Journalists in Iran have been working amid hostile air strikes for almost a week since the start of the US-Israeli offensive while also facing repression from the Iranian regime.

Internet access in the country remains limited and information is scarce.

As war spreads across the region, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has expressed its solidarity with journalists in the zone and has called on all parties involved in the conflict to guarantee their protection and the right to information.

“As the region goes up in flames, access to reliable information about the war following the attacks carried out by the United States and Israel, is more essential than ever — both regionally and internationally,” said Jonathan Dagher, head of RSF’s Middle East Desk, in a statement.

“Every single stakeholder involved in this war in Iran and the Middle East more widely is required, under international law, to guarantee the safety of reporters and their freedom to carry out their work.”

Although the situation was volatile and characterised by violence, respect for the right to information was still an obligation,” he said.

“The safety of journalists is non-negotiable. War must under no circumstances hinder the work of the press.

‘Release journalists’ call
“US and Israeli strikes against Iran must not endanger the media professionals covering those events. The Iranian regime must immediately release the journalists it is holding and cease all pressures against those covering the war.”

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

New Zealand’s Media Freedom Council has called Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown’s exclusion of some media outlets from his budget speech today “unacceptable”.

In an appearance at Auckland Transport’s Viaduct headquarters, Brown took time out of pitching his plan to sell the city’s holdings in Auckland Airport to complain about road cones, his “not financially literate” councillors and target the “nasty” media.

Brown’s team invited journalists from only a few organisations to the announcement. RNZ was allowed in, but Stuff, TVNZ and Newshub were not.

Stuff reported among those allowed in were “business leaders, former politicians and former rugby league coach Sir Graham Lowe”.

Some reporters threatened to walk out of the event in protest, drawing this response from the mayor: “They weren’t invited, but some of the media have been pretty nasty. We did invite media who are sensible; and the media who are not weren’t invited, and have now decided, some of them, to bugger off — well, that’s all right with me”.

Stuff queried the mayor’s decision, and was told only a “select few journalists… we feel were best able to convey the mayor’s message” were invited.

Media Freedom Council chair Richard Sutherland — also head of news at RNZ — wrote to Brown shortly afterwards, to “express our deep concern about the attempted exclusion of journalists from today’s budget presentation in Auckland”.

In addition to RNZ, the MFC represents Newshub, Newsroom, NZME, Stuff, The Spinoff and TVNZ.

‘Today’s events troubling’
“Today’s events are troubling. The media plays a crucial role in informing the public and holding officials accountable. Denying access to journalists compromises the public’s right to be informed,” Sutherland wrote.

“Furthermore, we are aware that invitations that were issued were selectively targeted to specific journalists. It is imperative to ensure equal opportunities for all bone fide journalists to cover significant public events, irrespective of their perceived affiliations or perspectives.

“To be blunt, it’s unacceptable to cherry-pick journalists based on who you think will give you the easiest ride.”

Sutherland called Brown’s decision an “affront to the democratic process and an insult to voters”.

Brown did not take questions after his speech, saying he did not have time.

He has had a strained relationship with the media since taking the mayoral chains last year. Mediawatch in April described it as “frosty”, at best.

In January, as Auckland suffered its worst floods in living memory, he called journalists “drongos” in messages to friends, upset he had to cancel a tennis engagement to deal with the media. He later apologised.

He refused 106 media requests in his first month of office, granting only two.

‘Sell them all’
The guts of Brown’s speech was to convince his councillors that selling the city’s 18 percent stake in Auckland Airport was the only way to avoid massive cuts to services and rate hikes.

He has his deputy Desley Simpson on side. She told RNZ’s Midday Report she did not want to sell the shares at first, but had listened to advice and had been convinced.

She said the mayor’s second budget proposal was as good as it was going to get, and she hoped other councillors agreed to it.

“In my heart, I didn’t want to sell the airport shareholding. But professional staff advice has said ‘sell them all’. And you know, that’s a hard pill to swallow when in your heart, you want to keep them.

“It’s an emotional wrestle that I think a lot of people are struggling with.”

Simpson said selling shareholding was not just a short-term fix, and would save the council $100 million a year in debt interest.

The council’s debt is currently more than $11 billion.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By Jane Joshua in Port Vila

Vanuatu’s Right To Information (RTI) Act has become law after it was published in the official Gazette, less than three months after it was unanimously endorsed by Parliament.

This law gives effect to the right of freedom of expression under paragraph 5 (1) (G) of the Constitution and applies to information held by a government agency or a relevant private entity on or after July 30, 1980.

But access to information, either by individuals or the media, is not free.

The RTI legislation stipulates that the minister responsible will prescribe a fee referred to as the reproduction fee.

This fee is payable by an applicant upon being given a grant of access to information by a government agency, relevant private entity or private entity.

At this stage, no specific reproduction fee has yet been determined but the RTI law has put a threshold of Vt50,000 (about NZ$615) stating, “Reproduction fees charged by a government agency, relevant private entity or private entity must not exceed Vt50,000”.

The Vanuatu Government has been lauded for advancing the historic bill in parliament but this of course, begs the question, will the specific reproduction fees be affordable to the people or is it going to be a financial barrier, making it harder for citizens of the country to access factual Government information?

Reproduction fee
On the positive side, an applicant is not required to pay a reproduction fee when lodging an application or in relation to the time spent by the RTI in searching for the information requested.

An applicant is also not required to pay a reproduction fee for the reproduction of personal information of the applicant, on behalf of another person involved, third party as guardian, deceased party and next of kin, for the reproduction of information which is on the public interest or if the RTI officer fails to comply with the time for responding to an application.

Prime Minister Charlot Salwai, as minister responsible for media, tabled the RTI bill during the 2016 2nd Extraordinary Session of Parliament.

He quoted the five indicators of effective information disclosure as:

• maximum disclosure,
• accessibility,
• affordability,
• effective implementation, and
• media and governance Relations.

The prime minister noted that information is power but it needed to be true information, and this legislation would stop hearsay.

‘Free flow’
PM Salwai also reiterated that the government made numerous commitments, both nationally and internationally over the years to improve transparency and accountability to include RTI and this “recognises the importance of providing a free flow of information on government programs and services to MPs, citizens, civil society and development partners”.

Under this law, if an application for information is made, a RTI officer must determine whether or not to grant the application within 30 days of receiving the application.

If an application relates to information that appears to be necessary to safeguard the life or liberty of a person, the RTI should make a determination on the application within 48 hours.

In the event where an application for access to information is denied, the applicant must be notified and the reasons for the refusal stated.

A RTI officer may defer access to information requested if: the information is a report that has been prepared for tabling in Parliament, the information constitutes a report that has been prepared for the purpose of reporting to an official or an official body or if the premature release of the record would be contrary to the public interest.

When considering an application for access to information in relation to personal information of a third party or commercial and confidential information of a third party, a RTI officer must take reasonable steps to inform the third party and state that the application for access to information may be for personal or commercial or confidential and state the name of the applicant.

No refusal
Nevertheless, a RTI officer must not refuse to communicate information requested if the information is already publicly available but may refuse to indicate whether or not it holds the information requested if to do so would involve a disclosure of the personal information of a third party.

This is applicable to information that is privileged from production in legal proceedings unless the person entitled to the privilege has waived it.

Information is not exempted from access under this Act merely on the basis of it being classified by the government agency, relevant private entity or private entity as confidential or given any other status to that effect.

Within six months from the commencement of this legislation, the minister responsible is required to specify the government agencies that this Act applies to.