(Image: Private Media)
(Image: Private Media)

The prime minister and two of his most senior ministers are staying silent about a reported meeting on Wednesday with Lachlan Murdoch at News Corp’s Sydney offices.

Neither Anthony Albanese, Richard Marles nor Penny Wong was prepared to even confirm that they travelled to Murdoch (who is currently suing Crikey) to meet with him and News Corp executives, after Kishor Napier-Raman and David Estcourt reported the meeting this morning for Nine newspapers.

However, the office of Communications Minister Michelle Rowland has confirmed she did not attend and says it provided no input for the meeting.

What’s interesting about Rowland’s non-attendance is that on the same day, Rowland issued a statement on AFL, which is seeking a new broadcasting deal, and the anti-siphoning scheme — a statement widely interpreted as a shot across the bow of Foxtel. “I encourage the AFL Commission and its broadcast and streaming partners to ensure there is no diminution in the availability of AFL matches on free-to-air television under the new deal,” Rowland said.

Anti-siphoning has been a long-running thorn in the side of Foxtel, the Murdochs and major sports, all rightly aggrieved that that free-to-air (FTA) television oligopoly can use its government-mandated power to dictate terms in broadcasting rights negotiations. In recent years, something approaching peace has broken out on the issue as Foxtel and the FTAs shared games, but streaming services are now creating a whole new market for broadcast rights.

But the presence of Marles and Wong, rather than Rowland, suggests discussions were at a more elevated level than who has the broadcast rights to AFL local derbies in Perth and Adelaide. Voters, however, apparently are not entitled to know why the most powerful politicians in the country were going to meet Murdoch.

It demonstrates yet again how Australia is a two-speed democracy: for the majority of us, politicians can only be lobbied through emails, letters and phone calls to their offices. But powerful people and corporations have an inside track — they can lobby politicians directly, often using political donations as a means of access.

And for a privileged few — including the Murdoch family — prime ministers will come to them and their minions personally.

Perhaps the meeting was innocuous. The Labor leaders could have berated Murdoch and his executives for the appalling coverage of Labor during the election campaign. Perhaps they could have told the assembled News Corp elite that their climate denialism no longer had currency in this country. Perhaps they even want to diminish the toxic power of the Murdoch empire.

Somehow, we think not. But exactly what the purpose of the meeting was will remain hidden from voters, who are entitled to think the worst.

At least in NSW and Queensland, such meetings are required to be reported to the public every quarter, along with the purpose of the meeting, so voters have some visibility of who is trying to influence the politicians they pay for. No such luck at the Commonwealth level, where politicians believe that no one should know to whom they and their staff are talking.

So we remain a two-speed democracy. Under Labor, there’s quite a different group of interests able to wield influence over ministers compared to the Coalition. But some vested interests get access no matter who is in power.