Freedom of speech at risk? How Conroy’s advocate could hurt
Is Stephen Conroy’s Public Interest Media Advocate a threat to free speech? Crikey digs into the detail to find out just what power the position will hold.
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.
@ Andrew
The point being you can’t target individual organisations because the dynamics / incentives simply don’t exist without fouling the core business interests of every other stakeholder. Indeed, the practical consequence of the scheme, as I said above, is to create a barrier against lots of fragmented bodies popping up which complements this aspect of the regime.
As for why have anything at all? That’s a totally different article - but it must start with a detailed discussion of the total failure of the self-regulation model historically. That is, said failure in the absence of government initiative. So you can’t just start from Disney-led APC and the newly printed Codes of Conduct we have seen in the aftermath of myriad inquiries and the phone hacking scandal. We only have that progress because they were pressured to do something by the government’s discussion of direct regulation, and they only did it with the greatest reluctance.
Let us not overlook, when considering this subject, that of the Four Estates of government, only one is/was elected.
So The Fourth Estate shares with the Church a supposed right to govern without recourse to the approval of those so governed,by being either elected or rejected.
The comparisons continue with the concept of “self regulation” which in the case of the Church and other authoritarian institututions has led to crimes against children going unpunished and therefore encouraged.
So is such “Self Regulation”, among these past and present, un-elected arms of government, not a temptation for all sorts of abuse?
The Church, though escaping, so far the law which applies to the rest of the country, is no longer an arm of government but The Fourth Estate, as the name applies, surely is?
The blythe, unironic and unconditional use of the term, Fourth Estate, by the above author indicates that the mainstream media are (Happy to be?) unelected politicians.
Are they, then, not to be held accountable?
Not accountable even by a fairly feeble oversight of their “vows”, not to abuse their status as the “Fourth Estate” of government, unelected, unsackable and unaccountable, by setting up so called “self regulatory” bodies, in which the general public must, otherwise, have blind faith?
Sorry, but pervert priests and equally unaccountable journalists appear to be sheltering under the same umbrella: untrustable self -regulation.
Neither can continue to escape the rule of the people.
Struggle and writhe as they may they will be held to account, neither of these “Estates” should continue to harbour any delusions that they are beyond the law.
Any alarm , on their part, at this prospect of justice done,is simply a sign of guilt.
If priests can be defrocked, then the Palace eunuchs of the press, unelected politicians in hiding, can be banned from employment and only employed on licence.
As Mathew writes, journalists can somehow bulldose themselves through all the ranks and institutions of democracy licenced only by “Public Interest”, the conditions of which they write themselves.
All other such potentially dangerous activities have been long since rightfully regulated, why not the Fourth Estate?
The Public Interest Media Advocate might, in such circumstances, not have much work to do at all.
What makes Murdoch’s star chambers so much more acceptable than those of some government that they don’t like and want us to vote out, so they can set up these “Right ones” of theirs?
@Will
It is clearly an argument in favour, how else can it be an argument against not supporting the proposal?
I agree we need a debate on failures, it’d be good if one example had been provided in support of these laws, but the PM “won’t be drawn” into a debate and yet we are supposed to trust her on laws that are “so broad, so sweeping it’s hard to imagine it ever being used.”
Great, just great.
@ Andrew
A proper debate is definitely warranted on the merits though it would obviously refer to recent reviews around non-compliance with voluntary codes and the general erosion of public trust.
I agree Gillard’s line is a cop-out — something of a piece with their approach to quickly ram the package through or shelve it altogether. It’s shabby, no doubt.
But I don’t accept your point above. You can obviously attack an argument against something without taking a position on the primary merits of it.
Most of the reaction in the media has concentrated purely on the supposed threat to free speech that is said to be invited by having any defined government in relation to the self-regulator. The problem with this is that nobody has bothered to make a realistic case for how that works which adequately deals with the incentives as the scheme would operate and obvious counter-examples such as the ACMA which is a dreaded statutory body with power to target individual companies. Indeed, the record of Australian governments facing down broadcasters is non-existent.
This article addresses that vital distortion of the debate.
Some will rant and rave about everything Labor do irrespective of the truth and facts. Truth and facts have become the enemy of so many.
Didn’t all this start when journalists at a media outlet in the UK get found to be accessing peoples mobile phones and computers? The idea was to ensure that the same wasn’t happening in Aust. And that self regulation wasn’t working
Note that journalists at another media outlet have been found to be doing the same
The totalitarians of the loony left have made their ultimate goal quite clear. They want to destroy New Limited and have the State decide what we can and can’t read. This is just the thin end of the wedge.
It’s not surprising media outlets are misrepresenting the legislation. People and organizations with power very rarely if ever choose to relinquish it without a fight. Their fear mongering over Soviet style restrictions I find particularly amusing as I believe they have degenerated to such a point that they already resemble the old Tass news agency, the only difference being that they serve different masters.
When it comes to trustworthy “self-regulation” aren’t some journalists a bit like certain priests?
Essentially beyond any trust?
And then there are their supporters, who, in either case, can see no evil, unless it is in their opponents.
And their opponents are “evil incarnate” because justice is somehow bad?
What a strange, ugly and polluted polity Australians must endure.
Can the nation survive such poison undeformed?
To Cite that the new media laws are outside the UN charter is a case in point - this is not censorship as operated in most UN member countries.
News of course has a growing problem in the UK with another 600 cases of phone tapping as and more journalists arrested in other than News owned mastheads.
The need for an Advocate is as a result of the Media being unable to regulate itself. The media like Governments need an independent Ombud to guide it how to behave responsibility and in the public interest.
I think that next week will see Conroy get his legislation passed and I am sure that this article will help, whereas I think that Cameron may not.
Great stuff Matthew. Following this, plus Bernard Keane’s pieces, plus all the other concerns expressed, is it safe to suggest that Mr Conroy’s plans could do with a bit more thought and a bit more work before expecting the faithful to vote for them?
Trying to be non-partisan here but does anyone think for a second that if the Press genuflected to Labour enough, that this legislation would be on the table? Thought not.
If it was, it would be Abbott and the Libs introducing it. Pollies of every shade love the press when they are dutifully covering their PR “announcables” but watch them turn as soon as anything approaching ‘criticism’ or investigative journalism appears.
An insightful article by Alan Austin presents a clear picture of the current state of affairs. Worth reading once the “Crikey moderator” gets its act together and finally will as I predict release this post on Monday morning. http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/politics/news-limiteds-hysterical-campaign-confirms-need-for-media-regulation/
Yep, the moderator, QED
The UN says its a threat to free speech, so it must be
Self regulation has been found to be nothing short of useless. News Corp have been hacking phones and lied for years about it. Editors and executives have been sacked, jailed and charged and the paper in the UK shut down in shame.
The High Court in Australia has found that staff have lied, distorted the truth and fabricated news articles.
The Australian Presss Council has found that they have run stories that are “gravely inaccurate, unfair and offensive”
There is a clear syndrome that when laws are changed with the promise that they will be enforced reasonably and in discetionary ways, that subsequent administrators will then enforce them to the maximum extent they can.
Therefore any promise by Conroy that powers given through this legislation are unlikely to be used should be treated with the contempt it deserves.
Phone hackers are being arrested under existing British laws and no new laws are required to deal with such crimes. This is clearly a News Ltd law and should be seen and resisted as such.
The haste to push it through this week is just straightforward incompetence and it will fail because it deserves to. Conroy is a joke.
Journalists and priests, unelected political players, self-regulated peddlers of lies and projectors of power at a price.
Ask their victims if there is a problem.
Oh, that’s right, it is all about freedom! (cry the slaves).
When it comes to democracy, to rule by the people, Australia is a continent sized “Ship of Fools”.
Which will be sunk when Howard’s trillion dollar mortgage debt “Time Bomb” finally explodes in the inevitable Abbott recession.
It’s what will happen if you “sack” the GFC time bomb disposal squad in September before their work is done.
So, inevitably, as those “extinct” marxists might be saying, had they survived the collapse of communism, “It will have to get worse before it gets better”.
Then there is that other island, Cyprus.
Will we be bailing out Howard’s debt peddlers before long?
It has good knowing yah, suicidal suckers!
Abbott and company, aided and abetted by a mercenary press will be trying to save the banks’ mortgage follies by paying off government debt.
It will not work. Ship of “Blind” fools indeed.
Williams ranted that this legislation is Unconstitutional. I casn’t find anything in the Constitution that provides for freedom of the press or free speech. The best I could find was a 1998 decision by the High Court that stated freedom of speech was “implied” in our Constitution
What I don’t understand - and perhaps I’m missing something - is if this reform is so harmless then why is it being pushed through parliament so quickly?
I’d be a lot less concerned about the content of this law if the Government had given enough time for politicians, the public and media organisations to investigate the proposal, ask questions, respond etc. What possible reason do they have for sitting on this enquiry for an entire year and then putting it forward as a “take it or leave it” deal with only a week to consider? Just seems fishy to me.