KEY POINTS:
Debates are usually expected to resolve matters rather than bring on further controversy. But the broadcast of the leaders' debate between Prime Minister John Howard and Federal Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd, in the great hall of Parliament House in Canberra, aroused much controversy. And at the core of
the problem is a worm.
The worm has become integral to Australian political debating. Channel Nine has deployed it over the years to measure the credibility and appeal of leaders. On this occasion, the Nine Network asked the McNair research group to find 100 uncommitted voters whose opinions could be measured electronically during Sunday's debate.
The Liberals were wary from the outset. It's a simple matter of accepted political wisdom that John Howard has lost debates to Labor leaders, including Kim Beazley (twice) and even to Mark Latham three years ago.
The Liberals were not keen on having any instant and continuous assessment for the viewers. And there were plenty of viewers - almost 2.5 million Australians watched the debate. Nine led with 1.44 million on Sixty Minutes, followed by the ABC with 909,000 and Sky News with 126,000.
The debate may not have won the ratings but it certainly registered.
So the Liberals ruled out the possibility of the worm. Kevin Rudd, somewhat mischievously, declared himself a friend of the worm - to no avail.
What happened subsequently was that Nine maintained, according to presenter Ray Martin, that it was not bound by any agreement and deployed the worm during its coverage.
We then had the remarkable spectacle of Nine having its coverage cut, then the ABC also cutting its feed. Nine merely switched to Sky and continued its broadcast. There was much angst afterwards, with Laurie Oakes, the distinguished Nine political editor in Canberra, lambasting the debate organiser, the National Press Club, for failing to show more steel in dealing with Liberal Party pressure.
In all, not a glorious moment for Australian democracy. But the attempted shutting down of the broadcast reflected a trend in Australian political life over recent years which has caused much of the Australian media a good deal of anxiety.
This brings us to John Hartigan, delivering the Andrew Olle Memorial Lecture two weeks ago. The lecture is named after a gifted ABC journalist who died tragically young.
Hartigan is chief executive of News Limited and an influential media executive in his own right, and his remarks reflected broad sentiment in the Australian media.
But News is also part of the campaign named Australia's Right to Know, which groups News and Fairfax, free TV, commercial radio, the ABC, SBS (Special Broadcasting Service) and WA Newspapers in a campaign to liberalise Australia's laws on freedom of speech, which have increasingly come under pressure.
Pressures of all kinds - from governments arguing national security to commercial confidentiality - have seen media access, even under freedom of information laws, circumscribed and restricted.
The penalties are real. Two Melbourne Herald Sun journalists have faced jail for relying on a whistleblower who was absolutely accurate in a story about security breaches at Australia's airports.
So the issues have grown serious and the campaign has traction.
Hartigan was blunt: "The defence of press freedom is not a self-indulgent game. Freedom of the press, exercised responsibly, is the base line for freedom of speech generally in the community.
"In response to the recent lecture on free speech in Sydney by Geoffrey Robertson, Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said, and I quote: 'Australia's freedom of information laws ensured ALL appropriate material is available to the public', end quote. I'll be blunt. He is kidding.
"And his decision to ask the Law Reform Commission to conduct a review on limited terms of reference is a disgrace."
Fighting words indeed, but words which have resonated throughout Australia's media.
So a shutdown of the broadcast over the worm should be seen in context.
Politicians of all kinds like to curb access to sensitive information. However, in Australia of recent times, this has become epidemic in scale.
Rudd won the debate, according to most observers and the worm. It was a lopsided no contest, with 65 per cent of worm members opting for Rudd; 29 per cent for Howard; and 6 per cent undecided.
Federal Labor developed further momentum in the second week of the campaign off the back of the Opposition leader's performance.
The polls continue to reflect a clear lead for the federal ALP of a minimum 10 to 12 points - unchanged in months, with the only shifts appearing to be within the margins of error of the major polling organisations, Newspoll, Nielsen and Galaxy.
Rudd argues that in the future the leaders' debate should be taken out of the hands of the political parties and placed in the control of an independent commission, with journalists represented. This would be similar to the United States' Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), which sets the programme for candidates for the White House.
The commission was founded in 1987 and has hosted presidential and vice-presidential debates every four years since 1988. It also has an educational and research brief.
Anchored by outstanding journalists such as Public Broadcasting's Jim Lehrer, the CPD enjoys broad credibility with US politicians and the public. In the future Australia will probably move from a single debate to a minimum of two or even three. If we follow the United States example, there will be one debate on the economy, one on foreign policy and another on domestic issues.
It will be much healthier than the present situation where the incumbent usually calls the tune. Incumbents have been calling the tune for far too long, at state and federal level, on freedom of information.
Australia's Right to Know campaign has achieved traction because it is pursuing an issue of public concern.
Opening up the prime ministerial debating contest will not solve all the problems, but it will be a huge step in the right direction.
* Stephen Loosley, a former federal president of the Labor Party and Australian senator, chairs business advocacy group Committee for Sydney
