1

I strongly support the concept of a Royal Commission and the Senate Inquiry into media diversity, but do not propose a suggested terms of reference for the Royal Commission.

The Terms of Reference for a Royal Commission are the preserve of the membership of the Senate Inquiry to recommend.

But I hope the following content will be more than an incentive to the deliberative process in formulating the Terms of Reference, but are concurrently responsive to the Senate Inquiry invitation for submissions.

Furthermore, I sincerely hope the following ideas will be critically examined by such an essential Royal Commission.

I congratulate the Senate for establishing this Inquiry.

My support for the spirit and intent of this initiative by the Senate has crystallised over the last decade.

Australia does not support monopoly power in commerce industry & business,

That’s why Australia has The ACCC – The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

If one may instance an ACCC Queensland case study as it relates to newspapers and this Senate Inquiry.

The ACCC comprehensively failed when it granted News Corp the right to acquire APN newspapers in areas like Mackay Rockhampton Gladstone Bundaberg Maryborough Harvey Bay Gympie and The Sunshine Coast.

News Corp subsequently further failed all these communities and their citizens by closing down every printed newspaper in these localities.

During this time the Commissioners from the ACCC made what I believed to be disappointing claims in the context of the further concentration of Australian media into the hands of News Corp, by saying that citizens in these areas could get news from other internet based news outlets.

There was obviously no ACCC consideration of many elderly folk in these areas who are not internet savvy and totally dependent on their local printed paper, which in many instances they had subscribed to for more than 50 years.

Another deficiency in this ACCC argument about other internet based outlets is that most of these outlets take a lead from Murdoch or NINE newspapers and that forms the basis of their online content and coverage for Radio stations, TV stations etc.

That’s real influence by the major newspapers, irrespective of their circulation figures.

It was incredibly disappointing that the ACCC did not acknowledge and recognise this absolute reality.

Malcolm McMillan 2

It’s imperative that the Senate Inquiry invite the leadership of the ACCC to appear before it, justify their decision, and in particular ask the ACCC did they take into account, by way of comparative analysis, changes in media ownership across the ditch in New Zealand and the modus operandi of those commercial arrangements over a decade or so.

I understand there is a new media company operating in Queensland and maybe in parts of other states.

I know this new company has operations in Cairns and Longreach and has a model whereby subscriptions are free, overheads are low, and adequate revenue comes from paid advertising.

No doubt the leadership of this company could share contemporary cutting edge information intelligence with the Senate Inquiry.

This Senate Inquiry might also ask the ACCC about any investigations they have made about the sharing at reasonable cost print and distribution services, as well as looking at monopoly printing services for any media company, (admittedly smaller) dealing with either NINE or News Corp.

News Corp, I understand, owns 70% of newspapers in Australia.

A Royal Commission and the Senate Inquiry should also examine, analyse, and recommend if there should be an appeals facility for citizens against newspapers if they as citizens feel aggrieved, disadvantaged or insulted.

That is a facility to be a replacement for The Australian Press Council - which in the minds of most fair-minded citizens is perceived as a ‘toothless tiger’ and virtually regarded as so by Australia’s two main newspaper groups NINE and News Corp.

If defamed by media majors, a defamation action is an option to citizens, but it is horrendously expensive for John or Jan Citizen, whereas corporate entities like News Corp and NINE have very deep pockets as well as defo insurance.

It’s indeed more than timely that a Royal Commission and this preceding Senate Inquiry be executed.

Media companies, large and small should welcome the innovation of this Senate Inquiry.

The Senate Inquiry will be a strategic initiative that in all probability, will produce outcomes that companies like News Corp could not shine a light on themselves individually because of vested interests.

A free press in Australia must represent the principles of independence impartiality and most importantly integrity.

A newspaper publisher is entitled to vigorously express their views in their editorials.

But any publisher must treat the news pages, [separate from the editorial] of their newspapers very differently.

Those news pages must represent independence impartiality and most importantly integrity.

Malcolm McMillan 3

News Corp, for just over 10 years now, have regularly deviated from the essential principles of independence impartiality and most importantly integrity on their news pages here in Australia.

News Corp does this because there is no facility in Australia to ‘bring them to heel’ over such an approach and attitude that regretfully and unfortunately bullies and demonises citizens/entities who/which have a view that is not 100% in sync with the News Corp paradigm.

A classic case study here is Climate Change.

It’s dreadful stuff the approach and attitude by News Corp, a foreign owned company.

Australia doesn’t deserve this.

Australia deserve better than this.

Only a Royal Commission and this preceding Senate Inquiry will have the independence to run a micrometer screw gauge over all of this stuff and deliver an outcome of recommendations that will be in the national interest.

Is there any existing overarching instrument of authority, to protect the public interest of citizens with such newspapers in Australia?.

Sadly in this country, the answer is: “No”.

News Corp and its previous corporate incarnations used to be an Australian owned company until 1985

In 1984 the principal owner of News Corporation Keith Rupert Murdoch became a Companion of the Order of Australia (AC) within the auspices of The Order of Australia.

That’s Australia’s highest civilian honour.

The citation for the Rupert Murdoch AC said: “For service to the media. Particularly the newspaper publishing industry”

In 1985, the following year, Rupert Murdoch ditched his Australian citizenship and immediately became an American citizen.

From 1985 to now News Corp in Australia has been foreign owned, and very seldom publicly referred to in Australia as foreign owned, but it is.

No Australian federal parliament since 1985 has addressed this media foreign ownership issue of News Corp, by way of legislation.

Rupert Murdoch had to become an American citizen in 1985 to buy American TV stations.

A Royal Commission and this Senate Inquiry here in Australia should most definitely address the issue as to whether a foreign citizen or a foreign company is a ‘fit and proper’ person/entity to own Australian newspapers and a pay TV stations like FOXTEL which houses Sky News, a 100% foreign owned broadcaster.

Malcolm McMillan 4

In a practical sense, I was deeply involved in a ‘fit and proper’ case at a then Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (ABT) hearing for the reissuing of commercial TV licenses in Brisbane way back in 1986.

The ‘fit and proper’ provisions for TV licences were removed from federal legislation applying to TV licenses in the early ‘90’s by the Hawke Government, after Mr Kerry Packer AC regained ownership of the NINE network from Alan Bond.

A 2004 Courier Mail story by Craig Johnstone gives a précis and concise synopsis of those 1986 ‘fit and proper’ circumstances impacting on Mr Bond.

It’s attached.

Media proprietors like the late Mr Packer and the living Mr Murdoch have absolute private access to political leaders, and have been and still are, incredibly influential individuals.

On 4 October 1952 Rupert Murdoch’s father, Sir Keith Arthur Murdoch died and young Rupert, aged just 21 yrs inherited the then Adelaide News newspaper.

Sir Keith’s knighthood was awarded on 3 June 1933 and the citation said: “Commonwealth public service”

Rupert Murdoch came home from Oxford University to take charge of the Adelaide News.

Whilst at Oxford, Rupert had a bust of Supreme Soviet Leader Vladimir Lenin on his study desk, much to the dismay of his father Sir Keith and his mother Lady Elisabeth Murdoch who became Dame Elisabeth on New Year’s Day in 1963 with the citation saying: “Social Welfare Services”.

Rupert Murdoch not only inherited The Adelaide News from his father but also inherited some of his DAD’s traits in the relationship between media ownership and politicians.

In 1936 Sir Keith Murdoch was reported as having some regrets about his support for the strong- willed Prime Minister Joseph Lyons with this famous quote: "I put him there and I'll put him out".

It is prudent to note and acknowledge here that Rupert Murdoch was an enterprising businessman in the way he subsequently expanded his global media empire from that solitary Adelaide base.

Fast forward to the 1972 Australian Federal election and a subsequent but related interview about the 1972 federal election on the ABC Radio program PM on Thursday 7 October 1999.

The now deceased journalist Mark Colvin was interviewing John Menadue on the occasion of the release of Menadue’s memoir: “Things you learn along the way".

At the time of the 1972 Australian federal election, John Menadue was the CEO of the then called News Limited in Australia owned by Rupert Murdoch.

In that 1999 Mark Colvin interview, Menadue when referring to Rupert Murdoch and the 1972 federal election, said: “He was involved in enormous detail, writing stories, writing editorials, providing free advertising, writing draft speeches for Whitlam. He was into it boots and all. Highly interventionist.”

Malcolm McMillan 5

In the same 2009 Mark Colvin interview, the following is a verbatim report of a further exchange between Menadue and Colvin referring to the 1972 federal election.

MARK COLVIN: Did the editorial line influence the news pages?

JOHN MENADUE: Oh, yes. Absolutely. Yes. I think he saw the newspapers as a journal to project an editorial position that he held. It so happened that most of the community, and I think most of the journalists, had a similar view about the need to end the McMahon Government at that stage. But the news columns reflected very clearly the editorial view.

MARK COLVIN: So the old adage that comment is free, facts are sacred, doesn't apply?

JOHN MENADUE: No, it does not. It does not.

MARK COLVIN: Did not and does not.

JOHN MENADUE: That's right. Yes. After the '72 election - there's no doubt he played a major role, although I think he exaggerates it. After the election he said to me "John", he said, "how many seats do you think we won?" We meaning News Limited rather than the Labor Party and I think he did exaggerate his influence because the big swing to Labor in '72 was in Victoria, where his newspapers were the weakest. There were other factors at play. https://www.abc.net.au/pm/stories/s57770.htm

Over the next 35 years or so, in both the United Kingdom and Australia News Corp can point to their support at different times of the 2 main political parties in The UK and Australia.

However, in the last 12 or more years here in Australia, political coverage by News Corp entities in broadsheet and tabloid newspapers and on TV via 100% News Corp owned Sky News (particularly after dark), has disintegrated into a rather disappointing display that has reeked of anything but independence impartiality and most importantly integrity.

That’s very sad for Australia.

In Australia very recently there have been foreign interference laws before the federal parliament.

This type of legislation is usually interpreted as referring to cyber espionage by likely international suspects, as identified by Australia’s domestic and international security services, and then briefed to both Government and Opposition senior parliamentarians.

That is primarily about covert not overt operations.

But News Corp in Australia, the 100% foreign owned entity since 1985, is involved in classic foreign interference in Australia’s public affairs through the auspices of its foreign owned media outlets, for all to see.

But the Murdoch Media foreign interference in Australia is very different from traditional cyber espionage by likely international suspects.

The Murdoch foreign inference is unashamedly dead set overt, not in the slightest is it covert!

Malcolm McMillan 6

A critical reason I am in support of a Royal Commission and this Senate Inquiry is because it will have the opportunity to be able to flesh out potential ‘fit and proper’ provisions that might be considered to apply to newspaper publishers who own above a specified % of Australian newspaper and media ownership.

This % could be 10% to 25% for example.

But 70%?

That ‘fit and proper’ provision should also be reviewed for TV proprietors.

That’s for the Senate Inquiry to decide.

That 70% ownership of Australian newspapers by News Corp definitely needs to be taken out of the ‘too hard’ basket and addressed by the Royal Commission and this Senate Inquiry with forensic rigor.

In Australia, there are barriers to entry, pursuant to federal legislation for a person or company to start up a new radio or TV station.

There is, to the best of my understanding, no such barrier to entry to start up a newspaper in Australia.

A vital question to be addressed by the Royal Commission and this Senate Inquiry is to ask what happens in terms of News Corporation in Australia if Rupert Murdoch dies or it is sold to another foreign citizen or foreign company.

The Royal Commission and this Senate Inquiry need to address if such a change of ownership scenario in News Corp occurs, will it invoke an immediate consideration by The Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) as to the future?.

Particularly so if News Corp is sold to another international entity, from (say) Europe, the UK, China, Singapore, South Korea or North Korea etc, to name a few.

This should be a priority for the Senate Inquiry.

Suggested media players and individuals to be invited to appear before the Senate Inquiry.

The Senate committee will no doubt ensure there is procedural fairness for all concerned by inviting the most senior media company executives to participate.

All the NINE executives live in Australia.

In so far as News Corp is concerned, particularly as a foreign owned company, invitees should include the News Corp executive Chair Rupert Murdoch AC and the News Corp Co-Chair Lachlan Murdoch.

To significantly assist the Senate Inquiry deliberate outcomes, an invitation should also be extended to the youngest son of Rupert Murdoch, namely James Murdoch for the following reasons.

In the New York Times on 10 October 2020, globally recognised journalist, Maureen Dowd reported on an extensive interview with James Murdoch.

Malcolm McMillan

8

Clearly, James Murdoch because he was on the News Corp Board would be a unique witness to appear before the Senate Inquiry and shine a very bright light on the deliberations of the Inquiry, pursuant to the terms of reference and subject to his international availability.

CONCLUSION:

It is essential that an independent and impartial Royal Commission be invoked to address the ‘fit and proper’ provisions in all its forms as outlined in this submission, plus the issue of media foreign ownership and that this Senate Inquiry be critical catalyst in leading up to a Royal Commission.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Courier Mail

Edition 1 - First with the news SAT 27 NOV 2004, Page 032

Bond payment opened state’s Pandora box

By Craig Johnstone

IT WAS the height of the Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen era in the 1980s. Queensland was booming.

Investment was coming in from all over. The bribe culture was out of control.

Who knows how or when it would have ended had not Paul Tyrer, a very proper Englishman and a barrister working in Brisbane, pulled aside a younger colleague to tell him of an ``outrageous fraud involving a defamation case brought by the then premier.

That colleague was barrister Mark Plunkett, the defamation case was against Channel 9, and the

``outrageous fraud” was a secret settlement of the action involving a $400,000 payment by

Nine’s owner, Alan Bond, to Bjelke-Petersen.

Plunkett and several other lawyers who had a role in the saga that was the beginning of the end for both Alan Bond and Bjelke-Petersen, met for lunch recently to mull over the story.

The noticeboard at the Tattersall Club described the get-together as the ``Alan Bond

$400,000 Lunch”. Plunkett revealed Tyrer as his source because the ``pukka” Englishman has since died.

Tyrer had been representing Channel 9 in Brisbane in a civil procedure when he heard that

Bjelke-Petersen had dropped the defamation case when Bond paid him $400,000.

Malcolm McMillan 9

In what was seen at the time as one of the many ``stop writs” the premier and his ministers used to prevent scrutiny of their government, Bjelke-Petersen had sued over a 1983 report by journalists John Barton and Des Power on the Today Tonight program.

The story alleged that Bjelke-Petersen has used a trip to Japan to seek out private finance for the family property, Ten Mile.

The action was thought dormant, Tyrer and Nine’s legal team thought it was defensible, and the station had defamation insurance anyway.

Yet it was Bond who personally approached Bjelke-Petersen to offer the payment. The largest jury award for defamation was $40,000.

In the robing room at Brisbane’s Federal Court building later that day, Paul Tyrer sought out

Plunkett and told him: ``There’s an outrageous fraud occurring at the highest levels in this

State.

Plunkett, an activist lawyer who had been radicalised by the often brutal way that dissent was suppressed in Queensland at the time, jokingly replied: ``What do you expect in Queensland?

But he used the information Tyrer gave him to devastating effect.

Three months later he was representing the Australian Labor Party before the Australian

Broadcasting Tribunal licence renewal hearings for all three commercial television stations in

Brisbane.

He had been given the green light to raise Bjelke-Petersen’s defamation writ by Malcolm

McMillan, then principal private secretary to Opposition leader Nev Warburton, and then secretary of Queensland Labor, Peter Beattie.

It was McMillan’s work that had ensured the ALP had a seat at the hearing. The year before he had lodged a submission with the tribunal alleging the commercial stations were in breach of the

Broadcasting Act by allowing a blatantly political segment produced by the National Party

Government to go to air the Sunday before an important by-election for the seat of Redlands.

The segment, titled Queensland Unlimited, featured Bjelke-Petersen and the Nationals candidate for the seat, Paul Clauson, talking about a proposed rail line to Redlands. Clauson won the by- election.

Due to McMillan’s protest about Queensland Unlimited, the ALP was invited to appear at the licence renewal hearings in 1986.

The ALP duly appeared, represented by Plunkett, junior barrister Peter Applegarth and solicitor

Malcolm McMillan 10

Peter Carne.

Appearing for Channel 9 was top Perth silk, now Western Australia Chief Justice, David Malcolm,

QC.

McMillan remembers the scene when Bond appeared at tribunal hearings in Brisbane and later in

Sydney -- a line of big white cars, led by Bond’s Rolls Royce, each of them occupied by someone of descending order of importance according to the size of the car.

With Bond Media’s David Aspinall giving evidence, Plunkett slipped in a question about the defamation settlement, which Aspinall confirmed, but he refused to detail the payout when

Plunkett mentioned the $400,000 figure.

David Malcolm, for Bond, realised too late what was happening, as court reporters rushed for the exit.

With the bombshell dropped, tribunal chairwoman, Dierdre O’Connor, asked Plunkett whether he was alleging Alan Bond was not a fit and proper person to hold a television licence.

Plunkett replied that the allegation was a grave matter and he would have to take instructions.

After which he turned to McMillan and asked: ``Comrade, what are we going to do

McMillan: ``Bond is gone

Plunkett turned back and affirmed that the America’s Cup hero and (then) popular businessman was not a fit and proper person to hold a broadcasting licence. The rest, so the saying goes, is history.

Bond dug his own corporate grave in January, 1988, when he took part in what is now regarded as one of the most famous interviews in Australian television history.

On his own network, Bond told A Current Affair host Jana Wendt of the defamation settlement:

``Certainly, the premier left it under no doubt that if we were to continue to do business successfully in Queensland, then he expected the matter to be resolved”.

Bond’s business interests never recovered. The Bjelke-Petersen regime took a fatal body blow.

After Kerry Packer sold Bond his Nine Network stations in Sydney and Melbourne for $1 billion, he was able to buy them back three years later for just $250 million, prompting Packer to reportedly remark: ``You only get one Alan Bond in your lifetime.

Caption: PAYMENT . . . former premier Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen was paid $400,000, DOOMED . . . Alan

Bond.

Illus: Photo

Malcolm McMillan 11

Column: Inside Mail

Section: FEATURES

Malcolm McMillan