'Light touch' media reform could still spark fight

AS the Gillard government finalises its overhaul of media laws, division between ministers and Julia Gillard has led to a watered-down set of proposals that nevertheless still poses a threat to the principle of freedom of speech safeguarded by a free media, and to the future viability of media companies.

There has been no cabinet deliberation on a submission dealing with media reform; nor has there been any discussion as part of the regular strategy sessions within cabinet on substantive proposals.

However, there is general agreement, as one minister says, that the government "won't be going the full monty" on substantial reforms proposed by the Finkelstein inquiry and the Convergence Review.

While the Finkelstein inquiry proposed a statutory-based and government-funded industry super-regulator to be known as the News Media Council, the government is likely to reject this proposal. A senior government source describes the proposal for a media regulator as "all but dead".

But it didn't go without a fight. The unprecedented step of regulating the media with a new body that could set standards and hear complaints, and then force media outlets to publish corrections or issue apologies, and order rights of reply, was strongly backed by Communications Minister Stephen Conroy and Treasurer Wayne Swan.

However, Conroy and Swan, who have accused the publisher of this newspaper, News Limited, of running a political campaign against the government, were overruled by the Prime Minister, who last month told Conroy to revise his package of reforms.

Conroy had wanted the biggest reform to media laws since the 1980s to be an "under the line" submission to cabinet, which would avoid the usual process of circulating a submission for comment within government and allowing other ministers to consider the proposals and receive advice before the cabinet meeting where they would be discussed.

Gillard would have none of it and insisted that the submission be revised and developed within the normal processes, that there be a full cabinet debate on the proposals and that Conroy should work to secure a strong cabinet endorsement.

Even though the Labor backbench wants a strong package of reforms, as an election edges ever closer and the government's standing has improved in the polls, senior government figures doubt if this is the right time to pick a fight with the media over reforms that will inevitably be controversial.

A detailed cabinet submission proposing landmark reforms to the media that are bound to garner controversy is, ironically, likely

to be leaked to the media before

it is fully circulated, let alone before it lands on the cabinet table for debate.

That is why ministers want to secure broad agreement before cabinet meets to discuss the proposals, which is likely before the end of the year but could be within weeks.

The government is settling on five reform areas: enhancing the role of the Australian Press Council by requiring media outlets to abide by its standards in return for gaining protection from, for example, shield laws; adding pay television -- effectively Foxtel -- to media ownership laws that restrict companies to owning only two of three key platforms: print, radio and television; adopting a "public interest test" for mergers and takeovers that will consider market competition alongside influence and diversity to be determined by the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission; maintaining licence fee rebates for commercial TV in return for boosting locally created content; and new privacy laws aimed at protecting individuals from media intrusion.

While this reform package falls short of some of the more ideologically driven and flawed recommendations of the Finkelstein inquiry, such as the News Media Council, it will not be problem-free for the government.

Clearly, some ministers, with substantial backbench support, want to go in much harder to regulate the media.

That is also the position of the Greens. They won't be happy with the proposals.

But even under what one minister calls a "light touch" approach to regulation, there are elements that could have a profound impact on the freedom of media organisations to report news and also the future commercial viability of those companies. A fight with media companies is still likely.

At a time when some companies that own a combination of TV, radio or newspapers are genuinely struggling to survive amid rapidly changing consumer preferences, a dramatic decline in traditional advertising and unprecedented competition for reporting news and analysis, particularly online, any form of regulation over content and any attempt to restrict the ability of media companies to expand their businesses could diminish the value of those assets.

Further, by definition, regulating the media is an attempt to limit the freedom of speech safeguarded by a free media, which is a cornerstone of an informed and active citizenry and is one of the public's few protections against the abuse of power, secrecy and illegality in government, business and community organisations.

That is why one of the most dangerous aspects of what is being proposed concerns the strengthening of privacy laws.

Encouraged by the phone hacking scandal in Britain, which was not replicated here in any way, and some recent local examples such as media coverage of the death of teenager Molly Lord, the government wants to limit what a media organisation can report to the public when it concerns matters of a private nature. Senior government sources know there is difficulty here in balancing what is a private matter with a matter of genuine public interest.

The forthcoming cabinet debate will be fascinating because the internal and external dynamics affecting the government are vastly different than they were a year ago when these new media laws were first contemplated.

The larger issue, however, is that shackling media companies with regulation will inevitably restrain freedom of speech and reduce the commercial value of those companies, and therefore, their ability to continue to provide rigorous scrutiny of government that ensures those in positions of power are accountable to citizens.