Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Over recent months we have heard much about the need to review the laws which regulate our media. The debate has been prompted by a range of developments, including the scandal involving the Murdoch press in the UK, an apparent decline in the standards of journalistic ethics here in Australia and the rapidly changing media landscape, driven mainly by technological change. In more recent weeks, public discourse has risen to new heights thanks to the restructuring decisions of both News Limited and Fairfax and the refusal of Fairfax suitor Gina Rinehart to commit to the Fairfax charter of editorial independence.

My views on these matters are well documented and I will continue to argue for new laws to ensure diversity of ownership, high standards in journalistic ethics and the retention of acceptable levels of local content. We have had enough inquiries; it is time to act. Both the Finkelstein inquiry and the Convergence Review urge us to do so. We need more independence in the oversight of media behaviour and we need a public interest test to protect diversity.

The recent intense focus on the changing media landscape and questions about what is an appropriate government response—and the slowness of those responses—have pushed to the background another important debate. That is the need for a more active government approach to the question of privacy. It is now four years since the Australian Law Reform Commission delivered its seminal report on privacy. The product of two years of research, the inquiry deserves the attention of each and every person who serves in this place.

A key recommendation of the inquiry was the establishment of a statutory cause of action in privacy, commonly known as a tort of privacy. The reality is that, in the 21st century, when a mobile phone camera can send an image or video viral in an instant, we need new and strengthened privacy laws. These issues are more important in a world in which the print media in particular are feeling the weight of technological change. We have seen some of the consequences over the course of the past week. Their response has been to embellish, misrepresent, sex up and do everything possible to create a better story. In some cases, whether the facts are accurate or inaccurate has not been a matter of concern for the publishers. It has been all about circulation and advertising sales in an environment where the print media is under enormous economic pressure.

Arguments that sufficient protection already exists in the area of privacy under the common law or the tort of trespass or for breaches of confidence are simply wrong. To argue that there are protections in the form of the Australian Press Council is absolutely laughable. We have seen the results of that over many years. We have seen the results of self-regulation. We have seen the capacity of the media organisations to withdraw from the Australian Press Council at their will when it suits them. This is no longer sustainable. It is no longer acceptable. The media will continue to argue that the Australian Law Reform Commission's recommendations are a threat to freedom of speech and democracy as we know it. This, of course, is just rubbish and there is no shortage of academics around the country prepared to support my case.

A statutory right to privacy would clarify the law for us all, both individual and media organisations. It is in the interests of all of us; it is in the national interest. None of us should be fearful of it. It is a good thing for the country, and the government should now embrace those recommendations in the same way that it should embrace the recommendations of the Finkelstein inquiry and the recommendations of the Convergence Review. Some people say that I speak with a jaundiced view on these things because I have experienced these things myself. That qualifies me. I have seen the way the media can misrepresent the facts. (Time expired)