Page 666 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 20 March 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
this city and in this country. During those remarks I made a series of statements that I should not have made and that were not nice things to say. They were statements that I have subsequently, in every media outlet and indeed publicly over the last week, regretted saying, apologised for and acknowledged as being not nice things to say, and I should not have said them.
I do believe there is room in our public debate for frankness, and I do believe that it is appropriate for politicians from time to time to express a view on the media. The media are not above criticism, but that criticism should be framed constructively, and I acknowledge that I did not do so on this occasion. I acknowledge and apologise for the choice of words I used in relation to the presentation to that particular group. Also, I appreciate that the role I have requires me to keep certain opinions to myself and to be very circumspect about when I enter into public debates.
I would like to take the opportunity to address a range of issues that have certainly arisen in the subsequent public debate on these matters. First and foremost, in relation to the media, it is entirely legitimate for there to be a public debate about the role that the media plays in our democracy. I have been forthright on occasion, not just in recent times, but, as some in the media have reported, over my time in this place, in expressing strong views in relation to the independence of the media, the independence of editorial policy, and in expressing strong views against the concentration of media ownership in this country.
I have said, and I intend to stick by this, that I will not be a regular commentator on the media in the future. However, I will repeat some remarks in this place formally for the public record that I have made in the last week in relation to the media, not just in this city but across the country. And there are probably some global implications in terms of issues for the media that not just are relevant to Canberra or Australia but in fact have relevance across all Western liberal democracies.
I want to take the opportunity particularly to highlight what I believe to be a statement of editorial policy that reflects best practice in this nation and that should in fact be emulated across all media outlets—that is, the public stance of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in relation to its editorial policy. It says:
The ABC takes no editorial stance other than its commitment to fundamental democratic principles including the rule of law, freedom of speech and religion, parliamentary democracy and equality of opportunity.
If all media outlets in this city and in this nation pursued a similar editorial policy, I think our democracy would be enhanced. And I would not be the only person in this parliament, in parliaments around this nation, or indeed the only Australian, who would reach that particular conclusion.
Out of all of this—the debate, the highlights and what sticks in people’s minds around media in this city and in this nation—that question of taking no editorial stance other than a commitment to fundamental democratic principles, the rule of law, freedom of speech and religion, parliamentary democracy and equality of opportunity sets a very good benchmark for how media organisations should operate.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video