Put aside the heated rhetoric; the “star chambers”, the “gags” on journalism, the “Soviet-style” restrictions. How worried should supporters of free speech and fearless journalism be about the government’s media reforms?
Let’s zero in on the legislation Communications Minister Stephen Conroy insists must be law by next week.
Conroy wants to create a Public Interest Media Advocate, a position that would have two primary responsibilities. First: to decide whether media mergers and acquisitions are in the public interest. Second: to approve or reject “news-media self-regulatory bodies”. It’s the latter that has real relevance for free speech advocates because it has the potential to impact on the day-to-day work of journalists.
To understand what Conroy is proposing, you first have to get your head around an existing law: the Privacy Act. If you don’t have a clue about what’s in it or how it affects the news you consume, don’t worry: many journalists don’t either.
Unlike defamation law or contempt of court, members of the Fourth Estate have, until now, been able to live in a state of blissful ignorance about the laws. It simply gives them carte blanche to impinge on people’s privacy as they please — to poke their snouts where they want and publish what they find out.
Some of what results will be smutty (photos of Lara Bingle in the shower spring to mind); some will be unquestionably in the public interest. Think the financial transactions of former Labor powerbroker Eddie Obeid; the health records of sports stars engaged in doping; the credit card statements of a union boss up to no good. The only thing media organisations have to do to qualify for a complete exemption from the laws is commit to “observe standards” that deal with privacy.
Conroy’s reforms would change that. Under his regime, only media organisations which belong to an approved self-regulation body would be exempt.
As things stand today, this wouldn’t restrict the activities of any major media organisations bar one (which we’ll get to in a moment). Radio and TV broadcasters would qualify for the exemption because they report to the Australian Communications and Media Authority. Newspaper publishers and some online outlets — including Private Media, which publishes Crikey — would qualify by virtue of their membership of the Australian Press Council.
“It’s important to note the Advocate’s powers relate only to the regulators — not to individual media organisations.”
So far, no threat to free speech — certainly not for News Limited, which has been protesting the loudest.
The major media outlet in the gun is Kerry Stokes’ Seven West Media, which owns The West Australian and the Pacific Magazines stable. Last year, Seven West withdrew from the Press Council and announced it was setting up a breakaway body, chaired by a former judge, to handle complaints.
Would this body — or one like it — qualify as a “news-media self-regulatory body”? While Conroy has left open the possibility it would, the proposed legislation suggests it would struggle to get up.
In assessing whether a self-regulatory body would be approved, the PIMA is required to consider: the extent to which membership of the body corporate is open to “all news media organisations” and “other persons whose activities consist of, or include, news or current affairs activities”. He or she will also have to consider the level of independence it has from news organisations.
If the Seven West body failed this test — which is conceivable — it would have to join the Press Council or risk the large fines that could come by breaching the Privacy Act.
Now we get to the guts of the media’s “free speech under threat” campaign. The PIMA wouldn’t just have the power to approve self regulators — he or she could revoke their status if there has been a significant change in “relevant circumstances” or “relevant community standards”.
It’s a power so broad, so sweeping it’s hard to imagine it ever being used. The PIMA has oversight over regulatory bodies, not individual media organisations. To strip News Limited, for example, of its Privacy Act exemption, the PIMA would have to do the same for other Press Council members such as Fairfax, Bauer Media and Crikey.
Unlike News chief Kim Williams, Press Council boss Julian Disney isn’t in a lather about this happening. He’s more concerned about news organisations like Seven West getting the all-clear to police themselves, sparking a rush of withdrawals from the beefed up APC.
“To speak about this too much as a threat to freedom of speech is misguided,” he told Crikey. “This is far more likely to lead to weak regulation rather than strong regulation.”
I’m not clear about this issue but the UN has released it’s Human Development Index report, and Australia come top 2nd in the world, just behind Norway in 1st and above the US in 3rd.
With the AAA rating and the Australian dollar has doubled its value against the British Pound since 2001 (in 2001 it was worth about 33% of Great British Pound, now it’s around 64-71%), great for travelling. So the government’s economic management has not been that bad, if they were as bad as the poopers have been saying the Aussie dollar would be worth the same as the Rupee by now.
But the way the Ooz been raping this government, geez, one wonders about the price of freedom.
its
Thanks for this great piece. Mr Knott is the first commentator I’ve read to point out how the proposed PIMA creates an all or nothing dynamic that works as a check against misuse.
That is, you can’t just go after an individual media organisation without subjecting every other member-organisation to the Privacy Act. Indeed, one ancillary consequence of the PIMA is to discourage fragmentation of different self-regulatory bodies making this a embedded incentive.
So, contrary to the howls of outrage about stealth regulation, the changes actually make such an exercise of power rather implausible – even moreso arguably than the ACMA’s existing licensing regime for broadcasting.
Is it still open to abuse? Well the power is very broad, and its certainly worth some serious probing question and debate. But importantly, it’s worth noting that I haven’t see anyone anywhere make a plausible argument for how this would happen given the stakeholders and incentives involved.
“It’s a power so broad, so sweeping it’s hard to imagine it ever being used.”
That is just the most appalling argument in support of these laws.
If they are never to be used, why have them at all? Why have any restrictions on the government, why not just apply ‘it’s hard to imagine they will ever be used’ test?
@Andrew
It’s not an argument in favour; it’s an argument against the government regulation/licensing by stealth nonsense we hear everywhere in the MSM.