Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

Tonight I think is a test for this parliament. It is a test for people of goodwill to look objectively at what the government is proposing in terms of fair and decent reforms. The time frames are tight. The questions are not so difficult, and the answers are easy enough. What we are proposing is a light touch approach. What we are proposing is an ability for this parliament to continue the good processes which, through the years, have needed to take place in terms of media and media reform, in terms of press, in terms of ownership issues and in terms of a whole range of issues in order to keep pace with what is happening in our media environment.

Not one of the things that have been put on the table by this government is an attack on any freedoms or any rights or any part of democracy. They are about getting things right and balanced. While we have heard a lot of rhetoric, scaremongering, scandalous accusations and incredible talk from the other side about what these laws represent, they represent none of the things that the opposition have been putting forward. The issues that have been debated tonight—and the legislation, which needs to be supported by this parliament—have been issues out in the public for many years. They are not so much issues that relate to us as members of parliament and politicians—it is not so much if at all about us, and that is the debate that the other side are trying to turn it into. Rather, they are about ordinary people. The issues relate to the right that any democracy has to a free press.

That is exactly the point of these bills: we want a free press, a press not controlled by just certain individuals, a free press in which journalists can report on issues of the day as they are. This is about individuals within media organisations. This is about content being king, so that owners and dictators within the media world do not get to decide what the news is rather than reporting the news. They will not get to make up the news rather than telling it as it actually happens.

We hear that there are many different voices now. There is no doubt that many different voices exist in the new world, the new space, of available media now. There is new social media. Every single person can be a reporter in a particular way and people can take personal responsibility, and they should, for the things that they say, whether on Facebook or Twitter or through other mechanisms—whether even simply emails. Through different forms of communication technology, we can see the different voices making themselves heard. But there is no question about the concentration of media in this country, and that concentration is growing.

Part of our reforms reflect some of that change in a positive way. The 75 per cent reach rule, for example, is glaringly out of date today and needs to be changed. Technically, there would today be a number of media organisations that are more than likely in breach of those rules. Those rules need to be modernised to reflect what is taking place in the media world.

The serious inquiries and reviews that have been held, such as the convergence inquiry or the Finkelstein review—which received over 1,800 submissions—have left no doubt that that the public, the community, wants a public interest test. They want to ensure that there is freedom of the press and that there are free voices out there to report to them what is happening in the world, in their own backyards and what is happening in this place, not what some say is happening. For me, these reforms are about modernising more than anything else. They are about catching up. They are about recognising that we live in a different environment.

I do not think that there would be one person in this place who has not had an issue with the media at one stage in their career, maybe outside of this place. We all can accept that that is the case. The resulting outcome is usually very unpleasant, as any member in here could tell you. There are a number of things that we can do, but most of the time the advice is to take it on the chin and just wear it. Right or wrong, it does not matter. You just have to wear it in the end. That always left this thought in my mind: if an elected member of parliament, a person who is regarded as having some authority, some influence, some power and some capacity does not have a framework, an ability, a mechanism or a vehicle to deal with things that might be said about them in the media, then how much of a go does an ordinary Australian get? The answer to that question is none.

This is not about members of parliament, politicians or businesspeople. It is about ordinary people, who expect to be treated fairly and decently. It is about people such as mums and dads; people who go through the courts system and are accused of a range of things only to be found to be innocent; sports personalities who may have committed some transgression and had their lives turned upside down through what takes place in the media. There are an endless number of stories. It is not about us. It is about ordinary people. It is about everybody who expects something out of our media in this country.

I agree with all the calls about freedom. But I agree with them because we are enhancing that freedom. We are providing a better framework; a better model; a better mechanism to ensure that the press is freer. There are lots of analogies that you could use and lots of different ways in which you might be able to portray this. But sometimes you have to protect those who claim to want to be free. If the media truly wants to be free of influence and free in their task, role and responsibility of reporting, then they ought to have a proper framework in which to do that so that they are not controlled by their bosses or by their owners. Their first responsibility should be to the news, to the facts, to the public and to the public interest, not to their masters. That is what these reforms are about: they will make sure that there is a balance.

The litany of examples of transgressions in the media is endless. We have heard about the really big ones already, particularly those from the UK—the phone-hacking scandals. And there are many others. There have been some here in Australia as well. There ought to be a balance here, like in all things.

What has happened here is not surprising. It shows that having this debate is almost an impossibility in any form that you bring it forward. Unless there is goodwill and unless there is an opposition, regardless of who the opposition might be, that has some capacity to say, 'Yes, we have to deal with this in some form; we've actually got to work through these things, as they've been around for a while,' this is almost an impossible debate to have.

When the opposition was in government, this side of the House stood up for freedom of the press and individual journalists. We stood up for people being able to speak freely. But I have to tell you that there is a big difference between simply having freedom and meeting your responsibilities in having that freedom. That is what this framework is about: trying to provide that balance and freedom that the opposition scream at us about every day in this place.

Where are the voices of the journalists who could benefit—who could be freer to report and meet their obligations and responsibilities to the public?

See this speech in context