Simon Birmingham SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin
3:52 pm
I move:
That the Senate—
(a) believes a free press is central to accountability and transparency in government; and
(b) rejects proposals for new government-appointed arbiters of news media content or government-imposed fines on news media content.
Scott Ludlam WA, Australian Greens
Mr President, I ask that you put questions (a) and (b) separately as we may have different voting intentions for them.
Jacinta Collins Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations
Mr President, I seek leave to make a brief statement.
Jacinta Collins Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations
The government is currently giving detailed consideration to recommendations from the Convergence Review and the Finkelstein report and will make a decision in due course. Both those reports place great value on the importance of a free press. In terms of the second part of the motion, however, the government will not be drawn into making a policy decision on the floor of the Senate. This motion is a political stunt, which we refuse to entertain.
Simon Birmingham SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin
3:53 pm
Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement.
Simon Birmingham SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin
It seems that Senator Collins thinks that this motion is nothing short of a political stunt, and I can only assume that is the view of all of these Labor senators sitting around me at present. But I find it remarkable that a motion that makes a clearly stated commitment to the freedom of the media in this country should be regarded—
Honourable senators interjecting—
John Hogg President
Order! Senator Birmingham is entitled to be heard in silence.
Simon Birmingham SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin
I find it remarkable that a motion that is clearly a principled motion making a principled statement in support of a free media and freedom of speech in Australia should not only be pilloried by those opposite, but also ridiculed by those on the crossbench and possibly the Labor Party in that they seem to propose voting 'yes' for one part stating a commitment to a free press and yet 'no' to a second part that would in fact enforce that commitment to a free press. Today it appears that the government is going to miss the opportunity to rule out the most heinous aspects of their proposed media reforms from being implemented.
Scott Ludlam WA, Australian Greens
3:55 pm
Since splitting the motion was my proposal, I also seek leave to make a brief statement.
Scott Ludlam WA, Australian Greens
As a courtesy to Senator Birmingham, I will explain why the Australian Greens are taking the position that we are. I suspect that what is about to happen is a show of unanimous commitment by everybody in this chamber supporting Senator Birmingham's belief, as he has put here, that a free press is central to accountability and transparency to government. Part (b) is nitpicking particular coalition talking points about the outcome of the Finkelstein review and the Convergence Review. I must agree with Senator Collins: there is no purpose at all to trying to second guess the outcome of those reviews, so we will be voting for part (a) and against part (b).
John Hogg President
The question, therefore, is that part (a) of notice of motion No. 869 standing in the name of Senator Birmingham be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
Eric Abetz Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations
Well done, Simon!
John Hogg President
That was completely disorderly, Senator Abetz! The question now is that part (b) of notice of motion No. 869 standing in the name of Senator Birmingham be agreed to.