ideas man's idea is going to hit the deck. I think it will.

One of the greatest ideas of the ideas man is the public interest test. We have absolutely no idea what this is and neither did Senator Feeney last night when asked on Q&A: 'What is the public interest test?' It was so simple: 'It's the Constitution. It's Mabo. It's justice. It's the law. It's the vibe.' That is it—it is the vibe; that is what the public interest test is. Nobody has any idea what the ideas man has dreamt up with this one.

There is a sense that it is actually about censorship. I know why the Labor Party would be so worried. They feel that the media is so biased because the media has pulled them up on some of their great ideas like ceiling insulation when they set fire to 194 houses. That was a great idea! They had other ideas as well. They had the idea of building school halls to try to save us from the global financial crisis. They had the $900 cheques. They had computers for every schoolroom.

Another one of his great ideas is the NBN. That is another brilliant idea. It was an idea that he did on the back of an envelope. No cost-benefit analysis, just a marvellous idea that he took onto a plane with Mr Kevin Rudd, who then became the Prime Minister. And then they had the idea to remove him as the Prime Minister—that was obviously not a good idea—and now we think they might have another idea to move back to Mr Kevin Rudd. This is really chapter and verse of our own version of The Castle, because we have own Steve, our own Mr Ideas man. (Time expired)

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

Senator Joyce, what a rhetorical load of—well, you know, the kind of—

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Truth!

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Truth!

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

Oh well, if you think that is the truth, then so be it. If you want to stand by the right of media organisations in this country to misrepresent citizens and to stand up for vested interests instead of the ordinary rights of citizens to have their privacy protected, then so be it. That seems to be the line in the sand that you have drawn, because we know that this debate is not about free speech, as those opposite would like to mislead the country; it is actually about them lining up with vested interests and media alignments.

The opposition not only misrepresented Minister Carr in their questions today; they are also doing a great discredit to what is an important need for reform in this country. There is no doubt that we need reform of media laws in this country because they are not working. They are simply not working and the Finkelstein report put that very, very firmly on the agenda. It is not doing justice to Australia's citizens.

Just today we have seen the United Kingdom go much further than Australia is proposing to go. We have seen good conservative government in the UK standing up for good citizens—people like the McCanns—who were terribly misrepresented. I can tell you that there are Australians who are misrepresented by Australian media and they deserve good process for the handling of complaints. Free speech is about standing up for diverse media voices in this country. You cannot have freedom of the press in this country if the media voices in this nation continue to consolidate in their ownership patterns. That spells trouble for free press and freedom of speech in this country.

Australia already has a highly consolidated media market, much more consolidated than comparable countries which value free press. This is an issue of critical concern. It is of critical concern so that we can have freedom of speech, freedom of press and a diversity of voices in this country. How can you have free speech without a diversity of voices? If we have media outlets that own two of the local TV stations and the daily newspaper, what of that kind of environment? What does that spell for free speech? I tell you: in my book, it spells disaster for free speech.

These media laws are also about free Australian voices. It is about getting our media outlets and our TV stations to deliver Australian content. The media are asking for the capacity to broadcast, for example, across the whole footprint of this country. Senator McKenzie's question went to this point, saying that we already have media diversity, because they are a threat to the local media voices. But if you listen to what citizens in this country actually want, you will hear that they want more content, they want access to the same content that the rest of the country has access to, they want to keep their local TV stations and they want to keep their local news. What is so unreasonable about that? There is nothing unreasonable about it. In this digital day and age where we are delivering more content via things like the NBN, we should be able to give our citizens the best of both worlds when we are delivering that content to them.

We also need a system that handles complaints properly. I feel very, very strongly about this. Why? Because people's reputations can be trashed on the front page of the paper. You will go through a long and complex complaints process, by which time your reputation has been damaged, only to find the apology is printed many, many, many pages back and many months later. There has to be a quicker turnaround than this. (Time expired)

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is, undoubtedly, the most dysfunctional government we have ever seen, politically and administratively. It is more than a year ago that Mr Finkelstein did his report and provided the government with a path to media reform. The question must be asked by someone: what has this minister been doing for the last 12 months? What has he been doing? We know he has been doing a bit of skiing and other things. Is anybody surprised that when he pulled the pin on this grenade this was the result and that, when he sought to set up the public interest media commissar, there would be universal outrage? He seems the only one who is surprised. But I am sure that he is no orphan, because I think his Prime Minister is surprised. I look at Fairfax Media doing the reporting of yesterday's proceedings and they say:

Billionaire media mogul Kerry Stokes has accused the federal government of planning more oversight of the press than the Chinese government does as media moguls descended on Canberra to attack the media package.

And further: 'Media executives were united in their opposition to the proposed Public Interest Media Advocate, labelling the power of the position as unprecedented, far-reaching and direct government interference of the press.' Mr Stokes, who set up the Shanghai Daily, said, 'We didn't have to go through this to do that.' Greg Hywood of Fairfax Media said that the public interest media commissar will have seriously dangerous consequences for good government. They are just two senior media commentators.

What on earth was this minister thinking when he introduced this stuff—seriously loopy stuff, seriously out there stuff, seriously politically dysfunctional stuff. But all of that is matched by the level and quality of leadership he is getting from his Prime Minister. There has never been an identification of the mischief. Why do we need this stuff? What is it all about? What is the legislation designed to cure or arrest? No-one seems to have any answer to this. I think it is actually criticism, because heaven only knows there has been enough criticism of this government on boats, with 34,000 people arriving since 2007. What a fiasco that has been. The mining resource rent tax—the tax that actually costs the taxpayers money—what a disaster, what a fiasco that has been. The carbon tax, the Malaysian solution, the East Timor solution—all of these are the creatures and children of this Prime Minister.

We have Mr Graham Perrett conceding:

The Prime Minister's in more trouble than Indiana Jones.

And then we have an unnamed minister talking about a leadership move. He says, 'I can't see it not happening'. I think it is a logical, explained consequence of this crazy media reform at this time. It is an election year. You guys over there have really lost the plot. And this minister has tremendous form—why would you ride him into battle on this? He mucked up anti-siphoning, completely stuffed it up; his performance on NBN has been utterly hopeless; he tried to do an internet filter that was just laughed out of this chamber; and his interception of the Australia Network tender meant the whole thing cost the taxpayer probably $5 million or $10 million. He is one of the few ministers who can actually wear a medal for about $60 million of wasted cost in various tenders for the provision of internet services.

Ultimately, this dysfunctional government has to do something. This PM has got to go. She has got to go. I cannot see how this government can continue with this level of incompetence, but I am sure I will be surprised in the future.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution to this debate to take note of answers in question time. You have to say one thing: the opposition is consistent. They are consistent in deriding; they are consistently rubbishing and putting down our side of politics. That is fair enough; that is their job. But the facts are that interest rates are now three per cent compared with 6.75 per cent when the Liberals left office. That means for a $300,000 mortgage there is a saving of $5,000 per annum—$5,000 per annum that a family is saving on their mortgage. We have delivered schoolkids bonuses of $410 for primary school children and $820 for high school children. There are 3.2 million pensioners who are better off—$172 for singles and $182 for couples. These are just a couple of the basic things that the Labor Party has delivered, that this Gillard Labor government has delivered.

We see this impending storm, or this continual storm, about the media bills. As I said yesterday, I do know people who are concerned about the way the media conducts itself and, when they get it wrong, what redress there is for the ordinary citizen. There must be a redress for the ordinary citizen who has been maligned or put into an invidious position by the media. That is what is really at stake here. No-one wants to stop the press from writing truthfully and faithfully about what happens, no-one is worried about politics. We here are all well able to defend ourselves either under parliamentary privilege or we can sue for defamation—we can do any number of things. But the average citizen in the street, if they are taken apart by a media event, what is their redress? The answer is: they can go to the Press Council, they can complain to the principals of the newspapers. Mr Finkelstein gave evidence this morning in a committee, and he said there is probably room for improvement there. It is not the government that is saying there is room for improvement, it is the chair of the Australian Press Council who is saying there is room for improvement.

We have had a continual barrage from Senator Joyce. He rattles off that the BER is a waste of money. I have not experienced that. I have officiated at, I think, 18 or 20 BER ceremonies and each one has been a great community event, supported by the communities who support their schools. Each one that I have been to has been a resoundingly good use of public money in schools which have often been starved of capital investment, particularly in the electorate of Grey, which is one of the largest regional seats in Australia. I have not met a principal, a parent, a president of the governing council or a member of the community who has shared Senator Joyce's cynicism about the BER projects.

We have to touch on the NBN. We know that 73 per cent of Australians really support the NBN. We know it is a huge project. I cannot wait to get it past my house; I cannot wait to get the benefits of the NBN in my electorate office and also in my home. The opportunities that the NBN will provide are genuinely startling and will change the way we do any number of things, and most importantly could well improve the productivity of our nation.

I turn to the leadership speculation. We have had this speculation on and on and on. It is all designed, in my view, by those on the other side to draw attention away from the genuine achievements of this government. You cannot fudge the figures on interest rates: interest rates of around three per cent compared with 6.75 per cent when those opposite were last in office. On a $300,000 mortgage homeowners get savings of $5,000 per annum for their families. Those things you can eat. You can take them to the bank. People can clothe and feed their families with some of the savings delivered by this Labor government in one area alone—that is, in mortgage rates. That lot over there think they are the champions of delivering low mortgage rates. (Time expired)

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

I too rise to take note of the answers given by Senator Conroy in relation to questions asked today in the area of his portfolio. Before I get to the communications and broadband portfolio I would like to comment on some things that Senator Gallacher said: 'The BER is a resoundingly good use of public money.' I find that quite an interesting comment. Maybe he would like to tell the people of Berry Bay in South Australia that it was a resoundingly good use of public money when they built their school shelter in a school that they moved out of about three months after it had been completed. The other thing Senator Gallaher said is he cannot wait to get the NBN 'past my house'. He referred to the electorate of Grey, which I assume he is a paired senator for, and that is fine for Senator Gallaher, who probably lives in the country. But what about the many people in Grey who will not be getting the NBN going past their houses?

I also draw attention to Senator Gallaher in relation to this constant suggestion that it is this side of the chamber, and only this side of the chamber, that is making any complaints in relation to the suite of media bills currently being debated. I have been sitting in the inquiries for the last two days and, apart from Mr Finkelstein, so far there has not been one person before us who has made any comment to suggest that they believe that this suite of bills is satisfactory. It seems odd that only the opposition is being castigated by the other side in relation to this.

The Australian media space is a highly regulated environment, and to a large extent that is a necessary thing. But it can only be regulated as long as it is regulated in a way that is beyond repute, is impartial, is transparent and so that it serves some benefit to society by being regulated. I would question the purpose of the increased regulation that is being proposed by this suite of bills and whether it is delivering much in the way of public benefit. This is probably not because there are no public benefits in there, but more because we do not seem to have terribly much information about the detail of what is being proposed. We have been given absolutely no time whatsoever in which to consider this suite of bills. I am afraid this does not give me a great deal of confidence.

Senator Pratt today alleged that the question about these bills showed that we support the misrepresentation of Australian citizens. I contest that by drawing this chamber's attention to the report published this morning on the website of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights. This committee published some findings on its investigation into these bills. Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantees the right of citizens to participate in government through their elected representatives. This committee has suggested that this suite of bills has been pushed through with such extraordinary haste that we are breaching our human rights obligations to give the citizens of Australia the opportunity, through their elected representatives, to participate in this process.

The news media diversity reforms create a number of offences and civil penalty provisions. It is proposed that these offences are ones of strict liability. Once again, we talk about the human rights implications of this in that it says that strict liability offences allow for the imposition of criminal liability without the need to prove fault, and so engage and limit the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Once again we have a human right that is being questioned by the method of implementation of this suite of bills.

The Public Interest Media Advocate Bill seeks further to corrupt basic human rights in the right not to incriminate oneself through the public interest media advocate's power to compel somebody to give information. Here we have a situation where a whole series of threats is being imposed on our human rights through threats to freedom of expression, threats to freedom of association, threats to freedom of speech, threats to the fundamental right to be innocent until proven guilty and threats to the freedom not to incriminate oneself. They are all potential threats to human rights encompassed in this suite of bills. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.