Jones, Stephen, MP

Mr STEPHEN JONES (Throsby) (18:29): It is a great pleasure to follow the member for Hinkler. Whilst clearly I do not and cannot agree with everything that the member for Hinkler said, I think his contribution to this debate was thoughtful, and I wholeheartedly endorse some of his comments, particularly when it comes to regional media and regional news services. I too represent a regional electorate where we cherish very much the contribution of our regional broadcasters to cultural life, ensuring citizens are well informed about what is going on and telling local stories about our area. Your contribution, sir, was in complete contrast to many of the others I have heard in this debate—where you could be forgiven for thinking that we were debating the 'red underpants on the head bill 2013'. Frankly, that was the most bizarre claim that was made in this debate. You might say that is just what happens here in Canberra. Unfortunately, it is not. There have been a lot of overheated misrepresentations made in this debate. I want to focus on two issues that I do not think have had sufficient attention. They are the victims of misreporting and the victims of media consolidation and takeover. On the victims of misreporting, we have heard a lot said about freedom of speech and the rights and needs of media corporations. I will stand and fight to the last breath in my body for a free press in this country. I have visited countries where they have a less than free press. The quality of the reporting and of the journalism in those countries is a poor reflection on the institutions which support the absence of free press in their countries. I stand with those who say it is an essential part of the Australian political and democratic landscape that we have a vibrant, free, democratic press which is able to speak without fear or favour—to comment on the affairs of the day whether their comments do or do not find favour with the government of the day. It is an important part of the Australian media and political landscape. Often when people come to Australia and witness one of our press conferences, they cannot believe the vigour with which journalists question and interrogate political leaders in this country—something that would never occur at a press conference in their country. That is an important part of the Australian political and journalistic culture. I will defend that to the end, to the last breath in my body. But with equal vigour I will defend the rights of victims of misreporting. It is quite unfortunate that they have not yet had a voice in this debate. The victims of misreporting, who find their lives turned upside down because a journalist or a broadcaster—perhaps through no fault of their own—has not accurately reported affairs as they relate to those people. They find their lives turned upside down because of misreporting or an error in reporting. I have heard some say in this debate—indeed, including the member for Wentworth—that they have redress through the existing law. If you feel that you have been defamed or been a victim of misreporting, it is no answer to say you can initiate a defamation action. For the vast majority of citizens, that simply lies beyond their reach. It is costly and long running—it can take literally years from the time when a statement is made and a report is published to when a matter gets before a court and is determined by the court. Leave aside the cost—you can be up for over $10,000 just to initiate an action in a jurisdiction. This is simply beyond the recourse of most citizens. One of the propositions within the bundle of bills that have been the subject of discussion over the last week is to provide a non-judicial right of redress for a victim of misreporting. This needs to be given serious consideration. We have seen evidence of the failure of the Press Council to provide an adequate non-judicial remedy for a victim of misreporting and we have heard stories over the last week of the Press Council simply failing to provide an adequate form of redress for a victim of misreporting. The proposition and the idea behind some of the measures within these bills is to ensure a non-judicial avenue by which victims of misreporting can have their grievances heard and perhaps have their misreporting remedied by a retraction of equal size and prominence to that of the misreporting in the original publication. The second issue I want to take up goes to jobs within the media and the very deep concern that I have about the impact of media consolidation, takeovers by another means—takeovers of a company or part of a company by another company. The simple concern that I have is what this does to jobs, particularly journalistic jobs, within the Australian media industry. Has anyone known a situation where one media company has taken over another media company and that has led to the creation of more journalist jobs? The answer quite simply is no. We are already seeing rapid rationalisation within the media in this country. Within the last 12 months alone, in the print media, we have seen News Ltd axe 60 journalistic jobs from its company and Fairfax axe over 1,900 jobs, the vast majority of them journalistic jobs, from its business. Nobody can point to an example where we have seen consolidation of media in this country that has led to the creation of more journalistic jobs. I know that when the media are reporting on this legislation they must do it from a dispassionate perspective. They cannot take their own self-interest into account when they are reporting on the impacts of this legislation. But I do say, particularly to members of the gallery who are close at hand, bear in mind the impact of job losses in the journalistic trade through the mergers and acquisitions that could occur in the media landscape. This is not just of concern to people who are employed as journalists but also of concern to people who have an interest in a diversity of journalistic voices contributing to our great Australian media. I think these are two aspects of the current legislation and the current package of reforms that have not received adequate attention in the debate. We should be spending at least as much time talking about the victims of misreporting and their rights as we are talking about the rights of media bosses. We should also be talking about the importance of ensuring that we continue to have a viable employment base for what remains of the thousands of men and women who make their living as journalists in this country and ensuring that we do not further decrease the number of men and women who are paid to be working journalists in this country. I will leave my contribution to this debate and finish on this point: it is perhaps not unexpected, but it is unfortunate, that in what has been a very heated debate some of the important aspects of the legislation and what is being proposed have not had sufficient attention. Perhaps more time attended to the rollout process may have remedied that.