Shackling The Media

Papua New Guinea

Argument rages over proposed media controls.

By Frank Senge

LATE LAST year, the PNG Com munications Minister, Mr Gabriel Ramoi, dropped a bombshell on parliament. Frustrated by what he called the slow filtering of Government policies to the rural areas and what he said was a very severe foreign domination of major business houses in the country, Mr Ramoi told the house that his Government pro posed to introduce a bill to control and regulate the mass media TV, radio and the press in the country.

It being no coup or political scandal, the announcement created few ripples over seas. And the vast majority of PNG’s 3.5 million people, many of whom are illit erate and living in rural areas, are uncon cerned, some even unaware of the Government’s proposal.

But those close to the issue are locked in a raging debate, with both sides now claiming that the proposed bill vitally affects the welfare of this silent and un concerned majority.

Opponents of the bill, mainly the press and the opposition, claim Mr Ramoi’s bill will, if enacted, damage democracy. Pro ponents, Mr Ramoi himself, most of the Government and the Catholic church, say the bill is directed only at curbing the en trenched foreign domination of business enterprises in the country, especially the new media.

When he announced the move in Par liament, Mr Ramoi was reading from the notes of Australian legal consultant Mr Stuart Littlemore, whom the Government had hired for two weeks.

Mr Ramoi told the stunned house that the bill was to unify regulation of all mass media forms in the country under a single quasi-judicial body to be called the Mass Media Tribunal.

This tribunal, to be composed of me dia representatives and headed by a politi cal appointee, would set uniform codes of fairness and standards of conduct for all media organisations in the country.

The crucial elements of the bill are these: ■ The Government would empower the tribunal to license all media organisa tions. This licence would be renewed every so often after a public inquiry proved each organisation had carried out all the con ditions of its licence. ■ The Government would require all foreign control in media firms to be 50 per cent nationalised within 10 years. No one individual or firm whether foreign or national could own more than 17 per cent of the media.

The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of PNG and the Solomon Islands threw its weight behind this proposal, CBC execu tive secretary Dennis Rochford saying that foreign control of such a powerful devel opment tool as the media denied the people’s right to self determination guar anteed under the constitution. ■ The aspect of the bill seen as most disturbing by the media is that the tri bunal would have the power to direct a li censee to publish matters that it (the tribunal) or the Minister for Communi cations deemed to be of national impor tance; and that the tribunal could direct a licensee not to publish matters that were prohibited by the censor, the tribunal or the Minister.

The reaction from the newspapers was swift and damning. Mr Don Kennedy, the general manager of the Papua New Guinea Post Courier, PNG’s biggest daily, said the Government scheme was constitutionally prohibited in many countries. “This is the sort of legislation you would expect to find under a dictatorship; not in a democratic country such as PNG,” he said. “Despite Government assurances that freedom of the press would not be interfered with, such a proposal provides a mechanism by which control of the Press can be implemented.”

The general manager ofNiugini Nius, the country’s other daily, said, “I can see no reason why this restriction should be introduced into this country, as it has al ways enjoyed a free press expressed by pri vate enterprise newspapers in competition with one another. This competition has prevented abuse by any single group in un duly and unfairly influencing public opin ion in PNG.”

Opposition stalwart Mr Michael So mare said the proposed bill was “suppres sive” and “dictatorial”. Mr Somare, PNG’s first Prime Minister, said such a bill con travened section 46 of the constitution on

“A Government that legislates to control the media does not want public scrutiny of its decisions”

freedom of expression and was a “trend towards guided democracy”.

One of PNG’s most senior journalists, Oseah Philemon, said, “A government that legislates to control the media is a govern ment that does not want public scrutiny of its decisions. It is a government that does not intend to be accountable for its poli cies and action.”

Churches in the country are taking a cautious approach. The Melanesian Council of Churches issued a statement asking the Government for a more com prehensive national communication pol icy to be drafted after a nationwide inquiry.

The opposition sees the issue as a tool to unseat the Wingti Government with a vote of no confidence in the April sitting of parliament.

Mr Wingti has cautioned Mr Ramoi and minority party leaders about the grav ity of the debate and its implications for the Government. And his warning is being heeded.

The usually vocal Sir Julius Chan, Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the Papua Party, and Finance Minister Gal eva Kwarara have been suspiciously quiet, though Mr Kwarara has secretly opposed the bill.

As a result of the furore, Mr Ramoi has toned down his attack, and is now blam ing the press for “setting the agenda for de bate wrongly”. He is saying that the real issue is divestment of foreign holdings in media firms.

He knows that here he is on safe ground

and, indeed, has won the backing of the Catholic church, the largest church in the country. Mr Ramoi told Pacific Islands Monthly that the Government would help genuine PNG businessmen control the

media by the year 2000.

Mr Ramoi said the Government would support nationalist individuals or firms buying media shares and so contain for eign economic domination. □