Australia’s democracy is in grave danger and the people of Australia have three months to save it.

Last week the Senate agreed to allow small and regional media companies to own two of the three media types – newspapers, television and radio – in a city or region. At present, a company can own only one type, to ensure none has a monopoly on news and views and that media groups keep each other honest.

The idea is to have enough different media voices to ensure that owners do not abuse the enormous power of the media for their commercial or political purposes. It is also to give you, the people, a better chance to have your voices heard.

Labor, The Greens and the Democrats opposed the legislation outright, arguing there were already too few media outlets in Australia, which already has the most concentrated media ownership in the western world. But One Nation and three independent Senators agreed to pass it with one caveat – that media moguls not be allowed to own a newspaper and a TV station in a mainland capital city. This caveat, known as the “Harradine amendment” was designed to stop Rupert Murdoch and Kerry Packer controlling Australia’s media and exercising inordinate influence over news and debate, and therefore business, politics and sport in Australia.

Senator Harradine said: “Those who own or run media organisations are in a position of privilege and influence. They are members of an unelected elite which is not effectively accountable to the Australian people. It is our job as elected legislators to ensure not only that there are reasonable parameters set for the running of successful media businesses but, much more importantly, that these parameters serve the Australian people…The people do not want further concentration of power in the major players in the media.”

The government rejected this amendment, despite arguing that its reform plans were driven by the needs of regional players, not by Murdoch and Packer. It sent the legislation back to the House of Representatives, told the Senate to think again. When the Senate stood its ground, the government said that in three months it would again tell the Senate to back down.

Without public pressure, the Senate is almost certain to cave in. The government is putting overwhelming pressure on the Senate through calls to abolish its power of veto and threats to hold a double dissolution election. The Democrats are in crisis, as all bar one Democrats Senator would be wiped out at a double dissolution election on current figures. It is likely the Democrats will split on the legislation when it returns. The Government could also force some of the independents to change their vote by threatening that unless they pass the legislation without the Harradine amendment, it will put its original legislation – which has fewer safeguards for media diversity and no protection of local content on regional stations – to the people at a double dissolution election.

Do you want Rupert Murdoch and Kerry Packer to run Australia? That is the likely result if the Senate caves in. Murdoch – the world’s most powerful media mogul – already decides what’s fit to print in Adelaide, Brisbane and many regional cities, where he owns the only newspaper. In Melbourne and Sydney he dominates the newspaper market and he owns the only national daily, The Australian. Even with the Harradine amendment, he could add news talk radio stations to his assets; with it he could add a TV network, delivering him total almost control of the national news agenda.

Kerry Packer is Australia’s richest, most powerful businessman, and owns the dominant Nine TV network. The legislation would allow Packer to take over the Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and the Australian Financial Review – newspapers owned by the Fairfax group. Fairfax is independently owned, and provides the only scrutiny of Murdoch and Packer apart from the ABC. Unlike the Murdoch and Packer outlets, which allow no adverse scrutiny of either of the big two and whose editors always bow to Murdoch’s line, Fairfax has a editorial charter of independence which stops the Fairfax board dictating to the editors what stories to run and what political line to take. Unlike the Murdoch and Packer media groups, Fairfax also has a code of ethics to which journalists and editors are bound, and a strict policy of immediately correcting all errors.

Without Fairfax and with competitors like Network Seven crushed by the Packer/Murdoch dominance, the ABC would be on its own, extremely vulnerable to concerted pressure from Murdoch, Packer and the Government to tow the line, or else. While the Packer and Murdoch media would be immune from scrutiny, the ABC would be scrutinised to death.

Murdoch and Packer behave as partners, not competitors. They share ownership of the Foxtel Pay TV network, and have previously done a deal to divide Australia’s media between them. There is little doubt a deal has been done now, but neither media mogul will tell the Australian people what they plan to do if the Senate passes the legislation.

Telstra is the wild card. The government wants to privatise Telstra, which is the other partner in Foxtel. A privatised Telstra could buy up the new Packer empire, leaving two global players – Murdoch and Telstra, as controllers of Australia’s media.

A Murdoch/Packer controlled media would see the pair run Australia in partnership with John Howard without media scrutiny. You would never know what’s going on between the three. The global big business agenda would be virtually unquestioned in the mainstream media.

For example, people concerned about the pending Free Trade Agreement with the United States, which could abolish foreign limitations on ownership of our assets, abolish Australian content rules for TV , and abolish quarantine laws to protect our agriculture industry from disease, could find they would not have their voice heard.

When the government tried in 1997 to deliver Fairfax to Packer a public and backbencher outcry and virulent opposition from the Murdoch press (which could not expand under the proposed new laws) , forced a backdown.

But this time, all media companies support the changes because there is something in it for everyone, including high takeover prices. This means that there has not been a vigorous debate in our media, and the public has been kept in the dark. Radio and the commercial networks have hardly touched the issue. Murdoch’s newspapers have become propaganda machines for the changes, and have not run pieces stating the case against. As a result, few Australians know what is going on.

For its part, the Government has avoided addressing the key question: Is it in the public interest, and the interests of our democracy, for Murdoch and Packer to gain even more media power. Instead, the government talks of “safeguards” in the legislation negotiated with the independents to gain their support. None of these safeguards prevent Murdoch buying a TV network and Packer buying Fairfax.

Do you want to decide who runs Australia, or do you want Rupert Murdoch and Kerry Packer to decide? The vast majority of Australians get their news from TV and newspapers. With the big two controlling both mediums, THEY will decide what is news, and THEY will decide what advertising to run and not run. No-one will be in a position to investigate their activities – across sport, entertainment, gaming, investing, and business. As we saw during the Iraq war debate, Rupert Murdoch’s papers around the world all ran a strong pro-war line, regardless of the individual interests of each country concerned. And now, in the United States, The United Kingdom and Australia, all three governments are trying to deregulate media laws to allow Rupert Murdoch to own even more media.

What rights would you have if you were wronged by the Murdoch or Packer media empires? None. Last week, the government rejected Senate amendments which would have required owners wishing to own both newspapers and TV to make apologies or offer a right of reply if they got something wrong, like the ABC and SBS already have to do.

How can you stay in control of the future of your nation? How can you keep your right to know and your right to be heard? The problem is that the message will not get through in our mainstream media, and many people in the media and in business fear standing up for democracy because they want to keep their jobs and get work with the big two.

This issue is of importance to all of us. All Australians need information and open, free, debate on issues that effect us all. That’s what democracy is all about.

***

Please send your comments and questions to mkingston@smh.com.au. Margo Kingston owns shares in Fairfax.

For more details on the consequences of the legislation passing the Senate, see The debate that dare not speak its name and Closing the door on your right to know.

For the closing speech on the legislation by Brian Harradine, the man who proposed the amendment to stop Packer and Murdoch owning newspapers and TV stations, see Brian Harradine: The voice of reason on media laws.