The boast about government in Australia is that it is one of the significant democracies and consequently freedom of information to enable freedom of discussion and association are the fundamentals believed necessary and of the greatest importance to protect and maintain individual liberty especially freedom of conscience.
However in practice there are many breeches of these ideals in Australia and other democracies because disclosure of controversial information for example in the case of military or political intelligence may disrupt the environment where the military for example are engaged in daily conflict (as say in the case of Afghanistan) and compromise the reputation and safety of soldiers or others in the field such as police or other investigators. Disclosure in controversial circumstances can lead to public disorder (as in the case for example of race riots) threatening public safety when disclosure of sensitive information has not been provided through planned news feeds making possible disclosure of a controversy without community peace and order being disrupted. Controversies of this nature need to be introduced in the public domain only after careful planning so the effects are not disruptive and counterproductive.
Consequently the media-press, television and film-are expected to be empowered to report events and when controversies occur ensure fair reporting to the community about issues raised in the political arena to make possible the disclosure of the facts and the discussion needed to find solution to current and past controversies. However the realities are that if the issues are too sensitive because of their dramatic nature, or their disclosure may unfairly highlight individuals or groups responsible-the media my be too wary of introducing the circumstances for public dialogue using evidence that might be suggestive of poor leadership or even wrong doing because making the circumstances available may prejudice the outcome of judicial, jury or widespread public opinion and not therefore determine fairly the circumstances and any penalty which should apply by an appropriate fair process.
Public controversies are generally the responsibility of parliament to disclose and resolve. However the introduction of material for the public domain can suffer from significant lead times because the uniqueness of the issues and circumstances can mean conflicting interests within the party system responsible for day to day events in parliament. Party policy may have to be abandoned or severely criticised because new evidence places great pressure on members of parliament and consequently many members of parliament and the executive may be unwilling to be confrontational in public even at question time or when reviews of policy are undertaken in the upper house (the Senate in the case of the Australian federal parliament). Problems of this nature often spill over from parliament into the media which stands back from such circumstances because to act prematurely would endanger their standing in the community if later found to be premature or could lead to a break down in trust with parliamentary leaders (often Ministers) whose news feeds and relations make possible for clients access to the leaders to resolve individual issues of media clients such as industry organisations, companies of all sorts or prominent citizens. Circumstances of this nature occur frequently when a party conference has resolved new policy for the executive but the executive believing its judgement of the political situation means the policy should be modified, or not undertaken does not implement what has been decided.
Also interviewers and journalists responsible for reporting and discussing current events due to these restrictions therefore often have the inside running of public affairs before the problems concerned can be fixed. This gives the media the ability to be choosy as to who is given prominence as a leader or spokesperson. This ability to be selective can work positively with a Minister or other spokesperson to ensure a balanced account of what has to be revealed and the solution required to fix the problem concerned. However it can mean that interviews and other disclosures proceed on a mate’s only selective basis so a story can go to air but without all the sensitivities intrinsic to the problem being given much prominence in an attempt to lead the discussion successively so as not to overwhelm an individual spokesperson. It could also be that that some interviews because of problems of these nature-have questions agreed to before the spokesperson appears on the media concerned. This effort to work cooperatively can mean that the public interest suffers unless there are significant spills in parliament due to a controversy or staff roles in a media organisation are under fire and these are reallocated or indeed individuals dispensed with because the circumstances was insufficiently at arms length to be fair and mature.
These problems are not unique to Australia. They can be found in most contexts of government and media throughout the world. It is disappointing that the relationship between parliament and the media can be so imperfect that the ideals of freedom of discussion and personal interpretation and freedom of association can suffer significantly when the flaws which have been discussed here mean correction is too slow so that the lead time for making changes to the public agenda in parliament suffers greatly or indeed means change is not possible unless rebels in the parliament and media can find common ground and correct the circumstances.
