Published on: March 12, 2013
TRANSCRIPT OF THE HON. MALCOLM TURNBULL MP
DOORSTOP INTEVIEW
CANBERRA
Subjects: Labor’s Proposed Media Reforms; MPs’ Use of Twitter
……………………………………………………………………………
MALCOLM TURNBULL:
Today’s announcement by Stephen Conroy is a characteristically chaotic, half-baked series of thought bubbles. This Minister really should try to finish something before he kicks off a new idea. It’s worth bearing in mind that he announced a deal on anti-siphoning nearly two and a half years ago and this is the most, arguable one of the most important elements in broadcasting regulation and has been unable to turn that agreement into a piece of legislation. So we still haven’t seen a bill. It may be that we’ll get to the election without any legislation on anti-siphoning.
Now as far as this package is concerned what Stephen Conroy is doing is responding to his outrage that the newspapers, particularly the News Limited newspapers that have seen fit to criticise the Government and indeed him. And he’s been venting his spleen for some time and he’s come up with this idea of a public interest test to be overseen by some public interest media advocate, a new government official, a government appointed official to oversee the media.
He says this is in order to ensure a diversity of voices and yet we’ve never had such a diversity of voices as we’ve had today in the news media. The Internet as the super-platform, the hyper-platform has allowed Australians to have access to more sources of news, opinion, fantasy indeed often sometimes masquerading as news and opinion, but all of that material is now available online in a way it never was before. The barriers to competing with newspapers have never been lower as the newspapers are discovering to their chagrin.
We also of course have the ACCC, the competition regulator which is there to ensure that there are no mergers which are anti-competitive so it vetoed Channel Seven’s attempt to buy into Fox Sports. So what on earth is this public interest media advocate going to do? What on earth is this public interest test going to be? What are the criteria to determine public interest? Oh I’m sorry, Stephen Conroy hasn’t seen fit to tell us that. Those are details that we may or not be told sometime before the end of next week which is the due date by which this legislation has to be passed. I don’t know why he’s in such a hurry, perhaps that’s about as long as he thinks Julia Gillard has got left. Perhaps he thinks that’s about how long he’s got left as communications minister.
But you know these issues are very important. The work that you do as journalists is just as important as any of the work that we do as legislators. And any attempt by the government to regulate or further circumscribe the media has got to be viewed with the greatest of suspicion, particularly a government that seems determined to cower the media, to bully the media into not criticising it. Now you would think that proposals of this kind when they were floated by a minister would be floated with some detail presented with some detail and precision, but they’re not. We’ve got a one and a half page press release which is obscure enough and not rendered anymore coherent by the Minister’s press conference. And then we’re told we’ve got to pass it in less than two weeks with a sort of gun held to the Parliament’s head for whatever reason. These are all important issues, freedom is at stake, liberty is at stake, democracy is at stake. And they deserve proper due process and consideration by the Parliament and certainly not to be presented in this take it or leave it we won’t negotiate arrogant bullying manner of Stephen Conroy.
JOURNALIST:
But some of these concepts are going to a bipartisan committee so those aspects that do go to this committee you’re side of politics will have a say in.
MALCOLM TURNBULL:
Well that’s the reach rule is going to a committee I’m sure that’s worth, that’ll be worth looking at. But the hot ticket, the big issue there before I come to that, the big issue really here is the regulation of the media. That is at the core of this. I mean should the Government be setting, defining what press standards should be, what media standards should be? He says he’s only going to codify what the existing standards are but does that mean they can’t be changed without the Government’s consent? I mean if self-regulation means anything and if that’s what we’re committed to and we certainly are, then the media should be able to form their own views about their ethical standards and compete in the market place.
JOURNALIST:
Are you questioning the timing of this announcement in this election cycle, given that it’s years after the Finkelstein and Convergence Review and so are you saying now you’re seeing this as more of a political interest test rather than a public interest test?
MALCOLM TURNBULL:
Well of course it is. Every single person will have a different view about what is in the public interest. Everyone’s got a different view. Having media mergers dependent on such a subjective, highly political view is really bad law, it’s bad practice and when it’s produced by this Government who’s commitment to media freedom is very very questionable to say the least, it obviously has to be seen for what it is. It is an attempt to regulate the media because they don’t like what you’ve been saying and writing about them.
JOURNALIST:
Is this a basic philosophical issue for you Mr Turnbull and does that mean that if this does get through in the next fortnight that a Coalition government would repeal it?
MALCOLM TURNBULL:
Well I have no doubt that we would seek to repeal any sort of public interest test on media takeovers. I think this is a bad idea at every level. It’s a bad idea from the point of view of freedom of speech. It’s a bad idea from the point of view of keeping governments out of regulating the media. We want the media to be as free as possible and I can say as a former lawyer who used to practice in the area of broadcasting law these sort of generally worded tests, whether you call it public interest or fit and proper person, are impossible to define. And all they do is end up creating very handsome incomes for the legal profession. So it doesn’t tick any box and it is a classic Stephen Conroy thought bubble.
JOURNALIST:
Does that include the press regulation, if this advocate is to oversee the Australian Press Council in some way is that something that breaches a basic principal and should be repealed?
MALCOLM TURNBULL:
Well it certainly does. I do not see why there should be a government official, a public official, a bureaucrat no doubt, overseeing the Australian media. We have a portion of the Australian media, the licenced electronic media because it has a degree of regulation because it is using a public property spectrum and so forth but the press, and of course the press now writ large courtesy of the Internet, has always been free subject to the laws of defamation and contempt of court and so forth. And it should remain free. We should be enjoying more freedom not less. This is a government that wants to tell you what is good for you. We believe government’s job is to enable people to do their best, not tell them what is best and that is a philosophical difference between us and the Labor Party.
JOURNALIST:
[INAUDIBLE]
MALCOLM TURNBULL:
Are you asking about the 75%?
JOURNALIST:
The 75% yeah and the sixth channel.
MALCOLM TURNBULL:
Well we’ll just deal with the 75%, the 75% reach rule that’s going to be discussed at a committee. I have to say I have a lot of sympathy with the argument that the 75% reach rule is no longer if you like, is no longer relevant in today’s converged media world. I mean the point the fact that several of the regional broadcasters, by which I mean Southern Cross and Prime and WIN, have been actively arguing for that limit to be lifted, I think is a powerful testimony for that. As far as the sixth channel is concerned, there is a provision an existing provision for a statutory review of how that sixth channel should be used. And that review should proceed. There’s no need to rush this. Why is there this sudden urgency? Is it because of the pending election? Is it because of the pending party room ballot with Julia Gillard? What is it? I don’t know. I don’t know where the urgency lies. These are very important issues. They go to the foundations of our democracy. And they should be dealt with, with precision and care.
JOURNALIST:
Do you think Australians are entitled to a fourth commercial network?
MALCOLM TURNBULL:
Well I’m not sure whether they’re entitled to it. I’m not sure a fourth network would be commercially viable. And I have to say that spectrum is a scarce resource and there are plenty of claimants on that spectrum which is why there should be a statutory review.
JOURNALIST:
Who else?
MALCOLM TURNBULL:
It’s a long list. There are many parties and interests who would be seeking to use it. You know, all wireless spectrum, all spectrum, is very fiercely contested because in many respects – as we all know from our various smart phones and smart tablets and so forth – we are increasingly living in a wireless world. So the statutory review should go ahead. And of course as you move to a more ubiquitous IPTV world where every television is as connected to the Internet as your smart phone or your tablet is, we’re in a world where really there are no barriers to content being delivered. So it raises the – I don’t think Australians are likely to be short of diversity of content or of choice. The whole world has changed. The Internet has transformed the whole world of media and communications – as you guys understand better than me.
JOURNALIST:
What about local content provisions in this digital age – does that need changing as well?
MALCOLM TURNBULL:
Well local content is a separate issue and it’s something that with the licensed broadcasters has to be respected and maintained. It always has to be subject to a commerciality test – there’s no point imposing on broadcasters obligations that they cannot comply with a survive commercially. At the end of the day you have to keep the doors open. But I would just say that again there is a distinction – local content is different to ownership. You could have the most limited views – the most restrictive laws – on television reach but still have every television station streaming the same content out of Sydney or Melbourne. Alternatively, you could have one television station having 100 per cent reach but with clear commitments and undertakings obliging them to provide separate content. So they are separate issues.
And at the core of all this is the viability of these business models. You know, newspapers have been feeling the chill wind of economic change probably the most, but it does impact on all the media including free to air and I think in particular in time subscription television.
JOURNALIST:
What do you think of the suggestion to modernise the ABC charter to include online content. Do you agree with that?
MALCOLM TURNBULL:
Well the ABC – there’s a powerful argument for saying the ABC’s charter should reflect the reality of what it’s doing. The ABC’s got a big online presence. I know there’s been some criticism from the newspaper groups about some of the ABC’s online material – I think in particular of the Drum website, which is not repurposed radio programs or transcripts of TV or radio programs but is of comment pieces written specifically as text pieces. I have to say however that I don’t think the travails of the newspaper industry can be laid at the door of the Drum website.
JOURNALIST:
Malcolm it’s pretty clear from Senator Conroy’s comments today that he hasn’t really had any dialogue with the networks. He hasn’t even told them about the changes – the first they would have heard about it was the press conference today. Have they had a conversation with you given that he hasn’t had a conversation with Gyngell or any of the other guys?
MALCOLM TURNBULL:
Well yes, I talk to the networks all the time. I talk to all of the – I hate the word – the ‘stakeholders’ in the communications and media world. I talk to them all the time – that’s my job, I’m the shadow minister so I’ve got to stay in touch with them all of the time.
JOURNALIST:
Can you tell us about these conversations?
MALCOLM TURNBULL:
Well there’s nothing really to add. I think their public positions are pretty clear. Look can I say this: I’ve been associated with media proprietors for a very long time – for well over 30 years. Well over 30 years. Can I just say they all make a powerful case for their own commercial self interest. They all claim to speak for the public interest. And some times their commercial interest and the public interest coincide. Sometimes they don’t. And it’s the job of this place, and Governments and legislators to stay in touch with everybody, take everybody’s point of view on board and then make decisions based on the interests of the public.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Turnbull, on the issue of this media advocate. Can you not see a role for someone like that in your dispute with Mr Ross, my colleague at the ABC?
MALCOLM TURNBULL:
[Laughs] Well I don’t think we need – look, what we need is
JOURNALIST:
Jonathan Holmes?
MALCOLM TURNBULL:
You need free debate. You know I’m quite happy to debate just about any issue with everyone. I’m a starter for any debate.
JOURNALIST:
Have you been bullying journalists?
MALCOLM TURNBULL:
Well you can’t –
JOURNALIST:
And what did you think of media watch last night?
MALCOLM TURNBULL:
Well I thought it was kind of interesting. I missed it actually and I watched it on iView later on that night. Look I think – journalists can only be bullied if they want to be bullied. I’m not in the business of bullying. I used to be a journalist. Journalists are very contrasuggestible. I think if you try to bully journalists, invariably it’s not going to be successful. So I always express my view and frankly thanks to the Internet, social media, the web, my blog, I’m in a position where I’m able to get my views out there. I don’t have to grovel to a producer or an editor to get my stuff into the mainstream media. And that’s one of the ways in which the Internet has revolutionised communications, including political communications.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Turnbull, speaking of political communications, what do you think of MPs tweeting in Parliament. Should there be a complete ban there or should there be some sort of –
MALCOLM TURNBULL:
No look I’m a libertarian. I’m not in favour of banning things. I’m not in favour of – if people want to tweet, let them tweet. I don’t think that’s probably the most important part of a politicians’ work. But you know you have to be very careful on twitter, because if you’re not too careful you can go very quickly from being a tweep to a twit. And on that note I should –
JOURNALIST:
Should politicians be forced to withdraw a tweet if they – as happened today? Would you say they should be withdrawn if they –
MALCOLM TURNBULL:
Well I haven’t seen the – look, I said I’m prepared to debate anything. But I’m not prepared to comment on a tweet I haven’t read. So on that note, I’m going to bid you all farewell.
JOURNALIST:
Just quickly on Darren Chester’s comments today –
MALCOLM TURNBULL:
Oh okay.
JOURNALIST:
On the standard of political debate.
MALCOLM TURNBULL:
How could I bully journalists? I’m putty in your hands.
JOURNALIST:
Well thankyou very much for staying. He’s expressed concern that the Prime Minister is being exposed to very personal and vicious attacks. From your point of view, is that a worry in current politics? Is there someone to blame in particular?
MALCOLM TURNBULL:
Oh look, I don’t want to point the finger at anyone. But I just want to say that abuse, vicious personal attacks from – generally in public discourse – generally are very undesirable. I think they are all also, invariably counterproductive. All those negative emotions are very bad for you. If you’re a hater, your hatred does more damage to you than it does to the person you’re hating. If you’re a bully, it does more damage to your character than to the people you’re bullying. So these people that want to get into these vicious attacks – and you do see a lot of it in social media – I think it is counter-productive, it doesn’t persuade anybody and it just, it just saps away, it gnaws away at, it corrodes the character of the people who practice it. So on that uplifting note, I really must go. Farewell.
ENDS.