The proposed media policy, although the government said its to help improve media reporting in the country, contains some provisions that have raised concerns from the Papua New Guinea (PNG) Media Council, the mainstream media and think tank organizations such as the PNG Institute of National Affairs (PNG INA).
The Executive Director of PNG INA Mr. Paul Barker said that there are some parts of it that are relatively harmless, but he certainly believes that there are issues that are related to media control, which is problematic.
Mr. Barker pointed out that one topic mentioned in the policy that he is questioning is defamation, which he said does not need to be further extended than it is already as a law.
He said that it’s difficult to see the justification for it because there are various pieces of legislations in the country that are related to defamation to cyber security laws; therefore, he is questioning why a need for further legislations in the policy that could put constraints on the media, when it is obvious that the media is there for a reason.
“The media is there for a purpose and it’s there to keep people informed, it plays that important function. People call it sometimes the fourth arm of the state in that it’s there performing the function of keeping the state accountable by raising awareness and empowering citizens to be aware and then ensure that the state performs in accountable manner, using the taxpayer’s money,” said Mr. Barker.
Barker stressed that it’s hard to see why additional legislation is required in excess of the defamation and cyber security legislation when these laws are already strong in the country.
“If the media defames individuals and the strengthen, there are powers and capacity within the courts to address it and those powers are pretty strong, and it’s a little hard to see why there needs to be additional laws under a media legislation.”
He understood that this is the government’s way to reinforce the media accountability mechanism and strengthen the media to perform its role, but he pointed out that the media council is already there, which pretty much does that role.
“The media council exists, it’s a voluntary mechanism for effectively setting standards and self- policing and it would be helpful for it to be a bit better resourced to be able to perform that function.”
“But, to actually give it the powers under the legislation and to impose burdens on it as well, does seem to shift it from being a media voluntary body to becoming a state regulatory authority and that seems to be an excessive responsibility for the media council,” said Mr. Barker.
Mr. Barker concluded by saying that there are provisions in the policy that could be useful to the media, but certainly the restrictive and controlling ones are what the media fraternity must be very cautious of.