General Press Release No. 252 (October 2002)

Annual Report No 26

The Australian Press Council's twenty-sixth annual report, released today, draws attention to some of the contemporary restrictions on the ability of the Australian press freely to report matters of public interest and concern and notes, in particular, that Freedom of Information (FoI) legislation does not overcome many of these restrictions.

In his Foreword, the Council's Chairman, Professor Ken McKinnon notes,

FoI laws are too easily circumvented. In the new era, some officials - whether justifiably or not - seem to fear their career prospects may be damaged if they are too free with information. Delays and rejection of appropriate requests that are not letter perfect are common. ... In summary, Australian FoI laws, by and large, are not currently working as intended. The Council is embarking on a project to encourage governments to make them more effective, legally and administratively.

Over the year, the Council looked at many issues related to FoI laws nationally and in the States. It noted a Queensland Parliamentary Committee report very critical of that State's FoI administration, particularly the over-reliance on the declaration of material as being 'Cabinet papers'. There were also critical reports from the Ombudsman in NSW and in Victoria and from Western Australia's Information Commissioner. Among the criticisms noted were the time delays, the costs and the inadequacy of the material finally provided. There was too great an incidence of papers being called 'commercial in confidence' or 'Cabinet papers' as a way of keeping them from being released under FoI. In respect of the costs, some applicants were charged for 'thinking time': presumably the time it took an administrator to consider what documents to discover. The Council decided that it needed some more detailed research in this area and sought a tertiary researcher whose report the Council was considering as the annual report went to press.

The Council's other major action in addressing restrictions on press freedom was in November 2001 when it issued a strong statement condemning government restrictions on press access to asylum seekers whether in territorial waters, on islands or in detention centres. The Chairman, together with Michael Stutchbury, the editor of The Australian, held a media conference to speak to the statement.

In addition to looking at, and taking action on, restrictions on a free press, the Council encourages a responsible press by dealing with complaints from the public about newspapers and magazines and the annual report demonstrates that few complaints received by the Council are now dealt with by means of a Council adjudication. Many more complainants have their matters mediated successfully by the Council or are satisfied by actions taken by the publication. Additionally, many complainants have taken advantage of the new alternate dispute resolution mechanism, mediation conducted by a Public Member of the Council who lives in the local area where the complainant and publication are.

In 2001-2002, the Council received 390 written complaints. (Many other complainants did not proceed to a formal complaint after telephone or email contact with the Council led to a amicable settlement of their concerns.) Only 70 of these were followed through to the final stage of the complaints procedure: the issuing of an adjudication by the Council. 88 were successfully mediated and a further 96 were withdrawn by the complainant after receipt of the publication's formal response to the complaint. (Other complaints were refused by the Council as being outside its remit; referred to other bodies; or not followed through by the complainant.)

The major areas of complaint continue to be inaccuracy (30 per cent) and imbalance - particularly the non-publication of letters to the editor - which accounts for 23 per cent of complaints. An area of complaint that continued to attract concern was the publication of confronting color pictures of scenes of tragedy or violence on front pages of newspapers. 13 per cent of complaints were about allegedly offensive material. Complaints about invasion of privacy by the media were, again, a minor component of the complaints received (around 5 per cent).

In his Foreword, Professor McKinnon discusses the extent to which the Australian press is a responsible press, arguing:

By the standards of British tabloids or some American newspapers it certainly is. Judged by the expectations of readers in 2002 the answer might be that more can be done.

After noting that the Council was seeking an improvement in press responsibility and was initiating a series of discussions with editors, Australia-wide, aimed at benchmarking publications' standards for dealing with complaints and seeking to ensure the suitability of its own procedures, Professor McKinnon added:

Another on-going conversation has been the degree to which newspapers fudge, innocently or deliberately, the fine line between news and comment. All sorts of reasons are advanced for the formerly clear separation becoming more blurred, ranging from the greater incidence of by-lines, to the necessity to compete with the style of television news. It is clear that strict recital of the facts may not always be enough. Even news items have to have context to be intelligible for readers. Keeping opinion to op-ed pages is difficult, but in the Council's view is a useful way to foster dialogue on matters of this kind as part of its pursuit of the delicate on-going responsibility of the Council to ensure higher print media standards.

In its free speech role, in addition to the matters noted above, the Council made submissions to relevant bodies relating to a wide range of issues that affected the media. These included proposed espionage offences legislation that would have extended 'official secrets' laws, a 'dangerously nebulous' South Australian 'payola' proposal, and a new surveillance law in NSW. It continued to seek the introduction of uniform national defamation laws and was encouraged by the NSW government which has outlined a series of changes in line with the Council's proposals and taken the matter to the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General for national action. The report details the Council's activities in defending press freedom.

The report also notes steps taken by the Council to publicise its availability as a point for complaints about the press from the public. These included a series of case studies seminars with journalism students at a dozen Australian universities. Additionally, the Council's Internet site was maintained and updated.

Also included in the annual report are detailed statistics on the formal complaints received by the Council and circulation figures on all major publishers, provided by the publishers themselves.

Copies of the report are available from the Press Council office and extracts from it, including the complaints' statistics, are posted to the Council's website.

see also
2001-2002 report on Free Speech issues
Press Council's 2001-2002 complaints statistics
Complaints Not Adjudicated 2001-2002

[ return to top ]