Freedom of the Press Report
2000-2001

The matters considered by the committee in the reporting year included the following.

Professional Privilege
Courts and contempt
Defamation
Parliamentary Privilege
Media ownership
Privacy
Whistleblowers
Freedom of information and suppression
Juries
Government suppression

Photographs in Public Gallery

Parliamentary and other inquiries

Information Technologies Committee
Public Administration and Finance Committee
Corporations and Securities Committee

International

Regional Association

General

Youth Suicide
Ali Kazak and AFR
Review of guidelines
Exclusive access to public events
Drugs and crime reports

1. Professional Privilege

No matters raised this year.

see also
Index on protection of sources material

[return to top]

2. Courts and Contempt

The NSW Law Reform Commission, as noted previously, was working on a contempt reference. Commission Discussion Paper 43, Contempt by Publication, was released early in the reporting year and discussed by the FoP Committee at its October meeting. The paper called for changes to the law of contempt which would to some extent 'raise the bar' on what constituted a contempt but, also, extended the law in ways which would be inimical to the print media. It called for the enactment of a Costs in Criminal Cases Bill which would tax (for the complete cost of the trial) those, including primarily the media, found guilty of a contempt which led to the abortion of a trial.

At first the committee decided that any Council submission would be based on submissions made by News Limited and John Fairfax Publications, as the Council did not have the resouces to subsidise separate research. It also decided that the submission would make detailed references to the NZ study of juries noted in last year's annual report. (The study of 312 jurors in 48 trials found that juries in criminal trials are unlikely to be swayed by media coverage.) In February 2001, the Council received a copy of similar empirical research into NSW juries (Michael Chesterman, Janet Chan and Shelley Hampton, Managing Prejudicial Publicity, Law and Justice Foundation UNSW 2001).

It determined to take advantage of an extension afforded by the LRC to make a submission on its own behalf. It issued the submission on 30 April 2001. Its Executive Summary read:

The proposals for reform contained in the NSW Law Reform Commission Discussion Paper 43, Contempt by Publication, must be re-thought. Although it is not the stated intention of the proposals, they would, if enacted, both considerably decrease press freedom and establish new punitive categories of crime for senior people in media organisations. The proposals cannot be supported in their present form.

The submission was published in the APC News, Vol. 13, No. 2, May 2001.

The Council's Chairman and Executive Secretary took part in two meetings between the LRC and representatives of the print media to discuss aspects of the Discussion Paper and of the media's submissions. At the time of writing, the LRC was reviewing its position and a revised set of recommendations was expected.

In August, the committee discussed a contempt case from the NSW Court of Appeal, John Fairfax Publications Pty Limited v Attorney-General for NSW (2 August 2000). As a result of that discussion, the then Chairman, Professor Dennis Pearce, wrote to the NSW Attorney:

The Judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case of John Fairfax Publications Pty Limited v Attorney-General for NSW (2 August 2000) has revealed an anomaly in paragraph 101A(8)(b) of the Supreme Court Act that the Press Council invites you to rectify.

Section 101A is concerned with circumstances flowing from a finding of a court that a person has not committed a contempt of court. Paragraph (8)(b) of the section states that a person must not publish any report of proceedings under the section so as to disclose the name or identity of the alleged contemnor. As is pointed out by Spigelman CJ at paragraph 131 of his judgment, this creates the position that a person who wishes not to remain anonymous but to defend his or her position in a public manner is not permitted to do so under threat of penalty. His Honour describes this as a "defect" arising from the provision.

It is of particular concern to the press that a newspaper should not be able to report to the public a legal decision affecting it which rules that the publication of certain material does not constitute contempt. The section was clearly intended to protect the name of persons who did not wish their action to be given publicity. But if a person wants to be able to make a court ruling public, the person should not be constrained from so doing.

The Council invites you to consider the judgment in this case and to move quickly to amend the Supreme Court Act to remove the anomaly which the Court of Appeal itself has identified.

The Attorney acknowledged receipt of the letter but had taken no action on the matter at the time of writing.

see also
Index on courts and contempt material

[return to top]

3. Defamation

ACT Defamation Bill 1999 which proposed wide-ranging changes to the practice of defamation was discussed in last year's annual report. The then Attorney-General had referred the Bill to a legislative committee. On 19 October the Press Council made a submission to that legislative committee, the Executive Summary of which read:

The Australian Press Council strongly supports the general thrust of the legislation and recommends that the Committee strongly support the underlying principles in the Bill.

In respect of the particular references sought by the Committee, the Council

• argues that truth alone should be a sufficient defence in defamation matters and that, separately, there should be an additional defence for matters published clearly in the public interest;
   
• endorses in principle the concept of a "no negligence" defence but suggests that it needs to be more fully detailed in the Bill; and
   
• proposes that the offer of amends procedure be seen as a substitute for an award of damages and the only recompense allowed under such a procedure be for expenses; and it further notes that such a procedure can only work if the plaintiff undertakes not to take action in any other jurisdiction on the same matter.

The submission was published as a supplement to the APC News, Vol. 12, No. 4, November 2000.

An Industry Member of the Council, Chris McLeod, appeared before the legislative committee in late 2000. At the time of writing the Council had not received a copy of the legislative committee's report but, in May 2001, the Canberra Times reported that the legislative committee had opposed three major aspects of the proposed reforms. Subsequently, some changes were made to the legislation which passed into law in an amended form in August 2001. The final Bill contained a 'no negligence' defence and an amended but adequate 'offer of amends' provision. However, the defence of truth alone had been replaced with the defence of truth and public benefit.

The new NSW Attorney-General, Bob Debus, raised the question of defamation reform in late 2000, seeking submissions especially on the question of declarations of falsity and on 7(a) hearings where juries alone determine whether the material before it is defamatory of the plaintiff. On 3 November, the Press Council made a submission to the Attorney, the Executive Summary of which read

The Australian Press Council strongly supports a move towards uniform defamation legislation throughout all Australian jurisdictions and urges the NSW Attorney to press the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General towards including the development of a uniform defamation code as a priority item on SCAG's agenda. It further suggests that the underlying principles of the ACT Defamation Bill 1999 provide a sound basis for such uniform legislation.

In respect of the particular references sought by the Attorney in relation to the current NSW law, the Council

• proposes that, rather than the putative Declaration of Falsity procedure, an Offer of Amends procedure be provided as a substitute for an award of damages, and the only recompense allowed under such a procedure be for expenses; but it notes that such a procedure can only work if the plaintiff undertakes not to take action in any other jurisdiction on the same matter;
   
• argues that, where matters go forward to litigation, there should be a one hearing procedure, at the end of which the jury has responsibility to determine whether the matter is defamatory and the judge decides on defences and the quantum of damages; and
   
• endorses in principle the concept of a "no negligence" defence.

A report on the submission was published in the APC News, Vol. 12, No. 4, November 2000.

On his succession to the Chairmanship, Professor Ken McKinnon decided to make a more comprehensive attempt at defamation law reform. After speaking with the NSW Attorney-General's Department, he recommended the formation of a committee of the publishers, to be convened by the Council, to develop such proposals. That working party met through the first half of 2001 and decided that the best approach would be to seek the reform of the NSW law and then use any such reformed law as the basis for a push for more uniformity among the States and Territories. The working party was, at the time of writing, finalising a submission for the NSW Attorney.

In March, the committee noted reports of moves made by the Victorian Free Speech Committee (FSC) to reform that state's libel laws. The FSC was particularly concerned with the use of defamation law being made by corporations to intimidate community groups and individuals raising concerns with the companies, such as environmental concerns. It had organised a public meeting to raise the issue and spoke of the need for four freedoms: freedom to speak about corporations; freedom to speak on matters of public interest; freedom to discuss the performance of public officials; and freedom from the threat of unspecified damages.

In last year's annual report, reference was made to the use by Car Lovers Carwash Ltd of the NSW Fair Trading Act as a supplement to defamation proceedings. The Act was used, inter alia, to secure an injunction against the publication of material on the company put together by a freelance journalist who was the defendant in the action. In August, at the urging of the Press Council the Minister for Fair Trading intervened in the proceedings, arguing for the quashing of the injunctions. In October the Supreme Court quashed the injunctions. In May 2001, the defamation proceedings were themselves discontinued. As the Council played an important role in encouraging the Minister's intervention, it is particularly pleased with this outcome.

see also
Index on Defamation Law material

[return to top]

4. Parliamentary Privilege

In May 2001, the Victorian Opposition sought the Council's view on the Constitution (Parliamentary Privileges) Bill which allowed for the tabling of Royal Commission reports, and those of similar inquiries, between meetings of the Parliament. The Council responded:

The Council has received your letter of 25 May concerning the Constitution (Parliamentary Privilege) Bill 2001.

The Council's Chairman, Professor Ken McKinnon, has perused the draft Bill and his initial view is that the Bill, by making the early release of reports of Royal Commissions and similar bodies possible, is an enhancement of the public's right to know. He can, on his initial inspection, see no threat to the traditional freedoms of the press in this legislation.

In passing, the Chairman also noted the question of whether the Opposition would be advised, in advance, of the release of any such report by the relevant Minister. But he was sure that the Leader would have that issue under consideration.

[return to top]

5. Media ownership

In March the FoP Committee commenced a review of the Council's policy on cross-media ownership rules and on restrictions on foreign ownership. At the time of writing the Council's view has not been finalised.

Access by all Australians to full, truthful, unbiased information about world and domestic events and to a pluralist range of opinions and commentary about those matters from an Australian perspective is the key issue to be considered in determining government policy on media ownership.

Different media feed off each other in the race to present the news first and best. The print media in particular presents the depth and diversity of analysis and commentary on news and events that enhance the democratic qualities of our society.

Accordingly the Press Council has adopted the following policies.

1. Freedom of the press and of the media should be guaranteed by inclusion in the Constitution or, at least, by statute.
    
2. Plurality of media outlets, diversity of views, and the regard for Australian content in the print media are issues of key importance.
    
3. Media ownership should be governed by competition law. Regulation should be achieved primarily by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) under the competition policy aspects of the Trade Practices Act
    
4. Judgments on substantial lessening of competition should be made on the basis of impact, circulation and penetration, considering the media as a single market
    
5. Foreign takeovers of major capital city newspapers and free-to-air TV channels should continue to be subject to the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act.

[return to top]

6. Privacy

In last year's report, the Council discussed the proposed Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Bill which sought to extend the regime covering the privacy of personal information held by the government to the private sector. Included in the Bill was a media exemption. At the time of writing the previous report, the Bill had been passed through the House of Representatives and was under consideration by the Senate. The Council's then Chairman, Professor Pearce, wrote to the Senate Committee considering the Bill in these terms:

I understand that aspects of the operation of this Bill have been referred to your Committee for examination and report. The Press Council would like to comment on the exemption contained in the Bill relating to the operations of the media.

When it was first proposed that this Bill be introduced into the Parliament it was indicated that the media would be exempted from its operation in recognition of the important role that the media plays in ensuring freedom of the people to access to information. However, it was suggested that the form of exemption should follow that included in New Zealand privacy legislation.

The Council made inquiries of the press in New Zealand as to the effect of the exemption in the NZ Privacy Act. It was informed that the experience of the press there indicated that the exemption as worded was insufficient to allow the full and free operation of the Press in that country. The NZ Privacy Act was said to have led to anomalous results and had limited access to important information to which the public was entitled. The Council was counselled to insist upon a wider basis for exemption.

These concerns were brought to the attention of the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General was apparently sympathetic to the concerns raised by the Council and broad definitions of "journalism" and "media organisation" were included in the Bill as introduced. The Press Council was happy with these provisions.

Following introduction, the Bill was referred to the House of Representatives Legal and Constitutional Committee for examination. In submissions to that Committee, persons who would limit the freedom of the press, notably the Privacy Commissioner, opposed the approach adopted and insisted that the NZ exemption should be adopted. It was apparently even said to that Committee that the press in NZ was happy with the exemption.

The Press Council appeared before the Committee to refute this suggestion. It also reiterated that it had no objection to the terms of the exemption. In response to a request from the Committee the Council made a further written submission dated 9 June 2000, a copy of which is attached without the enclosures for your information. Subsequently the Council sent a further letter to the Committee and again a copy of this is attached for your Committee's information.

The House of Representatives Committee's Report dealt with the media exemption in chapter 4. Its principal recommendation is Recommendation 9: that in order for a journalist or media organisation to obtain the benefit of the media exemption, he, she or it must subscribe to a code developed by a media organisation or representative body or the Privacy Commissioner. The Council has no problem with this proposal provided that it is not read as requiring that a press privacy code has to be approved by the Privacy Commissioner.

The Council's position is set out in the attached letter to the Attorney-General's Department [detailed in last year's annual report]. (You will see that the letter also refers to a proposal from the Department that the definition of "journalist" be deleted from the Bill.)

At the time of writing this submission, amendments flowing from the House of Representative's Committee's Report have not been introduced so it is not known what, if any of the matters referred to above, have been incorporated into the legislation. However, I understand that the time available to your Committee to examine the Bill is limited and it is for this reason that I have made this submission before the amendments to the Bill have been introduced.

I would be happy to expand on the matters here either orally or in writing if the Committee should so wish.

Professor Pearce appeared before the Senate Committee in September. The Senate Committee reported in October and the Bill was subsequently passed into law in a form similar to that approved by the House of Representatives, including an exemption for media organisations in the journalistic role. ("Media organisation" was defined in the Act but "journalism" is not.)

The exemption exists for media organisations that subscribe to a code of practice on privacy. The Press Council undertook to develop such a code, in conjunction with its Constituent Members, and invite media organisations to publicly subscribe to it. The draft code was discussed by the FoP Committee at several meetings and the Council's Executive Secretary met with officers of the Privacy Commission to seek its views on the draft code. At the time of writing, the code was still being discussed between the Council and its Constituent Members and a final version will be approved in time for media organisations to subscribe before the Act comes into effect in December 2001.

In last year's report, the Council noted that the NSW Privacy Commissioner had proposed a privacy code of practice on the use of NSW public sector agency records for research purposes. The FoP Committee received and noted the final version of that code at its May 2001 meeting.

Early in the reporting year, the Council received a copy of the draft Health Records Bill from the Victorian Department of Health. Given that the Bill contained adequate media exemptions and did not appear to impinge on press freedom, the committee decided to make no submission on it.

see also
Index on privacy material

[return to top]

7. Whistleblowers

No matters raised this year.

[return to top]

8. Freedom of Information and Suppression

In last year's annual report, the Council noted its interest in the administration of s10F of the Queensland Corrective Services Act. This section criminalises interviews with prisoners undertaken without the approval of the CEO of the Corrective Services Commission. The Council's then Chairman, Professor Pearce, wrote to the Queensland Premier in an attempt to make submissions on the law:

In June last year you opened the Regional Conference of Press Councils that was held in Brisbane under the auspices of the Australian Press Council. In your opening speech you referred to the importance to our society of press freedom. In that context the Council invites you to consider the most unfortunate invasion of that freedom which flows from the prohibition under Queensland legislation of journalists report matters brought to their attention by prisoners.

Two journalists are being prosecuted for a breach of s 104(10)(f) of the Corrective Services Act as a result of their being telephoned by prisoners in detention. In the case of John Anderson of the Townsville Bulletin, the matters that he brought to attention as a result of such a telephone call seem to fall squarely within the ranges of issues that the concept of freedom of the press is intended to protect. He raised broad public interest issues that would not otherwise have been able to be aired in the public arena. As a result of so doing he is being prosecuted. This seems to cut right across the significant freedom that is so cherished in this country and whose existence you supported last year.

Research that I have carried out into the law of the other major Australian jurisdictions has not revealed a provision akin s 104(10). Obligations are placed on prisoners not to make telephone calls without permission and there are in some cases limitations on persons who may be called. But there does not appear to be the constraint on press freedom that your Act currently imposes let alone that which is in contemplation in proposed amendments.

The Council understands the need to impose limits on the capacity of prisoners to contact persons in the community from which they have been removed. However, this should be achieved by placing constraints on the prisoner, as is done in other States, and not on the recipient of an unsolicited call. Nor should the constraints prevent a journalist carrying out his or her responsibilities to report matters of concern to the community.

The Press Council invites you to drop the charges against the journalists pending the repeal of s 104(10)(f), at lease insofar as it applies to journalists, and to abandon any action that would make an oppressive law even more unreasonable.

The Premier's Chief of Staff acknowledged the letter but no further action was taken by the Queensland government to either strengthen or lessen the effect of the Act. When John Anderson came before the courts, he had a significant victory, with the magistrate dismissing all charges. Ann appeal has been lodged in the District Court against the dismissal of the charges. The television journalist charged under the same provisions was convicted and fined $300 for talking to a prisoner on remand. The magistrate hearing that case noted that the law had to be upheld "whatever we might think of the tightening of the regulations regarding prisoners".

On a similar question, the Victorian Department of Justice sought the Council's view on proposed draft guidelines on contact with, and identification of, prisoners by the media. The Council responded by letter to the Correctional Services Commissioner:

Thank you for ... the opportunity to comment on the Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner's media policy.

The policy has been considered by the Freedom of the Press Committee of the Australian Press Council, which includes several members representing publishers of major Australian newspapers as well as the Council's Chairman and Vice Chairman (both public members).

The Council has asked me to convey to you its concerns about several aspects of the policy. Briefly, these concerns may be summarised as follows:

1. By its very existence, the policy acknowledges the great public interest in the operation of the criminal justice system generally, and the prison system in particular. The Press Council welcomes this acknowledgment. However, it considers that the policy places too strong an emphasis on the expectations and agendas of the government and OCSC, and not enough on the public interest and the community's right to know about the administration of justice in Victoria. The Council would like to see this imbalance redressed.
    
2. This imbalance is most obvious in the policy's apparent expectation that the media will assist the Department of Justice in its tasks of raising public awareness of the work of the correctional system, and of promoting the positive contributions of staff, offenders, and the corrections industry generally (Section 2 - Principles)
   
   While the Press Council can appreciate that OCSC regards these outcomes as desirable, media organisations are not necessarily motivated by the same aspirations. The policy should, in the Council's view, reflect a greater understanding of the community's expectations of the media, and a more explicit willingness to accommodate these expectations.
    
3. The policy provides for some prisoners to volunteer to be interviewed by representatives of the media. (Section 6.3).
   
   However, the provision is a limited one; defines a range of matters which OCSC wishes to exclude from interviews; and imposes substantial administrative constraints on the preparation and conduct of interviews.
   
   The Press Council considers the approach prescribed in Section 6.3 of the policy to impinge heavily on prisoners' right to free speech - a right clearly recognised in legal precedent.
    
4. In the Council's view, the policy provides insufficient information on how important decisions about media access to prisoners and offenders are made, and on avenues of appeal against those decisions available to the media.

There are, in addition, several other specific provisions in the policy that the Council believes are in need of amendment.

The Press Council recognises the commitment of OCSC and other stakeholders in the criminal justice system to a measure of openness and accountability in discussing the system's policies and operations. However, the Council considers that the media policy could do a great deal more to put that commitment into practice.

The Council would be pleased therefore, to facilitate a process of face-to-face discussion between print media representatives and your Office, with a view to addressing the concerns outlined above.

The Commissioner responded to this letter that she would be happy to take up with representatives of the print media any specific concerns they have with the guidelines. The Council has referred this matter to its Victorian Constituent Members for their information and action.

In October the FoP committee noted a UK Appeals Court judgment which threw out an attempt by the government to force two newspapers which published stories about misdeeds by the UK's security services to hand over their notes. The judge ruled that "inconvenient or embarrassing revelations ... should not be suppressed".

The commencement of the committal hearings for the Snowtown murder suspects led to some quite sweeping suppression orders from the South Australian court hearing the matters. The Council agreed to prepare a press release on the acceptability of such suppression orders, particularly in the case of committal hearings but, before it could be issued, media appeals had seen the bulk of the suppression orders set aside. The FoP committee sought from member newspapers examples of committal suppression orders and, following the release of the report of the empirical study of jurors in NSW by Chesterman et al was prepared to argue that subsequent juries are not as susceptible as supposed to influence from such pre-trial publicity. That material is still being collected at the time of writing and will be incorporated into an article and/or submission.

The Herald and Weekly Times was concerned with the use of 'hand up' briefs by the Victorian Magistrates' Courts. These meant that much of the material arising from committals was not heard in the courts. HWT took the process first to the Victorian Court of Appeals and thence to the High Court which, in April 2001, denied an application for special leave to appeal. The court determined that the Victorian Court of Appeal's decision was not the appropriate vehicle for the High Court to consider the "open court" requirement expressed in the Magistrates Court Act 1989. Justice Gaudron indicated that she "read the Full Court in Victoria as substantially agreeing with your [HWT] contention that the procedures (adopted by the Magistrates Court) were not appropriate." She also commented that the appellants "substantially won" before the Court of Appeal on the question of the interpretation of section 125 of the Magistrates Court Act. The view of the newspaper company was that the judgments of the Court of Appeal and the comments of the High Court both support the proposition that the Magistrates' Court should provide reasonable access to documents tendered in a committal. With the appointment of a new Chief Magistrate, the newspaper company was of the view that further difficulties could be surmounted by discussion.

[return to top]

9. Juries

Last year, the Council noted a New Zealand study of 312 jurors in 48 trials has found that juries in criminal trials are unlikely to be swayed by media coverage. As noted above the FoP Committee noted the empirical study by Chesterman et al which underlined the independence of thought that juries bring to their juror duties. The empirical evidence shows jurors and potential jurors are fundamentally responsible, base their reasoning on the evidence and are resistant to, if not scornful of, media reporting. (Notwithstanding the numerical evidence of independent jury thinking, which is unequivocal, Chesterman et al go on to draw many contrary conclusions about media influence, based on anthropological methodology which is not replicable. These are unsafe conclusions. It is not possible to gainsay them because of lack of evidence either way, but it is fair to say that they may reveal more about the initial positions of the authors than the reliability of jurors.)

[return to top]

10. Government suppression

Photographs in Public Gallery

As noted in last year's report, the Council's Chairman discussed with the Speaker of the House of Representatives, rules which restricted the ability of press photographers to take pictures of the House and its Galleries. The then Chairman, Professor Pearce, accompanied by Mark Baker from The Age, met with the Speaker and with the President of the Parliamentary Press Gallery. He noted the outcomes of these meetings in a letter to the Press Gallery President:

Thank you for meeting with me and Mark Baker before our meeting with the Speaker this week. We had a good hearing that followed much the pattern that you had predicted.

Clearly accepted as needing change was the right of photographers to be able to take photos in places where the public can. Clearly not accepted was any change to the present position in relation to the Public Galleries. We did not try to suggest otherwise.

Understanding was expressed of the view that the present rules unduly constrain photographers in relation to matters of immediacy with an undertaking that this issue would be given consideration in the redrafting of the rules. Equally appreciated and taken on board for consideration was the fact that still photographers should not be disadvantaged as compared with TV journalists.

We were promised that we would be given the opportunity to comment on a revised draft when it appeared.

I thought the meeting worthwhile if for no other reason than to add another voice in support of the issues that you had raised. Let us exchange intelligence on the matter as it comes to hand.

At the time of writing, the Presiding Officers have offered no substantial changes to the rules, and some MPs were talking of tightening the rules after an embattled Minister was photographed on the floor of the House during a censure motion.

[return to top]

11. Parliamentary and other inquiries

Senate Select Committee on Information Technologies

In May 2000 the Senate Committee released its report, In the Public Interest. This was referred to at length in the last annual report. At the time of writing, there is no indication that any Party is interested in taking up the Committee's recommendations.

[return to top]

Senate Committee on Public Administration and Finance

This committee in its look at two Democrat and two ALP Bills on political honesty and political advertising, invited the Press Council to make a submission to it. The Council took the view that the Bills were generally outside its remit but took the opportunity on 6 March 2001 to make a specific submission to the committee dealing with the Bills.

The Council expresses some concern with the wording of the proposed amendment 6 of the Electoral Amendment (Political Honesty) Bill 2000. The amendment seeks to give to the Electoral Commission and/or the Federal Court the power to request or order the 'advertiser' to publish a retraction in specific terms and specified manner and form.

In the Council's view, such an amendment might have the unfortunate consequence of directing the publisher of a newspaper or magazine, or the licence holder of a broadcaster, to publish or broadcast material as ordered by the commission or the court, not as agreed to by the parties. The section should be amended to ensure that the advertiser, and the advertiser alone, is responsible to the commission or the court as the result of an inaccuracy or misleading statement.

The submission was published in the APC News, Vol. 13, No. 2, May 2001.

[return to top]

Joint Statutory Committee on Corporations and Securities

The Council became aware in May 2001 that the Government, in repealing the Corporations Act and replacing it with the Financial Services Reform Bill 2001, had expanded the purview of the legislation and deleted the media exemptions to the licensing provisions under the Acts and intended to achieve this exemption by regulation rather than legislation. The FoP Committee decided, in conjunction with a number of media organisations, to oppose this step and seek the incorporation of a legislative exemption equivalent to the earlier one.

On 7 June it sent a submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee looking at the Bill. Its Executive Summary read:

The Council submits that the Committee should recommend that:

Equivalent provision to sections 77(6) and 77(7) of the Corporations Act be inserted into the Financial Services Reform Bill, and/or that proposed ASIC rules governing such a media exemption should be in line with ASIC's existing PS 118 by re-promulgating PS 118 as the new rules under the authority provided by the Bill.

The submission was published in the APC News, Vol. 13, No. 3, August 2001.

The Council also sent its submission to Government and Opposition parties. It noted, at the end of the reporting period, that the Government had determined to amend the Bill to include the media exemption in the legislation.

[return to top]

12. International

The Council has a constitutional responsibility to "make representations concerning the freedom of the Press on appropriate occasions to governments, public inquiries, and other organisations in Australia and abroad". Its major interest "abroad" is in Australia's region, particularly south-east Asia and the south Pacific. It also joined, at its formation, the World Association of Press Councils.

Regional Association

The FoP Committee discussed at its October meeting the idea of a regional association of Press Councils to assist the formation of such councils and to aid them in their early years. Dan O'Sullivan, an editor member of the Council, developed this idea which the Council adopted in principle in early 2001. It then wrote to the existing Councils, New Zealand, Fiji and Indonesia, to seek their co-operation in the development of such a body. It also decided to use the fact that the Commonwealth Press Union was sponsoring an editors' symposium in October, to co-incide with a CHOGM meeting in Brisbane, to host a conference of regional editors and Councils at the same time. The Australian Agency for International Development (AusAid) agreed to help sponsor the seminar on press freedom through self-regulation. At the end of the reporting period, the Council was liaising with the CPU and with AusAid, developing an invitation list, and finalising details for the seminar to be held in the first week of October 2001.

[return to top]

13. General

Youth suicide

The Council nominated Rex Jory (an alternate member of the Council and Deputy Editor of the Advertiser, Adelaide) as its second representative on the Federal Government's Media Reference Group on reporting of suicide. Mr Jory was also later nominated as the Council's liaison with the Response/Ability group developing tertiary teaching materials on suicide reporting and the reporting of mental illness issu
enerally.

The Media Reference Group developed a research paper which summarised previous papers on the possible link between reporting and subsequent suicide and Warwick Costin, the Council other member of the Group, developed a response to this which the FoP Committee endorsed. As a result of paper and response, the committee decided to review the Council's guidelines on the reporting of suicide and the new guideline was approved at the July meeting of the Council, as a part of General Press Release 246:

The Press Council is in sympathy with attempts by governmental and other bodies to curb the rate of suicide in Australia, particularly amongst young people. It calls upon the press to continue exercising care and responsibility in reporting matters of suicide and mental illness.

The Council notes that relatively little Australian research has been conducted on suicide. Most reviews reported so far are based on overseas experience, but the findings are inconclusive.

Some researchers claim that an association exists between media portrayal of suicide and actual suicide, and that in some cases the link is causal. Others, on the other hand, suggest that increased reporting of suicide can act as a deterrent to people at risk, and can draw attention to the social problems that may lead to the contemplation of suicide.

The Council believes that most papers are aware of the desirability of treating suicide with restraint, and of avoiding:

• Adding to the pain of relatives and friends of the deceased;
   
• Any reporting which might encourage copy-cat suicides or self harm;
   
• Unnecessary reference to details of method or place of a suicide;
   
• Language or presentation which trivialises, romanticises, or glorifies suicide, particularly in papers which target a youth readership;
   
• Loose or slang use of terms to describe various forms of mental illness, and the risk of stigmatising vulnerable people that may accompany such labels.

The Council also strongly commends to editors the suggestion that articles dealing with suicide, when they are deemed necessary, should include reference to the counselling services available to people in emotional distress and to their families, with contact addresses and phone numbers.

The Council recognises there are exceptions where these desirable aims may be outweighed by the pressure of news and public interest.

Suicides are generally not reported in newspapers, but mass suicides, suicides by public figures, bizarre cases, the continuing debate around voluntary euthanasia, research and statistical analysis, and other aspects of suicide and mental illness are all legitimate matters of public interest and concern.

Precise rules or guidelines, as advocated by some groups, cannot take adequate account of such exceptions. Instead, the Press Council prefers to encourage responsible approaches in the industry to the reporting of suicide and mental illness, and consultation with reputable associations, research centres, counselling services and health authorities when seeking comment for articles on these issues.

[return to top]

Ali Kazak and the Australian Financial Review

Ali Kazak, the representative of the Palestinian State in Australia, referred to the Equal Opportunities Division of the NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal an opinion article from the Australian Financial Review. This article had earlier been the subject of a complaint to the Council which the Council had dismissed on the grounds that the newspaper had provided Mr Kazak with the opportunity to respond and had also published a contrary opinion in a subsequent edition. The ADT ruled that such attempts at balance were not relevant to its decision and upheld Mr Kazak's complaint. The publishers of the AFR appealed the decision, an appeal which has been heard but as yet no judgment has been delivered. The Council viewed this decision with concern and issued GPR 241.

[return to top]

Review of guidelines

The Council issued a new reporting guideline on health matters (GPR 245). The FoP Committee considered the existing positions on drug reporting, recalls, opinion polls and reporting of matters related to race and nationality. Revised guidelines on Drug Reporting, product recalls and opinion polls were approved at the July meeting of the Council and issued as a part of General Press Release 246. It will be published in next year's annual report.

The guideline of reporting of race and nationality is still being considered at the time of writing.

[return to top]

Exclusive access to public events

Following the News Limited sponsorship of aspects of the Centenary of Federation Parade and concerns that this might interfere with the ability of other organisations to report the parade, the committee considered the need to develop guidelines on such exclusive access agreements. The Chairman developed a draft of such guidelines but the committee did not agree that such were necessary and the matter was tabled.

[return to top]

Drugs and crime reports

The committee considered a report on Drugs and Crime Reporting in the media issued by the Australian Institute of Criminology. The report called from bodies like the Council to develop codes of practice for the media in the reporting of drugs and their relationship to crime. The committee took the AIC view into account in developing its new guideline on the reporting of drugs (see above) but decided to take no further action other than reporting in its own journal the AIC view.

[return to top]

Return to
Freedom of the Press overview

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