government funding of an organisation which would be set up under statute which would be guaranteed independence? That is the critical issue. Peter Bartlett : Guaranteed independence? How can you guarantee independence if that regulatory body is totally funded by government? It is a fair point but courts are funded by government.  Court fees do not even come close to allow the courts to be self supporting.  The issue is independence.  That involves statutory guarantees and the right personnel.  That is not to say I don't share Bartlett's concerns.  Any heavy handed oversight should be rejected. Who appoints the regulators? The government appoints them. Are we going to see, during a Labor government, people sympathetic to the Labor government appointed to that regulator? During a Liberal National Party government, more conservative people appointed to the regulator? That is not the type of regulation of the media that we want and need. These are quite legitmate issues. Damien Carrick : And you see that as a real...a real danger, with the Finkelstein proposals? Peter Bartlett : It would be far too tempting for a government who is totally opposed to the views expressed by an organ of the media, to keep away from it. Damien Carrick : Peter Bartlett, one of Australia's leading media lawyers. He provides round-the-clock advice to The Age newspaper, and before him, barrister Michael Rivette, who has a great deal of experience in media and privacy law. Now, earlier this year I spent three months in the