New media laws !

It is the dream of all political parties to have the means of curbing media content - when they are in office.   Of course a free media is an essential ally when they are in opposition, because it allows them scope to present the failings of the government to the people.

The desperate rush to force a muzzle on the media in just fourteen days seems to be an act of sheer desperation.   The time to the next election is ticking away and Communications minister Stephen Conroy probably thinks he has nothing to lose.  When you are on the edge of the cliff - staring into the abyss - you can indulge your fantasy without having to face reality.

The present world is a much divided place when it comes to a free press.   The list of countries which closely shackle the flow of information includes despotic regimes from which citizens flee at the first opportunity, and surprisingly affluent countries run by corrupt regimes which govern with a heavy hand.

The west has prided itself on the right of citizens to read whatever they choose and to say what they think without restrictions.   It would be a sad day if Australia joined the less fortunate countries of the world - and slipped behind the veil of censorship.

This proposal from Senator Conroy involves the appointment of a " Government enforcer " to regulate what matters appear in the press or are presented on television and radio.   One of the key elements is the removal from exemption under the " Privacy act ".    On that basis,  matters such as the alleged corrupt granting of coal mining licenses in New South Wales would not see the light of day, nor would the alleged rorting of union funds case in Victoria.    It would effectively silence the whistle blowers !

Initially, it looked like this proposal would fail on principle.   The government would need the approval of the independents to force it through parliament and that would not be forthcoming.     Now, we are seeing a change of heart as some of those with the vote needed by the government are starting to look for opportunities to push their private agendas.   It looks like developing into the same sort of " argy-bargy " that delivered a Labor government when the electors delivered a hung parliament.

Doing " deals " at this late stage of the election cycle could have interesting consequences.   There is not much chance that the coming election will again deliver a hung parliament and the voting public will hand down their decision on the performance of the individuals who made their choice based on promises that they wrung from desperate party leaders.    This was not seen as an example of high principle.

Politicians should think long and hard before they commit to radical law changes.    Judgement day is fast approaching !