| Business |
PNG media on trial
THERE can only be one over-riding
reason for the media to be banned from covering the Moti inquiry.
That belief is confirmed by the Papua New Guinea Constitution.
The judge conducting the Moti inquiry has agreed to a demand by
one of the main witnesses at that hearing, PNG’s Chief Secretary,
to have proceedings continue in camera.
It would appear that no convincing reasons have been advanced to
defend this decision and much has been made of the absence of the
Defence Minister in his electorate.
That is relevant because the law is being interpreted in such a
way that only the Defence Minister has the power to order the
hearing to remain public.
There is much confusion over this sudden barring of the media from
the inquiry, particularly since the presiding judge made his full
support for a public hearing widely known only a week ago.
What has changed the learned judge’s opinion?
Or is this a case of pressure being applied to the proceedings of
the inquiry?
The National has repeatedly indicated strong support for the PNG
judiciary.
We have long believed that our jurists have maintained an
apparently incorruptible course since the country gained
independence.
Our courts have been one of the few unswerving mainstays of our
free and democratic society created at independence.
But now we are faced with the exclusion of one of the nation’s
public watchdogs from a vital inquiry.
The Moti affair is not a simple open and shut matter of
little importance to this country.
It has already been allowed to sabotage our relationship with our
most important and supportive ally, Australia, and
create a previously unthinkable level of tension between the two
nations.
PNG is running the very real risk of being seen as one of those
renegade nations that pick and choose which international
agreements they will honour.
That may be an unfair impression.
We hope and pray that it is, but little has taken place so far
to alter that conclusion, or to show that PNG has an unshakeable
adherence to international law and to the laws of this country.
The PNG media has a perfect right to cover the Moti inquiry unless
– and it is a significant matter – that inquiry is producing
evidence that poses a security threat to the well-being of our
people and our country.
We call for a categoric statement from an appropriate authority to
indicate to us, and through us to the public, that matters of
national or international security are an integral and on-going
part of this inquiry.
If they are not, then as the presiding judge said last week, this
is a public inquiry, and the public is entitled to be informed of
the proceedings, and in due course, the outcome.
This inquiry has brought an ongoing and growing unease among PNG
journalists and
editors to the boil.
There has been an unusual level of attack mounted against the PNG
media during the past six months, and too many of those attacks
have been on the basis of very shifting sands indeed.
There has been a degree of arrogance underlying those attacks, and
a determined attempt to cast doubt on the media’s accuracy and
impartiality.
PNG politicians still have to recognise one clear fact – this
country’s media is not some cosy association of public relations
spin doctors who can on demand be guaranteed to put the best face
on anything and everything.
The PNG media is a fact of national life, a fact provided for by
the Constitution, and a fact recognised as an integral part of
democracies and free societies around the world.
By definition then, we will frequently publish fact and opinions
that may meet with Government – or opposition – disapproval.
The PNG media is not infallible.
We make no claims to be so. We make mistakes, just as our leaders
make mistakes.
Perhaps one obvious difference lies in the media’s willingness to
acknowledge those blunders with published apologies.
Our leaders are less inclined to take that course of action.
The Moti affair has muddied the good name of many of our leaders
and senior government and public service figures.
The nation deserves an explanation.
This public inquiry must live up to its name.
 
|
