I wish to make it perfectly clear that I’m yet to decide whether or not to support the Government’s proposed media reforms. I’m not ideologically opposed to reform, just displeased with some aspects of the proposals that are currently on the table.
For instance I remain uncomfortable with the Government’s apparently continuing interest in abolishing the Reach Rule which restricts any one commercial television network to no more than 75% of the market. I think this rule is worthwhile because it encourages diversity of media ownership, especially in regional areas.
The suggestion that the Government, and in particular the Minister, would appoint a Public Interest Media Advocate also raises concerns because this appears to put the public interest at risk of political interference, and effectively media censorship.
Frankly the concern the reforms will diminish free speech has some merit. That a government appointed official would oversee the Press Council, and that he or she has resort to withdrawing the privacy protection for journalists, could indeed be said to be threats to free speech.
Privacy is an important dimension of this, because the risk of losing the current privacy protections could influence some journalists to not report on some matters, and some members of the community to not approach journalists in the first place.
My shield law goes some way to offsetting the Government’s current media proposals, at least as far as the privacy dimension of it is concerned. But I would be more inclined to support the proposals if the Government supported my whistleblower protection bill which is before the parliament and which would also help offset any new disincentives to the revelation and reporting of official misconduct.
