New objects; procedures

As a result of the 2002 Planning Day discussions, the Council has agreed on a new set of Objects for the Council and altered aspects of its complaints procedures.

In the May 2002 issue of the APC News, a brief report on the Council's 2002 Planning Day was published. The most important outcome of the Planning Day so far has been that the Council has revised the objects clause in its Constitution. The clause now reads:

The objects of the Australian Press Council are to promote freedom of speech through responsible and independent print media, and adherence to high journalistic and editorial standards, by:

1. Considering and dealing with complaints and concerns about material in newspapers, magazines and journals published either in print or on the Internet;
2. Encouraging and supporting initiatives by the print media to address the causes for readers' complaints and concerns;
3. Keeping under review, and where appropriate, challenging political, legislative, commercial or other developments which may adversely affect the dissemination of information of public interest, and may consequently threaten the public's right to know;
4. Making representations to governments, public inquiries and other forums as appropriate on matters concerning freedom of speech and access to information;
5. Undertaking research and consultation on developments in public policy affecting freedom of speech, and promoting public awareness of such issues.

The need to review the Objects arose from changes in the press and in the political, social and market environment in which newspapers are published. The primary aim of the Council is now encompassed in the introductory paragraph which recognises that press freedom and press responsibility are inextricably linked. The five points under the primary objective place the press responsibility matters before free speech matters. The second numbered point is new and places a greater emphasis on the Council working with the print media towards their addressing readers' concerns more directly.

The Council also saw the need to become more vigorous and publicly visible in the pursuit of its objectives. It has noted that sustained, effective effort to extend its capabilities and broaden its influence will require significant additional resources. With this in mind, it has allocated increased funding in the year 2002-2003 towards two initiatives: the greater promotion of the Council to the industry and the public and a greatly increased effort in research on matters of public concern in threats to freedom of speech. It has also placed its Constituent Bodies on notice that it will be seeking increased funding in 2003-2004 towards more permanent staff positions in both these initiative areas.

Policy Development

The Council has, for some years, worked through two main sub-committees, a Complaints Committee and a Freedom of the Press Committee. At Planning Day 2002, the Council reviewed the focus of much of its policy work on 'freedom of the press'. Noting that erosion of freedom of speech in Australia is not merely a perception and that there is evidence of continuing threats to this freedom through the actions and information management practices of some governments, courts, corporations, and other social institutions, the Council determined to play a stronger role in encouraging the industry to explain to the public that the concept of 'press freedom' is inherently about 'freedom of speech', and not about 'press license'.

The press is concerned about constraints being placed upon its access to information Such threats need to become a particular focus for policy development and public statements by the Council. For that reason, the Council decided to retain the Complaints Committee as the avenue through which press responsibility issues would be dealt with by the Council but to replace the Freedom of the Press Committee with a Policy Development Committee.

There is a need to protect and enhance the Committee's ability to carry out its specialist work in a timely fashion. Since 1988, the Council has made 60 submissions to various forums on a range of topics relating to freedom of speech through the press, and the demand for this work is growing in both volume and complexity. The PD Committee will therefore be more broadly representative than the current FoP Committee, but would retain permanent representation of major Constituent Bodies whose senior legal and executive officers are regularly the source of essential specialist advice to the Council.

Additionally, the Council is to consult more with editors and press organisations, and pursue more actively avenues for improving journalistic and editorial standards. The primary avenue for this initiative is initially to be a series of meetings between the Council's Chairman and editors of metropolitan, regional and suburban newspapers to be held at various locations around Australia in the second half of 2002.

One area where the PD Committee has begun its work is the development of a Charter of a Free Press which the Council will use as the basis for its representations on free speech issues. Chris McLeod and Sharon Hill, two Industry Members of the Council, have drawn up a draft which has been tabled at the PD Committee. The draft has been circulated to all members of the Council for comment

For more on the Council's free speech activities, see the
Freedom of the Press section of the website.

[ return to top ]

Complaints and adjudications

Planning Day 2002 looked at the complaints procedures in some detail. It noted that, while there is evidence that some newspapers are getting better at dealing with complaint, slow response times continue to be a major problem, as is the tendency for newspapers to fail to make arrangements for complaints to be dealt with when the usual person designated to handle such matters is absent. Following discussions with a number of editors and recommendations from the secretariat, the Council has agreed to alteration of the time limits allowed for in the complaints procedures:

If the publication has not responded to the office within two weeks of the approach on a possible informal settlement, the office should proceed to deal with the matter formally. This time limit is revisable in the case of non-daily publications or those with limited staff.

Publications and complainants should normally have two weeks to respond. This time limit is revisable in the case of non-daily publications or those with limited staff. They can always seek an extension of time if such a limit is not going to be possible because of the absence of a journalist or for other reasons.

Publications need to respond within two weeks of a request for a public member mediation. In the absence of a response, the complainant will immediately be able to seek a hearing. This time limit is revisable in the case of non-daily publications or those with limited staff.

In respect of those appointed to represent publications, the Council has agreed:

The procedures be altered so that, where a party is going to be out of contact for some time, they need to inform the Council office and/or appoint an alternate person to deal with the matter in their absence. Particularly in the case of a large newspaper or newspaper group, the absence of one person should not cause the whole procedure to grind to a halt.

Third party complaints

Another major area of debate was on the question of 'third party' complaints. Many press councils do not accept complaints except from those directly involved in an issue. The Australian Press Council has, however, accepted such complaints from its beginning. However, the Council noted at Planning Day 2002 that the recent amendments to the Commonwealth Privacy Act mean that the Council will have to be more careful in its acceptance of 'third party' complaints. As a result of this debate and subsequent discussions on the Council, there has been a change to the complaints procedure on the question of 'third party' complaints:

The Executive Secretary will, as a rule, reject as complaints, matters from disinterested parties:

• which raise matters likely to lead to the further invasion of the privacy of those reported on;
   
• which appear to the Executive Secretary to raise largely trivial or frivolous concerns; or
   
• which do not raise a significant breach of the principles.

Appeals

A further aspect of the complaints procedure in which the Council has settled on new policy is in the area of appeals from its decisions. The Council acts on its own behalf, in co-operation with the print media, and its decisions are not reviewable by any other body. But it recognises the possibility that an adjudication might be in error or that a procedural unfairness may have occurred. For this reason it does allow for appeals to be made and such appeals are considered now by the Chairman and can be referred to a subsequent Complaints Committee meeting. Because the committee changes personnel at each meeting, there is usually a different group to consider any appeal from the committee which heard the original matter and made its recommendation to the Council.

• When an appeal is lodged against an adjudication of the Council, the matter should be handled in the first instance by the Chairman of the Council. The Chairman should proceed as follows:
   
1. Where it is clear to the Chairman that the disappointed party has got no cogent reason(s) for the appeal, other than simple disappointment at the decision, the Chairman should, without further ado, dismiss the appeal;
    
2. Where the Chairman, either forms the opinion, or forms the opinion after consultation with the Vice-Chairman, that the appellant has provided a cogent reason/s which would likely lead to a modification or reversal of the Council's determination, the matter should be referred by the Chairman to the Complaints Committee which could either reject the appeal or refer it to Council.
    
• Cogent reasons include an error of fact or an erroneous assumption or inference which adversely affected the determination of Council.
   
• In most circumstances, the Council should ensure that any committee which deals with an appeal is composed of different members to the one which drafted the decision.

For more on the Council's complaints processes, see
outline of the complaints process.

[ return to top ]

Distinguishing news reporting and analysis

In the May 2002 APC News there was some discussion of the question of opinion writing and how the Council has dealt with it. This arose from a Planning Day discussion which debated whether the current Principle 5, which speaks of "fact" and "opinion", provides a sufficient basis for the Council to decide whether an item is commentary or a report, or a mixture. The Council has generally allowed more leeway for opinion pieces (including editorials, cartoons, letters to the editor, and clearly-marked commentary). It has now moved towards using an 'opinion roadmap' to help determine the primary objective of a piece of writing. Using a 'first impression test', the Council will determine whether the item is intended to be a descriptive story or an opinion piece. This 'roadmap' was outlined in the May 2002 News.

A new edition of the Council's Information Booklet, incorporating the above changes will be published in August.

[ return to top ]

Return to
APC News 2002 Index
Planning Days information page

Documents with the icon require the Acrobat Reader, a Free Utility from Adobe. Click here for more information.