Constitution review

threatens media freedom

By Sam Vulum

PAPUA New Guineans’ “democratic and constitutional right” to freedom of expression and publication, and freedom of the media and information has once again been threatened.

The threat is the subject of a submis

sion currently being prepared by a

Constitutional Review Commission (CRC) for presentation to the National Executive Council (NEC) and parliament.

The move was the result of an under taking by the government in 1995, under the CRC, to review the media industry in an attempt to make it more “responsible and accountable” for its actions. The CRC, which is also responsible for other major constitutional reforms, including provincial and local-level government changes, has been directed by cabinet and Governor General Sir Wiwa Korowi to enquire into media accountability and report back to both the NEC and parlia ment.

The government’s proposal attracted

widespread criticism, especially from the local media, churches and non-govern ment organisations. Local media organisa tions, realising the dangers of such pro posals, decided to lead other concerned parties to show their disapproval to the government by sponsoring a one-week media seminar in Port Moresby. Speakers from a wide variety of professions and within PNG, the Pacific and even Australia, including a representative from the CRC, were invited to present papers on various issues concerning different aspects of the media and other related

rights issues.

Concerns raised at the seminar were brought to the attention of the govern ment, resulting in the establishment of a media accountability committee, compris ing some commissioners of the CRC, media representatives and other resource people. The committee compiled a report which is now before the CRC for review.

The report was accepted en masse in June, subject to further review by the commis sion, its consultants and senior secretariat staff. The recommendations of the com mittee are that: • Existing laws on the media are suffi cient and the government should not pro pose, or get parliament to enact, any new

restrictive legislation;

• an independent media commission be established; • the Defamation Act, censorship laws, and all other laws on the media be

reviewed and amended to conform with current trends and practices; and • parliament enact a Freedom of Information Act to allow access to gov ernment decisions, actions and omissions, consistent with Section 15 of the constitu tion which provides for the right to free dom of access to public information.

The committee said it considered free dom of expression and publication, free dom of the media and the right to freedom of information as conerstones of PNG’s democracy which had to be protected and observed at all times, subject only to qual ifications provided for by the constitution or other laws. It had decided that for the media to flourish, the industry must not be further restricted or regulated by state.

Instead, the media must account for its actions and omissions to the public and

itself through self-regulatory mechanisms,

including the journalists’ code of ethics, to be strictly enforced independently by the Media Council or together with other

acceptable bodies.

Commenting on the recommendations, CRC chairman, Ben Michah said the rec ommendations would form the basis of a submission to the NEC and parliament to overhaul PNG’s information and commu nication regime, including the mass media, leading up to the Year 2000 and beyond.

“Information and communications is going to be the industry of the future and the committee’s recommendations will form the basis of the CRC’s submission to cabinet and parliament,” he said.

Micah said the media committee had taken a “middle road” and he and his com missioners would work to strengthen the media. 820 ut the final decision, the chairman stressed, rested with the NEC. The CRC’s deputy chairman, Vincent Auali, said that when the governor-general announced the committee’s terms of reference in October, many people had expressed con cern about the government trying to muz zle the media. But the recommendations were proof that the people wanted to keep a free but responsible media. Micah earli er in the year told reporters: “If you do your work properly, I don’t think the gov ernment has the right to interfere with your work. “We need freedom of expres sion in this country, but this freedom must be taken with responsibility.”

In a lead-up to the formation of the media accountability committee, Micah went on a tour of four Asian countries in February 1996 to learn from their experi

weeks visiting China, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia. On his return, Micah said PNG did not need media control nor an Internal Security Act.

The chairman said he had learnt from those countries that “their number one objective is to allow for open government

although there was a boundary beyond

which ‘unfair criticism’ was not allowed”.

That boundary, he said, was where the good image of the nation stood to be tar nished and related to reporting of matters such as riots or ethnic antagonism that threatened the stability of the country.

Micah said there was lack of investiga tive reporting in PNG, compared with the countries he visited. He said during the visit they covered relevant issues, which related to internal security, political stabil ity and continuity and transparency of government. Micah said these were the things which had enabled those countries to establish strong viable economies.

Prime Minister Sir Julius Chan said publishers, editors and journalist were free to publish anything, buy they must be

responsible for any misreporting.

“They topple governments, swing

votes, and destroy a person,” he said. “I support freedom of the Press, but the pro prietors and journalists must be account able.”

Sir Julius was also critical of foreign media ownership in the country. He emphasised that while the government recognised freedom of the Press, it was time to look at the operations of the PNG media, which he said was dominated by foreign media interests.

He said the government was concerned that as a sovereign nation, PNG and its national issues and events should not be influenced by foreigners through their control of the local media.

The current move is the fourth of any such attempts by successive governments to control the media in PNG. A former communications minister, Gabriel Ramol, whipped up dust when he announced a proposal to control the media in 1987. He told parliament he would seek to license all media organisations and set up a uni form code of fairness and standards of conduct.

It was probably the biggest threat ever to be taken against the media in the coun try and attracted widespread criticism, even from politicians. The media was forced to go overboard with its publicity against the move, highlighting wide-rang ing impacts the proposal would have on the media industry and PNG in general.

Newspaper organisations, especially,

reacted strongly against the proposal.

Among other criticisms, the then-general manager of Post-Courier, Don Kennedy, said it was a scheme unknown - and in

many cases constitutionally prohibited in other democratic countries.

The general manager of another daily, the now defunct Niugini Nius, Russell Wilkes, said; “To my knowledge this type of licensing, as far as newspapers are con cerned, does not exist in other parts of the world.” The move fell through when there was a change of government. However, in 1987, another former communications minister, Brown Sinamoi, proposed to localise the ownership of the national newspapers, the Post Courier and the then Niugini Nius.

This move was also dropped. Then again in 1993, another minister, the late Martin Thompson, announced plans to introduce a communications policy. To avoid attracting any repeated uproar over the policy, the minister invited those con cerned, including media, church and non government representatives to be involved in the drawing up of the policy.

It covered wide-ranging aspects of com munications in general, including the mass media. The policy, which received government approval, now appears invalid under the current moves.

There were other individual cases recorded in recent years. Among others, were the PNG National Censorship Board’s banning of Channel 9’s 60 Minutes programme on EM TV in 1993 and Sir Julius’ prevention of the airing of Roger Hau’ofa Kalang FM’s talk-back show programme in 1995.

However, the most recent case involved the Papua New Guinea govern ment’s refusal to grant Tongan human rights activist Lopeti Senituli a visa to attend a three-day United Nation’s semi nar in Port Moresby in June. Senituli, who is the director of the Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific Movement Secretariat, was invited by the United Nations Decolonisation Committee to present a paper at the non-self-goveming territories meeting in the Pacific (See Page 32). According to Senituli, he was informed in writing on June 3 by the UN Department of Political Affairs that the PNG government had agreed to grant all the seminar participants entry visa on arrival in Port Moresby. However, on June 6, he was informed by the counsellor at the PNG Embassy in Suva, Ponabe Yuwa, that he would not be granted a visa to enter PNG.

He said in a statement: “I cannot deny that the PNG government may have rea sons to be angry with me and my organi sation because we have been critical of their policies and actions.”

However, Mr Senituli said the criti cisms were balanced, unbiased and made with the support of “our partner organisa tions in PNG and certainly do not warrant my banishment from PNG shore”. ■