Profile

Deborah Kirkman interviews Professor H P Lee, a public member of the Council

H P LEE (see biography) is a long-time public member of the Australian Press Council.

In this edited version of an interview with Deborah Kirkman, he gave his views on the Press Council, the law, academia and press freedom.



DK: You have law degrees from Singapore, Malaya and Monash Universities. Where did you receive your basic education?

HPL: I received my primary and secondary education at St Xavier's Institution, Penang. The school run by the Christian Brothers had an outstanding reputation. I can still remember with gratitude the truly dedicated and inspiring Christian Brothers and lay teachers who taught me.

DK: Is there a history of lawyers in your family?

HPL: No.

DK: What made you choose academia over the practice of law?

HPL: When I was studying for my LL.B. degree in Singapore, law students were required to read a number of prescribed articles written by excellent jurists. I admired their erudite and logical analysis of the law and aspired to emulate them. As there was no history of lawyers in the family there was no "pressure" to join the family firm. I was at liberty to pursue my own career. Fortunately for me, the first Faculty of Law was established in the University of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur at the time of my graduation. I applied and was appointed the first Law Tutor in the Faculty. After one year I successfully obtained a Teaching Fellowship at Monash. I was transported to an environment which was intellectually stimulating. After over twenty-five years at Monash I still enjoy academic life, especially the teaching and research aspects.

DK: Would you like your three children to become lawyers? If not, why? What else would you like them to do?

HPL: I don't believe in dictating to my children on what they should do in terms of their careers. I always stress the point that the important thing is to choose a career which will give them a high degree of satisfaction and a sense of fulfilment. At the same time I also point out the need to be pragmatic - that in the current climate of competitiveness it is essential to equip themselves with qualifications which can enhance their job prospects.

DK: I know you enjoy a game of pool. What else do you like for relaxation? Do you get enough time to rest?

HPL: Apart from a game I had with some members of the Council some years back I have never played the game since my university days in Singapore. I enjoy reading. I like to sit in front of the box and watch "action" movies and cricket. I wish there were more hours in the day. Academic life has become very high pressured. The turbulence generated in the education arena has foisted unrelenting pressure on academics. Today we are expected to be first-rate teachers, first-rate researchers and active administrators. Academics are expected to apply for research grants, participate in community work and fill in endless forms.

DK: What attracted you to the Council? Was it, for example, an extension of your involvement with the law and its consequent social impact?

HPL: I saw an advertisement in the papers seeking self-nomination for public membership of the Council. As a constitutional lawyer I have always been aware of the importance of a free press in a democracy. I thought I would be able to make a contribution to the work of the Council.

DK: You were one of the eight new members appointed from the 288 applications received in 1987 for full or alternate public membership. Who interviewed you?

HPL: I was not interviewed. The current practice of the Council is to interview the shortlisted candidates which I think is very useful.

DK: What do you think the role of public members is?

HPL: The role of public members is to ensure that complaints from the public are adjudicated in a fair manner. I do not subscribe to the view that as a public member I am there simply to support the complainant regardless of the merits of the case.

DK: Do you think this role is being adequately fulfilled?

HPL: Yes.

DK: Do you think there is a need to more fully involve the public members in the Council's operations?

HPL: It must be remembered that there is a limit to the amount of time a public member can devote to all work of the Council as most public members are holding a job. For those public members who do not have a legal background they will find the work of the Freedom of the Press Committee rather arduous.

DK: What were your first impressions of the Council members?

HPL: A bunch of highly articulate, vocal and serious people. Being an alternate member initially one does not get too many opportunities to attend Council meetings. It was therefore difficult initially to forge a closer friendship. Having been on the Council for over ten years or more, one gets to realise the sharp wit and good humour of many members of the Council.

DK: Have there been any members who you believe have stood out from the others? Who, and why?

HPL: It would be invidious for me to single out those members of the Council who have been outstanding. Suffice it to say that the late Dorothy Ross was widely admired for her role as the Vice-Chairman of the Council.

DK: Do you think non-industry members of the Council should be paid attendance fees? Why?

HPL: The Council is funded by the media. To be paid fees may expose the non-industry members to attacks by the Council's critics of the classic "he who pays the piper" syndrome.

DK: In the past, the Complaints Committee comprised a set group. You were appointed as an alternate member of the Committee in August 1992. Given your legal background, what were your initial thoughts on the informal, non-legal process of hearing complaints? Did you think it should have been more legal in its structure, taking evidence, etc.?

HPL: Many of the complaints brought before the Council should have a speedy response before the matter becomes "stale". This cannot be attained if there is over-legalisation of the processes. I have been very comfortable with the informal approach adopted by the Council. The only caveat I would add is that we cannot avoid a degree of legalism in the crafting of our adjudications. Although there is the frequent refrain of "each case to be considered in the context of its particular circumstances", we have to be conscious that prior adjudications of the Council will be viewed by observers of the Council's operations as having precedential value. Fairness also requires consistency in decision-making.

DK: Do you prefer the old system, or do you like the rotation of Complaints Committee members? Why?

HPL: The rotation of Complaints Committee members is to be preferred. In the past when there was a fixed composition of the Complaints Committee, many members who were not members of that Committee and who participated in the deliberations of the full Council had not fully appreciated the complexities in drawing up an adjudication. The rotation system has been highly successful. Members of the Council in arguing a case can now appreciate the different perspectives pertaining to the making of a decision.

DK: You talk with precision and restraint. Is this the effect of your legal training, or is it a reflection of your personality?

HPL: I think it is both.

DK: I have noticed that you are open to the views of others. You have the capacity to change your viewpoint, to accept a well-argued point. Do you think that, as a whole, Press Council members have open minds? Or, do you think there are some individuals who tend to be biased in their views?

HPL: I have been impressed by the way in which members have functioned in the deliberations of the Council. As a whole they have approached the task with an open mind. Occasionally there are glimpses of "intransigence" on the part of a few individuals. This is not a reflection of bias on their part; rather it reflects the angle from which they are approaching a complaint.

DK: Is there any aspect of Australia's print media which you particularly disagree with? Do you, for example, think it alright to publish graphic photographs?

HPL: One should avoid generalisation here. Given the diversity of newspapers in Australia it is inevitable that the quality varies from one end of the spectrum to the other. There is a perception that some newspapers resort to sensationalism in order to boost circulation. Insofar as the main daily papers are concerned, Australia, on the whole, has been well served by the quality of news reporting. On the issue of graphic photographs, there is no outright yes/no answer. Recently we dealt with the complaint against The Age regarding the publication of a photograph which provided an aerial view of a slain policeman with a pool of blood near his head. The decision of Council was a tight 9-8. It reflected the dilemma of Council. Does the publication of the photograph serve the public interest? Would it have made a difference to the decision if the picture was a close-up shot? All these considerations have to be put on the scale to arrive at an answer. Inevitably, there is an injection of the value considerations of Council members. The Age complaint indicates there can be no absolute approach to the issue of graphic photographs.

DK: And what about invading peoples's privacy? Where do you draw the line between the public's right to know and invasion of privacy? Could you give an example?

HPL: I believe newspapers should be extremely conscious of the need to protect people's privacy. An invasion can only be justified if a compelling case can be made that the public interest is better served by such an invasion. This is equally true of "public figures" as of ordinary members of the public. An example is the decision of the Council in upholding a complaint against a newspaper for publishing a sneak photograph of Senator Bob Woods and his wife in private discussion in the backyard of their home. This was condemned by the Council as an unjustified breach of privacy.

DK: These are, of course, issues of freedom of the press. In the preamble to its Statement of Principles, the Press Council notes, in part, that "the freedom of the press to publish is the freedom of the people to be informed." As the Vice-Chairman of the Freedom of the Press Committee, can you see how some readers might have difficulty with the role of the Committee?

HPL: Any difficulty if harboured by these readers would be dispelled if a less myopic approach is adopted. We must not lose sight that we are the fortunate members of one of the world's vigorous democracies. As a comparative constitutional lawyer I am more conscious of this fact. When we glance at the countries in our region, one salient point is the stultification of democratic notions through the control exercised by the government of the day over the media. All electronic and print media are tightly controlled by an annual licensing requirement which is dispensed according to the whims of the government. Such governments realise that an uncontrolled press would compel them to be accountable to the people. I would urge such readers not to lose sight of the "big picture".

An episode in 1995 reinforced my view that freedom of speech is anathema to an authoritarian regime. That year I was preparing to go to Beijing for the Biennial LAWASIA Conference. Having been awarded the inaugural LAWASIA Research Institute Fellowship for my proposed project on "Constitutional Values in Turbulent Asia" I was expected to present a paper on that topic. I despatched a copy of my paper to the China Organising Committee which was hosting the Conference. The contents must have been unpalatable to them. I was subsequently informed that a storm had broken out between the China Organising Committee and the Executive Council of LAWASIA over an attempt by the former to ban my paper outright. Despite a compromise arrangement worked out between the LAWASIA Council and the Chinese committee, I finally decided not to attend the Conference. The lesson from this episode is that the notion of a market-place of ideas, which can only exist if there is freedom of speech, is totally unattractive to an authoritarian regime. That freedom is fundamental to the efficacious working of democracy in Australia.

DK: Are there any current matters which are a threat to the freedom of the press?

HPL: A matter which is of deep concern to the Freedom of the Press Committee is the failure by governments to secure uniform defamation laws. It is unacceptable that a newspaper can publish with impunity in one state and be subject to liability in another in respect of the same story. Another matter of grave concern which has a dampening effect on news reporting is the use of contempt laws.

DK: What can the Press Council do about them?

HPL: The Council has to persist in its effort to persuade the federal and state governments to put defamation law changes back on the agenda. It has to develop its own position on the broad principles to provide the framework for defamation law reform. It has to maintain vigilance over the use of contempt laws.

DK: Do you think other public members should be more involved in the FoP? Why?

HPL: The work of the FoP can be rather dry and legalistic. I wouldn't insist on public members who have no great interest in "legal talk" to participate in the work of the FoP. There is currently a suggestion to revamp the FoP Committee to focus also on the responsibilities of the Press. It may well be that if such a suggestion is implemented other public members may find it fruitful to be involved in the work of the Committee. What may be useful is to devote a bit more time during Council meetings to explain (in plain language) the various fundamental issues attracting the attention of the Committee.

DK: Have you seen any evidence of ethnic or racial tensions in the Press Council?

HPL: Absolutely none whatsoever.

DK: How about such tensions in the country as a whole?

HPL: There was a period when the Hanson phenomenon was given extensive publicity in which Asian Australians felt an element of insecurity and discomfort. However, having lived over a quarter of a century in Australia, I have tremendous faith in the Australian polity and its sense of fairness and justice. The strength of Australian democracy exposes populist sentiments to vigorous scrutiny. One must never under-estimate the intelligence of the Australian community. The Hanson phenomenon loses steam once the Australian people get engaged in a robust and critical evaluation of Australia's place in the Asia-Pacific region and the long-term interests of the nation. Australian society is changing rapidly. The students who attend my lectures come from virtually every corner of the globe. This is the new Australia, a society enriched by a diversity of races and cultures. For any politician to pick on a particular racial minority or to unfairly attack the indigenous people not only insults the intelligence of the Australian community. Such a politician is also doing a disservice to the country.

DK: What do you think of Pauline Hanson's One Nation?

HPL: In assessing any political party, one must always ask what remedies they have for the ills of society, how those remedies are consistent with Australia's commitment to values of human respect and dignity, fairness and justice, and whether those remedies can enable Australians to hold their heads high at home and abroad. We have to look at the calibre of the members of the party. If assuming they get into seats of power, are they up to the job. Do they have the intelligence or experience or requisite qualifications to contribute to national development in a fast changing and highly technological global community.

I disagree with the assessment that Australia is being turned into a racist country. We must always look at matters in a proper context. We jettisoned the White Australia policy not too long ago. Yet, when we see how Australia has matured into a multicultural and multiracial society, one cannot but wonder at this remarkable achievement - that this has developed without the strife and killings found in many other multiracial societies. There will always be some racist elements in any society. This cannot be avoided. But what can be avoided is for these elements to control the levers of government.

DK: Do you think the Australian media should lay-off One Nation in the hope that it will go away? Why?

HPL: It is not a question of laying-off One Nation. It is simply a question of giving it the appropriate extent of publicity it deserves. If it engages in racial incitement or grand-standing it should be starved of the oxygen of publicity. If it has a valuable point to make and which contributes to the welfare of Australian society, it is entitled to be reported in the same critical fashion as the ideas and policies of the other political parties.

DK: Do you see the Press Council's role continuing for the foreseeable future? Why?

HPL: Some people predicted the "death" of books with the advancement of computers and technology. Yet, books are still with us. It is a question of the print media finding its proper niche in this era of information overload. I am confident that newspapers will be with us for a long time to come. So will the Press Council.

[This interview was conducted in January 1999.]

Return to APC News 1999 Index

[ return to top ]

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