Rupert Murdoch ‘s first newspaper, the corruption of Australian news media, governments, law enforcement. Evidence of Australia’s corruption concealed

Rupert Murdoch ‘s Australian news media corruption & the corruption of Australian governments, law enforcement and news media.  Fake records of Australian newspapers published sold as genuine archives by Australian state and national public libaries.

Rupert Murdoch ‘s first newspaper Adelaide South Australia’s afternoon daily tabloid format the ‘News’ was the beginning of his news media empire where he developed his journalism, editorial, news media and business management skills.

The remote and isolated Australian state of South Australia still maintains a Rupert Murdoch News Corp. Australia (also known as News Ltd.) newspaper publishing state monopoly with the daily morning newspaper ‘The Advertiser’. South Australians have had more than 50 years of Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers that have dominated and controlled life in general and politics in particular.
South Australians now in 2014 have the limited options of reading SA’s only newspaper published daily the morning tabloid format newspaper (a broadsheet format until 1998) Rupert’s News Ltd.’s ‘The Advertiser’ or may choose to read Australia’s only nationally published newspaper ‘The Australian’, also a News Ltd. publication.
Rupert’s first newspaper the ‘News’ cannot be viewed by being browsed on microfilm file records in the South Australian state library or any other Australian public library. Only by specifying a date and page of the ‘News’ newspaper can Australian state and national public library users view Rupert’s first newspaper. The state library of South Australia will provide a copy of a page specified for a cost of $35-. The last six years of publishing from 1992 to 1998 of the ‘News’ is not preserved at all and is falsely said to be never published by a SA state library website http://www.samemory.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?c=2627, that the Australian Press Council (APC) has pointed out, claims “Rupert Murdoch sold the News to Northern Star Holdings in 1987, and it was subsequently sold to a private firm headed by Roger Holden. The News was the last metropolitan afternoon newspaper in Australia. It closed in March 1992.” (see APC correspondence below)
The Australian Press Council knows that this SA government website has false and misleading information that is intended to mislead any person who reads it and that the records of newspapers published that Australian public libraries sell as authentic archives are false records that conceal Australian news media, government and law enforcement incompetence, maladministration and corruption. The APC claims that the issues are beyond its ability to investigate but has confirmed that it has made APC members News Ltd. newspapers aware of the corruption. News Ltd. news media has for decades declined to respond and deny its corruption.

The records of Australian newspapers published that are sold by Australian state and national public libraries are nothing like what was published on paper in newspapers during the 1980s and 1990s by Rupert Murdoch’s News Ltd. Adelaide ‘The Advertiser newspaper. Newspaper articles that were published have been erased from the records and replaced by material never published on the days for which the records have been altered. Details of the newspaper articles missing from the publicly accessible records appear below and provide an indication of the corruption of governments and law enforcement that is concealed and why Australia’s corrupt authorities governments and law enforcement consider it is so important that the public remain ignorant of the truth.
Rupert Murdoch appeared on Adelaide South Australia’s ‘free to air’ television twice in 1998 to announce that Adelaide’s afternoon daily tabloid the ‘News’, the first newspaper that he had ever owned, was to be closed less than year before he announced that his morning broadsheet format newspaper ‘The Advertiser’ was to become a tabloid format newspaper.

Memorable front page headlines of the ‘News’ newspaper that cannot now be easily accessed and viewed in Australia’s public libraries include;
The front page headline “Azaria – Sacrifice in the Wilderness” falsely claiming that Lindy Chamberlain had murdered her baby daughter Azaria at Ayer’s Rock in central Australia. That baseless claim was the beginning of her nightmare years of being harassed by Australian news media and eventually convicted of murdering her daughter after a dingo (an Australian wild dog) took her baby from a tourist campsite after which it was never seen alive again. It was some years after Lindy Chamberlain was convicted for murder and jailed before the trial was acknowledged as a farce and she was released. Not until June 2012, 32 years after Australian news media falsely accused Lindy Chamberlain of murder, was there any official acknowledgement that a dingo was responsible for her daughter Azaria’s death. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/12/dingo-baby-azaria-lindy-chamberlain “Dingo baby ruling ends 32 years of torment for Lindy Chamberlain”
Many newspapers were over many years sold by Rupert Murdoch’s News Ltd. news media as a result of the newspaper’s false allegations. The financial cost to Ms Chamberlain her family and Australian taxpayers was many millions of dollars and likely greater than Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers profited. I am not aware of any apology made by Australian news media to Lindy Chamberlain and her family. If any apologies were made then they were not considered newsworthy by Australian media.

With Rupert Murdoch so easily able to destroy the lives of any Australian it should not be a surprise that Australian policians and law enforcement authorities are so prepared to co-operate with him, work for him and give him exactly what he wants.  Rupert Murdoch is a sociopath who has formed Australians in his own image to create a nation of sociopaths.

On the 5th October 1989 Murdoch’s News Ltd. Adelaide’s the ‘News’ newspaper published a front page news article headlined “The man behind SA’s great marina fiasco” referring to a developer of a marina at the beachside suburb of Marino Rocks in South Australia. It was a very memorable news article for me because my former employer the State Bank of South Australia (SBSA) paid my housing loan (Mortgage Loan) in full the following day the 6th October 1989. I had worked as a bank officer for 15 years and my employment was terminated on the 29th May 1989 about a week after Murdoch’s News Ltd. ‘The Advertiser’ had published a front page news article headlined “State Bank $200 Mill. Loan to Equiticorp NZ”. The Managing Director of Equiticorp NZ was also the Managing Director of the State Bank of SA and the $200 Million was a part of the billions of dollars never recovered by the Bank & SA taxpayers when SBSA was finally announced as bankrupt in February 1991. The News Ltd. Adelaide’s ‘The Advertiser’ newspaper article headlined “State Bank $200 Mill. Loan to Equiticorp NZ” is one of many published that have since being published been erased from the publicly accessible Australian state and national taxpayer funded library records of Australian newspapers published. I had provided the information to a trusted person less than two weeks before it was published in the newspaper and requested that he provide it to Adelaide’s News Ltd. ‘The Advertiser’ newspaper.

News Ltd.’s the ‘News’ newspaper article of the 5th October 1989 contained many claims that were known by the newspaper to be false and misleading and intended to assist to conceal issues of financial maladministration, mismanagement and crimes of fraud related to the Marion Rocks marina, its developers and their relationship to the State Bank of SA.
The front page of News Ltd.’s Adelaide the ‘News’ newspaper published on the 5th Oct 1989 with the headline “The man behind SA’s great marina fiasco” referred to Marino Rocks marina developer William Turner and claimed that “Two of his major interests W & B Turner and Crestwin Corporation, were earlier this week being put into receivership.”, “ W & B Turner, which was put into receivership by the State Bank of Victoria, had a major interest in Mintern, a company established by Mr Turner to handle the Marino Rocks marina project.” “That interest was last week sold out to another Victorian firm, the Burloch Group of companies.”
The news article continues “The Burloch Group has several major contracts in the eastern States, but is relatively unknown in SA. It is understood the company’s principal Mr Alan Burloch has not personally visited the Marino Rocks site. Acquisition of the project came to “quite a few millions”, according to Mr Burloch who plans to be in Adelaide for talks with the government on Tuesday.” “Opposition legal affairs spokesman, Mr Griffin, said today recent events placed a question mark over the government’s competence to put together major developments. This was particularly so because the Premier Mr Bannon, had only three weeks ago in Parliament said there was no information that “in any way questions the financial viability of Crestwin. As to the financial substance of the principals and owners, we have made our own investigations and we are quite satisfied”. It also says that an unidentified “spokesman for the Premier said today there had been no financial loss to taxpayers so far, nor was there likely to be any.”
The news article continued quoting SA Parliamentary Opposition legal affairs spokesman, Mr Griffin –“there must also be a question mark over the ability of Mintern to dispose of its assets because of the because of the charge over Mr Turner’s private company by the State Bank of Victoria.”
The State Bank of Victoria (SBV) would certainly have been criminally negligent not to pursue the issue William Turner selling his assets while bankrupt and indebted to the SBV and failing to act to recover Turner’s debt on behalf of Victorian taxpayers.
The only scenario I can imagine that the State Bank of Victoria did not prevent the sale of Turner’s assets would be if he did not owe that bank money. I was aware that the State Bank of South Australia was a creditor to William Turner’s company Pro-Image Studios Ltd. for which he was a Director, and had been since in 1986 he had borrowed $20 Million after he was paid (via BFC & Kabani) by companies owned by the State Bank of SA $10 Million for 49% of his company Crestwin and referred to by news media, along with another man, Alan Burloch (who had been paid via BFC & Kabani $20 Million for 49% of Minitern) , as the developers of the Marino Rocks marina which the SA Environment Minister had later provided an exemption for the requirement to provide an Environmental Impact Statement before the marina development could proceed.
In mid-1989 (about June) I needed to have my signature witnessed by a Justice of the Peace (JP) in order satisfy the requirements of my Superannuation fund to obtain an income from the SA state financed fund. I requested that the member of South Australian parliament for my electorate of ‘Waite’, Shadow Treasurer Stephen Baker MP, witness my signature as a Justice of the Peace. Upon discovering that the form he was to sign was so that I could obtain an income from my Superannuation fund he demanded to know why I was entitled to that income. I explained that I had been subjected to harassment and abuse in the workplace in my employment as a bank officer employed by the State Bank of SA, explained the issues of the impending SA State Bank of SA financial disaster including disclosing the SBSA Marino Rocks marina connection and asked him to raise the issues of SBSA maladministration in SA’s parliament. He said that he was frightened to do so because he would be accused of politicising the bank. He clearly understood the issues I had disclosed to him and was aware of the SBSA Marino Rocks marina connection at the time of marina developer William Turner’s purported bankruptcy reported in News Ltd.’s the ‘News’ newspaper referring to his political party’s colleague SA Parliamentary Opposition legal affairs spokesman, Mr Griffin was said to be questioning the SA state government’s credibility and ability to govern. Shadow Treasurer Stephen Baker MP understood that he need not do anything to expose issues of SBSA maladministration, would be in government as SA’s Treasurer at the next election as a result of it and in a position to blame the present state government for the state’s financial disaster.
A summarized version of information concerning the relationship between the State Bank of SA and the Marino Rocks marina developers appears below. The multiple level involvement of the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Bank, David Simmons and his law firm Thompson Simmons and Co. was of great concern to me. It appeared that the Bank’s Chairman of the Board had compromised his position of independence and could likely be incapable of making decisions in the best interests of the Bank and SA taxpayers. I was not informed in 1986 that SBSA/BFC’s ‘Kabani’ was “Off balance Sheet” of SBSA/BFC. The requirement that his involvement and the Bank’s decisions would be disclosed in annual balance sheets & publicly known to many people was assumed by me. The Marino Rocks area where the marina was to be built was known to me and seemed an impossible site to develop. High vertical rock cliffs met the sea that was anywhere between inches to only meters deep for 100s of meters out to sea, depending on the tide. The area was inaccessible apart from one narrow coastal road lined with valuable residential buildings.
The State Bank of SA through Beneficial Finance Corp. (SBSA wholly owned company- Simmons also a director of BFC) owned company ‘Kabani’ (Simmons also a Director of “Kabani’) was eventually in October 1990 disclosed by News Ltd. news media as “Off Balance Sheet” of the State Bank of SA.  Adelaide’s News Ltd. the ‘News’ newspaper on 2 Oct. 1990 published a news article headlined “State Bank silent on mystery firm” referring to ‘Kabani’ as “Off Balance Sheet”.  The journalist Colin James later told me that he was not at all curious about what “Off Balance Sheet” of SBSA ‘Kabani’ was doing. The State Bank of SA’s use of “Off Balance Sheet” entities (‘Kabani’) was eventually said to be illegal and not within law enforcement authorities (Australian Securities Commission ASC now known as Aust. Securities and Investment Commission ASIC) definition of “Off Balance Sheet” which seems reasonable and easily acceptable considering SBSA’s ownership of its OBS entity ‘Kabani’ was greater than 50%, a controlling interest over which, they found, that they had no control because of WilliamTurner acting in the best interest of himself while being well aware of the State Bank of SA’s need for secrecy and inability to act without exposing their own impropriety.
The Australian Securities Commission (ASC now named ASIC) failed to enforce Australian financial reporting requirement laws and did not pursue William Turner on criminal charges that would have exposed his relationships with the State of SA and his part in SA’s public debt. The Adelaide SA News Ltd. newspaper article that was published reporting William Turner being charged by the Australian Security Commission has been erased from publicly accessible records of newspaper published and was a word for word reproduction of ASC Media Release dated 27 September 1993 headed “Pro-Image Studios Ltd. – Another Director Charged*” ASC ref. ASC 93/225.
In order to avoid public disclosure of the State Bank of SA’s misguided financial & illegally ‘Off Balance Sheet’ relationship with the bankrupt Marino Rocks marina developer William Turner the bank using SA taxpayers’ money purchased his worthless assets which they already owned through the marina’s other developer Alan Burloch whom they mostly owned. William Turner’s assets of questionable value could not be separated from his liabilities making his bankruptcy (Victoria Number 1085 of 1990) which according to the Victorian bankruptcy court ran from 6th July 1990 to 6th July 1993, a problem. Turner’s bankruptcy was delayed so that his debt would not need to be ‘On Balance Sheet’ for BFC & SBSA until the following financial year ending 30th June 1991. Turner’s bankruptcy processing by the usual would have caused his financial and debt details (Assests and Liabilities) to be public domain information.

Marino Rocks marina SBSA public debt concealed – a brief summary
Marino Rocks marina State Bank of South Australia connection – Taxpayer debt concealed.
How taxpayers have concealed from them, the fact that they have paid tens of millions of dollars for a marina development that does not exist.

**in the following information, denotes that the information was published in “The Advertiser” newspaper and has been erased from newspaper ‘archives’ of Australian state and national public libraries

1986 – 1987
#DS – denotes David Simmons as Director.
(TS 2%) – denotes 2% held in trust by solicitors Thompson Simmons & Co.

#DS State Bank of South Australia (SBSA) (D.Simmons Chairman of the Board of Directors.)
#DS Beneficial Finance Corporation (BFC wholly owned by SBSA)
#DS KABANI (acknowledged as “Off Balance Sheet” of BFC – SBSA Oct.1990)
(Australian Securities Commission (ASC) reporting not required)

(TS 2%)MINTERN. 1986 Alan Burloch paid (via KABANI) $20Mill. for 49% of MINTERN

(TS 2%)CRESTWIN. 1986 William Turner paid (via KABANI) $10Mill. for 49% of CRESTWIN

(TS 2%) MINTERN <“some cross ownership”>CRESTWIN (TS)

MARINO ROCKS MARINA (Developers Turner and Burloch)
SBSA – BFC connection never made public.

1986 – 1987 Environment Minister Lenehan (Bannon govt.) exempts marina development from Environmental Impact Statement (ABC TV 7-30 Report)
1986 William Turner as Director of Pro Image Studios borrows $20Mill. from SBSA

1989 Oct. 5th.front page (afternoon daily News) “William Turner announces he is Bankrupt”
” Alan Burloch buys out Turners assets “for some Millions of Dollars”.

1990 Oct. State Bank of SA announces that it has “Off Balance Sheet Entities” – ‘Kabani’
1990 Dec. Burloch withdraws from Marino Rocks marina Development (tax problem)

** 1991 Feb. SBSA announces that its “Off Balance Sheet Entities” through BFC** have Assets greater than Liabilities. THEN a few days later ** announces that its “Off Balance Sheet Entities” have an overall debt of $31 Million.(Located UK.7/2011)(Assets Less than Liabilities).

** 1991 Feb. SBSA announces need for “Billion Dollar Bailout” (the first Billion dollars)
Turner Bankruptcy File (Victoria) No. 1085 of 1990 indicates Turner NOT Bankrupt Oct. 1989. File No. 1085 of 1990 indicates bankrupt 6th. July 1990 to 6th. July 1993. File also indicates Turner has a debt of $30 Million but has no indication of his creditors.
Question ? – Is the Turner bankruptcy debt the same “Off balance Sheet’ debt Announced by SBSA in Feb. 1991 ? (Now removed from archives)
Turner Bankruptcy debt from 6th. July 1990 would need to be “On Balance Sheet” for SBSA – BFC to be written off for financial year ending 30th. June 1991.

**1993 Sept. William Turner – discharged Bankrupt 6th. July 1993 charged by the Australian Securities Commission (ASC) with multiple breaches of the companies’ code. (see ASC Media Release ref. ASC 93/225 file ‘9.ASC.TURNER.Pro-Image.27.9.1993’

**1995 Nov. All Australian Securities Commission (ASC) charges against William Turner dropped. No explanation provided.

** 1995 Nov. SA State Treasurer (Stephen Baker. Liberal) Announces unexpected improvement to the State’s finances of $20 Million, No details of origin given. Promises to announce origin “in a couple of months’ time” but fails to deliver.

Inter-company loans of BFC considered assets for accounting purposes.
No provision made for any bad debt losses.

The Marino Rocks marina developers have never been reported in the media as linked to or in debt to SBSA. Their debts (to taxpayers) have been secretly written off.
NB R J Bates SBSA employment terminated (no reason stated) 29th. May 1989, a week after publication of news article “State Bank $200 Mill. Loan to Equiticorp NZ” was published.
Information within the above text “Marino Rocks Marina” has in Adelaide South Australia, twice (July 1991 and August 1996) been erased from my sworn testimony given under an oath to tell the truth.
………………………………
Australian news media – News Ltd. news media and the ABC – never inquired into, pursued and informed the public of any of the issues of February 1991 announced SBSA bankruptcy public debt of billions of dollars. Australia’s politicians, the ABC, Adelaide’s News Ltd.’s ‘The Advertiser’ journalists David Hellaby (author of news articles) and Colin James the author of 2 October 1990 Adelaide News Ltd. news article headlined “State Bank silent on mystery firm” disclosing the “Off Balance Sheet” of SBSA status of ‘Kabani, are aware of the details of SBSA bankruptcy public debt and that the information published by News Ltd.’s the ‘News’ newspaper on 5 October 1989 was false.
Australian news media – News Ltd. News media and the ABC and Australian politicians of both political parties and Australian law enforcement authorities (Police and the ACCC) all know that the records of Australian newspapers published that are accessible through & sold by Australian state & national, taxpayer funded, public libraries (& have also been exported to British Libraries UK London Colindale) are not ‘archives’ but false records that do not include a large number of news articles published that have been removed and replaced by material never published on the days for which the records have been altered. Those false records assist to conceal South Australian (state) / Australian national crime, corruption, maladministration and incompetence. Even news articles of the front page of Adelaide’s ‘The Advertiser’ newspaper with such memorable headlines “Billion Dollar Bailout” and “Bank Documents Shredded” published in 1991 when present (in 2014) SA Premier/Treasurer Jay Weatherill (also Minister for the Arts responsible for the State Library of SA) was a member of parliament in SA’s state ALP government (that lost the December 1993 state election), have been erased from the publicly accessible records of Australian newspapers published within Australian public libraries.
Those news articles were the first indication of the bankruptcy of the State Bank of South Australia (SBSA) and the eventual multi-billion dollar public debt created and still never publicly accounted for despite tens of millions of dollars consumed by the State Bank of SA Royal Commission of Inquiry into the SBSA/SA public debt. There does still exist within the false records of newspapers a record of a newspaper article published headlined “Warning signs were there for more than 14 months” (11 February 1991 page 6 of News Ltd.’s ‘The Advertiser’ newspaper) that has references to news articles previously published also in 1991 with headlines “58 firms in State Bank web” & “Our companies in the red – State Bank”, referring to SBSA “Off Balance Sheet” debt (details never disclosed) that are some of the many that have been erased from the publicly accessible Australian public library records of Australian newspapers published.
News Ltd. employee journalists (some now ABC journalists) & Editors and politicians of both political parties including Premier/Treasurer Jay Weatherill, decline to indicate their recollection of the publishing of & their reading these news articles now absent from the records even though the evidence of their being published is within those State Library of SA & other Australian public existing records.

Other issues of Australian national/South Australian state corruption associated with and concerning the “unsolved” Adelaide SA bombing murder of a police officer are also concealed with the assistance of the newspaper reporting the events also erased from the records of Australian newspapers published that are sold as authentic archives by Australian state and national public libraries. Associated issues of Australian government, law enforcement and news media corruption & deceit of the public will be explained and posted to Internet websites at a later date when it is confirmed that this WordPress website blog posting referring to the issues of State Bank of SA bankruptcy public debt and related corruption do appear on the Internet website as posted. I have large problems with a ‘man in the browser’ hacker whom creates difficulties for my access to the Internet, websites I access and create and email.
A list of some of the newspaper articles published in South Australia by Rupert Murdoch’s News Ltd. newspapers that have been erased from public accessible records of taxpayer funded state and national public libraries, and replaced with material never published on the days for which the records have been altered, appears below.
Fake and inaccurate records of Australian newspapers published are being sold from Australian state and national libraries as genuine archives and have been exported to the United Kingdom and are being sold as genuine archives from British Libraries UK London Colindale.

The State Library of South Australia claims that it only ‘archives’ one of the two editions of the state’s newspapers and that anything missing from the records must have been published in the edition of the newspapers that the library does not preserve. It is a fact that the two editions of the state’s newspapers that are published are always identical. It is rare to a point of never having occurred in my lifetime, that the early edition of SA’s newspaper for distribution in remote areas differs from the later edition. Other Australian state and national public libraries and the British Libraries UK Colindale do have both purported editions of South Australian newspapers within their records and they are identical to the corrupt records sold as genuine archives by the State Library of South Australia.
The following newspaper reporting has been removed from publicly accessible newspaper archives and replaced by newspaper articles that were never published on the days for which the archives have been altered.
Unless the records of newspaper articles published that can be viewed in Australian state libraries (for example the State Library of South Australia) has been restored (as in, altered) since I last viewed them, they are still not a true record and so not genuine archives of newspapers published.

They are false archives, fraudulent and intended to deceive those whom view them for the purpose of assisting to conceal corruption.
Rupert Murdoch and News Ltd.’s Adelaide’s ‘The Advertiser’ newspaper Editors & journalists have been invited to claim that the records of Australian newspapers published that are sold by the State Library of South Australia as genuine archives are accurate and evidence that the newspaper articles that I claim have been erased from the records (Headlines “Billion Dollar Bailout” etc.) were never published. They refuse to respond.
A list of newspaper articles published referring to the State Bank of South Australia (SBSA) and reporting the SBSA bankruptcy that left a multi-billion dollar debt to SA taxpayers (still in 2014 never accounted for) that have been erased from publicly accessible records of Australian newspapers published and replaced with material never published on the days for which the records have been altered and that the State Library of SA sells as authentic archives of Australian newspapers published.

(1) Published in May 1989 front page headlines “State Bank $200 Mill. Loan to Equiticorp NZ.” with the text of the news article reporting that Tim Marcus Clarke was the Managing Director of both the State Bank of South Australia and Equiticorp NZ when the $200 Million loan was made in 1986. The money was never recovered by South Australia.

(2) Published in late December 1990. Front page headlines with reporting of State Labor Party government back bencher Terry Groom (of the law firm Duncan, Groom and Hannon) resigning from the Australian Labor Party and becoming an independent member of South Australia’s parliament and

(3)  within days that Terry Groom MP was then offered and had accepted a ministerial portfolio by the state government leader Premier and state Treasurer John Bannon, in return for his continued parliamentary vote for the then South Australian state Labor party government. A SA hung parliament that would have required an immediate election was avoided and the SA Labor Party government continued until December 1993. John Bannon eventually resigned as SA Premier/Treasurer because of the State Bank of SA bankruptcy public debt of billions of dollars and

(4) Published in late January or early February 1991 a front page newspaper article with the headline reporting the stated claim by the State Bank of South Australia that the “Off Balance Sheet’ entities of the State Bank of South Australia (first referred to in October 1990) have an over-all surplus of funds with its assets greater than its liabilities.  and within few days

(5) Published within a few days of (4) above; front page headlines with news reporting that the State Bank of South Australia “Off Balance Sheet” entities have an over-all debt of $31 Million with its assets less than its liabilities.
Both of the above 4. and 5. News Ltd.’s ‘The Advertiser’ news articles referred to above are referred to in still preserved Australian library archived pages of ‘The Advertiser’ for 11 February 1991 page 6 news article headlined “Warning signs were there for more than 14 months” written by journalist David Hellay, within the text referring to previous news articles published, that reads “In December the debate boiled over. December 5 – The Bank admitted the group had 58 off-balance- sheet (OBS) companies, not four as people were first led to believe. Mr Clarke said the OBS companies had assets of $359 million, against liabilities of $267 million. Fifty-three of the companies were associated with Beneficial.
Mr. Clarke appealed to the opposition not to politicise the bank.
December 7 – The bank changed its story and admitted the OBS companies were not in the black as first claimed but $31 million in the red.
December 8 – The Advertiser revealed many of the off-balance-sheet companies might not qualify as such because they were legally subsidiaries and therefore should have been included in the group balance sheet from the day they were created. It also revealed that the way some of them were structured, they could be used to hide losses and bad loans.”
The Advertiser, in the above text that appears in the page 6 newspaper article dated 11 February 1991 that is within publicly accessible Australian library records, exaggerates with false claims of its reporting of events, its role in exposing the State Bank of SA’s state of bankruptcy, while referring to a distorted account of its reporting that does not exist with records of Australian newspapers published preserved by Australian taxpayer funded state and national libraries
(This newspaper article (5. Above) was located in British Libraries UK London* Colindale records in 2011 but still appears to be missing from the records of newspapers published that can be viewed in Australian state and national public libraries. * British Libraries UK London* Colindale Copy Print machine ‘out of order’ 2011 unable to obtain a copy. The news article was not within British Libraries UK London* Colindale records in 2004 when I first looked and first discovered that News Ltd.’s ‘The Advertiser’ newspaper’s Adelaide SA reporting the State Bank of SA bankruptcy had been erased from the records sold as archives.

(6) Published in February 1991; front page headlines “Billion Dollar Bailout” with the news article reporting that the State Bank of South Australia requires a immediate access to taxpayer funds of one billion dollars in order to continue to operate. (The first Billion Dollars) and within a few days

(7) Published in February 1991; front page headlines “Bank Documents Shredded” with news article reporting that the State Bank of South Australia has for the previous few days, had its shredding machines in its head office (King William St Adelaide) operating 24 hours a day destroying documents. A different version with the words “Bank Documents Shredded” as a sub-headline has been created and exists in the preserved Australian library records.

(8) Late September (or early October)1993 Adelaide’s ‘The Advertiser’ newspaper published news article under the headline “Pro-Image Studios – Another Director charged” referring to Australian Security Commission (ASC aka ASIC) charges against Director of Pro-Image Studios William Turner who was previously referred to in the news media as a developer of a marina at Adelaide’s beachside suburb Marino Rocks, inaccurately referred to as bankrupt in October 1989.
An ASC Media Release dated 27 September 1993 ASC ref ASC 93/225 is identical to the wording of the Adelaide News Ltd. newspaper article that has been erased from publicly accessible records. See file ‘9.ASC.Turner.Pro-Image.27.9.1993’. I was only able to request and obtain a copy of the ASC Media Release headed “Pro-Image Studios Ltd – Another Director Charged* ASC ref. ASC 93/225 because I knew it must exist having read the Adelaide News Ltd. news article reporting (with identical wording) that has now been erased from the publicly accessible records of newspapers published.

(9) A small newspaper article of mid-November 1995 in which SA state treasurer Stephen Baker (Liberal Government elected in December 1993, MP S. Baker was South Australian state Shadow Treasurer prior to December 1993) takes credit for the unexpected recovery of $20Million of State Bank taxpayer debt and says that he will announce the origin of the recovered debt “in a couple of months’ time”. This newspaper article that has been erased from newspaper archives was small (approx. 2″x3”) and appeared on about page 5 or 6, apparently not considered significant enough for the newspaper to follow up on the origin of the recovered money. Treasurer Baker never announced where the money was recovered from as he claimed he would do.

(10) In mid-November 1995 News Ltd.’s Adelaide SA newspaper published a news article referring to all Australian Securities Commission (ASC aka ASIC) charges against Pro-Image Studio Director William Turner of September 1993 had been dropped. No explanation as to why those charges were dropped were mentioned in the newspaper article published that is now missing from publicly accessible records of Australian newspapers published. In 2005 the ASIC formerly known as ASC confirmed the date of the dropping of ASC charges against William Turner. To proceed to prosecuting Turner would have exposed his debts to the State Bank of SA and relationship to SBSA through ‘Off Balance Sheet’ entity ‘Kabani’.

(11) During the mid-1980’s “The Advertiser” newspaper published several large op-ed (opinion – editorial) newspaper articles on the front page of the ‘Business section’ of the newspaper, praising State Bank of SA Managing Director Tim Marcus-Clarke and quoting him “We must develop (SA) or risk becoming an economic backwater”. These articles have been removed from all publicly accessible records. The newspaper would have been embarrassed by these articles with the eventual disclosure of SBSA’s bankruptcy and the still unaccounted for SA public debt.

(12) The front page newspaper article published in August 1994 with photograph picturing solicitor Richard John of the law firm Duncan Groom and Hannon, reporting his conviction for fraud. The newspaper article reported that all details of his crimes and the name of his law firm had been suppressed from publication and included a photograph of lawyer Richard John. Richard John’s law firm was Duncan, Groom and Hannon who were associated with the Australian Labor Party or in the case of Terry Groom MP a ALP state politician at the time of Richard John committing crimes of fraud.  A newspaper article (“The Advertiser” newspaper) published on the 6th. December 1994 reporting Richard John’s appearance in court for sentencing, is archived in Australian state and national public libraries.

Australian politicians of both political parties (ALP and LNP) whom are able to form governments or be the parliamentary opposition parties are both well aware of the corruption of their own & political opponents political parties, and the corruption of Australian news media & law enforcement. They benefit from and co-operate in the deception of Australians. They will not respond to correspondence.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) claim that the sale of fake records of Australian newspapers published as authentic archives is illegal under laws that the ACCC enforces. The ACCC knows that these claims are false. A letter from the ACCC dated 31 January 2011 appears below. Verbal advice from the ACCC not confirmed in writing as requested is “Crown indemnity for government authority”.

from Infocentre Public Mailbox info.centre@accc.gov.au
to xyzrjb@gmail.com
date Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 7:45 AM
subject ACCC response hide details Feb 25
xyzrjb@gmail.com
Dear Mr Bates,
I refer to your telephone conversation of 24 February 2011 with Keith Gunton of this office.
As discussed in this telephone conversation the ACCC, please find attached an electronic version and a PDF version of the correspondence sent to you from this office on 31 January.
Yours sincerely
Tania
ACCC Infocentre

Ph: 1300 302 502
Our Ref: 1032406
Contact Officer: Richard Fleming
Contact Phone: 02 6243 1278
31 January 2011
Mr Roger Bates
Address removed by RJB.
OS 20260 Thailand

Dear Mr Bates
Concerns about record keeping at the State Library of South Australia and other libraries
Thank you for your letters dated 10 November 2010, 26 November 2010,
28 November 2010, 4 December 2010, 5 December 2010, 7 December 2010 and
14 December 2010. You have requested further consideration of the matters raised in your letters.
Your previous correspondence
In your initial complaint dated 10 November 2010 you provided information which raised allegations of keeping of false records of newspapers by various state and federal libraries and allegations of corruption by South Australian politicians, public sector and law enforcement agencies.
The ACCC’s response dated 12 November 2010 provided general information regarding the role of the ACCC in administering the Trade Practices Act 1974 (TPA), referred to consumer protection provisions of the TPA including the ‘trade or commerce’ element of section 52 and advised that the issues raised in your letter are unlikely to give rise to concerns under the TPA.
In your letter dated 26 November 2010 you raised various issues including allegations of misleading and corrupt conduct by Australian authorities, and anti-competitive and misleading conduct by newspaper publishers. You also provided a detailed background in relation to the abovementioned claims.
In a letter dated 28 November 2010 you confirmed a conversation with an ACCC staff member regarding your initial complaint, and requested confirmation that the correspondence dated 12 November was a genuine response from the ACCC.
In a letter dated 3 December 2010 the ACCC confirmed that your complaint was recorded by the ACCC Infocentre under the reference number 1032406. The letter re-iterated the ACCC’s view that the alleged conduct is unlikely to fall within the scope of ‘trade or commerce’ under the TPA.
In a letter dated 4 December 2010 you requested that correspondence from the ACCC be provided on letterhead signed by an ACCC Commissioner. You sought clarification as to the definition of ‘trade or commerce’ and application of the TPA to newspaper publishers including News Corp.
In a letter dated 5 December 2010 to the ACCC, the Treasurer, The Hon. Wayne Swan MP, Shadow Treasurer, the Hon. Joe Hockey MP and Senator Nick Xenophon, you raised a number of issues including the following:
 an outline of your understanding of the terms ‘misleading or deceptive’ and ‘trade or commerce’;
 an outline of your understanding of the role of the ACCC in administering the TPA;
 a request for information from the ACCC to assist you in understanding the ACCC’s response to your complaint;
 a request for advice as to whether an Office of Fair Trading (the OFT) may be able to assist you;
 a request for assistance from the ACCC in communicating with the OFT;
 a request for consideration by an ACCC Commissioner regarding whether the scope of the TPA should be broadened;
 a request for the ACCC to communicate with the federal government concerning reintroduction of news media ownership laws.
In a letter dated 7 December 2010 to the ACCC, the Treasurer, the Hon. Wayne Swan MP and the Hon. Joe Hockey MP you requested that the ACCC respond to your previous correspondence. You stated that the issues raised appear to be within the jurisdiction of the ACCC. You alleged corruption by state and federal public sector and law enforcement agencies.
In a letter dated 13 December 2010 the ACCC referred to your previous correspondence. The ACCC confirmed that your complaint has been internally referred for further consideration and that you would receive a response within 28 days.
In a letter dated 14 December 2010 you raised a number of additional issues and requested prioritisation of consideration of the issues raised in your complaint.
Role of the ACCC
You have sought clarification regarding the role of the ACCC in investigating alleged contraventions of the TPA.
The ACCC is an independent statutory authority responsible for the enforcement and administration of the TPA. The ACCC also has roles under other Commonwealth legislation, although they are not relevant to this matter. I note that in particular that, as part of Australian Consumer Law amendments, the Trade Practices Act 1974 was renamed the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 on 1 January 2011. The Competition and Consumer Act is not relevant to this matter as the alleged conduct occurred before 1 January 2011.
Application of the TPA to State Library services
The TPA is focussed on regulating commercial behaviour between business and between businesses and consumers. In this regard, there are two important issues that arise when considering whether the TPA applies to the concerns you raise about the storage and public access of archived material in a public library.
Firstly, I note that the Commonwealth, States, Territories and other emanations of the Crown have immunity from the application of the TPA except insofar as those entities carry on a business. From the information you have provided, there remains an open question as to whether the TPA applies to the functions performed by the library which give rise to your concerns.
Notwithstanding this uncertainty and on the assumption that the TPA may apply to the activities of the library you describe, the concerns that you have raised would most likely fall under the provision in the TPA that prohibits corporations, in trade or commerce, from engaging in conduct that is misleading or deceptive, or is likely to mislead or deceive. The TPA defines ‘trade or commerce’ to mean ‘trade or commerce within Australia or between Australia and places outside Australia.’ A second issue then arises as to whether the activity of the public library, in providing storage and public access to archived material, is in trade or commerce.
Based on the information you have provided, my view is that the storage and public access of archived documents by public libraries is unlikely to be characterised as conduct that is in ‘trade or commerce’ under the TPA as it does not have the usual hallmarks of commercial activity. For this reason, the TPA is unlikely to [apply to] the concerns you have raised.
This information is provided for general guidance and the ACCC does not provide legal advice and I accept that you may have a different assessment to that I have outlined above. If you remain concerned about whether the TPA applies to the issues you raise, you should seek independent legal advice.
Alleged corruption
You have also raised allegations of corruption by state and federal public sector and law enforcement agencies. As these concerns fall outside the TPA I am unable to make specific comment on them but would encourage you to report any such concerns to the relevant authorities for consideration.

Concerns regarding alleged South Australian public sector corruption are more appropriately raised with the South Australian Police Anti-Corruption Branch. The contact details for the Anti Corruption Branch are listed below.

South Australian Police Anti-Corruption Branch
Tel: (08) 8207 2200
Concerns regarding alleged federal police corruption are more appropriately raised with Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI). The contact details for the ACLEI are listed below.

Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity
GPO Box 305
CANBERRA ACT 2601
Tel: (02) 6229 9300
Fax: (02) 6230 7341
Corruption Hotline: (02) 6229 9393
e-mail: contact@aclei.gov.au

Conclusion
For the reasons outlined above, the ACCC does not propose to take any action to respond to your concerns at this time. However, the TPA confers a right of private action on those who believe they have suffered loss or damage as a result of alleged conduct in breach of the TPA.
Thank you for your letters. I hope this information is of assistance.
Yours sincerely,
Brian Cassidy
Chief Executive Officer

IMPORTANT: This email from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), and any attachments to it, contains information that is confidential and may also be the subject of legal, professional or other privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not review, copy, disseminate, disclose to others or take action in reliance on, any material contained within this email. If you have received this email in error, please let the ACCC know by reply email to the sender informing them of the mistake and delete all copies from your computer system. For the purposes of the Spam Act 2003, this email is authorised by the ACCC http://www.accc.gov.au
………………………..

South Australian Members of state parliament of 2014 for both political parties were also MPs during the 1980s & 1990s when the memorable news articles published by Rupert’s News Ltd. SA state monopoly newspapers that are now missing from publicly accessible records, were published. They decline to indicate their recollection of events in South Australia and news media reporting of them. Present SA Premier Jay Weatherill was a Member of Parliament in SA Premier/Treasurer John Bannons government. He refuses to reply to email or deny having any having knowledge and involvement in issues of corruption that I have brought to his attention.
SA MP David Ridgway is a so-called faceBook ‘friend’ for me, did in 2009 acknowledge discussing issues of SA/Australian national corruption with his state and federal political party colleagues but refuses to indicate his recollection of events. He did claim that SA’s Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) that didn’t exist in 2009 is the appropriate authority to investigate the evidence of SA/Australian national corruption. SA’s ICAC established in September 2014 has since refused to investigate the corruption issues I have brought to its attention. SA’ ICAC did rewrite my complaint, changing my words “State Library of SA” to the words “State Records” before refusing to investigate. The SA office of “State Records” does exist and has nothing to do with selling purported archives of Australian newspapers published. Correspondence from David Ridgway MP SA appears below.

Tuesday, February 24, 2009 11:22 PM
From: “Murray, Cecilia” Cecilia.Murray@parliament.sa.gov.au
To: xyzrjb@yahoo.com
Cc:
“Ridgway, David” <david.ridgway@parliament.sa.gov.au>
Dear Mr Bates,
As stated in my previous email, Mr Ridgway has discussed the contents of your emails with the Liberal Members you have mentioned (both State and Federal). It would be most inappropriate for David to attempt to make any confirmations of the allegations which you have put forward. David has made the information available to his colleagues and as stated previously, the appropriate mechanism for further investigation will be an Independent Commission Against Corruption.
Kind regards,
Cecilia Murray
Research Assistant
_______________________________________
Hon David Ridgway MLC
Leader of the Opposition, Legislative Council
Shadow Minister for Police
Shadow Minister for Mineral Resources Development
Shadow Minister for Urban Development & Planning
Shadow Minister for Small Business
Member Assisting the Shadow Minister for Multicultural Affairs
P (08) 8237 9361 | M 0433 606 473 | F (08) 8410 0535
E cecilia.murray@parliament.sa.gov.au
……………………………
South Australian Premier/Treasurer John Bannon became the Chairman of the National Archives of Australia Advisory Council and will not respond to correspondence to indicate his recollection of events and there reporting in Adelaide’s News Ltd. Newspapers. Dr Bannon was an Adjunct Professor of the Adelaide Law School specializing in constitutional history and Federal/State relations. Adelaide Law School Dean, Professor John Williams is also a member of the committee of the National Archives of Australia Advisory Council & will not indicate his recollection and news media reporting of events in Adelaide SA related to SBSA’s bankruptcy & concealed public debt.
National Archives of Australia advisory council Director General Stephen Ellis was decent enough to acknowledge my correspondence to the National Archives of Australia Advisory Council Chairman John Bannon but could not assist by asking Mr Bannon to respond to the evidence of his corruption. Email from NAA Director General Ellis dated 9 September 2011 appears below.
http://www.naa.gov.au/about-us/organisation/advisory-council/dr-john-bannon.aspx
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/the-best-i-could-do-was-not-good-enough/story-e6frebt3-1111118975187
http://blogs.adelaide.edu.au/law/2011/05/31/the-hon-dr-john-bannon-newly-appointed-chair-of-the-national-archives-of-australia-advisory-council/

National Archives Australia advisory council from 9 Sept 2011

RE: False records of Australian newspapers published sold from Australian libraries. correction to previous email sent. [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Reply from Stephen Ellis stephen.ellis@naa.gov.au
to Roger Bates <xyzrjb@gmail.com>,
Professor John Williams National Archives of Australia advisory council <john.williams@adelaide.edu.au>
date Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 7:23 AM
subject RE: False records of Australian newspapers published sold from Australian libraries. correction to previous email sent. [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
mailed-by naa.gov.au
Important mainly because of the words in the message.
hide details Sep 9 (1 day ago)
UNCLASSIFIED
Dear Mr Bates – thank you for drawing my attention to the matters you have raised in the emails you have sent recently to me and to Dr John Bannon concerning newspaper reports relating to the Bank of South Australia. I must advise that the National Archives of Australia has no legal authority to take any action in relation to these matters nor to make any public declarations about such matters. The Commonwealth Archives Act only gives the National Archives authority in relation to records of the Commonwealth government and the newspaper articles to which you refer do not fall into that category of records. Consequently neither I as Director General nor DrBannon as Chairman of the National Archives Advisory Council can take action in this matter. If you are concerned to pursue the matters further I suggest that a more fruitful avenue might be to raise them with the State government authorities in South Australia or with the Press Council of Australia.
Regards
Stephen Ellis
Director General (A/g)
……………………

Queensland Federal member of parliament Jane Prentice MP member for ‘Ryan’ did indicate that she was prepared to ask National Archives of Australia Advisory Council Chairman Dr John Bannon about the issues of fake records of newspapers concealing Australian corruption, before she understood that the issues also concern politicians of her Liberal National political party after which she understood that loyal to her political party was more important than representing the people of her electorate. Correspondence from Jane Prentice MP appears below. She will not respond to correspondence. It is not known if Ms Prentice MP confronted NAA Chairman Bannon on the evidence of his corruption & contempt for Australians.
Fake records of Australian newspapers published within Australia’s state and national libraries, concealing Australian corruption.

Prentice, Jane (MP) <Jane.Prentice.MP@aph.gov.au> Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 2:44 PM
To: Roger Bates <xyzrjb@gmail.com>
Dear Mr. Bates
Thank you for your email
I will raise the issues you have identified at the next meeting of the National Archives of Australia Advisory Council.
Regards, Jane Prentice.
JANE PRENTICE MP
Federal Member for Ryan
P) 07 3378 1599
F) 07 3378 1399
A) 636 Moggill Road, Chapel Hill, Queensland, 4069.
E) Jane.Prentice.MP@aph.gov.au
………………………………………….
3 Emails from the Australian Press Council APC
The Australian Press Council has in 3 emails dated February 2012 and March 2012 acknowledged my correspondence concerning Rupert Murdoch’s News Ltd. newspapers and journalists corruption. The APC has declined to facilitate adjudication of any issues of APC member, specifically News Ltd. corruption. The APC has however appeared to recognize issues of News Ltd. Corruption in its responses but insists that the issues of crime and corruption are beyond the APC’s remit to investigate. The APC has in email dated 15 February 2012 advised that it has brought the issues of Australian news media corruption to the attention of News Ltd. and its newspapers.
The Australian Press Council in email dated 23 March 2012 declined to allow my complaints against News Ltd. journalists Tony Abbott MP, (Federal Opposition Leader at that time), Chris Kenny, David Penberthy and Tom Morton to be adjudicated by the Australian Press Council (APC) so that News Ltd. and the journalists would respond to my claims of their dishonesty, corruption and breach of journalists/ news media ethics. My email to the APC was also sent to the journalists and others and did receive an auto-response acknowledgement of having been received by Tony Abbott MP from his Australian Parliament House aph email address Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au. Two auto response acknowledgements of receiving my email sent to Tony Abbott appear below. I have never received any reply acknowledging & addressing the specific issues from Tony Abbott. News Ltd. journalists Chris Kenny and David Penberthy were both News Ltd. journalists working in Adelaide South Australia at the time of publication of the news articles missing from Australian state and national public library records of newspapers published (purported ‘archives’). Journalists Penberthy & Kenny do not respond to correspondence and do not deny having knowledge and involvement in Australian News Ltd. news media corruption.
The APC claims that I have misrepresented the words published and intentions of the News Ltd. journalists and refers to the words published in the News Ltd. news articles that I have complained of as being “no evidence of any such similar breaches of law …” Again the “any such similar” refers to the phone hacking scandal, not to any other alleged, but unproven, allegations of corruption.”
The News Ltd. website http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/the-onus-of-the-media-is-to-adopt-decent-standards/story-e6frgd0x-1226297524636 headlined “The onus of the media is to adopt ‘decent standards’”, a news article written by Tom Morton, did temporarily after my complaint change to the words ‘any such similar’ but much later reverted to the original wording “There is no evidence that any such serious breaches of the law and media ethics have occurred in Australia.”.
The copy that I had saved to my PC had also been changed from the words ‘any such serious’ to ‘any such similar’. I had been hacked at the same time that the News Ltd. website news article had been altered. The altering of the wording of the news article was confirmation of the serious corruption and breaches of news media ethics that I had complained of.
I continue to have my Personal Computers, email and websites that I access hacked.
The News Ltd. newspaper articles written by journalists Tony Abbott, Chris Kenny, David Penberthy and Tom Morton appear below. They claim that “There is no case for additional regulation of newspapers”& any serious inquiry into Australian news media “could muzzle debate” according to Tony Abbott, “Media coverage reflects reality” and “increased media regulation is alarming” according to Chris Kenny, news media “Regulation is a dated idea”, any news media “restrictions is unwelcome in the extreme”, “very dangerous precedent”and “ a handbrake on freedom “, any “media probe hints at vested interest”, according to David Penberthy and relative to Rupert Murdoch News Corp. UK’s crimes “There is no evidence that any such serious breaches of the law and media ethics have occurred in Australia”. These claims have been made while the journalists themselves have knowledge of serious and significant news media crimes and corruption committed by their employer News Ltd.
The fact that the Australian Press Council (APC)has refused to adjudicate the complaints against these News Ltd. journalists so that the APC member newspaper/news media News Ltd. must acknowledge and address the issues, and claims these matters are beyond their Australian Press Council remit to investigate, is itself convincing proof that the APC is inadequate to deal with issues of Australian news media crimes, corruption, and improper behaviour that breaches its own ethical standards and codes of conduct and evidence that greater more effective controls of Australian News Ltd. news media is necessary.
APC 9 Feb 2012 on-sold newspaper archives
from: Press Council complaints <complaints@presscouncil.org.au>
to: Roger Bates <xyzrjb@gmail.com>
date: Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:54 AM
subject: Re: Complaint to the Australian Press Council concerning corruption of the Australian print media.
: Important mainly because of the words in the message.
Re: Complaint to the Australian Press Council concerning corruption of the Australian print media.
Press Council complaints <complaints@presscouncil.org.au>
2/9/12

Dear Roger Bates
The Council has received your letter of February 1 in which you raise concerns with several aspects of the behaviour of the Advertiser, Adelaide, and the news media generally. It appears that your complaint relates to the newspaper’s primarily to what you see as the corruption of its database of articles and to the form in which an archive of articles may be available to readers through libraries. Other aspects of your complaint relate to the behaviour of entities which are outside the Press Council’s area of operations, the journalism of the publisher members of the Council.
As you may recall from 1994, when you previously lodged a complaint with the Council about the reporting of your court appearances in the Advertiser, the Council deals with the editorial and article sections of newspapers and magazines and does not generally deal with advertising or the commercial operations of publications. The question of on-sold newspaper archives is clearly a question related to commercial operations and does not relate to the newspaper’s on-going journalism. The articles you cite are all well outside the usual time limit on complaints observed by the Council. Accordingly, the matter you have raised lies outside the Council’s remit.
If you believe that there has been a misrepresentation of the contents of items available from newspapers direct, or through libraries, that may well constitute a breach of Trade Practices legislation and you should take the matter up with the appropriate civil authorities.
On the question of your treatment at the hands of the Advertiser and the coverage of the scandals related to the State Bank, these matters were dealt with by the Press Council in the early 1990s and it will not be revisiting them. I do note, however, the David Hellaby’s award-winning series of articles on the collapse of the State Bank and the ensuing scandal is still available through the Advertiser archive.
Information on the Council’s Statements of Principles about media standards of practice and also a summary of the Council’s processes for dealing with complaints is available on the Council’s website (www.presscouncil.org.au).
I do not believe that the Council can assist you further in this matter.
Jack Herman
The Australian Press Council Inc
Suite 10.02, 117 York Street
Sydney 2000
p: 02 9261 1930
f: 02 9267 6826
e: complaints@presscouncil.org.au
w: http://www.presscouncil.org.au
ABN: 13 383 369 929
………………………….
APC from Jack Herman 15 Feb. 2012 ref. Carbone
from: Press Council complaints complaints@presscouncil.org.au to: Roger Bates <xyzrjb@gmail.com>
date: Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:02 AMsubject: Re: Advertiser and News : Important mainly because of the words in the message.
Re: Advertiser and News
Press Council complaints complaints@presscouncil.org.au

Feb 15 (3 days ago)
to me

Dear Roger Bates

Thank you for your email and the subsequent phone call.

The matters remain outside the Council’s remit. Apart from bringing your concerns o the newspaper’s attention, which I have done, there is no further action I can take.

With regard to Advertiser articles related to Frank Carbone, see the attached list of articles, covering the period August 1994 through September 1999.

With respect to the News, the State Library record of its existence is at: http://www.samemory.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?c=2627 It says: “Rupert Murdoch sold the News to Northern Star Holdings in 1987, and it was subsequently sold to a private firm headed by Roger Holden. The News was the last metropolitan afternoon newspaper in Australia. It closed in March 1992.”

Jack Herman
……………………………………….
APC response ABBOTT TURNBULL KENNY PENBERTHY 23 March 2012
Re: Latest complaint to the Australian Press Council
Press Council complaints <complaints@presscouncil.org.au>

3/23/12
to me

Dear Roger Bates
The Council has received your complaint form in which you raise concerns with material in the Australian and on other News Limited websites. As I understand your complaint, you believe that the references in those articles to any activities in Australian journalism similar to the phone hacking scandal are inaccurate.
The principal complaint is against an commentary piece written by the Federal Opposition Leader. Since he hasn’t practised the profession of journalism for over two decades, being a professional political operative and then politician, it is disingenuous at best and misleading at worst to refer to him as “Journalist Tony Abbott”. The thrust of Mr Abbott’s commentary, and of Malcolm Turnbull’s statements relate to whether there has been activity in Australia analogous to the phone hacking uncovered in the UK. They say there hasn’t been and your allegations of corruption do not amount to such an analogous activity.
The subsidiary complaints, related to articles by Kenny and Penberthy are similarly based on a misrepresentation of what they have written: they say that the Australian press has not done what was done in the UK. And, based on the evidence so far, they have not misled their readers. ACIJ Director Morton, an academic, the author of the final article cited, says that there is “no evidence of any such similar breaches of law …” Again the “any such similar” refers to the phone hacking scandal, not to any other alleged, but unproven, allegations of corruption.
Accordingly, I do not believe that the newspapers have breached the Council’s Principles, and therefore cannot assist you further with this matter.
Jack Herman
The Australian Press Council Inc
Suite 10.02, 117 York Street
Sydney 2000
p: 02 9261 1930
f: 02 9267 6826
e: complaints@presscouncil.org.au
w: http://www.presscouncil.org.au
………………………….

from: Abbott, Tony (MP) Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au
to: xyzrjb@gmail.com
date: Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 4:31 AM

subject: RE: Australian news media corruption involving Australian politicians. Australian governments concealing corruption.
mailed-by: aph.gov.au
: Important mainly because of your interaction with messages in the conversation.
RE: Australian news media corruption involving Australian politicians. Australian governments concealing corruption.
Abbott, Tony (MP) Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au

11/21/11

to me

Thank you for taking the time to make contact with the Office of the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon Tony Abbott MHR.
This is an automated response so that you can be sure your email has reached our office.
We will do our best to follow-up your email in good time but please bear with us.
Mr Abbott receives a very large volume of emails per day and unlike the Government, we do not have additional resources or departmental officials to assist with correspondence. In our case, all emails are handled personally by this office.
To keep up to date with recent speeches, interviews and media releases, please visit http://www.tonyabbott.com.au
You can also access Tony’s facebook page from this link Facebook and his Flickr account from his link Flickr to see what he has been up to lately.
Each Friday, Tony also blogs for the Daily Telegraph (www.dailytelegraph.com.au) and you might want to get online early as soon as his blog is posted as he responds to as many as he can in the time available, starting from the first responses.
Again, we appreciate you taking the time to send us your views.
Please keep in touch.
Kind regards,
The Office of the Hon Tony Abbott MHR
Leader of the Opposition
…………………..

Tony Abbott from TA 27 March 2012
RE: The Australian Press Council complaints administration re-writing of newspaper articles to justify the rejection of a complaint for formal consideration by the council.
Abbott, Tony (MP) Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au 3/27/12
to me
Thank you for taking the time to make contact with the Office of the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon Tony Abbott MHR.
This is an automated response so that you can be sure your email has reached our office.
We will do our best to follow-up your email in good time but please bear with us.
Mr Abbott receives a very large volume of emails per day and unlike the Government, we do not have additional resources or departmental officials to assist with correspondence. In our case, all emails are handled personally by this office.
To keep up to date with recent speeches, interviews and media releases, please visit http://www.tonyabbott.com.au
You can also access Tony?s facebook page from this link Facebook and his Flickr account from his link Flickr to see what he has been up to lately.
Tony Abbott often undertakes #asktony sessions on Twitter answering a variety of questions. Tony Abbott can be followed on Twitter at @tonyabbottmhr.
Again, we appreciate you taking the time to send us your views.
Please keep in touch.
Kind regards,
The Office of the Hon Tony Abbott MHR
Leader of the Opposition
………………………….

March 2012 News Ltd. – 4 Australian news media news articles written by News Ltd. journalists Tony Abbott MP, Tom Morton and former Adelaide South Australia residents & ‘The Advertiser’ journalists Chris Kenny and David Penberthy – Published by Rupert Murdoch’s Australian News Ltd. news media.

News media council could muzzle debate by Tony Abbott theaustralian 17 March 2012
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/news-media-council-could-muzzle-debate/story-e6frgd0x-1226302085966?nk=b94380f80a576f0dea61917fb7fcc395#
News media council could muzzle debate by Tony Abbott
• TONY ABBOTT
• THE AUSTRALIAN
• MARCH 17, 2012 12:00AM
AS Malcolm Turnbull has observed, judge Ray Finkelstein has produced a thoughtful report with a misguided recommendation. The report of the Independent Inquiry into the Media and Media Regulation is a good exposition marred by a bad recommendation to set up a new and more powerful media regulator.
The Coalition rejects this recommendation and calls on the Labor Party to do likewise.
Let’s not forget that the inquiry was set up after Julia Gillard insisted that News Limited in Australia had “questions to answer” in the wake of Britain’s phone-hacking scandal.
The Prime Minister’s real concern was not Fleet Street-style illegality but News Limited’s coverage of her government and its various broken promises, new taxes and botched programs.
Late last year, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy accused Sydney’s The Daily Telegraph of a campaign to “bring the government down”. Gillard had a screaming match with former News Limited boss John Hartigan over an article about her dealings with a union official. Her allies, the Greens, were pushing for a punitive investigation into what Bob Brown has called the “hate media”. Finkelstein’s report has pointedly declined to join this “get News Limited” vendetta but his recommended News Media Council, if established, has the potential to muzzle political debate and thereby to protect a bad government.
Finkelstein’s new regulator would “set journalistic standards for new media”, “enforce news standards” and “have power to require a news media outlet to publish an apology, correction or retraction”.
Finkelstein doesn’t say who should appoint “community, industry and professional representatives” to the new council but inevitably the federal government that funds it would appoint the people that run it.
Last November, senator Doug Cameron accused the “Murdoch press” of “fabricating stories in relation to the leadership of the party”. Cameron turned out to be one of Kevin Rudd’s numbers men. I wonder how a watchdog hand-picked by the current government would enforce standards of political reporting?
There is already a watchdog, whose members the government appoints, that has established this government’s standards for fair and impartial regulation. Fair Work Australia regularly prosecutes businesses for minor breaches of award conditions, even when they believe they have followed FWA’s advice, but takes more than three years to conclude investigations into the misuse of union money involving a federal MP and refuses to co-operate with investigations by state police.
Especially in the hands of the current government, any new watchdog could become a political correctness enforcement agency destined to hound from the media people whose opinions might rattle the average Q&A audience. It’s easy to imagine the fate of Andrew Bolt or Alan Jones, for instance, at the hands of such thought police. Their demise, you understand, wouldn’t be because the government didn’t like them but because they’d persistently breached “standards”.
The current government has an ingrained tendency to bully and intimidate critics. Witness this week’s attack on Peter Costello for questioning the government’s handling of the chairmanship of the Future Fund; this month’s jihad against mining magnates for daring to question the government’s investment-sapping mining tax; or last year’s assault on mum-and-dad anti-carbon tax protesters in Canberra as the “convoy of no consequence” or the “convoy of incontinence”.
This is not a government that argues its case. It merely attempts to howl down its critics.
A case can certainly be made for giving an existing body such as the Australian Communications and Media Authority modest additional powers to regulate social media where anonymous defamation now flourishes. More effective take-down notices, perhaps, could be available against social networking sites. The Coalition has recently set up a taskforce to investigate this.
There is no case for additional regulation of newspapers. If people don’t like a newspaper, they don’t have to buy it. If individuals and entities believe they have been subjected to unfair, untrue and damaging assault they can sue for defamation. But if individuals or governments think they are not getting a fair go, the remedy is to argue a better case, not to disqualify their critics.
As Turnbull has observed, tweeting can often be the most effective response to inaccurate or unfair reporting.
Politicians and political parties that cop criticism just have to wear it. It’s called democracy.
– See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/news-media-council-could-muzzle-debate/story-e6frgd0x-1226302085966#sthash.K2Me1CsS.dpuf
…………………….

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/media-coverage-reflects-reality/story-fn8qlm5e-1226288737439
Media coverage reflects reality
by: Chris Kenny
From:The Australian
March 05, 201212:00AM

Cartoon by Bill Leak. Source: The Australian
DESPITE its many qualities and indispensable services, the media is clearly imperfect. But in free countries the truth usually triumphs. News media helps keep authorities accountable.
The Finkelstein report is worrying because its recommendations could stifle the media. The inquiry believes it can improve the quality of media by creating a News Media Council, funded by the government, headed (you guessed it) by a lawyer, and consisting of appointed (not elected) delegates from the media and elsewhere. It does not believe that competition, consumer demands, commercial accountability, legal constraints and personal choice will deliver to the public the media that consumers deserve.
Rather, it believes a government-funded body of lawyers, academics, publicly funded and commercial journalists can decree what is good for the public.
Aside from their own sense of fair play, journalists face a range of controls, from the primary constraint of defamation laws, to anti-discrimination laws, court suppression rules and orders, professional and company codes, government regulation in the electronic media and self-regulation in the print media. And they do this in a digital age when it has never been easier for new entrants to enter the media marketplace.
Remarkably, Finkelstein recommended a government-funded news media oversight of electronic, print and online media without identifying a problem with the Australian media.
It traces its genesis, in part, to revelations about the illegal activities of the London tabloids. More disturbingly, the inquiry admits it was established because senior members of the Gillard government and its Green coalition partner believed they were being subjected to jaundiced political coverage.
So a government that is struggling has initiated a media inquiry because not all media is as generous towards it as are the ABC and the Fairfax newspapers.
If this happened in Fiji, Indonesia or Papua New Guinea, our foreign minister would be urging a rethink. In fact, the next time Australia urges improvements in free speech in China, the laughter in Beijing will not be stifled.
Strangely, politicians such as Stephen Conroy, Julia Gillard and Bob Brown did not complain when the media focused, under the previous government, on issues such as the children overboard and Australian Wheat Board scandals.
While the Howard government was at times despairing about media handling of these issues (I was a staffer at the time) it chose to defend its actions, not bring the media to heel.
The current intervention is based almost entirely on Conroy’s gripes last year about how reports of problems with the National Broadband Network and leadership rumblings in the government were really about News Limited newspapers running a so-called campaign for “regime change”. Never mind that those reports have been vindicated.
To look at how the Communications Minister would judge issues of media bias we could suspend disbelief for a moment and accept that everything the government says is true. As a test case, the government’s attitude towards Kevin Rudd will do.
In December the Prime Minister told John Laws that “people are working as professionals in the nation’s interest and Kevin Rudd most certainly is”. As recently as last month Gillard told the Seven Network, “I think Kevin’s doing a good job as the minister for foreign affairs”.
So if that assessment was reflected without scepticism the media would have been accurate and unbiased, by Conroy’s standards.
But two weeks ago Gillard said Rudd had “chaotic work patterns” when he led the government and that “one of the overriding problems of the government that Kevin Rudd led is it was very, very focused on the next news cycle, on the next picture opportunity, rather than the long-term reforms for the nation’s interests”.
And reflecting on his time as foreign minister, she declared, “it is now evident to me and I think it is evident to the Australian people that there has been a long-running destabilisation campaign here to get to this point, where Kevin Rudd is clearly going to announce that he wants to seek the Labor leadership”.
That makes it hard for journalists to keep up. A fortnight ago, the media should not praise Rudd or suggest that all was well at the top levels of the government.But just days later, after defeating Rudd in the leadership ballot, the Prime Minister again praised her foe. “I want to say to Kevin Rudd for the days that lie beyond, as a nation, as a Labor Party, we must honour his many achievements as prime minister.”
Hold the front page. Any journalist not wanting to be accused by Conroy of running a campaign should report on a harmonious government that honours a proud era under its former leader.
The absurdity is obvious. That such an unsophisticated and ill-considered response to his own political problems could lead the Communications Minister down a path of increased media regulation is alarming.
We need to resist the temptation to laugh at this folly because it just might happen. The loose Left coalition of academics, activists, publicly funded journalists and politicians who fear they have lost some crucial debates in recent years might just push this through as a means to cover for their own failures. They may, of course, live to regret it if they find a future conservative government escaping scrutiny.
The Finkelstein report plays games with academic papers and opinion polls that show a lack of respect for the commercial media. It fails to consider why, then, most of the population consumes most of its news from commercial media. Clearly the inquiry and the government believe members of the public do not know what is good for them.
Given what has transpired over the past couple of years, the real question about media is the inverse of the Conroy and Finkelstein approach. Instead of comparing media coverage to government expectations, we should compare media coverage to reality. Then the real question is not about media campaigns. It is about why some media were so incurious about government waste and mismanagement, and internal leadership dissent. In particular, given its vast resources and government regulation, how did the ABC manage to miss these developing stories?
The publicly funded media’s sanguine reporting of the government and failure to provide the full picture to its audience provides a standing argument against government regulation.
………………….

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/archive/news/penberthy-regulation-a-dated-idea/story-e6freall-1226274604422?nk=3ce8e4eb87da500f05a9e42f3746e724
Penberthy: Regulation – a dated idea
by: David Penberthy
From: Sunday Mail (SA)
February 18, 2012 10:00PM
WHY regulate the media when the internet has already created a more open industry, David Penberthy asks
————————————————–
WE LIVE in a world where everyone knows everything all the time, where the limited old ways of accessing information are no more, where people who are quaintly still described as newspaper “photographers” now shoot video footage for 24-hour news websites that you can watch on your telephone, your tablet or TV.
We also live in a more democratic media world than ever before. Once upon a time, traditional media companies and the people who wrote for them could posture as unchallenged oracles.
That is no longer the case. The barriers for entry into publishing in the digital age are zero. If you don’t like what a columnist has written, jump on their website and say so, or start your own blog putting a different view.
We can also be more readily and instantly entertained than ever before.
Thirty years ago there was no Foxtel, and the fact that you could set the timer on your VCR was cause for excitement.
Now you can program your IQ box online from your work PC, you can download anything from the app store, or find it anyway on YouTube, when and where you want it.
All of this is known in the media industry as convergence – a fancy term for the fact that, in 2012, there is little if any difference between radio stations, newspapers, TV networks and websites in their manner of operation.
It’s the subject of an inquiry by the Federal Government known as the Convergence Review.
Its final report is due next month, but from what we have seen so far there are several things about the Convergence Review that are both bizarre and worrying. The biggest concern is that it takes a whole bunch of businesses that have thrived on account of not being regulated, and seeks to regulate them.
These are industries that have been wholly driven by a desire to serve their audiences and customers, rather than meeting any mandated government requirements for content, and are now at risk of being dragged into a system of regulation that began in the days of black-and-white TV.
The reason free-to-air TV stations were regulated in the first place was that they used a scarce public asset, radio frequency spectrum, in order to broadcast. Subscription TV is also regulated in terms of community standards and Australian content, despite the fact that consumers happily pay for it, at no cost to the public.
Its regulation is not aimed at protecting our moral fibre or our sense of national identity, but simply to protect commercial TV from competition from Foxtel. The print media and the internet have never been regulated because they do not use the radio frequency spectrum.
Now it looks like that all of them will be regulated.
Rather than acknowledging that the world has changed and that the media landscape is now more open, competitive and innovative than ever before, the Convergence Review seeks to extend regulation with the creation of a new all-encompassing media category known as a “Content Service Enterprise” (CSE).
CSEs could be defined as TV stations, radio stations, newspapers, news websites, Google and YouTube, gaming websites such as Xboxlive, the news feed you read when you open your Hotmail or Yahoo accounts, possibly Facebook and Twitter if you use your account as a news service – you name it.
All of these CSEs would be subject to a new super-regulator, with broader powers than ACMA. There are reassurances in the Convergence Review’s interim report that the regulator would be at “arm’s length” from government.
They are not worth the paper they are written on. By definition, any body that is charged with implementing government regulations over the media is a form of government interference.
This body will also need a board structure, which will be open to the same kind of politically motivated appointments that have marred the ABC board over the years.
That’s a bit of a journo’s argument against the proposal, one which my company, News Limited, has made in its submission to the Convergence Review.
The strongest arguments are made on behalf of the audiences, and I would urge everyone with an interest to look at the submission made by Google, which also owns YouTube.
One nifty side point Google has made goes to the hilarious impracticality of imposing government regulation on YouTube, where in every second, one hour of footage is being uploaded by users around the world. You would need quite a big government department to check it all.
Google makes the good point that it is absurd to treat YouTube, where the content is created not by editors but users, in the same way as a media outlet.
The great thing about YouTube is that the very freedom it represents has been used by creative people, who in the past would have had to audition before a roomful of middle-aged Anglo-Saxon TV execs, with a direct portal to share their talents with the outside world.
They are people such as Sydney’s Natalie Tran, whose wry video discussions of social trends have amassed a stunning 55 million views, and former airport ground-crew worker Rob Nixon, a food nut whose cooking show Nicko’s Kitchen has been watched 37 million times.
You don’t need to be told to run Australian content by a government agency with these sorts of people doing it for themselves. Anyway, all media are already subject to laws of defamation, anti-vilification, classification involving pornography, national security restrictions involving terrorism, so adding another layer of restrictions is unwelcome in the extreme.
And the three things the Convergence Review seeks to guarantee – greater openness, greater competition, greater innovation – all exist more than ever before.
If anything, a more credible argument can now be mounted not for the extension of regulation, but for its abolition, with an end to the content restrictions on free-to-air TV because of the explosion in audience choice.
The punchline is that all of this silliness has been brought to us from a Government that is spending more than $40 billion in taxpayers’ money to build a national broadband network, ostensibly to harness the full potential of the digital economy – the very economy directly threatened by the clapped-out, safari-suited, interventionist concepts in this strangely dated Convergence Review.
penberthyd@thepunch.com.au
Originally published as Penberthy: Media regulation just dated
………………………….

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/opinion/penberthy-a-handbrake-on-freedom/story-e6freall-1226288197872
David Penberthy penberthyd@thepunch.com.au
Penberthy: A handbrake on freedom
by: David Penberthy
From: Sunday Mail (SA)
March 03, 201210:00PM
There was never any leadership tension, and any stories reporting that were fabricated, according to ALP senator Doug Cameron, who is pictured here arriving in Canberra airport on the day of the ALP leadership spill. Source: Sunday Mail (SA)
A PROPOSED media watchdog sets a very dangerous precedent, says David Penberthy.
————————————————–
THE Federal Government’s media inquiry was ordered in response to journalistic behaviour overseas, which has no equal in Australia.
It was also championed most enthusiastically by those who were either in on the lie, or indifferent to the lie, about the crisis in Australia’s political leadership, an 18-month period of indulgent paralysis which came to a head in Canberra on Monday.
Against this backdrop it is hard for those of us in the press not to be suspicious about something that seemed politically motivated in its inception, and which would now subject the entire media, both mainstream and independent, to the most heavy-handed regulation Australia has ever seen.
It is impossible to discuss an issue such as the media inquiry without being accused of journalistic self-interest.
However, the inquiry has such dramatic implications for freedom of speech and potentially also the proper use of public money that it also raises broader issues of public interest.
It has at its centre a philosophical flaw that should jar with everyone who believes in free speech that it should be the job of government-appointed people to pass judgment on what we can write, and obviously also what you can read.
The report, released on Friday, is critical of the existing safeguards against media errors and misrepresentations.
It dismisses self-regulation by the Australian Press Council, ignoring the fact that the media has already been working to strengthen the work of the Press Council, with more funds and staff, and a strengthened commitment from newspapers to admit wrongdoing when they are the subject of an upheld complaint.
The inquiry recommends that the Press Council be replaced with a turbo-charged entity called the News Media Council, its 20 members selected by a committee comprising people who are themselves members of the Government.
The council would not only oversee big media but also independent bloggers and websites.
The marketing website Mumbrella examined the report and pointed out that sites with as few as 40 page views a day would be affected.
As a member of the mainstream media, I might not agree with everything which comes from the mouths of lefty critics of News Corporation, such as independent blogger Grogs Gamut or Crikey rabble-rouser Stephen Mayne.
But I respect their right to say and publish what they like. Nobody has a monopoly on wisdom, and it has been a good thing for democracy that over this past decade, independent critics have questioned big media, powered by the freedoms of the internet.
The recommendations of this inquiry would put a handbrake on that freedom.
Moreover, they could also cost you, the taxpayer, a bit of dough. One recommendation is that the Productivity Commission should examine whether public funds be used to help media organisations deal with declining print revenues and the transition to digital.
If we believe in free markets, I’d say that declining print revenues are our problem, not yours, and that it’s the job of media companies to find a solution which doesn’t involve a taxpayer bailout.
Moreover, the moment you take a cent of government money in the media, you’re co-opted, so the free speech argument must be a two-way street.
The backdrop to the inquiry both here and overseas merits some detailed examination.
In terms of the international setting, the London phone-hacking scandal, I am not so much of a company man to try to make light of the often shameful accusations against the London arm of the business.
Yet it has mattered not to our Federal Government that the Australian arm of this company, News Limited, ordered an exhaustive arms-length audit overseen by two retired Supreme Court judges, which found nothing at any of our Australian newspapers that even faintly resembled the conduct of journalists overseas.
No phone-hacking, no dodgy payments, nothing like it.
The London scandal was too handy an opportunity for our Federal Government to kick off a media inquiry of its own, enthusiastically supported by those Labor MPs who felt crushed by local media coverage, cheered on by Gillard’s de facto partner in Government, Senator Bob Brown, with his cheery attacks on what he calls the “Murdoch hate media”.
Once the inquiry had been ordered, the recurring coverage of Labor’s leadership woes was consistently held up by ALP figures as an example of why the media in Australia needed to be inquired into, and ripped into line.
Senator Doug Cameron was one MP who let fly after a story appeared, suggesting that Kevin Rudd was white-anting Julia Gillard and readying himself for a challenge early this year.
Here’s what Cameron had to say about a Daily Telegraph front page on the leadership. It’s worth quoting because it is so hilariously misleading in light of this past fortnight’s events.
“The Murdoch press are an absolute disgrace, they are a threat to democracy in this country and we should absolutely be having a look at them. They run unsubstantiated stories. I’m saying it’s a fabrication. They run unsubstantiated stories in relation to the leadership of the party.
“We should not be diverted by the Murdoch press and their attempt to destabilise this Government. This is a good Government. It doesn’t suit Rupert Murdoch and his minions and we are prepared to take that on.
“Day in and day out, the Murdoch press are putting false headlines out there. They are misrepresenting the position of the Government. Day in and day out, it’s absolute lies and nonsense that is getting printed in the Murdoch press, and that’s the issue.”
Touche, Doug. How any of us ever got the idea that there was a leadership issue in the ALP is anyone’s guess.
Against this dissembling backdrop, forgive us for being a bit cynical about the prospect of more Government regulation and intervention in what we can or cannot say, and what you can and cannot read.
………………………..

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/media-probe-hints-at-vested-interest/story-e6frfhqf-1226288238037?nk=84915def90bffd2ffa4e8910a051e1a1
Government’s media probe hints at vested interest
by: David Penberthy
From: Sunday Herald Sun
March 04, 2012 12:00AM
Senator Doug Cameron was one MP who let fly. Picture : Renee Nowytarger Source: News Limited
THE Federal Government’s media inquiry was ordered in response to journalistic behaviour overseas which has no equal in Australia.
It was also championed most enthusiastically by those who were either in on the lie, or indifferent to the lie, about the crisis in Australia’s political leadership, an 18-month period of indulgent paralysis which came to a head in Canberra last Monday.
Against that backdrop it is hard for those of us in the press not to be suspicious about something which seemed politically motivated in its inception and which would subject the entire media to the most heavy-handed regulation Australia has ever seen.
It is impossible to discuss an issue such as the media inquiry without being accused of journalistic self-interest.
However, the inquiry has such dramatic implications for freedom of speech – and potentially also the proper use of public money – that it also raises broader issues of public interest.
The report, released on Friday, is critical of the existing safeguards against media errors and misrepresentations.
It dismisses self-regulation by the Australian Press Council, ignoring the fact the media has already been working to strengthen the work of the Press Council, with more funds, more staff, and a strengthened commitment from newspapers to admit wrongdoing.
The inquiry recommends that the Press Council be replaced with a turbo-charged entity called the News Media Council, its 20 members selected by a committee comprising people who are themselves members of the government or appointed by the government.
The council would not only oversee big media but also independent bloggers and websites.
The marketing website Mumbrella examined the report on Friday and pointed out that sites with as few as 40 page views a day would be affected.
As a member of the mainstream media I might not agree with everything which comes from the mouths of lefty critics of News Corporation, such as independent blogger Grogs Gamut or Crikey rabble rouser Stephen Mayne.
But I respect their right to say and publish what they like.
It has been a good thing for democracy that over this past decade independent critics have questioned big media, powered by the freedoms of the internet.
The recommendations of this inquiry would put a handbrake on that freedom.
Moreover, they could also cost you, the taxpayer, a bit of dough.
One recommendation is that the Productivity Commission should examine whether public funds be used to help media organisations deal with declining print revenues and the transition to digital.
If we believe in free markets I’d say that declining print revenues are our problem, not yours, and that it’s the job of media companies to find a solution which doesn’t involve a taxpayer bailout.
THE backdrop to the inquiry both here and overseas merits some detailed examination.
In terms of the international setting – the London phone-hacking scandal – I am not so much of a company man to try to make light of the often shameful accusations against the London arm of the business.
Yet it has mattered not to our Federal Government that the Australian arm of this company, News Limited, ordered an exhaustive audit overseen by two retired Supreme Court judges, which found nothing at any of our Australian newspapers which even faintly resembled the conduct of journalists overseas.
The London scandal was an opportunity for our Federal Government to kick off a media inquiry of its own, enthusiastically supported by Labor MPs who felt smited by local media coverage.
Once the inquiry had been ordered, the recurring coverage of Labor’s leadership woes was consistently held up by ALP figures as an example of why the media in Australia needed to be inquired into, and ripped into line.
Senator Doug Cameron was one MP who let fly after a story appeared suggesting that Kevin Rudd was white-anting Julia Gillard and readying himself for a challenge early this year.
Here’s what Cameron had to say about a Daily Telegraph front page on the leadership.
It’s worth quoting because it is so misleading in light of the events of this past fortnight.
“The Murdoch press are an absolute disgrace, they are a threat to democracy in this country and we should absolutely be having a look at them.
“They run unsubstantiated stories in relation to the leadership of the party. Day in and day out the Murdoch press are putting false headlines out there. They are misrepresenting the position of the government. Day in and day out it’s absolute lies and nonsense that is getting printed in the Murdoch press, and that’s the issue.”
Touche, Doug.
How any of us got the idea that there was a leadership issue in the ALP is anyone’s guess.
Against this dissembling backdrop, forgive us for being a bit cynical about the prospect of more government regulation and intervention in what we can or cannot say and what you can and cannot read.
Doug Cameron was right about there being a threat to democracy, it’s just that he was a part of it.

Originally published as Media probe hints at vested interest
………………………………………..

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/the-onus-of-the-media-is-to-adopt-decent-standards/story-e6frgd0x-1226297524636
The onus of the media is to adopt ‘decent standards’
• TOM MORTON
• THE AUSTRALIAN
• MARCH 13, 2012 12:00AM
Source: Supplied
THE impetus for the setting-up of the Finkelstein inquiry, and the Leveson inquiry in Britain, came not from a desire on the part of governments to muzzle the press but from profound public revulsion at the revelation that News of the World journalists had hacked into Milly Dowler’s voicemail.
Milly’s parents told the Leveson inquiry they hoped it would serve as a vehicle to “put things right in the future and to have some decent standards”.
There is no evidence that any such serious breaches of the law and media ethics have occurred in Australia. Nevertheless, there is a strong community expectation that the media will set “decent standards” for themselves and abide by them. When journalists lie, distort the facts or break the law, the public has a right to expect they will be held to account.
As a practising journalist, I am deeply uncomfortable with the idea of a new regulator such as the News Media Council proposed by Ray Finkelstein.
We do, of course, rely on publicly funded regulators such as the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission to regulate other areas of the economy and the polity; and Finkelstein makes it clear that he believes the News Media Council should be fully independent of government.
But the attacks on the independence of the ABC under the Howard government — and, at other times, under Labor governments — ought to make us deeply wary about the creation of a new regulator that, potentially, may be subject to political interference.
I also do not believe that a regulator can or should concern itself with remedies against “campaigning” journalism, or with identifying political bias in the media; the latter, it could be argued, is an appropriate role for journalism academics.
But in Finkelstein’s defence, I can find no evidence in his report that he is proposing concrete remedies against bias or campaigning.
If journalists and media organisations do not want a new regulatory regime imposed on them, the onus is on them to convince the public that they will adopt and enforce “decent standards”. How to do so should now be a matter of open and robust debate, and the media should welcome the contribution of journalism academics.
At the start of the semester, I say to the students in my investigative journalism class that if they learn and remember three words from the entire semester’s classes I will have done my job. Those words are: “Where’s your evidence?”
Journalism is an evidence-based profession. Good journalism requires us to constantly test the assertions of those people who make the news, shape public debate, and exert power and influence, against the best available evidence.
Journalism education can, and should, teach the journalists of tomorrow a set of practical skills; how to “catch, kill and render” a story, as Peter Fray, editor-in-chief of The Sydney Morning Herald, has put it. But it should also encourage in them an attitude of mind: to think critically and never stop asking questions.
Distinguished British journalist and editor of the Evening Standard Max Hastings once said that the best advice he was given as a young journalist was a single phrase: “They lie, they lie, they lie.”
The public expects journalists to expose those lies and to hold the liars to account, whether they be politicians, lobby groups, corporations, union officials or loan sharks.
According to Robert Rosenthal, executive director of the Centre for Investigative Reporting in Berkeley, California, “The thing people care the most about is watchdog journalism. The general public understands the role of the press.” Rosenthal should know. He cut his teeth on the Pentagon Papers as a young reporter at The New York Times and went on to become executive editor of The Philadelphia Inquirer and managing editor of the San Francisco Chronicle.
Last year, Rosenthal was keynote speaker at Back to the Source, the first national conference on investigative journalism, convened by the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism at the University of Technology, Sydney.
The conference was launched by ABC managing director Mark Scott. Thirty Australian journalists and senior editors spoke, from Fairfax, the ABC, Seven Network and News Limited. Between them, the speakers had won more than 40 Walkley awards.
This was not a case of journalism academics showing “growing disdain for the mass media”, a trend identified by Cameron Stewart in this newspaper on Saturday. Rather, the conference sought to involve working journalists, educators and students in a conversation about where the industry was heading at a time of rapid and fundamental change.
Rosenthal told the conference that the future of quality journalism lay, in part, outside mainstream media organisations. He talked about the transformational model of quality journalism that the centre has pioneered, bringing together philanthropic funding, major media partners and teams of journalists, often working with community groups, crowd sourcing and — dare I say it — journalism academics and students.
Rosenthal’s father was a journalism teacher; he started the first journalism course at the City College of New York in the 1930s. And Rosenthal is a passionate believer in the central role of a free press in a democracy.
He tells the story of how, after his father’s death, he found a yellowed piece of paper in his files, with a quote from Thomas Jefferson typed on it: “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to choose the latter.”
One can share Jefferson’s conviction, as I do, and still believe that, just as journalists should be free to hold the powerful to account, they too should be held to account when they get their facts wrong, deny basic fairness to the subjects of their stories or fail to produce evidence for the allegations they make.
There is a wide spectrum of opinion among journalism academics about how this process of accountability might work and whether the regulator proposed by the Finkelstein inquiry is the right way to go. But there is a larger issue at stake, one in which journalists and journalism have a mutual interest.
Journalists, and the organisations for which they work, often claim to act in the public interest; and sometimes, in the public interest, it will be necessary to invade the privacy of people and institutions that have something to hide. Public interest can be an important defence when the actions of journalists are tested in the courts. But if journalists claim to act in the public interest, they must be prepared to expose themselves and the institutions in which they work to scrutiny by the public.
Tom Morton is director of the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism at UTS and a former ABC journalist and broadcaster.

"Taxpayers rescue bank" has become the first newspaper published reference to the bankruptcy of the State Bank of South Australia within newspaper 'archives' at Australian public libraries after the removal from the records of the first news articles published headlined "Billion Dollar Bailout"

“Taxpayers rescue bank” has become the first newspaper published reference to the bankruptcy of the State Bank of South Australia within newspaper ‘archives’ at Australian public libraries after the removal from the records of the first news articles published headlined “Billion Dollar Bailout”

 

SBSA Chairman David Simmons also BFC & "Off Balance Sheet" 'Kabani' Director refused to accept responsibilty for SBSA bankruptcy & massive public debt stating "this is no time for a which hunt" "the fact that the State Bank Board  had been supplied with inaccurate and/or deficient information was to blame" SBSA OBS 'Kabani' debt details & involvement of the  law firm Thompson Simmons & Co in OBS marina development Co. ownership was concealed.

SBSA Chairman David Simmons also BFC & “Off Balance Sheet” ‘Kabani’ Director refused to accept responsibilty for SBSA bankruptcy & massive public debt stating “this is no time for a which hunt” “the fact that the State Bank Board had been supplied with inaccurate and/or deficient information was to blame” SBSA OBS ‘Kabani’ debt details & involvement of the law firm Thompson Simmons & Co in OBS marina development Co. ownership was concealed.

 

Marina developer Willaim Turner falsely said to be bankrupt Oct. 1989 (file 1085/1990 6 July 1990 to 6 July 1993) - Turner's Assets (owned by SBSA) were sold to developer Alan Burloch (owned by SBSA) Claims of no losses to taxpayers were false. Loses were concealed.

Marina developer Willaim Turner falsely said to be bankrupt Oct. 1989 (file 1085/1990 6 July 1990 to 6 July 1993) – Turner’s Assets (owned by SBSA) were sold to developer Alan Burloch (owned by SBSA) Claims of no losses to taxpayers were false. Loses were concealed.

 

The first published mention of "Off Balance Sheet" entities of the State Bank of SA. Newspaper articles referring to OBS financial status Assets/Liabilities have been erased from records of newspapers published. News media (News Ltd. & the ABC) never mentioned SBSA OBS entities again considering them not newsworthy.

The first published mention of “Off Balance Sheet” entities of the State Bank of SA. Newspaper articles referring to OBS financial status Assets/Liabilities have been erased from records of newspapers published. News media (News Ltd. & the ABC) never mentioned SBSA OBS entities again considering them not newsworthy.

 

News article still preserved within the corrupt 'archives' of Australian libraries refer to news articles previously published that have been erased from the records & replaced with material never published at that time.

News article still preserved within the corrupt ‘archives’ of Australian libraries refer to news articles previously published that have been erased from the records & replaced with material never published at that time.

The Australian securities Commission charged William Turner with crimes but did not prosecute him - His debts to SBSA were concealed. The Adelaide News Ltd. news article published headlined "Pro-Image Studios, another Director Charged", a word for word copy of this ASC Media Release, has been erased from Australian library 'archives' of newspapers published.

The Australian securities Commission charged William Turner with crimes but did not prosecute him – His debts to SBSA were concealed. The Adelaide News Ltd. news article published headlined “Pro-Image Studios, another Director Charged”, a word for word copy of this ASC Media Release, has been erased from Australian library ‘archives’ of newspapers published.