Would a Bill of Rights improve the quality of Australian journalism?

The constitutional elevation of this interesting and dynamic conception of an Australian variant of freedom of speech would add a new and energising element to the pre-existing mix.

That spark can take place without a Bill of Rights but the current intellectual climate makes that less probable. The current arrangements rely too heavily on a parliamentary system where many principles and important values are surrendered to political expediency, too heavily on a judicial approach that lacks democratic legitimacy, too heavily on a media whose primary obligation is to a handful of corporate (public and private) managers and where citizens are occasionally dragged on from stage right for a cameo role.

Nicholas Rothwell in his article "The Road to Nowhere" (The Weekend Australian 14-15 October 2000 at 21) depicted an Australia where the "field of public argument is left uncontested" and "public discussion is so muted". Donald Horne, argued that the term Australian is not one depicting a type of ethnicity but is a civic term – that needs to be explored and debated. (Donald Horne, "Drop Those Divisive Cliches" The Australian, Monday 16 October 2000 at 13).

Terry Lane, in the Sunday Age, in one of the rare defences of free speech, argued that the response to those who object to Dr Toben's Adelaide Institute's web site that disputes the Holocaust, is not to ban or silence him but to test his assertions. A strong civic society should be able to withstand the handful of people "who choose to hold and disseminate improper opinions." (Terry Lane, "A Big Hammer for such a little Nut", The Sunday Age 15 October 2000 at 18).

These reflections and episodes worry me. In the absence of a Bill of Rights that establishes freedom of speech as a right we have been left with a loose amalgam of laws that more often attempt to control speech rather than being primarily concerned with its protection and development as an essential ingredient of our civic society.

Is Australian journalism ready for the next stage of the journey in pursuit of free speech?

Despite all the odds, including: a long period of autocratic and paternalistic colonial government; the debilitating impact of White Australia; concentrated media ownership and control (government and private); deep religious differences and long periods of "strong-man" state rulers (Askin, Wran, Bolte, Kennett, Playford, Gray, Reece, Court and Bjelke-Petersen); and a High Court that has too often settled for excessive legalism and/or a complete deference to the concept of parliamentary supremacy, Australia has emerged with the idea that free speech is one of our core values. Australian journalists have contributed enormously to the shape and dynamics of that freedom. However, in my mind that contribution has appeared to be more incidental rather than a day-to-day focus of their work.

A Bill of Rights is both a symbolic assertion of an already established value – freedom of speech – and, more importantly, it is a means to remind ourselves of our obligations and responsibilities to our civic society.

The withdrawal of ABC production staff and journalists from regions like Tasmania can be justified by cold economic rationale. Yet has the withdrawal of such services and personnel diminished freedom of speech in my home state? Could a national broadcaster (or any other key media player) where a constitutional right to free speech exists be able to justify the removal (without replacement) of a significant contributor to civic conversation in this country such as AM and PM?

Many journalists and organisations view free speech as the opportunity to loosen the shackles of defamation, contempt of court, parliamentary privilege and privacy. A Bill of Rights ought to inspire journalists and organisations to lift their sights above the immediate benefits and find ways of returning a dividend for that freedom.

A Bill of Rights should be seen as building upon and extending what we already have - it should not be seen as an escape from civic responsibility.

Certainly, a Bill of Rights would assist effective journalism by transferring the primary focus away from the protection of reputation (defamation) or judicial sensitivities (contempt) to the promotion and development of democratic interests.