House debates

Wednesday, 20 March 2013

Bills

Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (News Media Diversity) Bill 2013; Second Reading

1:29 pm

Photo of Sid SidebottomSid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Hansard source

I have been in and around this place for some 15 years, although not continuously, unfortunately. I have not come across more hysterical reporting of legislation before the House than I have with this Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (News Media Diversity) Bill 2013 and the other media reform bills which are intended to follow. I have found it quite extraordinary. It is the shrillness of the so-called debate, rather than the content and substance of it, which is concerning—if perhaps not surprising. That shrillness, unfortunately, is a little bit reflective of debate in this country, both within states and nationally. We rarely seem able to have a debate of any substance in which the proponents and those opposed can present their arguments in a substantive way and have those listened to and debated logically, rationally and carefully.

This is, after all, a political debating house, although I am not sure how much debate actually takes place in it. More takes place in our caucus rooms and in the parliamentary committees, but it rarely takes place in here. The shrillness of this debate, though, is unparalleled—at least in my experience from the last 15 years. That is of great national concern. You would swear, if you were purely guided by the shrillness of the debate and the narrow views of those providing those shrill arguments, that the intention of both the legislation before us and the further media reform legislation intended to follow is the complete destruction of democracy and the introduction of totalitarianism in this country. But I think—and I suspect I will be right in this—that, when people protest too much, the public become concerned.

What I thought I might do, both for those who read the debate and those who listen to it—although it is not being broadcast at the moment—is actually look at the legislation, at what it is intended to do and how it is meant to do it. I have heard everyone comment on freedom of speech, freedom of the press, journalism and its codes, and self-regulation. Amidst that discussion, I have heard people give examples of what the press freedom situation is like in various totalitarian countries. But I have not heard many people talk about the bills before us, so I thought I might do that for you.

Comments

No comments