John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I join with the member for Throsby in putting this in perspective. These broadcasting legislation amendment bills arise from the convergence review, which was established in 2010. The Finkelstein inquiry was commissioned in 2011, and I had to listen to the humbug from the member for Sturt and the humbug from earlier speakers on the other side of the House about a threat to free speech. What is proposed on the other side of the House is a vote for the big media proprietors at the expense of the public interest and the citizens of Australia who are worried about concentration of media ownership in our country. That is a national disgrace. I have been participating in this debate ever since I arrived in this place almost 15 years ago. You would be aware of it, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, because you would have heard me speaking about the threats to concentration of media ownership over many, many years in this place.

What we are not hearing from the opposition tonight is the massive concentration of media ownership that was visited on Australia when John Howard allowed media proprietors to own all of the traditional media. Remember, when Paul Keating was Prime Minister he said: 'If you want to be prince of print or queen of the screen, that's it. You can't have print media, electronic media and all this new media, because this massive concentration of media ownership in Australia presents such a threat to the public interest and to the future of our democracy.' Keating was strong. We were strong on this side of the House.

From what we have heard day in and day out, with great respect to the member for Wentworth, I can only say they are apologists for the big media companies. They are doing the bidding of the big media companies. When people go to polling booths on election day, in most cases they vote for a political party or they vote for a leader. In a very small number of cases they vote for a local member. They do not vote for Rupert Murdoch. They do not vote for a big media proprietor, and that is the truth. What we are talking about here tonight is critical to the future of the public interest and our democracy because if these laws do not go through our House and are not approved by the Senate and signed off by the Governor-General, this will send a message that we are exporting our democracy to the big, powerful media players.

It was very humbling yesterday when Kerry Stokes, a very prominent media player but nowhere near as powerful as Rupert Murdoch and News Limited in our country, appeared before our committee. We were talking about the potential abolition of the 75 per cent reach rule for free-to-air television networks in regional Australia. He made it unambiguous to our committee that, were that to take place, he could absolutely dominate the media in Western Australia. He accepted the proposition that that was not good for the public interest, that that was not good for the future of our democracy. I salute Kerry Stokes, proprietor of the Seven Network, for having the honesty to say that before a parliamentary committee. We did not hear it from Kim Williams, the Chief Executive Officer of News Limited, representing the biggest media organisation in our country, when he appeared before Senator Doug Cameron's committee in the Senate. No, no, because when would you ever expect a News Limited representative to say, 'If we're allowed to have more of the media, that will not be good for the public interest and that's not good for our democracy'?

I would hope that the Murdoch family would take a leaf out of the book of Kerry Stokes, who had the decency and humility to lay bare and admit before the parliamentary committee that I am a member of that, if the 75 per cent reach rule is abolished, he potentially could have far too much power over our democracy, particularly as it relates to the politics of Western Australia.

Can I take you back to where we are tonight, because we are discussing these bills following the last three years of the outcome of the Finkelstein inquiry and the convergence inquiry. I want to remind the House that over this period of time more than 1,800 submissions were received in relation to these inquiries. Not surprisingly, most of these submissions call for media reform. We all support media reform. We understand we are living in a different age today than we were 30 or 40 years ago. Also not surprisingly, the content of submissions from media companies reflects their commercial objectives and of course makes no reference to the concerns of the public interest, which is dear to my heart because the public interest is critical to the future of our democracy.

As I said, I have been in this place for nearly 15 years. During this time, the matter of media ownership has arisen and I have made many speeches speaking out against concentration of media ownership, even against the position of my own party. During this time I have also spoken many times in my party room about the need to oppose further concentration of media in our country. During this time I have also spoken out in the media expressing my grave concerns for the public interest and the future of our precious democracy were media ownership to be further concentrated in our country. During this time I have also written many letters to editors of newspapers—mostly Fairfax because I did not have much luck when I started writing letters to News Limited newspapers—about the serious risk to our democracy if media ownership were further concentrated in our country. I do not believe that anyone spoke more forcefully in this place against the Howard government's reform of our media ownership laws and the reforms which led to very serious concentration of media ownership in Australia.

I want to remind the House that the reforms by the Howard government allowed media proprietors to own all of the traditional media—newspapers, television stations, radio stations—and, of course, also to have the potential to extend their reach in this new digital age.

I spoke very, very strongly about that. I said it was not in the public interest and I made it quite clear that it was not good for the future of our democracy. I say tonight: enough is enough. We cannot keep caving in to the powerful media proprietors.

I ask tonight: who is running our democracy? Who is running Australia? I would like to think that the people who cast their vote in 2010 got the government that they got—even though those on the other side do not like it. It is Prime Minister Gillard and the Labor government who are running our country, not Rupert Murdoch or any other powerful media proprietor. I think if you asked most fair-minded Australians they would say the same thing. When they go to the polling booths on election day, they do not see a list of names of media proprietors for whom they should cast their vote. They look for a candidate. They look for a party to express who they want to represent them in this place.

In recent times, we have witnessed what can happen when a media company becomes too powerful. Obviously, I am referring to the News of the World telephone hacking scandal in the United Kingdom. And, of course, who owned the News of the World newspaper? Mr Rupert Murdoch. Obviously, we never want to see what happened in the United Kingdom happen here in Australia. I think it is important to record, as I stand here tonight, that, following the revelations of the Murdoch News of the World phone-hacking scandal, there are more than 200 criminal investigations taking place in the UK. These arise from very serious charges against people who, amongst other things, have no regard whatsoever for people's privacy, no regard for their reputations, no regard for their right to have a private life and no conscience about trashing their reputation and their character. The great body of the criminal investigation arose from the reprehensible behaviour and conduct of people employed by Mr Murdoch. I am referring to those who are employed by News International in the UK.

In Australia, the Murdoch media is very, very powerful. In relation to our print media, I am grateful to the Parliamentary Library, which has provided to me, inter alia, the latest information on the extent of print media alone, which is owned and controlled by News Limited. For the benefit of the House, I will just read some of that. News Limited owns 147 newspapers in Australia, and of those 104 are suburban publications, including 17 in which News Limited has a 50 per cent interest. News Limited's daily and Sunday newspapers account for more than 69 per cent of the total circulation of all daily and Sunday newspapers. Audit Bureau of Circulations figures for metropolitan newspapers as at the end of December 2012 indicate that, if a Monday to Friday sales calculation were used, Murdoch papers would represent around 80 per cent of sales, or if just the national newspapers were being considered then Murdoch titles would represent 70 per cent of all sales in Australia. News Limited's daily and Sunday newspapers account for more than 69 per cent of the total circulation of all daily and Sunday newspapers, excluding suburban and regional newspapers published in Australia.

It is a national disgrace that we hear the alternative government, the opposition, defending the position of the most powerful media proprietor in not only Australia but, indeed, the world. They are critical of us. They support the hysterical criticism that has been visited on us by Mr Murdoch's chief executive in Australia, Mr Kim Williams, who thinks that what we are trying to do is an assault on free press. What do you think I think the Murdoch media has done to free speech in Australia? Is it any wonder that there are some nervous nellies here tonight on all sides of politics, who are afraid to take on a very, very powerful media proprietor? Well, I say that the people of Australia do not vote for Rupert Murdoch and News Limited. It is a national disgrace that we should be afraid of a very, very powerful media company. This goes to the heart of our democracy. This goes to the heart of the public interest. I will not accept any lectures from Mr Kim Williams, who is an agent of Mr Murdoch, telling us that what we are doing is not in the public interest and that somehow it is in the political interest. It is not in the political interest. (Time expired)

See this speech in context