PRIME MINISTER TUESDSAY, NOVEM4BER 20, 1979
from the Press Office SUM4MARY OF
Mr. Murdoch has made a shack takeover bid for the Herald and
Weekly Times Group, which if successful would make Mr. Murdoch's
company News Limited the most powerful media organisation in
Australia. The Opposition has called for intervention by the
Federal Government until a full enquiry is conducted into media
ownership. -Jane Singleton reports from Sydney.
Question: How much of Herald and Weekly Times does Mr. Murdoch
already own?
Singleton: It is very hard to give an exact figure but from ringing around
the stock brokers this afternoon about 30% that is of a total
$ 126 million bid.
Question:
What does he own already in terms of newspapers, radio and T. V.
outlets and what will he gain from the Herald and Weekly Times?
Singleton:
Well of course he has got the Australian and in Sydney the Daily
Telegraph arnd the Daily Mirror. There is the Truth and a number
of Sunday papers. If he is successful he will add about a dozen
metropolitan dailies and the big ones are the Herald and Sun* News
Pictorial in Melbourne, the Courier Mail and the Telegraph in
Brisbane, the Australian and the Daily News in Perth andthe
Mecu in Hobart. He will get an amazing nine radio stations to
add tohs existing four but it is in television he will have to
do some rationalising. He is at present negotiating to sell his
Channel 9, that's NWS in Adelaide and that leaves him with only
Channel 10 in Sydney but according to the Secretary of the Australian
Broadcasting Tribunal, Mr. Connelly, he may only-own two under the
Broadcasting and Television Act. Now the Herald and Weekly Times
brings him four so he would have to sell of f three of them and
reports at the moment suggest he would keep Channel 7 in Melbourne
and sell off the rest.
Question:
How has Herald and Weekly Times itself reacted?
Singleton:
Well very early today they instructed their shareholders not to
sell, directly after the announcement was made on the floor of
the Stock Exchangel in Melbourne.
Question: And the Stock Exchange of course has reflected what they thought of
the situation.
2
Singleton:
Yes they went up very quickly, Herald and Weekly Times shares went
up to about $ 3.78 by lunchtime, they stabilised a bit lower by the
end of trading today and of course News Limited went down a bit.
Question: And Mr. Murdoch in fact told ( inaud.) New Limited has offered
$ 4 a share for Herald and Weekly Times shares. Has Mr.. Murdoch
himself commented at all?
Singleton: Yes, he's said that it is a life time dream of his to control the
Herald and Weekly Times but he does say that in some ways it was
an unrealised dream, a subconscious dream. But he has said that
he is confident of getting the 50 percent and that he has got
enough money to complete the raid.
Question:
And typically perhaps of his character he walked unannounced to
the Herald and Weekly Times building. this morning to tell them
his plans to take them over. Any sign that the Herald and Weekly
Times intend to fight back?
Singleton:
Yes-indeed. From reliable sources we have learnt that Herald and
Weekly Times Directors plan to make a counter offer which may
defeat Mr. Murdoch's bid very soundly.
Question: And I suoocse it wouldn't be surprising if the Melbourne establishment
took a degree of exception to a takeover to the Herald and Weekly
Times? Singleton: They might indeed.
To look at some of the implications of the takeover bid Peter
Jefferson is speaking to Dr. Patricia Edgar, Senior Lecturer in
the Media Centre at the School of Education, Latrobe University,
who tomorrow launches her new book ' The Politics of the Press'.
Interviewer:
Well Dr. Edgar what is your reaction? Is is a healthy sign for
Australia? Edgar:
No I think it is quite staggering. I was stunned. I think it is
most unhealthy prognosis. .3
Interviewer: If it went through what would sort of power would Mr. Murdoch have?
Edgar: Well if you look at the control which already exists with the
Herald and Weekly Times, which is a monopoly in Perth, Brisbane,
Hobart you add this to the control that Mr. Murdoch has already
got through his papers and you have vested within one man enormous
amount of potential power to manipulate the public through the
press. Now of course day to day the paper comes out it' pretty
much the same but when you get to elections, to political events,
power broking, it becomes much more significant.
Interviewer:
Can one man manipulate the press like that? Given that he is in
control of it can he really manipulate the press?
Edgar: Well it's a matter of speculation but you look at what happened in
South Australia and you look at the enormous change in public
opinion and the fact that one government went out which wasn't
expected . to and a lot of that has been credited to the role which
Mr. Murdoch's paper played in South Australia.
Interviewer:
How would he use this power if he got it?
Edgar: It is a potential power. Mr. Mur-doch has a reputation for being
active as a newspaper man and he doesn't claim to be disinterested
and so it's a question of that many newspapers in one country being
in the control of one person who may wish to put his support in
any direction, it doesn't matter which party it is.
Interviewer:
Would he try and make and break governments? * You've cited one case.
But would he try and do it on a federal level?
Edgar: Well he certainly has a reputation for doing that and that was
( inaud.) the 75 election and again I repeat South Australia. But
this would be the highest concentration of press ownership in any
Western country.
Interviewer:
What do you think is really going on for Mr. Murdoch? What do you
think he is really trying to do?-Is is a case of simply increasing
his power Does he want more money? What's in it for him? What's
the underlieing play in this whole deal? 4
4
Edgar: I couldn't possibly speculate on Mr. Mudc~ personal motives
but it is certainly possible that there are other interested
parties involved. There has been speculation that Mr. Holmes a
Court is interested in the West Australian which is a Herald and
Weekly Times paper. There is also speculation that he is interested
in Channel 7 Perth and -so it may bae -that this whole thing is part
of a much wider deal.
Interviewer: Involving perhaps the Ansett takeover?
Edgar: It could be. The whole scenario is yet to be played out. ( end)
The Federal Opposition has called for an enquiry before the takeover
goes through. Geoff Duncan spoke to Mr. Staley.
Question: Mr. Staley how disturbed is the Government at this potential
takeover? Mr. Staley:
Well I'd emphasise that these matters are for the Broadcasting
Tribunal and the law of this land provides that there are quite
stringent controls of the ownership of radio and television in
Australia. And these controls are administered by the Broadcasting
Tribunal and they have been well known for a long time. And I must
say I haven't heard any particular suggestions of any ( inaud.)
coming from the opposition or from anyone about how they ought to
be altered eith1-er now or in the future.-
Question: Well of course as you know they are asking-for a freeze that
there should be an enquiry to examine the whole operation at the
moment. Mr. Staley:
Yes. But I'd emphasise that neither when they were in government
did they act in this respect nor subsequently have they developed
any policy to suggest how the actual how the actual ownership and
control provisions could be changed, bearing in mind the fact that
Commonwealth Government is not by the Constitution given power over
press matters. Now that means that we can't place controls, as
I am advised on press ownership and of course that-has its good
side, because it does mean that governments don't get into the
business of censoring the press, and I think all Aust ' ralians regard
that as a great thing in a democracy. And it seems to me that you
don't alter the rules of the game when the ruckmen are in the air.
Question: But in terms of philosophy would the Government concede that it is
a bad thing to have too much concentration of media power?
Mr. Staley:
Well we do. And what we've done of course over the years, over
many years, is we've acted, and in recent decisions. We've acted
so as to further diversify media ownership in Australia. And what
I am saying is that there are vacuous calls being made now in areas
where we do not have the constitutional power to act. And Mr.
Murdoch, as I understand it, has made it quite plain that if his
bid is successful, and goodness knows whether it will be or not,
that if his bid is successful then he will live within those quite
stringent controls as they relate to radio and television in
Australia where we do have the power to act, have acted, and will
continue to act, and of course, in particular cases, the Broadcasting
Tribunal * will decide whether those quite stringent provisions are
lived up to in practice.
Interviewer:
To get back to what you said earlier. Does that mean the Government
is philosophically opposed to a move of this type?
Mr. Staley:
No. I am not going to argue that we're philosophically opposed.
I'm not going to comment on things that are for private enterprise
and the free market where we do not have the constitutional power
to act. ' It seems to me to be quite foolish for me to develop some
sort of position where we do not in fact have the power to act.
Interviewer:
How satisfied are you that the Tribunal itself has both the teeth
and the fortitude to resist such a move.
Mr. Staley:
I believe -the Tribunal has shown in its decisions that it's a
responsible body prepared to act in accordance with its powers
when it's called upon to do so.
Interviewer:
But given that general Government opposition philosophically to the
idea of the concentration of too much media power would you be
surprised if the Tribunal did uphold the takeover?
Mr. Staley:
Well that is for the Tribunal to judge and I make it quite plain
that I am not going to comment on run in an area which is absolutely
and ultimately the responsibility of the Tribunal.
Interviewer:
Given that this an issue with major implications, do you think that
the Government would be wise to institute some sort of' an enquiry
as Senator Ryan has suggested?
Mr. Staley:
I have said already that I believe that this whole question is a
6
very complex one. It's a very important one. I don't believe
you take decisions on the run and I haven't heard frankly many
constructive suggestions about how to handle it. I am prepared
when we look at a major review of the Broadcasting Act, to
consider whether it would be wise, at that stage, after proper
and mature consideration to undertake some particular enquiry
into-the ownership and control provisions.
It was revealed in evidence today that 6 or 7 other witnesses
apart from the key Crown witness, Mr. Nakos, had been promised
indemnity to testify in the so-called Social Security fraud case.
Detective Chief Inspector Thomas today was cross-examined on the
relationship between. the Commonwealth Police and the Government
over payment of a reward to Nakos. Christopher Sweeney was at
the court for PM. The original police investigation into the
fraud has involved two Government departments as well as the
Commonwealth Police and from evidence produced in court today it
is clear that there was considerable rivalry and distrust between
them. Notes were taken of telephone calls down to the exact
minute. Records were carefully filed of all conversations with
other departments and at times there were investigations within
investigations. The result was that subpoenaed documents, like
those produced today, have disclosed details of how other enquirie's
were going and in the process provided a wealth of damaging
information for the Defence. The most politically important is a
confidential minute used as the basis of the cross-examination of
Thomas, the man who organised the investigation and led the arrests
of over 180 people from the Greek community-in April last year.
The document was from the headquarters of the Commonwealth Police
to the N. S. W. Division and was intended as a-note on progress so
far. It was written by Thomas, but scrawled on the top in the
handwriting of the Assistant Commissioner were the words " Mr.
Corrigan has again been in touch with the informant's solicitor
why hasn't Sydney reported this yet please.' The significance
of this lies in the position of Mr. Corrigan, First Secretary of
the Department of Social Security. ' TIhe note indicates that iHr.
Corrigan had been in discussion with the solicitor for the Chief
Prosecution witness and self-confessed police informer, Nakos
after November 3rd while Commonwealth Police were still discussing
with the same solicitor, the question of a possible payment of up
to $ 200,000. When asked today Thomas said that he's been not
aware at the time that top civil servants had been in contact with
the solicitor. The significance of the note lies in replies to
questions last week by Senator Guilfoyle and her Director General, Mr.
Lannigan whose involvement with the whole case was again raised
prominently in court today. Marcus Einfeld took Thomas point by
point over statements made in Parliament on the question of the
involvement of the Department of Social Security. Asking whether
he'd ever been told by Mr. Lannigan or Mr. Corrigan that their
Department did not want to be part of negotiations over the reward
to the police informer, Thomas said that he'd never been told thisnot
in those words. He also said that he could not agree -with the
assertion that the Department had wanted nothing to do with
negotiations for the reward. During the cross-examination the
-question of the roles of Minister of Social Security and her civil
servants was obvious but unspoken. Lawyers and the Magistrate
himself referred many times to what they called ' that other place'.'
The Crown raised objections on a number of occasions on the grounds
that the evidence in court might reflect on what was happening in
Parliament. The whole issue of the reward payment has now become 7
embroiled in just who was conducting negotiations at what time
police, Mr. Corrigan or Mr. Lannigan. In answer to other questions
though Thomas also disclosed today that six or seven other
witnesses had now been promised an indemnity if they testified in
the case. He said that these witnesses were now under police
protection and I quote ' might well be in holiday resorts'. None of
them has so far given evidence -but the disclosure caused a
considerable stir following the revelation ten days ago that the
chief witness, Mr. Nakos, was in fact a police informer who had
received a pardon from the Governor-General.
There were ugly scenes in Federal Parliament today during a censure
motion against the Government over the Social Security fraud case.
Members of the Opposition clashed heatedly with the former
Attorney General Mr. Ellicott. Geoff Duncan reported.
Allegations that a number of Queensland politicians are involved
with known dealers in illicit drugs surfaced in the Queensland
Parliament today. Mr. Casey said he had spoken to an agent ot
the Federal Narcotics Bureau who had confirmed that a number of
Government members were named in Bureau files as having connections
with people in the drug smuggling world. Mr. Casey said that he
had learnt that the Narcotics Bureau in Sydney had a taped record
of an interview with a notorious inter-national drug runner which
referred by name to a senior members of the Queensland Coalition
Government. Peter Cave reported. The Opposition is demanding
that Quee nsland set up its own Royal Commission into illicit drugs.
In Sydney today the High Court finished hearing submissions in a
major challenge of the Federal Government's 1976 Aboriginal Land
Rights legislation. The action was brought by the Northern
Territory Government which has asked the High Court to set aside
ruling by Aborig inal Land Rights Commissioner, Mr. Justice Toohey,
that he could hear a claim for the transfer of a lease over Utopia
Station to freehold Aboriginal ownership. Kerry Wheel reported.