Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Franklin, I am sorry I intervened on you as a first-time member; however, unfortunately, you blotted your copy book and said, ‘The opposition will not ask questions about health,’ when I was trying to ask a question about health. The question I was going to ask you was: how much new money is the government putting in in this grand health plan? Of course, the answer is nothing; it is coming out of the GST receipts from the states. It is just a transfer—and that is quite extraordinary. As to the suggestion that when we were in government we ripped money out of the health system, the Leader of the Opposition has already answered that.

However, tonight I want to speak about something that we will all agree on. I want to make some points in relation to the media in this country. Print media diversity has changed over time, leaving most communities with only one local daily newspaper. Often that one local daily newspaper, whatever it might be—the Herbert River Express or the Bowen Independent or the Innisfail Advocateends up being owned by the same media conglomerate. I have felt for a long time that this is not healthy—and the situation is repeated right across Australia.

Then you see what we particularly see—a growing emphasis that the media place on sensationalism, resulting in commentary on the news appearing to be more important than the news itself. We have all suffered that. We have all seen the sensationalist stories and the editorials that are dressed up as news. It is very unfortunate. I condemn the irresponsible reporting that tears people and their reputations apart in the guise of selling newspapers. It is really unfortunate that that should happen. It is really unfair and undemocratic. It does not help the community to understand issues that are important to them. I question whether the current safeguards for self-regulation of media ethics are adequate. I support the view that the media should adopt an accountability regime similar to that which is now operating in the United Kingdom.

I do recognise that free media and open political debate are vital for the proper functioning of a democracy. We are lucky to live in Australia—we are lucky to live in Queensland, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott. I was in your electorate yesterday. It was rather wet in Thargomindah and St George, but you are lucky to live there. There was no avgas at Thargomindah and we had to divert to Charleville to refuel. We are able to engage in an open and honest debate about a whole range of issues. The media has to play an important role in this. However, like in almost any area of society, from time to time questionable or unethical conduct occurs.

I do not raise this point tonight to point fingers or make accusations but rather to raise the issue of media ethics and accountability generally. The question I ask the parliament tonight is: who guards the guardians? It is an important question. It was posed by Premier Peter Beattie in his speech to his parliament in 2003. The then Premier posed several interesting questions. He made the point that a key part of our democracy is our government and political institutions being held accountable. Nobody could dispute that. Yet such a notion of accountability is lacking when we talk about the other side of the equation, when we talk about the free press.

When looking at this idea of accountability there are several things to consider. The very nature of media in Australia has changed in recent years. There has been a change in print media diversity, with most communities now having only one local daily newspaper, so there is no choice. Another change has been the growth in sensationalist news reporting. Tonight I am trying to raise awareness and encourage debate about the concept of accountability in the media. This is not about politics, ideology or policy. Indeed, to quote Tony Blair in 2007:

This speech is not a complaint. It is an argument.

               …            …            …

A free media is a vital part of a free society. You only need to look at where such a free media is absent to know this truth.

But it is also part of freedom to be able to comment on the media. It has a complete right to be free. I, like anyone else, have a complete right to speak.

Like Tony Blair, I am free to raise this issue. I do not stand here tonight to complain about a particular story or a particular media outlet.

It is the role and right of the media to deliver the news to the Australian people, so in many ways this issue is about trust. Australians put their trust in the news that they watch on TV, listen to on the radio or read in the paper. The media have a responsibility to the Australian people to repay this trust with accurate and fair reporting. Unfortunately, such standards are not always adhered to. Complex topics frequently become subject to sensationalism. Exciting and emotionally charged aspects can be drawn out without providing elements such as pertinent background, investigative or contextual information needed for the viewer to form his or her opinion on the subject. I digress for a moment and say that I am reminded about stories that I have seen appearing about the relationship of an Australian cricketer and his fiancee.

Parliament is no exception. A media piece may report on a political figure in a biased way or present one side of an issue while deriding another. Even in cases of neutrality, there may be examples of privileging one way of thinking over another. This is not about one party or another; rather, it is something that occasionally happens to people on all sides of the parliament.

Tony Blair went on to say:

… scandal and controversy beats ordinary reporting hands down. News is rarely news unless it generates heat as much as, or more than, light.

How right that is. Monitoring and reporting on the activities of elected officials is a frequent domain of the media, as it should be. However, when investigation fails to give light to anything explosive, a sensational piece is not the answer. For these reasons, I believe that something must be done. It may be appropriate to investigate whether a media accountability scheme, similar to that which exists in the United Kingdom, could be implemented. In investigating such issues, the parliament should set up an inquiry into media ethics and accountability. People should be able to tell their stories whether they are personally affected by inaccurate or sensationalist reporting or feel that they have been deceived by such reports. While I am not suggesting that these instances are frequent, it is important that accountability avenues exist for when they do occur.

The notion of media ethics is not a new one. The Australian Journalists Association have their own code, which requires journalists to:

1.        Report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and disclosure of all essential facts. Do not suppress relevant available facts, or give distorting emphasis.

Boy I wish that would happen in the media, particularly the print media, today! It is not a new concept. Media Watch, on the ABC, gives several examples every week of situations where the media get it wrong. Last week’s episode featured a Channel 10 news report alleging that high-school students in Brisbane were using a CBD alleyway to deal illicit drugs. Despite suggestions by the reporter that drug deals had been captured on camera, the only footage shown was of two students giving each other a ‘low five’, not exchanging money for drugs as was suggested. This is another unfortunate example of sensationalist reporting, where an explosive headline is bigger than the actual facts or footage. Sensationalism and inaccuracy happens. For this reason, we need a more formalised structure of accountability which goes further than a 15-minute self-regulatory television program. We should investigate which measure would be most appropriate in any accountability framework and whether it should be an ombudsman or an independent inquiry. A free media, an open political debate, adds to and enhances the vibrancy of the Australian community. We must make sure that this vibrancy is not harmed by instances of sensationalist, inaccurate or biased reporting. So I recommend to the parliament that we set up a parliamentary inquiry into the adequacy of accountability mechanisms for media ethics in Australia.