This article is part of a series about a legal threat sent to Crikey by Lachlan Murdoch, over an article Crikey published about the January 6 riots in the US. For the series introduction go here, and for the full series go here.
A judicial inquiry into media concentration and the Murdoch media empire in Australia could be a reality with Independent member for Goldstein Zoe Daniel confirming she’ll bring a motion to Parliament following Lachlan Murdoch’s decision to sue Crikey.
With the government rebuffing calls for a royal commission into Murdoch media, a judicial enquiry could be the first time Australia’s media concentration is scrutinised by Parliament — and could even compel members of the Murdoch family to appear.
“As ABC bureau chief in Washington during the Trump years I am only too aware of the role of Fox News in giving succour to Donald Trump’s promotion of ‘fake news’, actively promoting conspiracy theories and in doing so helping foment the January 6 insurrection. Any suggestion that this did not happen is gaslighting in the extreme,” she told Crikey.
“I will instigate a motion for a judicial inquiry designed to ensure greater media diversity and to make media organisations responsible for the truth of the material they purvey with penalties to match. Similarly, I would support a motion for a judicial inquiry brought by another member, depending on its content.”
A judicial inquiry, as opposed to a senate or parliamentary inquiry, is led by a current or former judge instead of an MP or senator. Unlike in parliamentary inquires, judges can compel witnesses to the stand.
There are a few possible outcomes for Daniel’s motion, but none would directly lead to a judicial inquiry. Firstly, the motion could pass the House of Representatives, stating that the chamber agrees to support an inquiry. But that won’t generate an actual inquiry — at best the government might agree to allow a House of Reps committee, or a joint standing committee, to undertake an inquiry, though not a judicial one.
Secondly, another crossbencher in the Senate could introduce the same bill, gain support and have it referred to a Senate committee. If it passes both houses, it becomes law. But the motion wouldn’t pass the House of Reps without support from either Liberal or Labor — neither of which is likely.
The Labor government has repeatedly said it will not support either a royal commission — which can only be established by the governor-general on the advice of government ministers — or a judicial inquiry, as put forward by the Senate Committee on Media Diversity in Australia in December, chaired by Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young. Minister for Communications Michelle Rowland previously told Crikey the Albanese government believes addressing media concentration should be done with an “outcomes-focused” approach, however, hasn’t outlined further changes to media law.
There is a third option. Currently, defamation cases in the Federal Court are heard by a judge instead of a jury, whereas in state supreme courts parties can opt to have their trials heard by a jury. Daniel has said she’ll “argue for clear legislation to allow either party in a defamation action to opt for trial by jury in the Federal Court”.
Australia has some of the strictest defamation laws in the world — something that Daniel says “has a chilling effect on local reporting and subsequently cowers editors as they commission and publish investigative journalism”.
“The role of the big players, News Corp, Nine News, Network 10, Seven West Media, and indeed the ABC and SBS, deserves to be scrutinised as part of any such inquiry. The Parliament needs to act to ensure greater diversity; more voices not fewer.”
Independent for Curtin Kate Chaney told Crikey she’d support Daniel’s motion, while Independent for Mackellar Sophie Scamps told Crikey she would support policy measures that aim to improve press freedom and diversification in Australia.
“Australia continues to slide on the World Press Freedom Index and we are currently ranked 39th in the world, behind our neighbours New Zealand and nations such as Bhutan and Timor-Leste,” she said.
Other Independent and Greens MPs said they would need to see the motion before they could comment publicly.
Independent, Zoe Daniel, has already demonstrated her value in the House of Reps. Neither of the two major players, Labor & the Coalition, has the courage to query the domination of the media by one owner. Both have spent decades kowtowing to the power of this publisher & continue to be in fear of falling into disfavour. The Albanese government – or any other – may not have this opportunity ever again to even the media field. We purport to be a democracy, let’s behave like one.
Absolutely agree the timing is exquisite, zut. The Murdoch backs are against the wall at present with legal attacks across the States, as well as Kevin22’s and Malcome Turnbull’s commentary, and public opinion against them is growing. Of course, the gov’t is wary of the News Corpse machine should such an inquiry go ahead, but as long as most of the more progressive MSM and smaller players covers the story (and increase their readership as a result), they won’t have the same impact.
Crikey has delivered a gift to Albanese. He’s struggling to make good use of it.
The old habits of serfdom die hard.
or any use sigh.
Thank-you Zoe. Such a short way into the term and the independents are already showing their worth, and not just for their electorates but for the wider national good.
Is Labor :-
a) afraid of getting on the wrong side of the Murdoch Ministry of Misinformation and Obfuscation and incurring it’s Limited News PR wrath? Or
b) Do they think they can win over the same Limited News PR machine – by supplicating and playing dead?
I’m going with a). Hanging out with family in country NSW, where Sky is piped through all households on free to air, Labor could understandably be once bitten twice shy. But now is the time to do it as it’s years until the next election.
‘Afa’…
It’s a mystery, and a disgrace. Labor can’t be any more hated by News Corpse; the Murdochs make no effort to hide their contempt of the party, and no amount of wheedling and pleading will make any difference. I think they’re worried about News Corpse readers, backers, advertisers and investors suddenly getting as rabid in their views as the company itself if Labor is seen to be offending the Gods.
Because it is bullshit. Controls on cross Media Ownership were first brought in by Keating, then destroyed by Howard. The push for a Royal Commission into the Murdoch Media is lead by Kevin Rudd, former ALP PM. Daniels is a come lately. Where and when has the ALP refused a Royal Commission or voted against one? Very poor rubbish
Destroyed by Howard and aided by turnbull.
It looks like they’re still deciding. But option (b) will guarantee it all ending in tears.
Labor will never be on the right side for the Murdochs, better to do something about the favour Howard did
Murdoch by changing the law to accommodate him and his brood – if a law can be undone so easily it can be
reinstated just as easily, back to only one of each media should sort it. The media ^barons^ who think they own
this country should have it proved once and for all that they do not, the people own it. So, come on Labor put
on your big boy pants and get the job done.
Or just copy the Americans…………..
……….and forbid any media proprietor being a “Foreign NationaL”.
That would be the correct call. Why should some overseas investors or residents decide on Australian democracy?
Gough’s shorts would be far too long for the current ‘scum of the middle class’ as one of his colleagues Kim Beazley Snr called what was once the “cream of the working”.
Witnessing the metamorphosis of his own party in the early 1970s, Kim Beazley Senior famously quipped: “When I joined the Labor Party, it contained the cream of the working class. But as I look about me now, all I see are the dregs of the middle class. When will you middle-class perverts stop using the Labor Party as a cultural spittoon?”
Excuse me but the person who has been thumping for a Royal Commission into the Murdoch Media and still is, is Kevin Rudd, a former ALP PM.. Moreover, it was PJK who legislated for Media ownership restrictions in the first place, predictably overturned by John Howard. I have not found ONE instance where the ALP has opposed Royal Commission into the Murdoch Media or Media Ownership anywhere in the last four years, because it has not been raised in Parliament. Nor can I find a reference to Albanese opposing one. Shultz had better produce some references otherwise this is just crap journalism. Meanwhile, Albanese launches a Royal Commsission into Rojo Debt, which killed over 2,000 people. Reality Check.
And what did Rudd do when he had the chance, when he was in power?
Who was dining with Rudd in Kirribilli House when he had that “What’s a G20?” conversation with Bush? Chris Mitchell.
Who is Mitchell’s son, Riley’s, godfather?
And who phoned old scrotum-face to ask him what degree of industrial relations reform he could agree with before deciding on how much his government would roll back Work Choices?
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
It seems Labor is something like a frequently whipped dog, combined with a bad case of Stockholm syndrome. Labor cannot even think about fighting back.
As perfect an example as could be desired of why an even greater number of independents in Parliament is vital – with the Duopoly (Triopoly? Two’n’abitopoly?) determined to NOT allow any change to the current Gravy Train & Trough arrangements.
Watch for the ‘Leader of the Pack…sorry, House’ Tony Burke (a creature who has never had a life outside politics) leap onto his hind legs to ‘Move that the Member no longer be heard‘ when the Member for Golstein, Slayer of the Josh, attempts to have her Motion debated.
Then there should be a move to Suspend so much of Standing Orders as would allow a motion for to raise a Matter of Public Importance (MPI).
If not guillotined this will allow at least 2 speakers each for Yay & Nay so we will hear both parties of ‘government‘ tell the country why this cannot be allowed.
It will be instructive if not informative and a clear indication that we are much further down the rabbithole & deeper in the doo-doo of dumbed down democracy than previously imaginable in this country.
I think you’ll find Zoe was the Slayer of the Timmy.
Quite correct – thank you.
And just how good was that, horowitz!!?? Zoe’s performance in Goldstein was my early Christmas and birthday presents rolled into one!
Yes indeed Robert – couldn’t agree more.
Living up to his name:
To suppress or extinguish quietly; stifle.
To avoid; disregard.
To execute (someone) by suffocation so as to leave the body intact and suitable for dissection.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
“What a Burke” meaning
Great ‘news’ – I’d like to see a few nails to make the ‘NewsCorpse’ a bit more accountable to the public they are meant to serve with facts, rather than bile and misdirection.
Go Crikey, Teals & Greens and independent thinkers out there.