John Murphy (Lowe, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

The answer to the first part of the member’s question is yes. In response to the second part, it is my understanding that Mr Singleton had a very close personal relationship with the late Kerry Packer and, notwithstanding his desire to provide that fourth licence and 100 per cent Australian content, he certainly was not of a mind to take on Mr Packer. That is probably why this matter has not progressed very far.

But when you think of just how few media players we have and just how powerful they are—and we know they can change governments if they are all campaigning against you—you realise it is a very serious matter to allow the Packer camp to buy Fairfax and the Murdoch camp to buy free-to-air television network, because they are getting very heavily involved in all the new age media and are moving aggressively into the internet, where a lot of people get their news and information from.

But the internet is not where most people get their information from. Every day we turn on a radio station, open a newspaper and look at a free-to-air television broadcast and that, in the main, influences the way we think and vote. I would like to think there is a way around this. When the debate occurred in the last parliament, I did not accept it when the former head of the Australian Broadcasting Authority, Professor David Flint, said that he could issue certificates of exemption to separate a newspaper proprietor from their editors. We just know that is not realistic—human nature would not allow it.

Look at what Peter Andren, the member for Calare, said about his time working for Mr Packer and how Mr Packer used to interfere with the news bulletins. Then I point to one of the most important issues that faced this government in recent years: Australia’s involvement in the war in Iraq, where all Mr Murdoch’s newspapers in North America, United Kingdom and Australia showed uniform editorial support for the war. He is entitled to have a view, and I have no problem with that, but as one of 300,000 or 400,000 people who marched in the streets in Sydney against our participation in the coalition of the willing—and the some one million people who marched in the streets of London; I spoke to someone there at that time—you might have thought that somewhere in the UK, Australia or even North America an editor working for News Corporation or News Ltd would have come out and challenged the position of the boss. Of course they did not do that—and why? Because he who pays the piper calls the tune, and it is human nature.

We have to take this to the stage where we can do something about it and have more opportunity for real people to provide competition. We know that individuals who set up their own websites will not be able to provide any serious competition to PBL and News Ltd in Australia. I know that some members of the government are very worried about these issues of the public interest and the future of our democracy, so I hope that when the debate occurs we can do something sensible about this. I would have no problem with changing the laws if the existing major players shed some of their assets; but, as I understand it, the government are proposing to allow them to hang onto everything they have and they can buy even more assets.

Just imagine the clout of James Packer and Lachlan or Rupert Murdoch if they owned television stations, radio stations and newspapers in Sydney, or anywhere else for that matter. They have the monopoly on pay television and no-one else is allowed to have a fourth free-to-air television network. The big players are obtaining the major news and information sites on the internet with all the banners that lead back to their own publications and other forms of electronic media. It is a serious issue that I feel passionately about. I am not against Mr Packer or Mr Murdoch, but I want to see some sense in this debate. I would like to think that, when people go to the ballot box on election day to cast their vote in Hinkler, Lindsay, Lowe or anywhere else, their vote will actually count and we will not effectively be in a situation where you ‘vote 1 Packer’ and ‘vote 2 Murdoch’ and only worry about the donkey vote. I really believe that is a threat because those entities are so powerful when they run an editorial line against the government or the opposition. And winds change: we know that they have supported our side of politics in the past and doubtless they will again, but it should be at the expense of concentrating media ownership.

For instance, I would be the first to advise Kim Beazley—and I am his parliamentary secretary—that the last thing he should do is to mortgage his heart and soul to the two biggest media companies to become Prime Minister. That sort of thing would be absolutely appalling, and we cannot allow that. I have made my point and I do not want to delay the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to express those thoughts and I know my two colleagues here will promote some of the things I am saying in the debate with their colleagues when the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill comes back to the House for debate.

Debate (on motion by Mr Danby) adjourned.

See this speech in context