Perrett urges AFP to investigate #Ashby now, adds Abetz to list

AFP Commissioner Tony Negus

By Margo Kingston
March 20, 2013

EXCLUSIVE

Graham Perrett has written to the AFP demanding it resume its investigation into possible criminal activity surrounding the court action by James Ashby against the then Speaker of the House of Representatives Peter Slipper.

He has also added Liberal Senator Eric Abetz to  the list of people the AFP should investigate for possible involvement in an alleged conspiracy to abuse the judicial system to bring down the government, referring to an email provided by a member of the public.

On December 21 last year Mr Perrett referred Mal Brough, Christopher Pyne, Julie Bishop, James Ashby and Karen Doane to the AFP.

On February 14, the AFP said by letter it would not investigate until Mr Ashby’s application for leave to appeal, to be heard in May, was finalised.

The appeal concerns the correctness of Justice Rares dismissal of Mr Ashby’s case as an abuse of Court process. It does not concern any criminal activity before the case was lodged in Court, including the alleged theft of Mr Slipper diary.

Mt Perrett told AFHP: ‘This is not a situation for caution – this is a process that can only benefit by speed in investigation because the days are counting down to an election in which the good character of the players is a big issue. Time is of the essence and the investigation of possible criminal offences is completely different to the issue in the appeal.’

‘When Mr Brough opens a campaign office two doors down from Mr Slipper that is a statement by the Liberal Party that Mr Brough has done nothing wrong. I believe he is a conspirator in an plan to bring down the elected government and that he has no respect for our democratic institutions.’

Graham Perrett

Letter from Graham Perrett MP to AFP Commissioner Mr Tony Negus

So who is threatening our democracy?

Is that the truth or did you read it in The Daily Telegraph?

Daily Telegraph Front Page 19 March 2013

Daily Telegraph Front Page March 13, 2013

Daily Telegraph Front Page 18 March 2013

View this document on Scribd

Is that the truth or did you read it in The Daily Telegraph?

Journalist @MargaretSimons stands up to Oz intimidation, speaks out on media reform

Dr Margaret Simons – Centre for Advancing Journalism

By Margo Kingston,

March 19, 2013

I’ve known Meg Simons for more than 25 years. We met in the Fairfax Brisbane bureau in the late 1980s – she was The Age correspondent,  me a new recruit for the Times on Sunday. We covered the Fitzgerald Inquiry, and I learnt courage and persistence – and tried to learn detachment – from her. She’s since written novels,  investigative non-fiction on the Hindmarsh Island Affair, books on the Press Gallery and the media and a biography of Malcolm Fraser. She’s now an academic journalist at Melbourne University and writes on media for Crikey.

Meg is one of Australia’s finest journalists. She has also been a victim of intense, sustained intimidation by The Australian over her support for Finkelstein’s recommendations on media regulation and her disagreement with the paper on the merits of a power struggle in the Victorian Police force. Jonathan Holmes detailed aspects of  the bullying in Trivial pursuit: When The Australian gets personal. I’m told The Drum did not want to publish this piece for fear of flak from the Oz, and that Mark Scott personally cleared it for publication.

During its campaign, the Oz published a page one story falsely accusing her of  a form of corruption in the judging of a Walkley award. It refused to published a letter to the editor from former Oz editor Malcolm Schmidtke and former Sunday Age editor Gay Alcorn (my sister) which corrected the record.

When I had dinner with Meg and her children last November, she told me the Oz had staked out her home (CORRECTION: Meg has corrected my recollection – her children feared their home would be staked out after Meg was snapped by an Oz photographer at work). It’s my guess she’d be one of the people Press Council Chief Julian Disney had in mind when he said today that victims of ‘very bad abuses’ frequently would not lodge a complaint for fear of retribution.

Meg still has the courage to stand up for good journalism and good policy on media regulation. Here is her submission to the Senate media reform inquiry. She will give evidence at 6.30 tonight.

View this document on Scribd

Dear elected representatives, give the public a seat at the media reform table

Alan Moir – Sydney Morning Herald

By Noely Neate
March 19, 2013

Open Letter to OUR Elected Federal Government Representatives from punter Noely Neate

Hi.Have you seen this excellent & thorough explanation of exactly what the reforms are and how they will affect the media? Explainer: Conroy’s proposed new media laws is by Martin Hirst, Associate Professor Journalism and Media at Deakin UniversityDear .

I appreciate that you are most likely receiving an awful lot of correspondence in regard to this proposed legislation.  I also understand that not a lot of time has been allowed for it.  Please, seriously consider negotiating to allow the legislation to go through as it is in the best interests of the PUBLIC, us Australian Voters.

It is not perfect, obviously, and in my opinion does not go far enough. As someone who has tried to make complaints to the Press Council, I can assure you, that as a member of the public they are impossible to deal with and we are not treated with respect and are given the run around in regard to the basis of the complaint.  Yet it seems that other media companies and politicians can get satisfaction from the Press Council?  They are not supposed to be just an umpire for internal media spats, they should also be listening to the public, and they are not.  In fact, it is easier to deal with a Telco than the Press Council if you are a member of the Public, so what does that tell you?

We have independent umpires in many facets of business – Ombudsmen, ACMA and the RBA – and none of those industries have fallen over.  The television stations have not fallen over.

The hysterical nature of the News Ltd papers in the past few days are the strongest indicator that you need to vote for this legislation.

I would also suggest you review the Senate Enquiry held yesterday afternoon.  Mr Williams of News Ltd did not answer any question that had anything to do with the public at all. it was all about his business and his nose out of joint as he was not consulted. Nor should he have been, Government should not be going hat in hand to big business for legislation changes. MPs and Senators work for us, the public, and as far as we are concerned Mr Williams is only ONE voter.

I also ask that you be very aware of the opposition’s claim with regard to diversity in media and their claim that ‘the internet’ gives diversity.  This is very very cute, as any IT expert will tell you that the number of people getting their news from the internet is negligible as yet. Saying that TV has diversity in news is also dodgy. Every morning news show will repeat more than once, ‘What is on the front page of the newspapers’, the message from print press is spread further.

These two companies, Fairfax and News Ltd, have the power to bring down Governments and change public policy with campaigns to favour their own business interests.  They need to be reined in.  We need more diversity in this country (it is a joke if you look overseas) and we need the Press Council to do its job and we need an Independent adjudicator above them to make them do it!

Please, seriously, in this debate played out in the media there has been little attention paid to the actual PUBLIC!

If you care about you’re electorate and the voters in this country, support Media Reform.

Yours sincerely,
Noely
www.YaThink.com.au
email: seriously@yathink.com.au
Twitter: @YaThinkN
Twitter: http://www.facebook.com/yathinkn

NOTE: If you would like to do similar to me and contact people you think would support this reform please read the list of MPs and Senators to contact here. I also suggest you contact your own Federal MP to give him or her feedback as well 🙂

Just so you know, the government’s media reform case in Parliament today

House Of Representatives

19 Marc 2013

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Media Reform

Mr TURNBULL (Wentworth) (14:30): My question is to the Prime Minister. If this week she is unable to persuade the parliament to establish a public interest media advocate to regulate the content of newspapers for the first time in our peacetime history, will she have the courage of her convictions and commit today to take that policy to the next election and pledge to legislate it if she were to win government again?

The SPEAKER: The difficulty with the question is that it is slightly hypothetical.

Opposition members interjecting—

The SPEAKER: And I am not referring to the last part of the question. It also presumes the outcome of a vote in this parliament, and that is a very dangerous precedent to set.

Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:30): In answer to the question from the member for Wentworth, the government does not have before this parliament and does not have as its policy a proposal to have a public interest media advocate that regulates newspaper coverage. That is not the case. That is a distortion of the reform proposition. I said it last week and I will say it again: I understand why the
member for Wentworth is seeking to curry a bit of favour with those who run media outlets in the hope of some good publicity—presumably for himself; maybe for the opposition—in the future. I understand that craven attempt at political advantage. But on more than one occasion—

Mrs Mirabella: That is the pot calling the kettle black.

The SPEAKER: The member for Indi will leave the chamber under 94(a). She was warned just moments ago.

The member for Indi then left the chamber.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The imputation from the Prime Minister concerning the member for Wentworth was unparliamentary and I ask that she withdraw it. It was absolutely outrageous.

The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister has the call and will refer to the question before the chair.

Ms GILLARD: I was referring to the question before the chair and the distortion that appeared in the question of what the government’s intentions are. There is legislation before the parliament this week. The government will continue—

Mr Pyne: Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Madam Speaker, I am wondering whether you heard exactly what the Prime Minister said. She accused the member for Wentworth of improper motives for the position that the coalition has taken on the media reforms. We have asked her to withdraw that accusation.

The SPEAKER: I probably did not hear, actually, given the level of noise that continues to flow around the chamber. I did not think that the issue warranted a withdrawal. But I ask the Prime Minister to withdraw in order to assist the parliament.

Ms GILLARD: I withdraw. In answer to the question from the member for Wentworth, firstly, his question misconstrues the proposition that is before the parliament. Secondly, the parliament is yet to have a debate on these various pieces of legislation and the government obviously in that debate will be putting forward what is in the public interest in our nation. I am not going to speculate on the outcome in this parliament. We will work, as we always do, in good faith with those parliamentary members who are prepared to deal with reform propositions on their merits and on their facts.

When it comes to reform propositions on their merits and on their facts, the member for Wentworth has characterised this reform proposition one way in his question. I would refer him to the following: According to the international and well-respected organisation Reporters Without Borders, Australia currently sits 26th in the world when it comes to a free press. The country in first place, Finland, has specific laws that dictate to media organisations that they must provide a right of reply and correct factual errors. We are not proposing to do that. In Finland, the press council gets 30 per cent of its funding from the government. We are not proposing to do that. Denmark, which is sixth on the list, has a press council that was established by legislation in 1991. We are not proposing to do that. What the government has put forward are some propositions clearly in the public interest. They are propositions about freedom of the press, about diversity of voices and about self-regulation by our media. We believe that they are propositions of merit to be pursued this week in parliament. We will join in that debate well and truly.

*

Why can’t Kim Williams describe the public interest?

Created by Martin Davies

By Margo Kingston
March 18, 2013

Kim Williams is Murdoch’s chief executive in Australia. Williams cannot define, or even explore, what ‘the public interest’ might be in relation to newspapers, because it is completely relative: ‘The public interest is as long as a piece of string… it is in the eye of the beholder.’

And his beholder is Murdoch, whose view of public interest is his commercial and political interests.

Here’s my attempt:

‘Freedom of the press is not a property right of owners. It is a right of the people. It is part of their right to free expression, inseparable from their right to inform themselves.’ (Kent Royal Commission into media ownership in Canada).

And here is my opinion of the role a journalist plays in upholding that public interest:

‘The duty of the journalist is the same as that of the historian –to seek out the truth, above all things, and to present to his readers not such things as statecraft would wish them to know but the truth as near as he can attain it.’ (London Times editor John Thadeus Delane,1852)

Big media owners are motivated by profit and power. Greens Senator Scott Ludlum asked Kerry Stokes, owner the the West Australian newspaper: ‘Are you saying you have no public interest obligations apart from just to make money for your shareholders?’

Stokes: ‘They are one and the same.’

This explains in full why Stokes censored and punished journalists in the Jill Singer scandal.

Journalists, as professionals, must comply with a professional ethics code. It is up to us to uphold the public interest. But we have no power without the support of our colleagues acting collectively and an effective accountability mechanism. These days, employed journos have no power due to ongoing staff cuts.

At Fairfax, we managed for a long time to uphold the public interest by having a code of editorial independence and strong collegiate support with the support of the Fairfax family. Now there is Gina.

The media reforms, as weak as they are, give ethical journalism a chance, both by making self-regulation meaningful and potentially preventing yet further domination by Murdoch’s media. They also give citizens the chance for protection against abuse of power by newspapers.

Our job is to restore trust in journalists. As @murphyroo wrote today in her last piece for Fairfax before joining The Guardian, The media must embrace reform to survive:

‘…the principles guiding the proposed changes? Let’s look through the static and consider them.

‘There are two: that concentration of media ownership in Australia will not get any worse than it is now. Not any better, mind you – just no worse. And that self-regulation – a principle that newspapers have rightly fought for and defended – should be made to actually work; that people who are the victims of intended or unintended abuses by media companies have their complaints properly heard.

‘The principles in this package are, in fact, the challenges the mainstream media must meet in order to survive the transition currently upon us. We in the media must renew our mandate with audiences by innovating and moving beyond the strictures of the old masthead and network models, and by being accurate and reliable.

‘We can pretend the only player here with an existential trust problem is the Gillard government, and wilfully ignore our own parallel universe: the evidence that audiences don’t trust us either.

‘We can comfort ourselves in self-delusion, and strut and fret. Or we can spend less time swaggering and railing against our enemies and more time renewing the mission of contemporary journalism. We are tellers of truths, news breakers, curators and contextualisers; and at our best and bravest, we are people who write things that someone, somewhere, does not want written.

‘The only people who can save or destroy journalism are journalists. And we will save it only if we exhibit courage and humility, not manufactured conflict.’

Kerry Stokes, free speech defender? Spare me

Kerry Stokes

By Margo Kingston
March 18, 2013

I reckon it’s time for journos to start spilling the beans on the ‘free speech’ nonsense being spouted by big media. The big boys’ self-righteous, self-interested hypocrisy in the media reform debate is surely too much for any of us who care about the survival of our profession to stomach.

Today the Oz – of course – tells us Kerry Stokes will make a surprise appearance at the Senate hearings into the media reform bills ‘to denounce the bills and argue passionately in favour of a free press without government oversight’. The article lists all the heavies who will come to Canberra – they are a cabal on this, orchestrated by Murdoch’s boys – and explicitly threatens to campaign against the government right up to election day if they don’t get their way:

“The implicit assumption that by getting these bills through this week it means the debate will calm down is completely wrong and a fundamental miscalculation,” a senior media boss said. “It gives every media company in the country the incentive to keep campaigning on it right up to the election, and will strengthen the resolve of all the media companies to keep campaigning to make sure that if the Liberals get into power they honour their promise.”

They know and Labor knows Abbott will do their bidding if he wins office. Those quotes are code for telling Labor it ain’t seen nothing yet if they don’t back down. It’s crude, thuggish blackmail.

That’s how brutal they are. Who is running the country? Not voters, that’s for sure. Gillard has clearly had enough, and is going for broke. In an interview with Fairfax today, she said:

”Government in my view isn’t about looking at the powerful stake-holders and saying, how many can I get in my corner? Government is about serving the national interest and doing what the nation requires… I never expected people in the media to applaud any reform agenda because their agenda is looking at it through their eyes and what meets their needs rather than doing what I’ve got to do – stand back and say what meets the national interest.”

In this she echoes UK, Labor leader Ed Milliband, who has also put his career on the line to take a stand against big media bullies and demand serious accountability at last:

“Now we are at this moment which is a sort of crossroads: do we change or is it more of the same?”

The Observer reported:

Miliband says that now is the moment to break with the past, when “politicians were fearful of speaking out because they thought: ‘I’m going to get bad publicity, it will turn the press against me’.” He says that he believes the country is now “24 hours away from putting in place a system that I believe will work”, to ensure that the treatment meted out to the family of the murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler, whose phone was hacked after she disappeared, and the parents of missing Madeleine McCann, can never be repeated. “I think it is an important moment because we have had decades of failing to ensure that we have a system of press complaints and redress which means that ordinary people aren’t left at the whim of a sometimes abusive press.

“Monday is the day that politics has got to do the duty by the victims and has got to stand up for the victims.”

If Stokes appears, I hope his bullshit bluster will be called and he will be asked about his free speech record (by the way, Stokes is not a man of his word and is gutless to boot). I personally know of a case where he dressed down a producer for allowing a tough interview on Murdoch because, he said, he needed to keep him onside. But there is a famous case of Stokes’ censorship on the record. Here’s an extract from a 1997 4 Corners program on Kennett’s culture:

Sally Neighbour: Last year in Melbourne, the most damaging story of Jeff Kennett’s Premiership came to a head in a drama that was made for television.

Archive, Today Tonight with Jill Singer: Hello and welcome to the program. Tonight we had planned to bring you a story about poker machine king Bruce Mathieson and a link with the Premier Jeffrey Kennett.

@albericie debates @chriskkenny on media self regulation reform: And the winner is?

Artist Martin Davies.

https://twitter.com/chriskkenny/status/311990098428317696

@chriskkenny It's not a left/right issue but one of fairness why should TV & radio news be regulated but print news not? who's politicking?

— Emma Alberici (@albericie) March 14, 2013

https://twitter.com/chriskkenny/status/311998309478846467

@chriskkenny Broadcasters already regulated through ACMA what is wrong with PIMA ensuring press does what its own self-reg says it will?

— Emma Alberici (@albericie) March 14, 2013

https://twitter.com/chriskkenny/status/312001268480634880

@chriskkenny how exactly is it a blanket on press freedom to have self regulation strengthened but still self regulation? No legal sanctions

— Emma Alberici (@albericie) March 14, 2013

@vjboodie @chriskkenny like Productivity Commission? ACCC? FIRB? APRA? ASIC?

— Emma Alberici (@albericie) March 14, 2013

Pollies citizens need to pass media reforms

Artist Martin Davies.

By Margo Kingston
March 17, 2013

Public support will be crucial to the success of the media reforms. Please contact the following key politicians whose decisions will determine the outcome. You CAN make a difference.

This list was kindly compiled by Barry Tucker @btckr

Adam Bandt Twitter @adambandt
Facebook http://www.facebook.com/Adam.Bandt.MP
email adam.bandt.mp@aph.gov.au
Canberra (02) 6277 4775
FAX ACT (02) 6277 8583

Rob Oakeshott Twitter @OakeyMP
Facebook http://www.facebook.com/people/Robert-Oakeshott/1415774696
email http://www.aph.gov.au/R_Oakeshott_MP
Canberra (02) 6277 4052
FAX: (02) 6277 8403

Andrew Wilkie Twitter @WilkieMP
Facebook http://www.facebook.com/andrewwilkiemp
Canberra (02) 6277 4766
FAX: (02) 6277 8579

Tony Windsor Twitter @TonyWindsorMP
emails www.aph.gov.au/T_Windsor_MP |
Tony.Windsor.MP@aph.gov.au
Canberra (02) 6277 4722
FAX: (02) 6277 8545

Craig Thomson @DobellThommo
No Facebook
Website http://www.aph.gov.au/C_Thomson_MP
no email
Canberra (02) 6277 4460
FAX: (02) 6277 2123

Bob Katter @RealBobKatter
Facebook http://www.facebook.com/bobkattermp
email Bob.Katter.MP@aph.gov.au
Personal website http://www.bobkatter.com.au/
Party website http://www.ausparty.org.au/
Canberra (02) 6277 4978
FAX: (02) 6277 8558

Tony Crook
email http://www.tonycrook.com.au/contact.aspx
Kalgoorlie Office
Phone (08) 9021 1241
Mobile    1300 772 061
FAX (08) 9021 1506

Peter Slipper
Facebook http://www.facebook.com/PeterSlipperMP
email Peter.Slipper.MP@aph.gov.au
Website http://www.peterslippermp.com.au/
Canberra (02) 6277 4490
FAX: (02) 6277 8405

The Nationals (traditional supporters of media diversity)

Warren Truss
Personal website http://www.warrentruss.com/
PARTY website http://www.nationals.org.au/
Canberra (02) 6277 4482
FAX: (02) 6277 8569

Senator Barnaby Joyce  @Barnaby_Joyce
Email senator.joyce@aph.gov.au
Personal website http://www.barnabyjoyce.com.au/
Canerra (02) 6277 3244
FAX: (02) 6277 3246

Darren Chester
Personal website http://www.darrenchester.com.au/
Canberra (02) 6277 4029
Fax: (02) 6277 8402
George Christensen
Twitter @GChristensenMP
Canberra (02) 6277 4538
Fax: (02) 6277 8508

John Cobb
email John.Cobb.MP@aph.gov.au
website http://www.johncobb.com.au/
Canberra (02) 6277 4721
Fax: (02) 6277 8543
John Forrest
email J.Forrest.MP@aph.gov.au
website http://www.jforrest.com/
Canberra (02) 6277 4550
Fax: (02) 6277 8532

@Barnaby_Joyce states the case for Labor’s media merger ‘public interest test’: How will the Nats vote?

Barnaby Joyce: We need YOU to talk to your local MP. Picture: Kym Smith

By Margo Kingston
March 17, 2013

The National Party has long opposed further media domination by Rupert Murdoch, as detailed in the two media policy chapters in my book. It fought against John Howard’s weakening of media concentration laws to facilitate Murdoch expansion, and Barnaby Joyce actually crossed the floor in 2006 to vote for his amendment to limit the damage of Howard’s legislation. Guess what he wanted – a public interest test for big media mergers! And that is what the ALP has proposed.

So, now that Labor wants to pass a modest roll-back of Howard’s laws to allow the Media Advocate to stop very, very big media – ie Murdoch – gobbling up even more players if it is not in the public interest, where do the Nats stand?

Apparently the MSM hasn’t bothered to look into the Coalition’s opposition to the two contentious Labor bills – media diversity and tougher self-regulation. Does no-one in the press gallery have a memory? (By the way, there used to be Liberals who cared about media diversity too, but they are long dis-endorsed or silenced; you can read about them in my book too).

So, to encourage the Gallery to do some work, here is a media release and a speech in 2006 by Barnaby explaining the reasons for his stand. Perhaps someone in the Press Gallery – anyone – might care to seek his opinion now?

Cross media ownership may threaten democratic process

10 October, 2006

Nationals Senator for Queensland, Senator Barnaby Joyce has stated “Though not the highest profile issue, the proposed changes to media ownership laws are probably one of the most important. Decisions made now will have ramifications for the future concentration of media and the roll out of new technology.

“The Queensland Nationals have long recognised the issue and their concerns were reflected in the unanimous resolution, at State Conference, to protect local journalism and stop the overcentralisation of views which can only be to the detriment of democratic process. The Nationals have pursued this purpose since State Conference and, with work conducted by Nationals’ Senators, have pursued these concerns through the recent Senate Inquiry.

“A major concern with cross media remains the over centralisation of the media market and the lack of capacity of the ACCC to have effective oversight of media mergers and their effect on the democratic process of our nation. The ACCC has no powers to be, nor was it set up to be the arbiter and protector of a diversity of public opinion.

“I share the view of the Productivity Commission, noted in its report on broadcasting, that the introduction of a public interest test, with particular emphasis on diversity of political and public opinion, in relation to media mergers or acquisitions, must be a central feature of any media reforms.

“Working through the processes of the Senate and with the Minister, the Nationals will do their very best to come up with the best mechanism to protect diversity in light of the intention of the Minister to achieve passage of this Bill.” Senator Joyce said.

 

An explanation of 2 issues, cross media ownership and the merger and acquisitions process

18 October, 2006

Here is a brief explanation of a complex agenda which is currently in train in Canberra. This is an explanation of two issues, cross media ownership and the mergers and acquisitions process, as laid out in the Trade Practices Amendment Bill (no.1). This is a discussion on how they are linked.