Senator POLLEY (Tasmania—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (15:13): I respond to the proposition of taking note of these answers. I have to say that I would much prefer to be talking on something that is far more relevant to the Australian community, and that is a response to a question that I put to Senator Wong, representing the Treasurer, about the economy and where we are heading in this country. I think what the Australian community are very interested in is hearing what the opposition's policies are, and, if we are to be guided by the Institute of Public Affairs—and we know that they are the brains trust of the coalition, for those on the other side—we know that if the coalition were to get into government and sit on this side of the chamber, they will introduce savage cuts. We already know what Mr Abbott did when he was Minister for Health: we know he gutted health by $1 billion. Now we hear from the brains trust of the coalition that their intention is to counsel, in the first stage— Senator Birmingham: Mr Deputy President, you are well aware of the motion that is before the chair, and that was to take note of two specific answers in question time. Both of those related to media regulation and, much as Senator Polley may wish to canvas her question during question time, there is an opportunity for her to move a motion later on if she so wishes. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Birmingham. Senator Polley, I will draw your attention to the matter before the chair at the moment. I was giving you time to develop your arguments. Senator POLLEY: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy President. I am developing my argument. I am painting a picture for the Australian community of what it would be like if those opposite were ever to sit on this side of the chamber. We know that one of the most fundamentally shifting changes that will be made in this country as far as disability services are concerned will be threatened by those opposite. They will cut—and we know because this is coming from the brains trust themselves—the first stage of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. We also know that they will abolish Fair Work Australia and Safe Work Australia. But if we do turn our minds to the answers given today in relation to media reforms, we know that what the government has announced has been welcomed by mass hysteria from those opposite. You can write the script for them now—mass hysteria! Do not put the facts on the public record! But I will do exactly that. This government, in fact, the Labor Party, actually supports free speech, as we all know. The public understands that. But we also support accurate reporting, that there should be more Australian content on our televisions and that there should be no further reduction in media diversity. We also support the expansion of the capacities of the public broadcasters. These are the things, fundamentally, that the government supports. No-one underestimates the importance of the role the media plays in providing the community with correct information. The operative words there are 'correct information'. People in the community rely every day on the news that is provided to them, whether it is in papers, through social media, through the internet or whatever form of media. But it cannot be misleading and it must be accurate. If you support diversity in the media and the upholding of press standards, then you will vote in support of the government's reform. Let us not forget that our package also includes items that go to increased Australian content for multichannels on your television, promoting Australian stories, updates to the ABC and SBS charters to ensure they can deliver services on platforms other than television and dedication to the public spectrum of community television. We know that those are very important elements in this bill. But as I said, the response to this reform package has been one of hysterical proportions from those opposite. All we are doing is seeking to promote the principles of privacy, fairness, accuracy and diversity. The government passionately believes in the freedom of the press as a cornerstone of our democracy. That is the reality of the situation. At the same time, the government believes that in a democracy a diversity of voices within the media is essential. We all agree on that. The government's reform will support both of these important principles. Media organisations are provided with certain exemptions from privacy legislation. The organisations obtaining these exemptions will be required to have satisfactory processes for enforcing media standards and handling of complaints. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with ensuring that complaints are handled in a process that is transparent? The government's proposal is that industry self-regulation is the appropriate pathway. The Office of the Public Interest Media Advocate's role is limited to authorising the schemes proposed by the industry. I cannot reiterate strongly enough that there is no way the minister can actually interfere in the daily directions of that role. So none, no direction— (Time expired)