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.
