Senator MASON (Queensland) (17:40): Senator Fifield's motion today regarding free speech is an important issue. Let us face it, issues such as freedom of speech raise the ideological temperature of our parliament and they bring to the surface often latent differences between political parties and different streams of ideology. The debate this afternoon has brought to the surface some of the distinct differences between social democracy—as exemplified by the Labor Party—and liberal democracy—as exemplified by the Liberal Party and the National Party. Those differences have come to the surface this evening. For what it is worth, I do not think that Senator Conroy is akin to Mao or Fidel Castro or Ahmadinejad or Robert Mugabe or Kim, or indeed even Joseph Stalin. Joseph Stalin is getting a good run at the moment. I do not think that Senator Conroy is akin to them one little bit. Indeed, I do not think that he is a Marxist. If the members of parliament—the senators in this chamber—are candid, we would accept that the press are not all angels. Let us face it, this is not a time to romanticise the media. I am not yet in the mood to cite Thomas Jefferson, but there is an important aspect of principle involved in this debate nonetheless. To oppose the government's attempt to extend its reach over the media is not to idealise the media; that is a different thing. Practising politicians all know that the media can be good, but it also can be bad. It can be productive, but it can also be very destructive. It can be impartial, and yes it can be biased, I accept that. It can be educational and do great things, or it can be very lowbrow at other times. It can be fair, or sometimes the media can be malicious. It can be, I accept that. Sometimes the media just gets it awfully wrong. With freedom, it seems, good sometimes can come with a little bit of bad, or sometimes even a lot of bad. This is the price we have to pay for freedom. The French writer, the Nobel laureate, Albert Camus, said: A free press can, of course, be good or bad, but, most certainly without freedom, the press will never be anything but bad. To me that summarises the argument. Press can be good, it can be bad. The media can be good. It can be terribly bad. But an unfree one is always terrible. Free media in the end is the democracy of the word. Just like no-one is arguing that we should restrict democracy because we do not always like the results—all of us have been subject to that in this chamber—we do not always like the result of democracy but none of us would say it should not apply. We should not argue that we should restrict free press because we do not like or agree with everything that we read, hear or see. Frankly, speaking personally for a second, while I have always been treated pretty fairly by the media, I have had colleagues on both sides that have not always been treated fairly by the media, they have been, in fact, hard done by. It was probably rough treatment on poor Senator Conroy yesterday, on the front page of the Daily Telegraph, and I accept that. I suspect that colleagues of mine on this side of the chamber, in the coalition, have been treated very badly at times by the media. It just comes with the territory of democracy. It seems to be the price we pay, though sometimes it is a painful price indeed. Are the existing mechanisms adequate? Many of the speakers this afternoon have touched on that—the mechanisms for regulation: are they adequate? Our contention would be that sometimes they may not seem to be adequate, but overall they work pretty well. There is no real evidence that they do not work well. There are many mechanisms that are currently in place to deal with situations where the media does the wrong thing, or just goes bad. There are internal standards that are enforced by the Australian Press Council—you would be aware of that, Madam Acting Deputy President, in the same way that many other professions self-enforce their own standards, whether that be in accountancy or the law. Today I could not help but notice that Paul Whittaker, the editor of the Daily Telegraph, said in relation to the current regulatory mechanisms: Since Professor Disney's appointment the Press Council's role has been strengthened significantly and this newspaper is committed to fully abiding by it. Professor Disney, of course, is the chair of the Press Council. Paul Whittaker goes on to say: Should a complaint be heard by the Press Council, we run its ruling in full and as prominently as possible, regardless of whether it is for or against us. In the past year— Mr Whittaker goes on to say— this has happened three times. A ruling about headlines in our asylum seeker coverage that went against us we ran on page 6 (418 words), two other rulings that came down partly in our favour we ran on pages 18 (697 words) and 26 (573). The point is that the system works. Sometimes it might seem a bit unfair—I accept that. But overall it works. Of course, if you have been defamed or slandered you can always go to the courts. That is always a possibility as well. And finally, of course, there is competition, which means that if you do not like the way a certain media outlet operates increasingly you can always switch to myriad others. Contrary to what the government says—and I heard Senator Conroy today in question time—there has never been a greater diversity of media in this country. Like the 20th-century despots who stifled freedom of speech that the government resents being compared to, the government focuses solely on the old 20th-century media outlets: print, radio and television. I find this strange for a progressive party. Even putting aside the fact that these types of old media are now incredibly diverse due to the availability of so many more outlets, both domestically and internationally, thanks to the intranet, TV cable or satellite television, for a progressive party, really, increasingly the Labor Party is regulating the past. Putting aside all that, the government ignores the huge impact of the internet, blogs and social media on the creation and dissemination of news and commentary. They are of course increasingly powerful agents of media, particularly among the young and, let's face it, even among the political classes. People like Mr Turnbull and Mr Rudd use tweeting all the time as part of their armoury of media. This, of course, has not even really been attacked or looked at by the government. The government is looking back and not forward. Madam Acting Deputy President, if I am able to quote from the devil himself—the CEO of News Corp, Mr Rupert Murdoch— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Moore ): Just clarifying the definition, Senator! Senator MASON: from his Boyer lecture in 2008: This competition is becoming more intense every day. Because technology now allows the little guy to do what once required a huge corporation. Look at the Drudge Report. Matt Drudge doesn't really create content. Instead, he finds content that he thinks is interesting, and puts it up on one of the internet's simplest pages. Readers come because they trust his judgment. And he is showing that good news judgment is something that can add value. Even those who don't like him— This is referring to Mr Drudge— including many editors and reporters—click on to his website every day. In other words, with his single webpage, Drudge has succeeded in challenging the leading media companies of our day—including mine. And he has done it all with minimal start-up costs—a computer, a modem, and some space on a server. That is the new technological terrain that the government has not even looked at. That is of course where influential media is going. This debate about freedom of speech does reveal a real tension between liberal democracy and social democracy. Labor and social democracy parties of the Centre Left are largely statist. Ultimately, they always question the judgement of individuals, whether in welfare or in the area of the economy. Statist political parties such as the Australian Labor Party question the choices of individuals in welfare, in the economy and indeed even in the media. This rhetoric of freedom of speech is always slightly threatening to the Centre Left. Pluralism, vigorous democracy and competition always worry the Left far more than it does the Centre Right. Always the Centre Left thinks, 'Oh, people's choices are wrong. People's understanding is incorrect; they might get it wrong. Freedom of choice is only good so long as the choice is something that the government—that is, the state—would agree with.' I am going back to my university days here—it is a long time ago—but I do remember looking at the roots of social democratic parties— Senator Sterle: A long time ago! Senator MASON: A long time ago. Marxists talk about false consciousness. You would be aware of that, Madam Acting Deputy President. They said that the people, the citizens of the country, had to be guided to a correct solution, because the correct answer, the correct choice, they would not understand, they could not appreciate; they had to be guided by the commissars, and they had to be guided by the state. We might think today that is rather elitist. We might even see it as a little condescending, but it underlies much of social democracy today. Social democrats and labour parties can be particularly condescending; whether it is the dialogue of human rights or freedom of the press, the left is always uncomfortable with vigorous pluralism, with competition, with freedom and with choice. For all the problems of liberalism—and there are many problems with liberalism—we have in the end one of the great confidences, and it is this: our great strength, liberalism's great strength, is to let freedom rip. And they cannot say that. The government does not have the confidence to let freedom rip. Sometimes, sure, we do it in the economic sphere and it may create a lot of wealth but it sometimes creates inequality. It is not perfect; I am not suggesting it is perfect. But we have the confidence that people make choices and we have the confidence to let freedom rip. The Labor Party will never have that confidence in freedom. We always win that debate. We may lose others but we win that debate. That is liberalism's greatest strength. We are not utopian. Again, for all our faults, liberals and conservatives are not utopian. We do not believe that mankind is perfectible. We do not believe that the state can shape mankind and make us perfect. We do not believe that. Our side knows that people will make wrong choices. We all accept that. It is part of democracy. It is part of freedom. But we are prepared to live with wrong choices, even bad choices, because they are the price of democracy and they are the price of freedom. Better that people, better that our citizens, or even the press, get it wrong than that the state dictate what is right. It is always far better. And again we can say that with confidence; the Labor Party never can. As I looked forward to this debate this afternoon I did something that I have not done for a long time. My friend Senator Ludwig would remember this; I pulled out my first speech—that is a long time ago too—because it does reflect on quite compulsive tensions between the Centre Left and the Centre Right. In my first speech I quoted the distinguished British historian Paul Johnson, who you would be aware of, Madam Acting Deputy President. He said: The experience of our century shows emphatically that Utopianism is never far from gangsterism. We have learnt that 'the destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well intentioned, almost limitless'. When it comes to the crunch, it is better that individuals get it wrong, even that the media get it wrong, than that the state muzzle our right to get it wrong. In the end, that is the price all of us pay for democracy. I say, we say, let freedom rip. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Sterle, you have the call, but there are only a few minutes remaining for this debate.