General Press Release No. 271 (May 2006)

Press freedom in Australia in 2006

The Chairman of the Australian Press Council, Professor Ken McKinnon, will convene a Media Conference in Townsville on 3 May 2006, World Press Freedom Day, in the Savoy Room of the Southbank Hotel, Palmer Street, South Townsville, at 10 am. The Press Council is visiting Townsville this week for its regular meetings and Professor McKinnon will mark the occasion by offering some remarks on the current state of press freedom in Australia, in particular how well the state of Queensland is meeting its obligations in making available information on matters of public interest and concern. Following is the text of Professor McKinnon's remarks. During the media conference, he will also be available for comment on other issues including the current proposals for changes in cross media ownership rules; the review of the sedition laws in the anti-terrorism legislation; and the media's coverage of the recent storms in northern Australia.

On World Press Freedom Day, 2006, the report card on press freedom in Australia must be characterised as chilling. It is not an iron curtain over access to information, but for some forms of information of public interest it might as well be. Public discourse is increasingly hindered by restricted information, cover-ups, deliberate misleading spin and suppression. It is not just the effects of recent draconian security laws. More serious is the cynical, even ruthless inhibition of the previous reporting of normal government and other public activity.

During Prime Minister Howard's regime, the Commonwealth has centralised power to an unprecedented degree and used the buzzword 'security' to erect a seamless protective wall around information flows. Every instance of uncensored flows of information and leaks has been chased down and 'the chocks put in'. It is as evident in Queensland as elsewhere.

The Freedom of Information case, challenging the Commonwealth Treasurer's prevention of public access to documents about such mundane issues as the grants made under the home owner scheme and about tax bracket creep, is going to the High Court next week with the support of a Press Council amicus curiae brief. Let's hope that that case is influenced by the very recent decision of the NSW Court of Appeal that imposed tough new tests before there can be refusal to release documents. Here in Queensland Premier Beattie a few months ago boasted about Freedom of Information releases being 82 per cent of requests; no reference to the fact that the 18 per cent not released were undoubtedly public interest documents. Queensland is notorious for wheeling potentially embarrassing documents through Cabinet to give them 'Cabinet-in-Confidence' status, protecting them from public access through FOI requests.

The latest and most obvious 'closing down' instance, of course, has been the revival by the Commonwealth of sedition laws, obsolete for over fifty years. Already theatre people and academics report that they have served, as no doubt intended, to deter free speech on the stage, in literature and in universities. And security laws that prevent us from knowing about even an arrest, much less the evidence that is relevant, helps create the atmosphere that compromises free speech.

Sadly our courts also exemplify the same trends. The traditional principle of open courts and freedom to report court proceedings is being seriously eroded by a significant increase in suppression orders. There has even been an instance of an order suppressing the fact that there has been a suppression order. The Council has taken up this issue with the Council of Chief Justices, to no avail. The broader culture of suppression is coming to the fore even in thee courts.

Queensland Premier Peter Beattie, in the A N Smith Lecture at Melbourne University in December 2005, challenged the media by expressing serious dissatisfaction with its standards and regulation, calling for a press ombudsman in every newspaper. You have to wonder about his motives considering the fact that he personally has unfettered access to the media, several times a day if desired. He has a 'bully pulpit' to comment about anything that interests him, to rebut criticism in any media, or to attack anything and anyone he finds offensive. Maybe, like the late Indonesian President Sukarno who wanted 'guided democracy', Mr Beattie wants 'controlled press freedom'.

His claim of unfair reporting by newspapers does not have credence because he has never tested the fairness of his complaints against any newspaper articles through complaints to the Press Council, let alone the three Courier-Mail stories he instanced. He can't expect to judge his own claims and be taken seriously. He seems not to know that the Council's brief is to maintain a free and responsible press.

You might think his claims of the slanting of articles, instancing the use of words like 'claimed, divulged, reported, or stated', resonate. Undoubtedly, colourful words, often some that carry baggage, are used in particular articles. Cutting out descriptors would also presumably apply to positive words like 'clever, thoughtful, intelligent, strategic and farsighted'. An impartial observer, probably even Mr Beattie himself, would have to admit that he has very much been a net beneficiary of the way newspapers report.

Newspapers that do not have local competitors, such as the Courier Mail, do have a special responsibility for ensuring balanced, responsible reporting, and diversity of opinion. I agree that even though in recent times there are more examples of published corrections, the reluctance of editors Australia-wide to take the initiative, that is, to express regret, apologise, or correct inaccuracies does need more attention.

The Press Council acts on complaints received. After a complaint has been received it takes time to ensure natural justice, that is, for the complaint to be received, referred to the newspaper, and its reply to be reviewed and answered by the complainant, iteratively until the stances of both parties are clear and an adjudication hearing concluded. So it is also fair comment that a speeding-up of that process, a more stream-lined process, is desirable.

All that said, Mr Beattie's own report would certainly be the assessment 'can do better'. He is as much responsible for information access problems as anyone else. His FOI record is woeful. He should do better. Where once Queensland reporters could tune in to police radio enabling them to report crime, breaches of security and accidents on the spot, the changeover to digital radio has resulted in police being selective with what newspapers are allowed to know (and tell the public about). Police do not like sensitive issues being aired in the papers. He should do better there, too. Another instance is the law preventing access to and reporting of prisoner information.

It is a never-ending struggle for reporters to 'get-the-story' at the best of times, in all democracies. News is after all often defined as what someone does not want the public to know. Fortunately Australia has some of the most tenacious and resourceful journalists in the world. Even through the blizzard of 'spin' they often get to the bottom of things. To the chagrin of would-be 'controllers' of news. North Queensland newspapers during Cyclone Larry, particularly the Innisfail Advocate, certainly exemplified that energy. Not even losing the newsroom roof, flooded roads and loss of electricity and other physical impediments prevented them from getting the next day's edition out.

On World Press Freedom Day 2006, regrettably the report card has to underline that while the Australians show in various ways how much they want to be kept informed, never before has accessing that information been more difficult, never has there been so much organised action to prevent the truth emerging, never have so many politicians at all levels fibbed so much, so often.

see also
2005 Press Council Report on Press Freedom issues

[ return to top ]