Mr MURPHY (11:56 AM) —I would like to assure the minister that I am not paranoid. I might be obsessional about the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill. I must correct the misrepresentation in your reference, Minister, to the ALP's position on cross-media laws. Your position is to allow a media proprietor under that bill to own newspapers and television stations in the one market. That is not our policy, Minister. I want to make the point again, because it is very serious legislation, and ask whether you are going to put it up for a vote.

I want to make a point very briefly. At the risk of repeating myself, because I will keep talking about this right up to the federal election, the Murdoch company has a stranglehold on print media in Australia with the exception of Fairfax. The Packer family has a stranglehold on its dominant commercial network with an audience reach of up to 70 per cent, as well as 65 magazines of which 30 are the top-rating magazines, not to mention their online services. Minister, you are prepared, under that bill, to allow Mr Packer to take the other significant print media, Fairfax, and allow the Murdoch family to take a free-to-air television network when they have a stranglehold on print media.

Senator Brian Harradine, when this legislation was last put to a vote in the Senate, moved a very sensible amendment to expose the real agenda of the government. I am quite proud to be obsessional about this bill because it is a great threat to the public interest and the future of our democracy. One day, Minister, the media proprietors will turn on the government, like they turn on all governments and oppositions when it suits them. I will give you one example in regard to Mr Murdoch. He has a right to express a view. He came out and supported the war on Iraq for Mr Bush, Mr Blair and Mr Howard. That is his right. But every one of his newspapers in the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom had uniform editorial support for his view. I repeat again: he who pays the piper calls the tune.

You cannot tell me that a media proprietor does not have influence. Just go and have a talk to the member for Calare about his statements made in the House in relation to the time that he worked for Mr Packer and Mr Packer's interference in news bulletins. I think that this is a very serious matter and I think both sides of parliament should be working towards diversifying media ownership in Australia in the public interest and for the future of our democracy. If we allow the existing arrangements to continue where media proprietors—and I am talking about the two principal proprietors in Australia at the moment—can hang onto everything that they already have, and you are prepared to give them even more, then I think that is absolutely scandalous and the people of Australia have to know about it. As I said, I will keep talking about it and the Labor Party will keep talking about it up to the election.