Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was not planning on speaking at this stage of the debate on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (News Media Diversity) Bill 2013, but, given some of the confusion about the chaos that this government has created tonight—

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Manager of Opposition Business will not put that to the chamber. There were procedural matters before the House.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is not just the chaos of the last 20 minutes, Speaker; it is the chaos that has infected this parliament over the government's attempts to muzzle the media through these media regulations they are introducing into the parliament and proposing to pass in the House tonight. That is the chaos to which I am referring.

The government have so lost their way that they are now in the parliament tonight planning to gag a debate about freedom of speech.

The government have sunk so low that not only are they introducing bills that they intend to pass tonight that muzzle a free press in this country and introduce the most draconian media laws in the history of the Commonwealth outside wartime but they are also planning tonight to gag that debate, to apply the guillotine to stop the debate on the government's media regulation. I know it is amazing and surprising that the government could have sunk so low, could have become so unscrupulous, that they would actually be seeking to gag a debate about freedom of speech, but that is the plan of the government tonight in this House.

Why would the government have sunk so low that it would be planning on gagging a debate on freedom of speech in this parliament? I will tell you why. Because everything the Prime Minister and the government do is about hour-by-hour survival. These media laws were dreamt up by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy. They were shanghaied through the cabinet process. We know that half the members of the cabinet were not even present when the debate was held. Many of them did not even know the debate was going to be held. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has made it clear that he did not even know there was going to be a debate in cabinet about these media laws. The minister opposite, the Minister for Health, was stuck with me on a plane in Sydney. The Cabinet Secretary was stuck with me on the same plane. The Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth was stuck with me on the same plane in Sydney. None of them made the cabinet debate. We know from the reports of that cabinet—because the government leaks like a sieve—that members of the cabinet did not even have briefing notes. They had an oral briefing from the minister for communications. They were not given the opportunity to examine what the government was proposing because all this Prime Minister wanted to do, in the dying days of this government, was introduce another grand distraction to keep the member for Griffith at bay for another week or two. But I doubt that will occur, because these media laws will be the final rock upon which this prime ministership breaks. This will be the final rock into which the Prime Minister sails the Labor Party ship before the next election.

Who could have believed the number of enemies this government has made over the last two and a half years, whether it is live cattle exporters, right through to, now, the media industry in this country, by trying to introduce the most draconian measures to regulate the press outside wartime in Australia? We know that the Prime Minister shanghaied the cabinet last Tuesday to introduce these laws. We know that the caucus did not get any opportunity to debate these changes or the process by which the minister for communications decided to introduce these laws.

And to the members opposite who are being so voluble in attacking me during my contribution, at least I have the decency to stand up here at the dispatch box and argue my case. Not one member of the Labor back bench is prepared to defend these laws. The members of the Labor back bench and front bench were pulled from the speakers list today so that these bills would go through the parliament tonight, to try again for another day to stave off the inevitable replacement of the Prime Minister by the member for Griffith, or the member for Hotham, or the member for Isaacs, or anyone other than this Prime Minister the Labor Party will cling to like a drowning sailor to try to save this disastrous failing government.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We can hear you; you don't have to shout!

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, why don't you speak, Rumpole! Why isn't any member of the Labor Party—

Darren Cheeseman (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will use the proper titles of those opposite.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will. I challenge all the members of the Labor Party to come into the chamber tonight and defend this grotesque invasion of freedom of speech in this country.

Not only was the caucus railroaded but the committee process for the biggest change to media regulation in this country was limited to a one-day hearing in Canberra this week. There was no proper process and no proper investigation. We know that the government have gotten these things wrong time and time and time again. They need to go through the proper committee process if they are going to get the legislation right. They are chattering away on the other side of the dispatch box like a couple of twittering birds in a nest. Get up and defend the government's media regulation rather than coming in here like a coward and interrupting other members while they are speaking. If you want to speak, speak.

The final denouement of this legislation is to railroad these bills through the parliament tonight with a grubby deal with the crossbenchers in this hung parliament. All week the crossbenchers have come out and paraded themselves in front of the media doing their dance of a thousand veils for the press about how they were going to vote against this legislation or how, in order to vote for it, they needed extra inducements in this place for their electorates. They paraded themselves for the press gallery. They did their dance of a thousand veils, but, in the end, what did I predict on Monday morning? I predicted they would roll over and vote for the Prime Minister's legislation. And there is one reason: not one of the crossbenchers wants an election. Only the member for Kennedy and the member for Denison would be re-elected right now if there were an election, and they know it. They have much more support in their electorates than the member for Lyne, the member for New England, the member for Melbourne, the member for Fisher or the member for Dobell. So they have done a grubby deal with the government to stave off an election—

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We might be approaching 'cracker night' in Canberra, but this is ridiculous. Is he going to be relevant to the legislation before the House? When is he going to be relevant?

Darren Cheeseman (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The speaker will refer to the legislation before the House.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker Lyons, you might want to talk to the Leader of the House about the arrangements between the opposition and the government, because it has been made very clear to us in the opposition that because of the chaotic nature of the treatment of these bills in the parliament tonight members of the opposition have been told that they can speak to all of these bills in a cognate debate, in spite of the fact that we will be voting on them separately. So I am speaking to the bills, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I am talking about freedom of speech.

One of the most important attributes of a successful democracy is the freedom of the press. We have not always been grateful for the press coverage we have had as politicians in this country. Both sides of parliament have had their fair share of opprobrium from the free press. But the free press is one of the most important structures in our democracy.

The press—whether it is Fairfax, Seven, Nine, Ten or News Limited—are united against this attack on their freedom to publish without reservation, without fear or favour. The Daily Telegraph had a two-page spread today about what the newspapers will look like in the future under the Public Interest Media Advocate. They had a satire of what the press would look like if this legislation were passed, and it made for very sad reading. I read it, and I could have been reading Pravda; I could have been reading a North Korean newspaper. And that is the future for this country if the Labor government get their way: if they suborn the cabinet, if they ignore the caucus, if they demean the committee process and if they gag the parliament.

If this legislation passes tonight and then passes the Senate, the future for this country is in the hands of the committee of public safety, otherwise known as the Public Interest Media Advocate. In fact, the grubby deal this government has done with the crossbenchers is not to have a government-only-appointed public interest media advocate; it is to have a panel. It is sounding even more like the committee of public safety. It will be a panel of three, just like the committee of public safety, who will decide who is appointed the new media tsar, the PIMA, who will determine the content of publications in this country, and who will determine the public interest.

I know that former senator Bob Brown is looking for a job. He is the kind of person that the Labor Party would want to have as the Public Interest Media Advocate. He, too, hates News Limited, just as the minister for communications and the Prime Minister do.

The Prime Minister has been threatening News Limited for months. She hates the press coverage she gets. She hates the truth that the press talk about this government and this Prime Minister. She has been threatening News Limited for months. Last year she said that News Limited had questions to answer. Yet she is yet to put one of those questions to the parliament. She has yet to even argue in favour of her media regulation. We have not had the UK phone hacking scandal that Britain saw last year; we have had nothing even approaching it. She has not been able to detail one question that News Limited is supposed to have been able to answer. She has not been able to describe what mischief this legislation is designed to deal with or to remove. All she has done is to come in here with her hate and her bile and her viciousness towards the free press and say, 'Before this government falls, let's introduce media regulation so we can muzzle the free press.'

I know there are good Labor people on that side of the House. They are few and far between, but I know they are there. And why are they going along with this extraordinary legislation? Why are they supporting legislation that would make Lenin proud? Lenin, when he was in control of the Soviet Union in 1920, said: 'Why should freedom of speech and freedom of the press be allowed? Why should a government which is doing what it believes to be right allow itself to be criticised?' It would not allow opposition by lethal weapons. Ideas are much more fatal things than guns. Why should any man be allowed to buy a printing press and disseminate pernicious opinion calculated to embarrass the government? And I see the member for Werriwa is nodding. Thank you, the member for Werriwa.

Mr Laurie Ferguson interjecting—

The member for Werriwa is nodding—he agrees with Vladimir Lenin in 1920! He cannot understand why the government did not act sooner: 'Why didn't the government act sooner?'

But I can tell you one thing: the opposition will oppose this legislation root and branch. We will fight it right through to the election day. It will not just be that we will abolish the carbon tax and the mining tax; we will bring back integrity and transparency to government, respect the parliament and have a Prime Minister who leads by example in his treatment of the parliament and the press. We will repeal this legislation. We will do everything we have to do to bring back a free press in this country. And the government will wear this around their necks like a millstone, right through to 8 o'clock on election night when the results are finally announced and far too many members, amongst them good members, on the Labor side will lose their seats, because of one thing—because of their inane desire to support, their obsession with supporting, Julia Gillard as Prime Minister through to the election.

You are laughing at that, Member for Reid, but you have not supported the Prime Minister for a very long time. I know you think that is terribly funny. But, unfortunately, you are being tarred with the same brush as every other one of your colleagues.

John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been verballed by the member for Sturt, and it has nothing to do with the legislation before the chair. I would ask you to rule in my favour.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Reid, that is not a point of order in this chamber.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In closing, can I say how sad I am to be standing in the House of Representatives to defend free speech in 2013. I never thought that, in the 20 years that I have been in parliament—or in the years I hope to be in parliament yet—that I would be called upon to defend freedom of speech in this country. It shows the nadir that this government and this Prime Minister have reached. And they will reap the whirlwind of their yesterdays on 14 September.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a good thing that this debate is occurring in Canberra, a town where firecrackers are still legal. We have had all the pomp and ceremony of cracker night. The previous speaker went off like a catherine-wheel. Occasionally, that diatribe was relevant to the legislation before the House—very, very rarely, though. I have to say that it strikes people on this side of the House as passing strange that we have been subjected to a 15-minute tirade on freedom of speech from the only political party in this country which has sought to outlaw another political party because it did not like what they stood for. The only political party in this country which has ever sought to ban the existence of another political party is the Liberal Party of Australia. Their great hero, Robert Menzies, was the only Prime Minister of this country to have taken a bill into this House and had it pass through this House which had the effect of banning another political party because the government did not like what that political party stood for. And yet we hear this 15-minute diatribe, this hypocritical diatribe, from the member for Sturt. They may well say, 'Well, that was almost 60 years ago, and we have reformed. We've got a new love of freedom of speech.'

You might accept that if you did not have a memory of the absolute disgrace of members on that side of the House, many of them still on the front bench, who sat in cabinet under the former Prime Minister John Howard and issued gag order after gag order, suppression after suppression, when members of the media sought access to government documents under the freedom of information laws. Where was the member for Sturt? We know he was not in cabinet because he was not a favourite of the then Prime Minister John Howard, so he cannot be personally held liable for sticking his hand up for the gag orders and the suppression of freedom of information requests from members of the media. But where were they when members of the press and members of the public were seeking to exercise their rights under the freedom of information laws? Where were the speeches? Where was the great tirade in defence of freedom of speech? It was nowhere to be seen. That exposes the member for Sturt's confected outrage for what it is.

The freedom of information laws were modernised, brought up to date and reformed under this government because this government has a commitment to openness. This government has a commitment to ensuring that members of the public, including members of the press gallery, have access to those documents, as they should under our freedom of information laws. That those poor people who are sitting in their living rooms tonight had to listen to the hypocritical tirade from the member for Sturt, the member who stands in the shoes of the people who sought to outlaw another political party because they did not agree with its views, is nothing short of a disgrace.

In the 15 minutes that we heard from the member for Sturt on the issue of media reform in this country, not once did we hear a defence of people who may have been victims of misreporting by the media. I am a great defender of the freedom of press in this country, and with my last breath I will defend us having a free and independent news media in this country. It is absolutely essential to the fabric of our democracy in this country that we have a free and independent press. I know that every member in the Labor Party, every member on this side of the House, has a fundamental conviction to that principle. There must be a voice in the parliament for the people who have been victims of misreporting. Those people have had their lives ruined because a journalist got it wrong, a media outlet got it wrong or somebody was not able to adequately check their facts before publishing something in one of our news outlets. The victims of misreporting have had their lives turned upside down. In other countries we have seen absolutely tragic consequences of that.

Where are the voices from members on the other side of the House for the little people, for the victims? We have heard plenty of voices on the other side of the House for the media bosses, but where are the voices for the victims? We stand for the victims. We say that there should be somebody standing up and saying that, if someone is a victim of misreporting, they should have a remedy available for them and not just for the millionaires. One of the best clients of defamation barristers in this country is the member for Wentworth. The thing that sets the member for Wentworth aside from the majority of other Australian citizens is that he has the means available to him. If he believes that he has been defamed by the media, he has the means available to him to pursue action, but the ordinary Australian who feels that they have been defamed or they have been a victim of misreporting does not have that access. They cannot put $10,000 on the table and hire the best QC in Sydney, Melbourne or any other capital city around this country. They cannot put $10,000 on the table and seek to have their rights exercised. Even if they could, what remedy is there? The average defamation case in this country takes two years to conclude.

Mr Frydenberg interjecting—

The member for Wentworth and the member for Kooyong over there say to the little person in this country who seeks a remedy, 'It's okay. You can take action in defamation.' For the vast majority of Australians, that is no remedy at all. All we seek through this part of the legislation is to ensure that we have a robust press council in this country that lives by its codes and implements its codes and that the media proprietors in this country cannot stand over that press council.

Talking about standing over an independent body, what do members on the other side of the House have to say about the circumstance where, in a media outlet—and I do not say that every journalist in that media outlet would agree with this course of events, because I am sure that most of them would be appalled by it—a rogue media proprietor said, 'I will withdraw from the press council if you have adverse findings against me'? That is not a fair and independent system. That is a system where Caesar judges Caesar. That is a situation where the average punter has no redress whatsoever. I stand here as a voice for the average punter who believes they should have redress if they are the victim of misreporting.

I go to something else about the bills and the debate before the House. One of the provisions within this package of legislation goes to the issue of convergence within the media. It should be a matter of concern to all Australians that we do not have a diminution of voices in the media landscape. If you are a defender of a free press, then you must also be a defender of a diverse press.

They go hand in hand. And if you are a defender of a free press and a diverse press, then you must, in the next breath, also be defender of ensuring that we have a plentiful number of journalists in this country who are working for a free press and a diverse press. I ask you: when was the last time we saw a merger of two media operations, the takeover of one media company by another media company, that led to the employment of more journalists? When have we seen the takeover of one newspaper by another newspaper and the employment of more journalists or more subeditors or more editorial staff? The answer, quite simply, is never, because the second victim of a takeover by one media company of another media outlet is the journalists. We know that because, as the media landscape is rapidly converging and as we are seeing a rationalisation in the media landscape, we are seeing journalists losing their jobs—not in their tens, not in their dozens but in their thousands.

Mr Frydenberg interjecting—

I expect to see the member for Kooyong stand up and defend the good men and women who are journalists in this country, and the job security they deserve, because he has had a lot to say during my speech. I expect to hear a full-throated defence of the journalists of this country and a proposition that will see that there are more job opportunities for journalists in this country, not fewer, because we have never seen an example where one newspaper has been bought out by another newspaper or one TV station has been bought out by another TV station and more journalists have been employed. What we have seen is a sacking of journalists, a sacking of editorial staff, a sacking of employees and a diminution in the number of people who are employed in the free media.

So, if the member for Sturt is fair dinkum in his passionate defence of a free media in this country and of freedom of the press, he will also be passionate in his defence of a proposition that says we need a public interest test. We need to ensure that if one company is taken over by another company we will not see a diminution in the vibrancy of voices, in the number of journalists that are employed. Somebody has to stick up for the journalists, because we have seen not dozens, not hundreds but thousands of journalistic jobs lost. Over 500 editorial staff have been lost from News Limited in 2012 alone.

Geoff Lyons (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Fairfax as well.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And I hear the member for Bass talk about the tragedy of the loss of journalistic and editorial staff from the Examiner, an excellent regional newspaper in his electorate and in northern Tasmania. It would be no surprise to the member for Bass, as it is not a surprise to me, that Fairfax has sacked over 1,900 staff.

Mr Frydenberg interjecting—

I ask you—and I ask the member for Kooyong, because I am sure he is going to be on his feet in a moment; he has had a hell of a lot to say in interjections—how can a convergence of the media lead to the employment of more paid journalists in this country? I am sure he is going to be able to explain to the House how the taking over of one media company by another media company is going to lead to more journalists being employed. The facts are against him. History is against him—over 1,900 editorial jobs lost from Fairfax in the last 18 months, including from the local Fairfax newspaper in my town, the Illawarra Mercury, a fine newspaper. The subeditorial work is now being performed in New Zealand. I take nothing away from the excellent editorial staff and journalists in New Zealand, but I would rather see those people employed in Wollongong. I would rather see those staff working for a Fairfax outlet in New South Wales.

We have heard a 15-minute hypocritical tirade from the member for Sturt about freedom of speech, overlooking the fact that it is his party that sought to impose gag orders on people who held different views from that of the former government. His is the party that sought to have suppression orders preventing the full operation of the freedom of information laws. His is the party that has had nothing to say for the victims of misreporting. It is his party that says: 'If you feel like you have been a victim of misreporting, put $10,000 on the table and then hire the best QC you can; good luck, son.' We do not all have the means to do that. There are no voices for the victims, no voices for the journalists but plenty of voices for the big end of town, once again. Let us see some balance in this debate. Let us see some genuine debate, some genuine balance and ensure that at the end of this sitting we have a good bill that we can send to the Senate to ensure that we get better laws and a better media and that we will continue to defend— (Time expired)

John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I join with the member for Throsby in putting this in perspective. These broadcasting legislation amendment bills arise from the convergence review, which was established in 2010. The Finkelstein inquiry was commissioned in 2011, and I had to listen to the humbug from the member for Sturt and the humbug from earlier speakers on the other side of the House about a threat to free speech. What is proposed on the other side of the House is a vote for the big media proprietors at the expense of the public interest and the citizens of Australia who are worried about concentration of media ownership in our country. That is a national disgrace. I have been participating in this debate ever since I arrived in this place almost 15 years ago. You would be aware of it, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, because you would have heard me speaking about the threats to concentration of media ownership over many, many years in this place.

What we are not hearing from the opposition tonight is the massive concentration of media ownership that was visited on Australia when John Howard allowed media proprietors to own all of the traditional media. Remember, when Paul Keating was Prime Minister he said: 'If you want to be prince of print or queen of the screen, that's it. You can't have print media, electronic media and all this new media, because this massive concentration of media ownership in Australia presents such a threat to the public interest and to the future of our democracy.' Keating was strong. We were strong on this side of the House.

From what we have heard day in and day out, with great respect to the member for Wentworth, I can only say they are apologists for the big media companies. They are doing the bidding of the big media companies. When people go to polling booths on election day, in most cases they vote for a political party or they vote for a leader. In a very small number of cases they vote for a local member. They do not vote for Rupert Murdoch. They do not vote for a big media proprietor, and that is the truth. What we are talking about here tonight is critical to the future of the public interest and our democracy because if these laws do not go through our House and are not approved by the Senate and signed off by the Governor-General, this will send a message that we are exporting our democracy to the big, powerful media players.

It was very humbling yesterday when Kerry Stokes, a very prominent media player but nowhere near as powerful as Rupert Murdoch and News Limited in our country, appeared before our committee. We were talking about the potential abolition of the 75 per cent reach rule for free-to-air television networks in regional Australia. He made it unambiguous to our committee that, were that to take place, he could absolutely dominate the media in Western Australia. He accepted the proposition that that was not good for the public interest, that that was not good for the future of our democracy. I salute Kerry Stokes, proprietor of the Seven Network, for having the honesty to say that before a parliamentary committee. We did not hear it from Kim Williams, the Chief Executive Officer of News Limited, representing the biggest media organisation in our country, when he appeared before Senator Doug Cameron's committee in the Senate. No, no, because when would you ever expect a News Limited representative to say, 'If we're allowed to have more of the media, that will not be good for the public interest and that's not good for our democracy'?

I would hope that the Murdoch family would take a leaf out of the book of Kerry Stokes, who had the decency and humility to lay bare and admit before the parliamentary committee that I am a member of that, if the 75 per cent reach rule is abolished, he potentially could have far too much power over our democracy, particularly as it relates to the politics of Western Australia.

Can I take you back to where we are tonight, because we are discussing these bills following the last three years of the outcome of the Finkelstein inquiry and the convergence inquiry. I want to remind the House that over this period of time more than 1,800 submissions were received in relation to these inquiries. Not surprisingly, most of these submissions call for media reform. We all support media reform. We understand we are living in a different age today than we were 30 or 40 years ago. Also not surprisingly, the content of submissions from media companies reflects their commercial objectives and of course makes no reference to the concerns of the public interest, which is dear to my heart because the public interest is critical to the future of our democracy.

As I said, I have been in this place for nearly 15 years. During this time, the matter of media ownership has arisen and I have made many speeches speaking out against concentration of media ownership, even against the position of my own party. During this time I have also spoken many times in my party room about the need to oppose further concentration of media in our country. During this time I have also spoken out in the media expressing my grave concerns for the public interest and the future of our precious democracy were media ownership to be further concentrated in our country. During this time I have also written many letters to editors of newspapers—mostly Fairfax because I did not have much luck when I started writing letters to News Limited newspapers—about the serious risk to our democracy if media ownership were further concentrated in our country. I do not believe that anyone spoke more forcefully in this place against the Howard government's reform of our media ownership laws and the reforms which led to very serious concentration of media ownership in Australia.

I want to remind the House that the reforms by the Howard government allowed media proprietors to own all of the traditional media—newspapers, television stations, radio stations—and, of course, also to have the potential to extend their reach in this new digital age.

I spoke very, very strongly about that. I said it was not in the public interest and I made it quite clear that it was not good for the future of our democracy. I say tonight: enough is enough. We cannot keep caving in to the powerful media proprietors.

I ask tonight: who is running our democracy? Who is running Australia? I would like to think that the people who cast their vote in 2010 got the government that they got—even though those on the other side do not like it. It is Prime Minister Gillard and the Labor government who are running our country, not Rupert Murdoch or any other powerful media proprietor. I think if you asked most fair-minded Australians they would say the same thing. When they go to the polling booths on election day, they do not see a list of names of media proprietors for whom they should cast their vote. They look for a candidate. They look for a party to express who they want to represent them in this place.

In recent times, we have witnessed what can happen when a media company becomes too powerful. Obviously, I am referring to the News of the World telephone hacking scandal in the United Kingdom. And, of course, who owned the News of the World newspaper? Mr Rupert Murdoch. Obviously, we never want to see what happened in the United Kingdom happen here in Australia. I think it is important to record, as I stand here tonight, that, following the revelations of the Murdoch News of the World phone-hacking scandal, there are more than 200 criminal investigations taking place in the UK. These arise from very serious charges against people who, amongst other things, have no regard whatsoever for people's privacy, no regard for their reputations, no regard for their right to have a private life and no conscience about trashing their reputation and their character. The great body of the criminal investigation arose from the reprehensible behaviour and conduct of people employed by Mr Murdoch. I am referring to those who are employed by News International in the UK.

In Australia, the Murdoch media is very, very powerful. In relation to our print media, I am grateful to the Parliamentary Library, which has provided to me, inter alia, the latest information on the extent of print media alone, which is owned and controlled by News Limited. For the benefit of the House, I will just read some of that. News Limited owns 147 newspapers in Australia, and of those 104 are suburban publications, including 17 in which News Limited has a 50 per cent interest. News Limited's daily and Sunday newspapers account for more than 69 per cent of the total circulation of all daily and Sunday newspapers. Audit Bureau of Circulations figures for metropolitan newspapers as at the end of December 2012 indicate that, if a Monday to Friday sales calculation were used, Murdoch papers would represent around 80 per cent of sales, or if just the national newspapers were being considered then Murdoch titles would represent 70 per cent of all sales in Australia. News Limited's daily and Sunday newspapers account for more than 69 per cent of the total circulation of all daily and Sunday newspapers, excluding suburban and regional newspapers published in Australia.

It is a national disgrace that we hear the alternative government, the opposition, defending the position of the most powerful media proprietor in not only Australia but, indeed, the world. They are critical of us. They support the hysterical criticism that has been visited on us by Mr Murdoch's chief executive in Australia, Mr Kim Williams, who thinks that what we are trying to do is an assault on free press. What do you think I think the Murdoch media has done to free speech in Australia? Is it any wonder that there are some nervous nellies here tonight on all sides of politics, who are afraid to take on a very, very powerful media proprietor? Well, I say that the people of Australia do not vote for Rupert Murdoch and News Limited. It is a national disgrace that we should be afraid of a very, very powerful media company. This goes to the heart of our democracy. This goes to the heart of the public interest. I will not accept any lectures from Mr Kim Williams, who is an agent of Mr Murdoch, telling us that what we are doing is not in the public interest and that somehow it is in the political interest. It is not in the political interest. (Time expired)

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

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They're too scared.

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

Perhaps they are too scared, as I hear somebody interject. Perhaps they are too scared. I cannot judge that. I can only judge from what I have seen reported in the media over the last few years—the hysterical front pages. I would say they were humorous. I do not know that anyone could take too seriously the comparison of anybody in this parliament—or anyone in this country—to Mugabe, Stalin or anyone like that. But we will take that on the chin; maybe that was just done in jest as a bit of humour.

But I am not sure that that is what the media is talking about when they say they want to be free. Is that what they want freedom for? Is that the freedom they are talking about? Is it so that we can have these ridiculous front pages? Is that news, is that reporting or is that some sort of joke on the Australian public? Is it a joke on the democracy of this country? Is it a joke on this parliament—on all of us? Is that what we expect from our press? I do not think it is, and I do not think journalists expect that either.

All fair, decent, hardworking journalists who believe in their profession—who actually believe in what they do—see some good, some benefit, from this legislation. And there are a few voices amongst journalists saying: 'Hang on; let's have a closer look at this. This really is a light touch. This actually is about self-regulation—about empowering people to self-regulate.' Sometimes you need to provide those powers for that to take place, whether it is having a public interest media advocate, enhancing self-regulation or doing a range of things, including trying to enhance Australian content, and helping to pay for it. This government is prepared to put money on the table and reduce the fees of media outlets.

We have heard from a range of members, particularly the member for Lowe, in relation to media ownership and the need for diversity. I agree with him. I agree that we need diversity and that there needs to be a balance. And the voice about that is coming from the media as well.

But the two points I want to make are in terms of what you will hear loudest. The shrill, screaming, ridiculous sounds that the opposition are making are typical. We have nearly 23 million people in this country but whenever the opportunity arises for the opposition to stand up for somebody, they always stand up for the big end of town, the big media voices—

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Singing for their supper.

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

They are singing for their supper. Those opposition always stand up for the big media owners—the big media bosses. You never, ever hear them in this place speaking up for ordinary people—the little guy in the street.

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are made up of small business owners.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Kooyong!

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, if I could have some freedom of speech in this place without being interrupted by the rude opposition, that would be much appreciated. I seek your protection in this area, through the powers that you have been given by this parliament.

The responsibility that we have in this place is not to media owners—we do not have a responsibility to them—and it is not to the media bosses. We do not have any responsibility to them. We have a responsibility to the people who elected us and to the Australian national interest. We have a responsibility to the greater good of preserving democracy and freedom of speech. And that is what we are doing. That is what we are putting forward.

People talk about the public interest and the public interest test and how all these things link up. I do not see too much public interest in some of the reporting—or what is called reporting—that goes on in this country. There is no public interest test internally, but there should be an opportunity for people who are in some way aggrieved, maligned or otherwise falsely accused. People need to have some balance. There ought to be some mechanism available for people to redress the wrongs that are done to them.

It is well and good for the big end of town to come to an inquiry in this place and talk about, for example, their privacy. I do not see privacy being a really big question mark when the media do reporting or tell some of their stories. Privacy does not seem to come into it then to too much of an extent.

But maybe we ought to do a little bit more about that. Maybe the media is right. Maybe the big bosses are right when they talk about their privacy and perhaps we should apply the same principles. So, if there is anything to be said about media reform in this country the first thing to say is that it is needed. People give you these simple lines like, 'If it ain't broke don't fix it.' All that says to me is that people either (a) are lazy, or (b) do not have any ideas. The reality is that we can always improve, we can always move forward. When it comes to media in this country we can definitely improve.

What I want to see tomorrow is journalists standing up and taking on their own profession and saying: 'We have a profession. This is an honourable trade and it is something we ought to be standing up for.' Freedom of the press is not about freedom for owners, editors and media bosses; it is about freedom for individual journalists to report the facts. So, I feel very moved, as a lot of people do, to say that we need media reform. In the public interest, through inquiries, time and a change in the public's attitude, something ought to be done. And we should not be frightened of it.

I am not sure how anyone could be scared. If you have had a look at the front pages in the last few days, there is not much left that can be done in terms of attacking an individual minister or a government with any single word or insult that can be thrown at anyone. I am not sure how creative people can be in finding anything new and more horrific for tomorrow, but I am sure they will. But that is not the central point of what I am trying—

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sticks and stones!

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

Sticks and stones—I will take the interjection—might be fine for somebody of the capacity of the member opposite, but not everybody in society has that capacity. We have a responsibility, and so does the media, to protect them.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And so does the member for Kooyong.

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

So does the member for Kooyong—absolutely! So we have a responsibility. If we really are going to talk about a free press we ought to do something about it. (Time expired)

Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with some considerable pleasure that I rise this evening to speak on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (News Media Diversity) Bill 2013. I am a former teacher. One of the things that teachers really need to do at the beginning of the year with their students is to create an environment in which trust can grow and an environment where the notion of rights is very carefully debated and considered.

In the many years that I was teaching I was very pleased to learn wonderful things from my colleagues. Amongst my colleagues was a man by the name of Bruce Helyard, who I taught with at a school called Corpus Christi Senior High School on the Central Coast. In one year 11 introduction session, I happened to be team teaching with Mr Helyard when he spoke to the students about how the course might progress. I have never forgotten that at the very bottom of a list of outlines of the ways in which we might behave was the sense that, 'Any right I claim as my own I extend to the other people in this room.' I think that it is a very important premise. Some people are not more equal than others. We need to make sure that the variety of voices which were heard in that classroom are, in fact, replicated in our community in a much more significant and a broader way.

At the heart of this piece of legislation is a determination by this government to put a line in the sand and say that there will be no further shrinking of the range of voices, of the different perspectives, that need to go on the public record every day if we are to live in a healthy and functional democracy. A diversity of views is essential. Despite all the shouting and outrage that we saw from the Manager of Opposition Business in his speech, the reality is that at the heart of this is a sense that diversity of voices is essential for us if we are to get a reasonable perspective of the things that are going on in our community.

This particular piece of legislation is a response to the fact that there are fewer and fewer organisations owning or controlling the sources of news and commentary in this country. I speak to people in my community, and many of them bemoan the fact that the newspapers to which they used to turn for fact and very balanced reporting have been moving further and further to a state where they are called 'opinion papers'.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Propaganda rags.

Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

'Propaganda rags' I hear from my colleague, and that is a very unfortunate name to be throwing about in the context of our current media structures. We do need to ensure that we maintain media diversity. In division 9 in the first schedule of the broadcasting legislation amendment bill, there is a list of news media voices. It is a big country, and there are many, many stories to tell, and there are a range of people who can tell them. But we have only got a page and a bit here of listed television broadcast services and we have got a pretty short list of radio broadcasting services. We have an incredible concentration of ownership of these voices. This is a threat to the rights of ordinary citizens to have a range of stories told. This is a threat to our country to tell our stories to and about ourselves as we progress the history of this great nation. Two critical existing mechanisms that we have to address the risk of concentration are competition law and foreign ownership restrictions. But these alone are not adequate tools to really help us deal with the need to maintain media diversity.

In Australia the reality is, in the time since I have been a reader—happily, quite a long time now—I have seen a number of newspapers fall by the wayside. We find ourselves in a situation here in 2013 in which two newspaper companies which deliver their services online account for 86 per cent of the Australian newspaper market. Let's just pause for a moment, without the hysteria, to let that fact resonate. There are two companies delivering their newspaper services online that own 86 per cent of Australia's newspaper market.

A point of comparison around the world would be helpful if we are going to analyse what that actually means. It sounds bad, and it is probably even worse than it might sound when you look at the reality in the US, where the top two newspaper companies, which are very successful companies, only take up 14 per cent of the market. If we want to compare ourselves with somewhere else, let us turn to a country that is often considered to be quite similar to us in culture, another Commonwealth country with a smaller market size, Canada. If we look at the top two newspapers there, we find that they take up just 54 per cent of the Canadian market. That is quite a chunk still, but it is a lot less than the 86 per cent owned by two Australian companies.

One might be able to argue that, with the diversity of ways in which information can move around in our community now, because we have all this new media, we have a chance to free ourselves of the dual vision that is offered by those two online service providers. But the reality is that eight out of nine of the most popular news media websites are owned or run by traditional Australian media outlets. Where do you go if you are an Australian who wants a range of views? The answer is that you have not got very much to choose from at all. As I was preparing to come into the House this morning, I heard it put on radio that, across the broad spectrum of media, there is incredible resistance to this range of bills. The comeback was: 'How broad is the spectrum?', when there is a concentration such that 86 per cent of the Australian newspaper market is held by two prospective deliverers.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Radio, TV, online—

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Robertson has the call. Nobody else does.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

She needs help.

Ms Anna Burke (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are not helping at all, actually; you are being quite rude. The member has the call.

Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the encouragement from the member for Cowan, who has been very vociferous in this debate, and I appreciate his right to free speech.

I wonder in terms of free reportage what will actually be able to be covered tomorrow. We know that there will probably be only two perspectives, and I think a richer Australia would have many, many more than a concentrated dual perspective on what is happening in this nation right now. I am sure that the member for Cowan, in all sincerity, understands what happens when power gets concentrated in too few hands.