What we learned – Monday 26 September
And that’s where we’ll leave you today. Here’s a little sample of what we learned:
The prime minister Anthony Albanese said the massive Optus data breach should be “a huge wake-up call for the corporate sector” around data protection.
Home affairs minister Clare O’Neil is expected to propose new legislation allowing big companies to inform banks of data breaches earlier in a bid to better safeguard information and bank accounts. She has also suggested the government may legislate fines over the Optus breach.
Meanwhile, Optus has refused to confirm reports that the company’s data is on sale online, with the person who obtained the data offering to sell it back to the company for $1m. The telco has announced it will provide 12 months of credit monitoring to customers affected by the breach of its data, after O’Neil called in parliament for the company to make the service available.
Law firm Slater and Gordon has announced it is investigating launching a possible class action against Optus on behalf of customers affected by the data breach. Class actions senior associate Ben Zocco said it was “potentially the most serious privacy breach in Australian history”.
The attorney general Mark Dreyfus confirmed the national integrity commission legislation will the power to investigate third parties (contracted to do government work) and to hold public hearings.
Health minister Mark Butler said monkeypox infection numbers were “stabilising significantly” in Australia.
The Paralympian and disability advocate Kurt Fearnley was appointed chairman of the board of the National Disability Insurance Agency.
The federal government has tabled its response to the interim royal commission report into defence and veteran suicide.
And the Australian Council of Social Service launched a new report showing just how impossible it is to live on the jobseeker and youth allowance rates.
Thanks for sticking with us. Amy Remeikis will be back with you first thing in the morning. Goodnight.
Updated
Labor MPs warn of ‘vested interests’ and ‘political agendas’ in media diversity debate
Independent MP Zoe Daniel has moved a motion calling for a media diversity judicial inquiry, with the powers of a royal commission.
The idea was backed by Labor and Greens senators in a Senate inquiry in December, but the then Albanese opposition ruled it out ahead of the 2022 election.
Some of the Labor MPs’ contributions to the debate have been interesting though.
Josh Wilson told the parliament’s federation chamber:
We can’t continue to have public broadcasters run down in funding and reputation, when there is a clear political element to those attacks ... We can’t have political journalism drift towards sensationalist or trivially combative style of engagement reporting. We can’t have a narrow set of media companies with outlets running what to any sensible person appears to be a coordinated and self interested political agenda on some issues.
Wilson said he wanted a more balanced, more diverse and more independent media – but a royal commission wasn’t the way to go about it.
Julian Hill said “for now the government is right to focus on practical actions” such as improving measures of media diversity and reforming anti-siphoning laws – but he remains “healthily skeptical” that these will be enough.
He said:
It should be uncontroversial to accept in the future that at whatever time a media diversity inquiry is called that it makes sense it be at arm’s length from politicians. The vested interests are too powerful and the incentives all wrong.
Tania Lawrence said Labor had made it clear an inquiry was not part of its agenda and agreed with communications minister Michelle Rowland that there was a “failure to act not a failure to inquire”.
Earlier, Daniel said:
[The Senate inquiry produced a] majority report, supported by Labor Senators, and yet, like the last government, this government refuses to face up to and tackle one of the biggest existential threats to our democracy.
Information is power. Disinformation, unfortunately even more so. We are suffering from a media drought. The contraction of media means that sources of conversations around the country are fewer and less diverse; there is less scrutiny, especially at the local level, with consequences for the quality of governance.
In some parts of the country, there are no local print outlets at all. In others there are several outlets, but they’re all run by the same company.
Updated
