Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (14:38): I thank the senator for her question. The government believes—I repeat—that in a democracy it is vital we have a diversity of voices within the media. It is absolutely vital, and the government's reforms will support both of these principles. Media organisations are provided with certain exemptions from privacy legislation, and we are continuing to allow and support self-regulation of the media despite what those opposite keep trying to claim. The office of the Public Interest Media Advocate's role is limited to authorising the schemes proposed by the industry. This is the same role as performed by ASIC in relation to the Financial Ombudsman Service's schemes. Media ownership is currently regulated by both the foreign ownership requirements and the competition requirements, but we do not believe that is sufficient. We believe there should be a protection. Senator Brandis: Of course you do. You want to control what can be seen in the press. Senator CONROY: Senator Brandis— The PRESIDENT: Order! Ignore the interjection. Senator McKenzie has asked a question of you. Ignore the interjections; they are disorderly. Senator McKenzie is the questioner, not others in the chamber. Senator CONROY: The public interest test talks about whether or not there is a reduction in voices, whether or not the reach is affected, whether or not there is a sustainability position whereby you might lose the voice completely if you do not allow it to merge. It is about the reach of the voices. Those are the sorts of issues that go to a public interest test. As I have already demonstrated in answers to the last question, a range of other countries—the US, the UK, Canada, and others—also have public interest criteria. This is not a new— (Time expired)