Tripped up by media mania

LESS than an hour before cabinet met last Tuesday morning to deal exclusively with new environmental approvals for coal-seam gas and coalmining developments, a second item dealing with media reform was added to the agenda.

No prior notice was given to ministers that they would be considering the long-awaited package of media reforms. No cabinet submission was circulated before the meeting. Departmental advice and comments - known as "co-ordinating comments" - was not sought. Instead, a slim bundle of papers were presented to ministers at the cabinet meeting.

While the proposals were endorsed, there was dissent over the appropriateness of the reforms and the manner in which they were being presented.

Cabinet ministers Tanya Plibersek, Peter Garrett and Bob Carr (a former journalist) and cabinet secretary Jason Clare all had flight difficulties and missed the meeting.

In the caucus meeting straight after the cabinet, little information was presented. But with general support, the changes sailed through.

But a bunch of MPs who question the policy merits of the reforms and the political strategy of picking a fight with the media just six months before an election felt that if they voiced any concern it would be seen as an act of leadership destabilisation.

"If you express any opposition in caucus," one backbencher told this column, "you are regarded as a political terrorist who wants to commit regicide. You can't debate anything in the caucus without it being seen as a proxy for a leadership battle."

I wrote on this page in October that Conroy had wanted to go "the full Monty", as one minister described it at the time, on the media reforms. He was eager to adopt the Finkelstein's inquiry's recommendation for a statutory-based, government-funded super-regulator, the so-called News Media Council.

He was strongly backed by Wayne Swan. But they couldn't get it past Julia Gillard. Conroy has long wanted to present it to cabinet as an "under the line" item, avoiding the requirement for a submission to be developed and circulated for departmental comment and ministerial consultation. Gillard initially resisted. But after a number of meetings, she relented and agreed to railroad it through the cabinet.

With the backing of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, Conroy skirted the usual cabinet processes and rammed it through the Labor caucus later that morning.

So-called "under the line" items are usually reserved for matters that are urgent or highly confidential.

The government's cabinet handbook says: "When ministers bring matters before their cabinet colleagues that have not been subject to the full submission process, it increases the risk that the cabinet's decision will result in unforseen and unintended consequences. It weakens the ability of the cabinet to apply scrutiny from a whole-of-government perspective and ultimately undermines the cabinet system itself."

The complaint that the Rudd government was chaotic and dysfunctional is now a description commonly applied to the Gillard government.

Conroy's plan for a government-appointed and funded Public Interest Media Advocate - a single person - to regulate existing industry-based self-regulating bodies such as the Australian Press Council could undermine freedom of speech. APC chairman Julian Disney argued this would see a government body "micro-manage" its role.

The PIMA also would have the power to vet "nationally significant" company mergers and acquisitions by applying a highly subjective "public interest test". It prompted former Australian Competition & Consumer Commission chairman Graeme Samuel to argue that it was unnecessary as competition and technology was increasing media diversity.

The overriding flaw in these proposals is that they fundamentally misunderstand the transformation in the media sector in recent years.

Traditional media platforms - print, radio and television - have been joined by cable, online news providers, bloggers, Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. Never have there been more sources of news and opinion.

A great diversity of outlets compete for an increasingly fractured audience. The decline in advertising revenue has added further pressure.

Many media organisations have not been able to meet these competitive pressures and have stopped publishing or have been forced to downsize or move exclusively online. The future viability of a raft of media companies will be threatened if they are unable to seek partnerships, expand or reshape their businesses.

The proper processes of cabinet government could have teased out these matters.

There was no consultation with media companies before they were announced. Indeed, after the Finkelstein review and Convergence Review sat on Conroy's desk for a year, the government's response was a 1 1/2 page media release. Cabinet ministers, the backbench and the industry didn't see any legislation until Thursday. And there is only one week for parliament to consider the proposals.

Many in the government are again puzzled by the serial poor political judgment. The Labor Party has long tangled with the rigorous scrutiny of the media. The better Labor politicians never sought to control how the media reports the news. They simply approached the media in a strategic way, developed good relations and better targeted their messages.

Even if the reforms do not secure parliamentary approval, it has embroiled the government in a fight with media companies. As a senior government figure said to me last week, "Why pull the media tiger's tail?"

But Conroy wears the fight as a badge of honour. After The Daily Telegraph depicted him on its front page alongside Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin and Fidel Castro, he offered to autograph copies for his colleagues.

MPs battling to survive in marginal seats argue this is a distraction they cannot afford. They want the government to focus on education reforms, disability services and economic management. Instead the government has again created a plethora of problems that is entirely of its own making.