Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

Last week the Reporters Without Borders website reported that Australia had slumped to No. 35 on their press freedom index. I am not sure of the history and credibility of the index, and Australia’s ranking seems to have swung wildly from 12th in 2002 to 50th in 2003 and to 35th now. The index seems to be based on perceptions—which can, of course, vary from year to year—but even the greatest critic of the Howard coalition government would not believe that freedom varies that much over a short period.

The only information I can find about the organisation, apart from that on its own website, is from Wikipedia. It is unclear when the organisation began, but it has been publishing its worldwide press freedom index since 2002. The index is based on responses to a questionnaire sent to people with a working knowledge of the press freedom situation in one or more of the countries—for example, journalists or foreign correspondents.

Nevertheless, this index does lead into a nagging concern in Australia about less openness and more oppression. On 15 March 2007 the Australian reported a speech by Warren Beeby, chairman of the Australia section of the Commonwealth Press Union and group editorial manager of News Ltd. The Australian reported the AFP trying to subpoena a reporter’s notes on the sources of a leak on the McManus and Harvey contempt case for refusing to divulge their sources, on ‘alarmingly regular incursions into newsrooms to unearth journalists’ sources’ and on restrictions on media access to court documents. Mr Beeby said there is:

... an attempt to deter journalists from breaking news out of Canberra, but also as a bid to intimidate public servants ...

He went on to say:

... at the same time, federal and state governments employ spin doctors in their hundreds to ensure only approved versions of stories see the light of day, and to keep reporters off the scent of adverse or controversial stories.

The Australian and News Ltd have been at the forefront of campaigns to get behind government secrecy, so it is no surprise they are aggrieved. There is government legislation designed to keep probing eyes from the processes of government, meaning difficult times will continue for the fourth estate.

As well as governments being focused on management and control, there is a problem with proprietors being focused more on business than freedoms. Even when they could be, proprietors and editors are not always on the case. Some might argue that the recent revelations concerning politicians and lobbyists are proof of a robust investigative press. Well, exposure of Mr Burke came via the WA CCC, not the editors and journalist groupies who have long cosily lunched and coffeed with Mr Burke and the rest. Federally, many revelations are not the result of digging by journalists but come from hints dropped by disgruntled party members or from factional infighting. Still, those failings are as nothing to the virtues of a free press.

Australia does not have a constitutionally entrenched right to freedom of the press. I know that there are the High Court cases recognising a right to political communication, which is often referred to as protecting the rights of a free press, but it can hardly be compared to the express article in the United States constitution. We do not have a legislated charter of rights either. In Australia press freedom is a convention of our democracy, not a constitutionally or legislatively entrenched right. Press freedom can be and is undermined by legislation.

Even in that environment, courageous and determined proprietors and editors can make a difference. The best guarantee for a strong independent media is for there to be a genuine diversity of significant voices, employing journalists able and willing to investigate and report on all aspects of government, the judiciary, politics and society without being part of the spin machine. Reducing news and investigative resources and substituting a pack approach to news and current affairs will not really advance democracy much. On that front, the obsession with scalps and scandal, with political titillation, has been full-frontal recently, with little serious consideration of how you can actually permanently lift political standards and political governance.

The passage of the new media framework in October last year has seen the beginning of a major reduction in Australian media diversity. The minister for communications says that diversity is retained because of the internet. She knows that that is not true. She knows that research shows the majority of people obtain their news and current affairs from traditional sources or from internet websites attached to traditional sources.

Convergence is the name of the game and the large media companies are ensuring that their message is transmitted loud and clear across a diversity of platforms—TV, pay TV, internet, newspapers—but that does not make for a diversity of messages. The pipes may be different but the message down the pipes stays the same.

In Australia there is reduced coverage of matters of importance because of legislation that curtails the ability of journalists to do their jobs. I am not saying that many do not try. I realise how hard it is for journalist employees with a mortgage and kids to stand up to their employers or to stand up against government sanctioned impediments, especially when there is a possibility that they could end up in jail or that people giving them information could end up in jail.

How much fearless reporting do we actually get? How many journalists are allowed by media entities to invest time and money to probe deeply into complex questions and find out exactly what is behind the spin? The Australian Press Council lists a number of reasons for the reduction in press freedom in Australia today, which may explain Australia’s position on the Press Freedom Index. The council mentions the 2005 antiterrorism laws which curtail free reporting on ASIO activities. The broad nature of these laws means that journalists are unable to investigate the activities of ASIO or query them in the public arena. Security reasons are given for this, but the effect is that the powers of seizure and interrogation under the antiterrorism legislation are designed to make anyone think twice before they question the role of ASIO in any matters. This type of legislation has a deterrent effect on investigative reporting. Any journalist who wants to make their mortgage repayments is hardly likely to do an investigative story which might jeopardise their family. It is much easier to regurgitate a press release from a government department while sitting at your desk—desktop reporting.

Another piece of legislation which acts to gag journalists is the FOI Act’s conclusive certificates and the way in which the freedom of information principle has been perverted by ministers and bureaucrats to allow obstructive behaviour. These certificates stop journalists from getting to the bottom of bureaucratic decision making. The High Court is no help. Its conservative decision in the McKinnon case last year has ensured that where a conclusive certificate has been issued there is no way for the court to investigate matters which may lie behind the issuing of the certificate.

The government likes the limitations inherent in this interpretation of freedom of information legislation. Even though the Australian Law Reform Commission and the Commonwealth Ombudsman have pointed out the major problems with the FOI Act, the government shows no inclination to amend it. I have previously introduced the Freedom of Information (Open Government) Bill, which includes the ALRC recommendations. But, due to lack of support, this has not proceeded. The Archives Amendment Bill is scheduled for debate, and I will be moving FOI amendments to that bill in an attempt to make departments more open and accountable for their decisions and so that journalists can investigate matters.

The government pays lip-service to whistleblowers and has tightened Public Service regulations and diminished protection for whistleblowers so that leaks to journalists run the risk of contempt of court charges, as were laid against Mr McManus and Mr Harvey. Public Service regulations are so stringent that anybody would think twice before blowing the whistle on maladministration or corruption, in the public interest, because of fear of the consequences, even a jail term. If the revelations that came out of the CCC in WA had been matters involving the federal Public Service and a public servant had reported them to the media, they would not have been treated as a hero but as someone to be investigated and prosecuted.

There are increasing restrictions on journalists’ access to a variety of people in the public arena. There was public outrage recently when access to some cricketing personalities was barred because of exclusivity deals. I am sure cricket is important, but there was only muted outcry by comparison when, for substantially different reasons, access to asylum seekers in detention centres was also restricted.

The government is corralling areas so that they are outside scrutiny by the fourth estate. They are controlling the information flow between their offices, their departments and journalists. The reduction in the number of journalists at major news outlets, not to mention budget cuts at public service broadcasters compared with the increase in spin doctors, ensures that the questioning of government action is not all it should be.

Because Australia has no constitutionally or legislatively entrenched protection of press freedom, if no-one is willing to battle the slow and subtle reduction of it, Australia risks falling further down any press freedom index. When Australia loses the top spot in cricket there is an outcry. Isn’t maintaining our position in the top 10 of the press freedom index at least as important as maintaining our sporting status?