Transcript – Doorstop Interview – 14 Sep 2011
MALCOLM TURNBULL:
As you’ve just seen, today’s announcement by Senator Conroy underlines how this Gillard government is held to ransom by the Greens. They’re having an inquiry at the Greens request, at the Greens insistence, for no reason other than that Bob Brown demanded it. All of the matters referred to in the terms of reference are within the ambit, the proper ambit of the Convergence Review. And if there were any doubt about that, the terms of reference could be— with the stroke of a pen —readily expanded.
There are some interesting issues here. I’m particularly interested — and I’m sure everyone in the media is – at finding out what is the answer to making newspapers profitable again. I’m not sure that Dr Ricketson and Justice Finkelstein will have the answers. It seems to have eluded most of the big media companies. But really, this is just a political stunt by a government that is bitter about being criticised by the media, in particular by News Limited. It’s got into bed with the Greens, who said they wanted to have an inquiry so that they could flay News Limited executives and because that was clearly going to be a huge embarrassment for them and they frankly didn’t have the guts to go ahead with it. They’ve then buckled and given Bob Brown an inquiry. But it is really an inquiry on issues that are properly within the ambit of the Convergence Review and should be considered by it.
As I said, there are some interesting issues here, but what’s their agenda? Apparently, the government wants to put some sort of legislative backbone into the Press Council, so that we now will try to regulate, apparently in some way or other — newspapers. What an extraordinary state of affairs. The truth is that the challenge — one of the challenges — of our democracy is lack of freedom of the press because of the diminished profitability of news media outlets.
We need more free press, we need more vigorous media. As Thomas Jefferson said hundreds of years ago and I agree with him “Government functions best with a strong and independent press, but if given the choice of no Government or no newspapers, I’d rather have no Government.”
JOURNALIST:
Mr Turnbull, do you think ….[Inaudible]
MALCOLM TURNBULL:
Well it’s, you’ve just heard it. Bob Brown’s here claiming credit for it. Once again the Prime Minister in reality Bob Brown is taking credit for this announcement. You know, this is an inquiry that is a waste of money, it is a waste of resources, it is exactly – it’s dealing with the issues that are quite properly within the … the convergence review. And there is no point in having it. Some of the questions are pretty interesting. There’s been a terrific report done by Stephen Waldman for the FCC, in the United States this year on the impact of the business model of newspapers changing because of the digital age, and what that means for local news generally, all very interesting stuff. That’s what the Convergence Review is supposed to be looking at. So why are we having this special inquiry? Why are we spending this money simply to gratify Bob Brown in the hope that somehow or other they can have a swing at New Ltd.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Turnbull, how close is the Carbon Tax to the plan that you negotiated with the Government and Ian McFarlane.
MALCOLM TURNBULL:
Well I’m going to, I don’t want to give you an authoritative answer on that, but I think all of these schemes have got a lot in common. This one obviously has a, quite a lengthy fixed price period, that’s why it’s called a Carbon Tax. But I think, you know, all of these schemes, whether it’s the one Peter Shergold canvassed when we were in Government or the Rudd CPRS as amended in the negotiations with Ian and myself, or this one, have a lot in common.
JOURNALIST:
What are the differences then?
MALCOLM TURNBULL:
Well look, you can study it yourself and go through it.
JOURNALIST:
[INAUDIBLE]
MALCOLM TURNBULL:
Well look, I’m going to study the debate, listen to the debate and read the contributions by members of the House and study the legislation carefully and then I’ll make a decision, as I always do with bills that are not within my portfolio as to whether or not I’ll make a speech in the debate and if so, when I will do it. But I will [INAUDIBLE]…. I’m taking exactly the same approach to this as I do with every other bill that is not directly within my portfolio.
[INAUDIBLE]
JOURNALIST:
[INAUDIBLE]
MALCOLM TURNBULL:
Look I am very suspicious of more regulation being imposed on the media. Let’s be quite clear about this. The broadcast media, for a whole range of reasons, mostly historical, are regulated in a way that print is not because it’s spectrum, it belongs to the government, and it’s been licensed and so forth. There’s a whole history there. But truthfully, let’s be honest, when we complain about irresponsible, or biased or outrageous media outlets, are the outlets regulated by ACMA any better or purer or more objective than those that are not regulated, such as the newspapers?
Let’s not kid ourselves. You get abuses of media power – that’s the price you pay of having a free society. Not every speech in this Parliament is objective or wise. Not every newspaper editorial, oped or news story is fair. But what’s the alternative? Having everything written by a bunch of bureaucrats in Canberra? Senator Conroy might like that. I’m for freedom. I’m with Thomas Jefferson: A free press is absolutely vital to a democracy and any attempt by Government to trammel that freedom has to be viewed with the greatest suspicion. Now that’s what this inquiry is all about. This has had its birth, it genesis, in the Labor Party and the Greens being upset that a free press have been critical of them. That’s what this is all about.
[Inaudible] but we cannot have a democracy, even a democracy as lively as Australia’s, without a free media. What you do, the freedom you exercise here – while it may annoy us and upset politicians and it has certainly annoyed me over the years – it is as important a part of our democracy as anything that goes on in the House of Representatives and the Senate. And so we should be rightly suspicious of this because this inquiry was borne out of an objection to the exercise of press freedom. And as I said, if you want to talk about these issues – and some of them are quite interesting – the Convergence Review is absolutely within its right to do so and those issues should be dealt with there.
[ENDS]
9 Responses to “Transcript – Doorstop Interview – 14 Sep 2011”
[...] a comment We need more free press, we need more vigorous media. As Thomas Jefferson said hundreds of years ago and I agree with him “Government functions best [...]
Hearty congratulations on a doorstop well handled Malcolm. Thank you for so eloquently standing up for a free press, and a vigorous democracy.
Good sentiments Malcolm. Given that the ‘principles’ of any inquiry won’t apply to the ABC, an organisation funded by the public, shows the whole exercise to be nothing other than a kangaroo court.
I wonder also where the complaints of ‘bias’ were when News Ltd papers backed the ALP at the previous two elections?
Malcolm, spot on. We need more press, not less; more freedom, not less, and certainly not an imposed version reflecting Green prejudice and Left diktat. But why aren’t we hearing more of this sentiment from Liberal members? They seem comparatively mute. Or is it simply a lack of eloquence? And frankly, mate, protecting and strengthening the pillars of liberal democracy is far more worthy than pursuing carbon pricing.
What about giving people the freedom to buy the lightbulbs that they prefer? If you support freedom, why would you favour policies that advance the cause of big government like an ETS or carbon tax?
PLease continue to apply pressure on the government about the media enquiry. There can only be one aim from this, that is to gain control of those who are critical of the government’s performance. This is the most cycnical action by a government rightfully under pressure over its performance I can recall. They must be stopped.
[...] announcement of an inquiry into the media. The transcript of the interview is available here. « Go [...]
[...] Malcolm Turnbull, who found little merit in the proposed inquiry but did say: I’m particularly interested — and [...]
Jefferson may have been a bit of an extremist, but his choice between no government and no newspapers is not as fanciful as it sounds, in the context of federal government. Contrary to popular belief it’s state governments that take care of most of the public functions we take for granted, and if you closed down federal government for a while, life would go on.
In particular, whatever the solution is to the decline of newspapers (and I suspect it has to do with the fact that in the internet age, supply curves for opinion content are approaching vertical while the demand is now for coherence, reliability, and time saving) … whatever the solution is, you won’t find it in regulatory intervention.
Give them heaps, Malcolm. Conroy knows the inquiry probably won’t recommend much change, but the real purpose is to intimidate and that’s how the damage will be done.
The papers in general did an exceedingly poor job of covering your leadership of the opposition in 2009. Now you’re the Shadow Minister for Communications at a time when some of them are under attack and may need a defender. It’s funny how the wheels turn sometimes.