It's not often that the country's various media companies band together in agreement on a single issue.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
It's likely that when they do, the issue must be an important one.
The federal government seems to be in agreement with this premise, as it has indicated this week that it's open to changes that could better protect journalists who expose national secrets.
But when Australian media came together last month in an unprecedented show of unity to demand the government urgently pass reforms that would protect media freedoms, we were asking for much more than lip service to what has long been a problem.
The Right to Know Coalition - made up of the country's main media organisations, including Australian Community Media, the publisher of this newspaper - met with Attorney-General Christian Porter and Communications Minister Paul Fletcher on Wednesday, before the findings of the parliament's intelligence committee's inquiry into press freedom are handed down in a fortnight.
Media chiefs want, among other things, the ability to contest warrants that attempt to uncover journalists' sources, and for an exemption to be created to shield journalists from prosecution under national security laws.
Following the meeting, News Corp executive chairman Michael Miller said both matters had been discussed and the government was "open to some changes".
Australian Community Media owner Antony Catalano said the meeting was "encouraging" and the government was "clearly listening".
But while it is indeed encouraging to see that there is, at least, some dialogue now between government and the media, the issue is unlikely to dissipate in the face of a mere willingness to talk.
As Nine chief executive Hugh Marks said, the campaign was "much bigger than the media" because it was about the right of all Australians to know about decisions made in their name.
It's part of a trend that has been prevalent since the US terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, as has been pointed out by Law Council president Arthur Moses, SC.
Journalists don't want access to information simply for the sake of it; freedom of information requests are far too arduous for that.
Governments have been enacting laws since 2001 that have slowly eroded individual liberties and media freedoms.
"There has been too often a propensity by politicians on both sides to stumble over themselves to legislate in the realm of national security that have been proposed by bureaucrats," he said last month.
"I have no doubt that our politicians have acted in good faith when they have enacted more laws since September 11.
"But there has not been proper scrutiny of these laws and how they infringe on the rights of citizens and the media."
Today, the lasting effect of these laws is evident when journalists are seeking information on even the most fundamental issues of health, safety and government accountability.
From the prevalence of flammable cladding on public buildings and the way the elderly are treated in nursing homes, to the way medical specialists charge their patients, and how MPs use their tax-funded allowances, more and more details remain inexplicably secret.
Journalists don't want access to information simply for the sake of it; freedom of information requests are far too arduous for that.
Most of the time, there is a good reason for seeking information that would otherwise be restricted. Holding governments to account and keeping the public informed about issues that affect them are two of the main functions of the media.
But it's less and less obvious what the reason for restricting such information is.
Privacy? Contempt of court? Legislative requirements? Underlying all of these is a blanket of silence that is eroding the public's right to know.
The government may well be "open" to changes, but the crack of light this affords at this late stage is almost not enough.
