Pim Opinion

For all that the press sometimes may be found lacking, or in error, a free and responsible press is the most precious attribute any nation may possess. Governments, unless they are more enlightened than most, are not notable for their defence of that valuable truth, despite the fact that in many cases their own credibility before the public which supports them is as much defended by a free press as it is by their own efforts.

A free press must be truly free. It must be independent. It cannot court the powerful, and it must not pillory them, purely for the pleasure of it. To a free and responsible press, truth, objectivity and honesty are sacrosanct, and thus is a democratic society made stronger. And while adherence to these rules may make the press unpopular with those who consider their hides and their dignity of more than common value, it is important that the press be given proper access to facts and events of genuine public interest.

The Pacific is far from over-burdened by free and independent newspapers or radio networks. In the whole of the island region, north and south, only a handful of countries could be said to enjoy truly free newspapers. Even fewer have radio networks untram melled by government interference. At the same time the local press, and those few international journals which do follow Pacific affairs, tend to avoid sensationalism and be careful and knowledgeable in their coverage. There are a few transgressors, but they are well-enough known.

We therefore find it quite extraordinary that the South Pacific Conference should decide, as they did last month, to exclude the press from some of its deliberations in Noumea. If the subject for discussion had been a matter of high security upon which the fate of nations, or lives, depended, secrecy could be understood and accepted.

But the question denied to the rude gaze of the press was an application by the the secretary-general of the SPC, Mr Francis Bugotu, for another full three-year term in office, which, apparently, is not exactly permitted by the rules.

At best, chucking out the press, and some other observers, was pompous, and quite unnecessary. At worst it was an attempt by a bunch of bureaucrats and politicians to hide their activities from the public whose interests they are supposed to serve, and whose money not only took them to Noumea, but made sure they were comfortable, and well fed and watered, while they were there.

There already had been a closed committee session on the matter at which, one would suppose, all the gritty little bits of debate had been shaken out. Why, then, the further secrecy?

We gather that the gag was applied because the discussion might “cause embarrassment.” But is it proper to hide a matter of public interest simply because some officials might be shy, or feel less than confident about public examination of their activities?

To impose secrecy on a national meeting is one thing, but this was an international conference, and so far as we are aware there was not the slightest need or justification for excluding the press from it. The public of the Pacific are, in a sense, shareholders in the South Pacific Commission, and should be treated as such. The conference has always been open. That is the Pacific way, and it should be maintained.

We find it further surprising that Mr Jonati Mavoa, of Fiji, who has every reason to understand the workings of a free and responsible press, for Fiji does possess that, was one of the leaders of the move to shut the meeting. And, even more remarkable, the British High Commissioner to Fiji, Mr Barltrop, supported him.

The modern world groans under the dead-weight of politicians and official’s so filled with their own self-importance that they feel they can with impunity deny public over-sight of their actions. The proliferation of international organisations has tended to increase that problem rather than diminish it.

One of the offenders has been SPEC which, for reasons quite unexplained, refuses to make public the papers presented to its annual conference by member governments, despite the fact that, frequently, the relevant governments would quite like a bit of publicity.

There is an extraordinary, and disquieting, view in the hierarchy of SPEC that its documents are of such enormous value and sensitivity that not only should they be locked away from the eyes of the press and ordinary people like taxpayers and others who ought to be benefiting from the activities of the Bureau, but also that the press should not be briefed on them.

It is a most distasteful ban which does nothing for the reputation of SPEC, or for the spread of knowledge and progress in the region. We believe that in most cases SPEC and their ministrations would be a great deal improved by a cleansing draft of public accountability.