News in brief - May 2006

APC News by email
Press Council Prize
Thirty years
2006 Annual Address
On the Council
Dan O'Sullivan
New booklet reprint
Defamation seminar
Suppression
FoI amucus brief
ALRC anti-terrorism legislation submission
Submission on cross-media ownership
Submission on adoption law
Joe Hight in Australia
A visit to Townsville and a press statement there

News by email

Press Council publications are now sent by email to those who ask for delivery in that form. If you want the News sent direct to you (in pdf format), please send an email to info@presscouncil.org.au with subject line News by email and you will be placed on the direct email list.

[ return to top ]

Return to APC News 2006 Index

Press Council Prize

There will be no Essay Prize in 2006. As in 2005, the Council will be making a series of awards for outstanding scholarship through the various journalism departments and faculties at Australian tertiary institutions. The Council will endow prizes for such courses, particularly in the study of ethics.

For more information on the APC Prize, its history and future
go to the APC Prize overview.

[ return to top ]

Return to APC News 2006 Index

Thirty years

This year the Council celebrates its thirtieth anniversary. Formed in July 1976, by an agreement between the publishers and the then Australian Journalists Association, the Council has always had a mixture of industry representatives, journalists (originally elected by the AJA) and members of the public. When the AJA left the Council in 1986, it reconstituted, with journalists represented by independent and freelance journalists and retired editors. The MEAA (the union that includes the old AJA) re-affiliated in 2005 and again nominates members to the Council. At the time of writing, as it ends its thirtieth year, the Council has formally dealt with close to 10,000 complaints, of which about 3,700 have been mediated or otherwise settled to the satisfaction of the complainant. It has adjudicated close to 2,000 of the complaints, issuing 1316 adjudications, of which over 40 per cent have upheld the complaint in whole or part. Additionally it has sent out 271 press releases or reporting guidelines, published 29 annual reports and 74 issues of the APC News. Its website has close to 1,000 separate files, searchable by keyword. It does all this from one office with 3 full time and one permanent part-time employees. Not bad for an organisation that was never going to last.

[ return to top ]

Return to APC News 2006 Index

Annual address

The Council's 2006 Annual Address was held in Sydney on 23 March 2006. Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty delivered the address at a lunch in Sydney. The speech, Between the lines: New powers and accountability for police and the media, addressed some of the contemporary issues for the police and for the press arising from recent anti-terrorism laws and other recent developments.

A report on the speech and of some remarks in response offered by Council Chairman, Professor Ken McKinnon, was published from page one of this issue. The full speech is available on the Council's website.

For more information on the Annual Address, its history and future
go to the Annual Address overview.

[ return to top ]

Return to APC News 2006 Index

On the Council

John Morgan has retired from the Council. He joined the Council as a representative of the Australian Newspaper Council in August 1980 and subsequently represented the Herald and Weekly Times until his retirement when he was appointed one of the inaugural editor members of the Council. He has been a member of the Council continuously since his first appointment and his twenty-six years of service mark the longest term enjoyed by any member of the Council. In noting John's retirement, Professor Ken McKinnon noted that, in addition to his longevity, Mr. Morgan had performed a number of useful functions for the Council, not the least of which was his ability to edit on the run and to correct the grammatical solecisms of complainants, publications and other members of the Council. Professor McKinnon noted that Mr. Morgan would be greatly missed by the Council. At a special dinner to mark his retirement, John Morgan made some remarks.

They have been ringing around in my head for some considerable time, the words of my favourite general, Oliver Cromwell. He marched into the Long Parliament and said, "You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately ... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!" And I think that applies to me.

You must understand that I've been on the edges of the Press Council from the very beginning. I've suffered under all the Chairmen, starting with Sir Frank Kitto. He was a very forceful Chairman; if he could find the complainant, the defendant and the Complaints Committee guilty, he would have.

After Kitto came Geoff Sawer, who was with us only a short time for health reasons, but he lived as the author of the book on defamation that we all followed in those days. Then came Hal Wootton. Hal unfortunately was not prone to compromise. The difficulty was that the Press Council itself might have fallen apart as the AJA opted out. And it was worth saving.

David Flint moved in on that, from the Vice-Chairman to the Chairman. The outstanding thing about David, to me, was that he never showed any sign of prejudice. I think it is greatly to his credit that he did. By the way, I rather liked David. I don't think he liked me. I think I was his bete noire, to put it in terms he likes. In fact, at some public meeting, he described me as the enfant terrible. I was at least 70 when he said it.

After David came Dennis Pearce. He was not as forceful as at least one member of the Council thought he should be - and told him so. I told the Council member, with equal force, that I didn't think he should have said it. Anyway, that produced the result that we have before us now. I'll come to him later on.

I'm not going to go back to the cases, sometimes idiotic, that we've had over the years. I'm going back to the people of the Council. Dear old David McNicoll was a terrible snob, but he was a nice bloke. It was a pleasure to see him snoring in the corner, and then breaking out with an incisive remark. He would disappear for lunch at twelve o'clock no matter what.

We had a member who fell foul of the law. I always liked him. He always said what he thought. We had a war correspondent, who was quietly dying in the corner. It slowly became obvious that he wasn't in the grip of the situation. Then we had the silent knight, who rarely said anything, but he wrote at least one good adjudication.

Then we've had the lawyers, of course. ... The one I liked particularly was Kevin McCreanor. I've never seen a more complete demonstration of the way lawyers operate. At the meeting of the Complaints Committee he violently put one point of view, logically and completely and with utter conviction. He was then voted down by the committee - everybody spoke against it. The following day, as the rapporteur of the adjudication, he was equally determined to present the case in entirely the opposite direction. And that explains what the hell lawyers are about.

And then of course we've had the monstrous regiment of women. I have to tell you that my reputation for misogyny and all that is quite wrong. It is a protection I've devised in order to keep you butterflies away from my undoubted charm.

The truth is I've learnt a lot from women in the Council. I am quite serious about this. I've learnt about a woman who was beaten up by her husband regularly. I've learnt about a woman who was dominated by her bloody idiot father, who prevented her from doing all the things she might have done. Another explained to me the problems of dealing with a child who wasn't quite able to do the things that perhaps he might be able to do. All these things are quite a way from my masculine world. After all, I was a journalist all my life and I was never at home. I never saw the damn kids except perhaps once a week. My wife was responsible for bringing up the children. I really have learnt an awful lot from the women on the Council and I thank them for all that.

The public members as a whole? I'm quite amazed at the standard that has been achieved. In the early days, I remember I spent the first year of their membership explaining what a newspaper was. The standard has improved. I'm amazed at how well the public members deal with the problems that are presented to them.

I must point out that there was rarely disagreement between me and the opinions of the Council, both in adjudications and in statements of various sorts. The one I particularly remember was the one down in Ballarat. The thing that was outstanding about that, in my opinion, was that the division was entirely between the industry and the non-industry. I've never seen it before. We can proudly say that we do not vote in blocs

I have to pay tribute to the present Chair. He, and Henchman Herman, produce a remarkable degree of activity. We've become far more proactive, and I think that is a great credit to the Chairman, with the assistance of Jack, Inez and Vice-Chairman HP Lee, not to mention Warren Beeby and Chris McLeod. Of course I also have to pay tribute to the work of Deb and Helen, who keep the system working.

My role now ... I must admit that I see myself as a sort of Professor Higgins dealing with your collective Eliza Doolittle - trying to tell you something about the English language and how to use it. I've tried to explain the music of the language. I'm afraid you're all bloody tone deaf. I've even tried to deal with pronunciation. Let me assure you, Shakespeare did not write Tamara and Tamara and Tamara. Please improve.

Now I must admit I've picked up some clues myself, on spelling, for instance. My spelling is appalling. It always has been. I regard it as purely mechanical. On the other hand, I've even learnt something about pronunciation. I once made the mistake of saying hyper-bowl instead of hyperbole. But, then, it's all Greek to me.

Finally, like all good feature writers, I will finish up with Cromwell, well in the penultimate par anyway. I'm not quite sure to whom he said it - I think it was a collection of churchmen. He said, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think that you might be wrong, think that you might be wrong." I'll hold to that.

And now a little bit from another old general, Douglas MacArthur, who finished his final address to Congress by saying, "Old soldiers ... " But I will say:

"Old editors never die, they simply huff ... and puff away."

John Morgan's replacement on the panel of editors will be Lloyd Whish-Wilson, a former member of the Council, who retires as General Manager of The Canberra Times in July. He will join the Council following his retirement.

In May, Mark Baker, who represents The Age on the Council, has coincidentally accepted appointment as the new editor of The Canberra Times. As a result he will be leaving The Age and has resigned from the Council. His replacement has not as yet been named. Helen Elliott, who has served as an independent journalist member of the Council for a little over three years has retired as well, citing the pressures of freelance writing as the cause of her leaving the Council. The Council will decide on the appointment of her replacement on the panel of journalist members in June.

In May, the Council reappointed Francesca Beddie, a public member from NSW, and Brenton Holmes, a public member from the ACT, to second three-year terms on the panel of public members. It also endorsed the nomination to further terms of Chris McLeod, representing the Herald and Weekly Times, and Phil Dickson, representing AAP.

[ return to top ]

Return to APC News 2006 Index

Dan O'Sullivan

The Council has noted with regret the passing of one of its distinguished former members, Dan O'Sullivan. Dan started in newspapers as a copy boy in 1943 and worked his way to be editor-in-chief of The West Australian from 1975 to 1987. He served on the Press Council first as a representative of the Australian Newspaper Council from January 1982 to his retirement from The West in January 1987. Subsequently he was appointed as one of the inaugural editor members of the Council in 1988 and served in that role until November 2002. He was a strong advocate of responsible journalism but also active in defending the traditional freedoms of the press, consistently lobbying in WA for legislative reform to ensure the continued flow of information on matters of public interest. A particular interest was the establishment of a closer relationship with Indonesia, and he helped foster the development of a free and responsible Indonesian press. He died in early May after a long battle with throat cancer.

[ return to top ]

Return to APC News 2006 Index

Principles and procedures

With the changes recently made by Council to its principles and complaints procedures it has reprinted its information booklet. The changes in procedures have also been posted to the Council's website, together with a new guide to the completion of the Complaints Form, a sort of FAQ for those wanting to inform the Council of the exact nature of their complaint.

The Council is now asking complainants to concentrate on the main thrust of the complaint and to summarise their concerns in about 400 words. Complaints will generally be received within 60 days of publication and both parties to the complaint will have a strict time limit of two weeks in which to respond to correspondence from the Council before it is deemed that they are in default. These steps, together with a more concentrated effort on the quick settlement of complaints, are aimed at speeding up the process, and ensuring that any mediation of the complaint is timely.

Copies of the booklet are available from the Council or, as a pdf, on the Council's website.

[ return to top ]

Return to APC News 2006 Index

Defamation seminar

Following the success of its seminars in Sydney and Melbourne, Lexis-Nexis is convening a half-day conference on the new Defamation legislation in Brisbane on Wednesday 12 July. Once again the Council is endorsing the conference. A flyer for the Brisbane seminar was enclosed with the printed issue of the News.

[ return to top ]

Return to APC News 2006 Index

Suppression

In earlier issues of the News there were reports on the Council's efforts to develop a uniform, and more effective, method of notifying suppression orders in the various state and territory jurisdictions. The Council of Chief Justices agreed to consider the Council's submission at its 19 April meeting. Subsequent to the meeting of that council, a letter from Murray Gleeson, Chief Justice of the High Court, was received. It said in part

It was pointed out in the course of discussion that, in many, perhaps most, Australian jurisdictions, suppression, when it occurs, is mandated by legislation, and is not the result of an exercise of judicial discretion.

It was also pointed out that circumstances, including legislative provisions, and available resources, vary between individual jurisdictions. The Chief Justices, while happy to examine the issue in the light of circumstances in their respective jurisdictions, did not consider a standardised, Australia-wide procedure, to be a feasible course.

The Press Council has decided to collect and collate statistics on the issuing of suppression orders, and the basis for their issue, in the separate states. On the basis of that information, it will make further approaches to the Chief Justices on the question of how such suppressions should be notified and whether a register should be maintained.

See also
the courts and contempt index page.

[ return to top ]

Return to APC News 2006 Index

Freedom of Information

The Press Council has lodged an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief with the High Court in its consideration of the appeal from The Australian against a Federal Court ruling that upheld the issuing of conclusive certificates by the Treasurer when the newspaper's FoI editor, Michael McKinnon, sought information about the impact of bracket creep on income taxes and on certain aspects of the first home buyers scheme.

The appeal was heard by the High Court on 18 May in Canberra, with the Press Council as the only party seeking to intervene.

The acceptance of the Council's written brief was opposed by the counsel for the government. He argued that, on the basis of some principles enunciated by Sir Gerard Brennan in Levy v Victoria, the brief should not be received. The counsel for The Australian simply stated that the brief should be received and the Chief Justice agreed.

The executive summary of the brief read:

The Australian Press Council's principal concern is the adverse impact on the flow of information which the public has the right to access, that would be the outcome of upholding of the majority decision of the Federal Court of Australia in McKinnon v Secretary, Department of Treasury [2005] FCAFC 142 (2 August 2005). As Lord Simon of Glaisdale said, a free and responsible press is a principal instrument in ensuring that people can adequately influence the decisions which affect their lives and be adequately informed on facts and arguments relevant to the decisions. Accountability of government to the people through the public's access to information must not be subject to government discretion so broad as to be contrary to the intentions of the Freedom of Information Act 1982.

The Australian Press Council seeks leave to file an amicus curiae brief and, if it is the wish of the Court, to attend as amicus in this matter.

The full brief, with supporting arguments in law and on policy grounds, has been posted to the Council's website.

See also
the Council's FoI position.

[ return to top ]

Return to APC News 2006 Index

Anti-terrorism legislation

The federal Attorney-General has asked the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) to review the sedition provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act and the Crimes Act. The Council's Chairman and its Policy Officer met with Commissioner David Weisbrot of the ALRC to discuss the reference and the Council's position on the necessity for sedition provisions.

Subsequently, the Council made a written submission to the ALRC, the executive summary of which read:

The Australian Press Council, which has as one of its Objects "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", argues that any legislation that grants powers to authorities that may impinge on the traditional freedoms of Australians, including freedom of communication, must be drafted to ensure that the granted powers are sufficient to meet the envisaged threat, without going too far in inhibiting rights. The Council's primary concern with Schedule 7 the Anti-Terrorism Act (No. 2) 2005 is that it appears to go further than is required to meet the stated objectives of the legislation. As the conduct to be addressed by the schedule is already adequately addressed by other legislation, the Council recommends that Schedule 7 be removed from the Act.

If the Commission does not feel such excision is justified, the Council makes a series of recommendations for amendment of the law to lessen, as far as is practicable, any adverse impact it may have on the traditional freedoms enjoyed by Australians.

The full submission has been posted to the Council's website.

See also
the press release on the Council's position on sedition.

[ return to top ]

Return to APC News 2006 Index

Cross-media ownership

The Press Council has sent a submission to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts in response to the government's discussion paper, Meeting the Digital Challenge, on media reform options.

The Council's primary concern was with the section detailing proposed reforms to the rules governing ownership across different media and with proposed changes to foreign ownership rules. Currently cross-media ownership is governed by provisions in the Broadcasting Services Act limiting the stake in electronic media for owners of newspapers and vice versa. The Council's principal concern with any changes to such rules was any involvement by the Australian Media and Communications Authority (ACMA) in the determination of mergers and acquisitions, which might give the authority some de facto power of regulation over the print media. The Council argues that cross-media ownership rules should be in line with those governing other industries, with the Australian Competition and Consumers Commission being the supervising authority, regarding the news media as a single industry.

The executive summary of the submission to the Minister read:

The Australian Press Council is of the view that the limitations on cross-media ownership in the Broadcasting Services Act should be removed. However, the Press Council has a number of concerns about the specific proposals put forward in the government's discussion paper, Meeting the Digital Challenge.

The Press Council is of the view that the regulation of ownership of Australia's media should be by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission under the Trade Practices Act, subject to a media-specific public interest test. That test should place a high value on the need for media diversity and the significance of local content.

The full submission has been posted to the Council's website.

See also
the Council's position on cross-media rules.

[ return to top ]

Return to APC News 2006 Index

Adoption

The Council has sent a submission to the NSW Department of Community Services on its review of the Adoption Act 2000, the executive summary of which read:

The government of NSW should aim toward the uniformity of adoption legislation throughout Australia. With regard to the publication of the names of parties involved in adoption proceedings, the Australian Press Council believes that section 180 of the Adoption Act 2000 should be brought into line with section 121 of the Victorian Adoption Act 1984. This would involve the insertion of a clause which would permit the publication of names of parties where those parties have given their consent.

The full submission has been posted to the Council's website.

See also
the privacy index page.

[ return to top ]

Return to APC News 2006 Index

Joe Hight in Australia

In March, the Press Council sponsored a visit by Joe Hight, the editor of The Oklahoman, to Australia. He was here principally to speak at a seminar in Hobart, organised by the Dart Centre for Trauma and Journalism. His newspaper had been involved in reporting the Oklahoma bombing, and in 2005, the tenth anniversary of the bombing, so he was in a good position to advise the Australian media on reporting of the tenth anniversary of Port Arthur. It was to discuss how the anniversary should be reported that was the main reason for the Hobart seminar. In addition to Mr Hight, local journalists and academics addressed the seminar. The Council was represented by its Vice Chairman, Professor HP Lee, who provided a summary of the issues at the end of the seminar, Hobart-based public member, Cheryl Attenborough, an industry representative, Sharon Hill, and the its Office Manager, Deborah Kirkman.

In addressing the Press Council at its March meeting, Mr Hight outlined some of the issues that arose from the reporting of the Oklahoma City bombing and then from the reporting of the tenth anniversary, drawing comparisons with the Port Arthur incident. He noted that his visit was in part to alert the Australian media to the traps and pitfalls he'd discovered in the coverage of his local activities and to the issues of trauma and journalism and the ways in which the anniversaries of tragic events should be covered.

In addition to the Hobart seminar, the Council organised events for Mr Hight in Sydney and Brisbane, where he visited newsrooms and addressed seminars at universities. In Brisbane he met with senior staff at Queensland Newspapers and attended a seminar organised by QUT. In Sydney, he discussed the relevant issues with editors at News Limited and at John Fairfax Publications. A seminar at UTS was organised by journalist member of the Council Sandra Symons, and was attended by students from UWS and the University of Sydney as well as those from UTS. The visit was regarded as a success and the seminars worthwhile, although there was a small attendance in Hobart due to the state election being held the same day.

[ return to top ]

Return to APC News 2006 Index

Townsville

The Press Council held its May meetings in Townsville on 4 and 5 May 2006. While in the city, the Council conducted a case studies seminar with students at James Cook University and hosted with the Townsville City Council a civic reception for local community leaders, including representatives of the local print media. The reception enabled the Council to promote its services and enabled the locals to know better how the Council can assist them if they have a complaint about the print media.

Additionally, while there, the Chairman of the Australian Press Council, Professor Ken McKinnon, convened a Media Conference on 3 May 2006, World Press Freedom Day. Professor McKinnon marked 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 and responded to questions on a wide range of issues. In his prepared remarks, Professor McKinnon said:

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.

[ return to top ]

Return to APC News 2006 Index

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