Current standing
Professional Privilege
Contempt by Publication
Defamation
Parliamentary Privilege
Media Ownership
Privacy
Public-interest Whistleblowing
Freedom of Information
Suppression
Access to courts and documents
Juries
Government Suppression
National Security Information (Criminal Proceedings) Bill
National Security Information Legislation Bill 2005
ASIO Act Review
Constitutional Law
Parliamentary and other Inquiries
Senate Committees
Media Doctor
World Summit for the Information Society action plan
Media monitoring and the reporting of crime
Other matters
Anti-vilification laws
Financial Services legislation
Tobacco advertising
Reporting of suicide, drugs, children, schools, mental health, body imaging, unauthorised arrivals etc etc
Chequebook journalism and other reporting guidelines
- Chequebook journalism
- Reader-based material
- Advertorials
Research
World Press Freedom Day 2005
Current standing
According to FreedomHouse, in its 2005 report, Australia is currently equal thirtieth among the nations of the world in so far as press freedom is concerned. Reporters sans Frontieres place it 31st. These positions would shock most Australians who regard it as a place where the press is free to report on matters of public interest and concern so that the voters of Australia can have the information they need to make a proper choice at election time. The reality does not reflect this perception.
This report on the Council's free speech activities in the 2004-2005 year aims to do two things:
- review the background to the current situation in Australia in each area where there is a real or possible threat to press freedom (that is, the freedom of the people to be informed)
- report on the Council's activities in each area during the year.
[return to top]
Professional Privilege
Background
Two Herald Sun journalists have been asked to disclose sources in relation to a leaked story (published in the Herald Sun, 20 February 2004) embarrassing to the then Veterans Affairs Minister, that has led to a prosecution of a Commonwealth Public Service employee. Following the magistrate's committal of the public servant, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) sought to reopen the committal to question the journalists as to the identity of their source/s. That being refused, the DPP took the unprecedented step for a prosecution in Victorian courts of seeking to question the journalists prior to the trial. At the same time he sought the postponement of the trial. In the Victorian County Court, the journalists refused to answer questions on sources on the grounds of the possibility of self-incrimination. At a subsequent hearing, they were granted immunity and were again asked to divulge the identity of their source/s and again refused, leading to them being threatened with Contempt of Court. They are due before the court again in early November, with a strong likelihood of being cited for contempt. The public servant's trial had been adjourned until January 2006.
Similarly, late in 2005 the President of the NSW Law Society threatened to haul journalists before the courts to discover the identity of sources for stories about internal ructions on the Society's Board. Although no action has as yet been taken that threat revealed the vulnerability of journalists under present law.
Recent statements by the federal Attorney General and at least one state Attorney General, about a joint review of uniform Evidence Acts by state and federal Law Reform Commissions currently in progress, suggest the possibility that the outcome might include a revision of the law based on a current provision in the NSW Evidence Act empowering Judges to take into account the desirability of affording journalists better protection of sources.
Press Council Professional Privilege Representation 2004-5
Uniform Evidence Acts
Of most interest to the Council, in a discussion paper on the development of proposed uniform evidence legislation published by The Australian Law Reform Commission, in co-operation with its NSW and Victorian analogues, was the discussion of whether there should be a privilege to protect journalists' confidential sources. Council members were concerned about the openness of the model being proposed, feeling that there should be a presumption in favour of protection of confidential sources.
At the time of writing, the Council was finalising a submission, which made the main point that without information, freedom of the press has little meaning, and that this fact is of particular consequence in relation to the reporting of government activity. The media have a crucial role in facilitating the accountability of government to the electorate. The Council argued:
Governments are not always cooperative in providing the press with information that gives an objective and complete picture of government activity, free from distortion. There are instances when such a complete picture can only be ascertained by relying on confidential sources. Such sources are often 'whistleblowers' who have unique knowledge of the internal workings of organisations, knowledge that is invaluable to journalists seeking to keep these organisations accountable. In revealing this knowledge to a journalist, whistleblowers often place their own position, or even safety, in jeopardy. ...
[Whistleblowers'] revelations usually expose corrupt, illegal or questionable behaviour. The recent history of journalism is replete with examples where whistleblowers have risked their own interests in order to ensure that the public interest was served by exposing an organization to public scrutiny. Just two examples of this are police officers who cooperated with the ABC's Four Corners and The Courier Mail in exposing corruption in Queensland (which ultimately resulted in the Fitzgerald Inquiry) and nurses who have come forward in both New South Wales and Queensland to discuss high death rates in public hospitals.
Due to the risks being undertaken by whistleblowers, information is often made available to journalists only on condition that the identity of the source is kept confidential. The commitment to maintaining confidentiality in such circumstances is a longstanding tenet of journalistic ethics. This commitment recognizes the fact that whistleblowers are often reluctant to divulge information if disclosure is likely to result in damage to their career or safety. Failure by journalists to protect confidential sources would damage the professional relationship of trust between them and would discourage whistleblowers from coming forward to raise issues of public concern. The ability of journalists to protect the confidentiality of their sources is thus a crucial element in the process of democratic accountability and should be recognized by the law.
Where the law does not recognise the importance of confidentiality between journalists and their sources, situations may arise where journalists are confronted with a dilemma whether to divulge their source and thereby betray their ethical commitment, or to protect their source and in so doing break the law and risk a penalty. This dilemma has been clearly illustrated in the United States by the recent imprisonment of The New York Times journalist, Judith Miller, for refusing to disclose the identity of her informer, in relation to a putative story that would have addressed the question of a possible breach of the law by officials in the US administration. Two Australian journalists are facing a similar dilemma in a case currently before the Victorian County Court. In this case the issue was one of embarrassment to a Minister of the Crown, not the divulging of matters that could be regarded as secret or confidential in nature.
The Australian Press Council recognises that there may be certain instances when it is in the public interest that confidential information be disclosed to a court or inquiry. However, the Press Council is of the view that it is important that formal recognition be given to the public interest in the protection of confidential relationships between journalists and their sources. One way of doing this is to ensure that journalists cannot be compelled to disclose confidential information in court.
In order to protect the relationship of confidentiality between journalists and their sources, the Australian Press Council endorses the proposal that the Uniform Evidence Acts should include a privilege for the protection of confidential information in relation to professional relationships. The Press Council proposes that a clause that is based on that set down in the New Zealand Evidence Bill (see below) be adopted for this purpose. However, if such a clause is regarded as inappropriate, the Press Council supports the proposal put forward in the discussion paper, that the Commonwealth Evidence Act should adopt a provision which is the equivalent of Division 1A of the NSW Evidence Act 1995.
New Zealand Evidence Bill:
Section 64 Protection of journalists' sources
- If a journalist has promised an informant not to disclose the informant's identity, neither the journalist nor his or her employer is compellable in a civil or criminal proceeding to answer any question or produce any document that would disclose the identity of the informant or enable that identity to be discovered.
- A Judge of the High Court may order that subsection (1) is not to apply if satisfied by a party to a civil or criminal proceeding that, having regard to the issues to be determined in that proceeding, the public interest in the disclosure of evidence of the identity of the informant outweighs-
- any likely adverse effect of the disclosure on the informant or any other person; and
- the public interest in the communication of facts and opinion to the public by the news media and, accordingly also, in the ability of the news media to access sources of facts.
- The Judge may make the order subject to any terms and conditions that the Judge thinks appropriate.
- This section does not affect the power or authority of the House of Representatives.
- In this section-
informant means a person who gives information to a journalist in the normal course of the journalist's work in the expectation that the information may be published in a news medium
journalist means a person who in the normal course of that person's work may be given information by an informant in the expectation that the information may be published in a news medium
news medium means a medium for the dissemination to the public or a section of the public of news and observations on news
public interest in the disclosure of evidence includes, in a criminal proceeding, the defendant's right to present an effective defence.
see also
Index on protection of sources material
[return to top]
Contempt by Publication
Background
As noted in the preceding section Contempt of Court charges are pending against a number of Australian journalists. In addition to the Herald Sun case noted above, publication in the Sunday Herald Sun and in other newspapers, and on television, of a report of a boy who divorced his parents has resulted in over twenty journalists, producers and editors being charged. The Sunday Herald Sun was also subject to charges for publishing an editorial that advocated a tough sentence for a man charged with the murder of his pregnant wife. A published report of a settlement in relation to action in the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal led to contempt charges against a Herald Sun journalist, and contempt charges were threatened against an editor in relation to reports of a rape charge against a relative of the Danish Princess Mary. The editor of the West Australian pleaded guilty to contempt over the identification of a nine year old in print while a similar charge related to the paper's website was dropped.
Victorian courts have raised the possibility of judges seeking to have media organisations remove potentially contemptuous material from their publicly-available electronic databases in order to forestall jury members accessing material related to the accused in cases before them. NSW Chief Justice James Spigelman was reported to have made similar remarks, although his references were not specifically aimed at media websites.
The NSW and Western Australian Law Reform Commissions have put forward to their respective Attorneys-General proposals for tightening contempt by publication provisions but no legislative action has been taken on these recommendations as yet.
Meanwhile some judicial figures, such as the Federal Court's Justice Ronald Sackville, have argued for liberalisation of contempt laws.
Press Council Contempt activity 2004-2005
The Press Council has kept a watching brief but has not had to make specific representation on this topic during the year.
see also
Index on courts and contempt
[return to top]
Defamation
Background
The Press Council first initiated a push for uniformity of Defamation Law in 2001 when the matter was off the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (SCAG) agenda. Limited reform ensued in NSW in 2002 in amendments to the existing law.
As reported last year, SCAG took up the question of uniform reform in 2003 and moved through a working party of officers towards some proposals. At that point the federal Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock entered the scene announcing that he would initiate moves toward a federal law if the States did not move. Federal discussion papers followed while the States were proceeding with their drafting.
In late July 2004 SCAG discussed a detailed set of proposals for uniform defamation law. A day later federal Attorney-General Ruddock, arguing that the SCAG paper had 'failed to address significant issues and demonstrates the lack of commitment by the States to achieving genuine uniform law', released a Revised outline of possible national defamation law, moving further towards the development of a separate national defamation law.
At the SCAG meeting of November 2004 in New Zealand the states and territories agreed to proceed with uniform defamation legislation, agreeing to have legislation enacted before the end of January 2006. Work then proceeded on a model law that all states would enact.
At its May 2005 meeting, SCAG agreed to the final draft of the model defamation law, including the compromise on allowing small business to sue. The Council continued to liaise with the Standing Committee and with state and territory Attorneys-General to ensure the passage of the legislation. The agreement was seen as a unique opportunity to reform defamation law in Australia and to eliminate the variations across jurisdictions that have given rise to extensive forum shopping.
At the end of the year action in the State legislatures was proceeding as planned and the federal Attorney General seemed to have accepted that separate federal legislation would not be required. He reserved his position to the extent that he would review the progress of the states and territories in early 2006 and decide then whether further action would be required.
The removal of the right to sue by large corporations from the new uniform laws will mean that such suits are a thing of the past. A defamation action in Tasmania initiated by the public company, Gunns, may well be the last hurrah for the use of defamation law by corporations to stop community activists critical of their activities.
The major on-going concern with enactment of the proposed model laws has been the inclusion of the qualified privilege defence based on the NSW model, which has not proved very useful. SCAG has agreed that is an area that can be further reviewed once the uniform codes have been enacted.
In another development of significance, based on the O'Shane case in NSW and the refusal of the High Court to take up an appeal on the Popovic case, it appears that the judiciary has decided that the Lange defence, based on the freedom of expression implied in the Constitution, does not apply to judicial officers.
Press Council defamation activity 2004-5
As in previous years, the Council actively tracked legal and political developments towards reform of the eight extant state and territory defamation laws towards laws with common requirements. It kept in touch with the main players, monitoring and encouraging action on the one hand and trying to remove impediments to the desired outcome as they arose. This involved contact with both Ministers and officials and informal mediation where difficulties arose.
For instance, the Council's Chairman, Professor Ken McKinnon, wrote to all State Premiers and both territory Chief Ministers:
On behalf of the Australian Press Council I write to congratulate your Attorney-General on the progress made by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General towards uniformity of Australian defamation law. The release of the model law for the states and territories following its meeting in November creates a unique opportunity to reform defamation law in Australia and to eliminate the variations across jurisdictions which have given rise to extensive forum shopping.
As you are aware the Council, which represents the major newspaper and magazine publishers, has been urging uniformity of defamation laws across Australia's jurisdictions for some time. When the Council took up defamation reform in 2000 and 2001, the matter had dropped off the SCAG agenda. Given that its constituent publishers distribute periodicals in a large number of jurisdictions, the Council was concerned with the risk created by the uncertainty created by publications having to have regard for so many different standards.
The Council is pleased to see that the draft developed by the Attorneys addresses a number of the important issues which the Council has sought to include in any reformed defamation law, particularly the proposal for extensive pre-litigation procedures which deal with the question of restoration of reputation, through Offers of Amends. The Council believes that such a procedure will have the effect of settling a greater number of cases without the need for extensive court time to be occupied by lengthy trials. The Council also believes that the inclusion of a recommendation for a defence of truth alone, of caps on damages for non-economic loss, and a shortened limitation period are all positive developments.
Having seen SCAG move so far towards reform and uniformity in the last twelve months, the Council looks forward to the early introduction of legislation into your Parliament and the passage of the reforms. The ability of the states and territories to be able promptly to harmonise defamation across the jurisdictions will demonstrate that co-operation can work to the advantage of the Australian people.
The Council remains available to you to provide whatever assistance it can in this regard.
see also
Index on defamation material
[return to top]
Parliamentary Privilege
Background
In June 2005 the Senate Privileges Committee recommended the strengthening of contempt of Parliament sections but narrowed the range of instances to which they apply.
Earlier, in March and May 2003, the Chairman of the Council, Professor Ken McKinnon, in correspondence with the then Chair of the Senate Committee of Privileges, Senator Robert Ray, following threats of action against a journalist at The Age, following what the Privileges Committee considered premature publication of a leaked version of one of its reports, made the points that those who leak Senate documents and reports are, in almost all cases, members of the relevant committee. (The letters and Senator Ray's responses were published in Annual Report No. 27 and a public Report by the Senate Committee of Privileges.)
The new proposals comprise a classic 'good news-bad news' scenario. The committee did not want to establish a Parliamentary 'CSI lab' to investigate the records of senators who might be the source of leaks of confidential material from Senate Committees at the same time as the government was happy to investigate over 3000 phone records in an attempt to pin down the identity of a public servant who embarrassed a Minister when blowing the whistle on a decision to spin a cut of $500 million in promised veterans' benefits as an increase in benefits. Instead of tracing the leaker (the Privileges Committee admits that in almost all cases it is a senator), the recommendations again target the journalist and editors who print the leaks.
The Committee of Privileges' report recommended changes to the way it should be empowered to deal with the publication of leaked material from Senate committees. Only publication of in camera hearings and submissions would be automatically referred to the Privileges Committee and these would be regarded, prima facie, as contempt of Parliament. Other leaks, such as the early release of a committee's findings, would not be so regarded and would be dealt with, in the first instance by the committee concerned. Adoption of the committee's recommendations would lessen restrictions on press reporting of Parliament, but would still focus on the journalist and editor, rather than the source of the leak.
Similarly, despite a recommendation from a House Committee to review the rules, the House of Representatives has not eased existing strong restrictions on the taking of photographs in the chamber. These have been used to threaten media organisations and limit their ability to report, through photojournalism, matters of public interest.
Both houses of federal parliament have 'right of reply' rules for individuals who are neither members nor Senators, but who have been unfairly singled out for criticism. The Senate has granted a number of opportunities to reply; the House of Representatives still has yet to grant one.
A Victorian parliamentary committee investigating a possible breach of privilege asked a journalist to complete a Statutory Declaration revealing his source. The journalist declined and nothing more has been heard to date.
Press Council parliamentary privilege activity 2004-5
The Council in its May 2005 submission to the Senate Committee of Privileges review of unauthorised disclosures noted that, two years after its previous exchanges with the Committee, it now appeared that the Committee recognised the futility of classing all unauthorised disclosures as contempt and was sensibly attempting to distinguish those disclosures that may interfere with the work of committees from those that do not.
The Council submitted that the committee needed to make a crucially important distinction. In determining what, if any, disclosure interferes with the working of committees or of the Senate, it needed to distinguish the leak itself from the publication of the leak.
It also pointed out that there was no indication that the Senate would devise ways to take the appropriate action to find the culprit, but rather that it was likely to take the easy course of shooting the messenger, the press, rather than finding ways of disciplining Senators or finding ways of discovering and closing the source of the leaks.
It suggested that the Committee should consider adopting power to check the hard drives and telephone records (including mobiles) of committee members and staff when there has been a leak. Further it should consider the same kind of training courses for Senators that it urges on Heads of Commonwealth departments and authorities and on editors and journalists.
The Council concluded:
In an act analogous to King Cnut demonstrating to his courtiers his inability to affect the English tides, the Senate appears to be recognising that it has little ability to stop unauthorised leaks from committees, and to be recognising that the leakers are, in almost all cases, members of the relevant committee. If the Committee of Privileges seriously wants to deal with the question of unauthorised disclosures, either of in camera material or of matters more widely, the Press Council urges it to deal with these concerns by addressing the actions of those who leak the material, not those who publish information of public interest and concern that their readers are entitled to have.
The Council's Executive Secretary appeared before the Committee on 3 May to present oral evidence based on its submission.
[return to top]
Media Ownership
Background
The federal government has foreshadowed its intention to remove the cross-media ownership rules from the Broadcasting Services Act but there is still no indication of the form any changes might take and the impact they will have on diversity of voices in the media. The Productivity Commission has recommended that any such removal be a part of a general freeing up of competition across the sector.
Foreign ownership provisions restrict the ability of new voices to enter the market. The federal government has said that these will be reviewed when the domestic cross-media rules are changed.
Press Council Media Ownership positions in 2004-2005
The Press Council's concern is that any change in the rules does not adversely affect the current diversity of voices. It has continued to recommend that mergers and acquisitions within the media industry be regulated by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), regarding the media as a single industry.
[return to top]
Privacy
Background
Privacy developments are most likely to have an adverse effect on press freedom over the next few years. Things like the proliferation of CCTV cameras throughout our cities, the constant mini-cam surveillance of work places and monitoring of the things we do on our office computers have left people with the view that little they do is private any more. This has combined with the cross-matching of information on all of us on ever more extensive databases to exacerbate the feeling. While potential intrusion onto privacy by the media is not as pervasive, the rare examples of it fuel a perception that the media is contributing to this sense of a loss of privacy.
Governments and the courts, acting separately, are developing further privacy legislation, a tort of privacy and a judicial system that is either unaware or uncaring of the importance of press freedom and transparent justice. The difficulty of leaning heavily towards more privacy protection is that it seems impossible to avoid reinforcement of trends towards more secrecy.
At the moment there is an over-emphasis on privacy, reflected in irrational reporting restrictions on children, in the closing of courts, in the denial of information regarding people charged with crimes, and in restrictions on photographers. Most of us are not even allowed to have printed copies of the electoral rolls any more (political parties of course being excepted, because they would never invade anyone's privacy). A new acronym, BOPA, has come into common parlance as agencies restrict the availability of information "because of the Privacy Act". Examples of this are rife. For example, access to files in the Administrative Appeals Tribunals and other similar tribunal hearings are being refused prior to the hearing on grounds of privacy. One recent example was Pixie Skase's reapplication for citizenship. Access to police mug shots on court files, even of convicted persons is regularly denied on privacy grounds until after sentencing.
The High Court (in Lenah Game Meats) has already hinted at the possibility of a tort of "breach of privacy". A lower court in Queensland has established a de facto tort of privacy in a recent judgement (in Grosse v Purvis).
State governments have enacted, or are discussing, legislation to govern the use of 'surveillance devices'. Western Australia has the strongest law but the courts have interpreted the definitions of 'public' and 'private' places quite strictly. In other states, proposed definitions are so badly constructed that hearing aids and contact lenses would be classed as 'covert surveillance devices'. NSW and Victoria have developed workplace surveillance laws that have no immediate impact on the media but definitions in them may be applied in putative legislation on more general surveillance issues.
The Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, in a recent discussion paper arising from a desire to limit the publication of exploitative and offensive images on the Internet, has made proposals that might result in repressive restrictions on taking photos in public places. The ability of photojournalists to record the culture and history of Australia is under threat from such proposals. This follows a British court inventing the crime of "image theft" by a photographer and attempts by sporting and entertainment personalities to 'protect their image' by using the law to restrict the ability of the media to publish photographs, even when taken in public places.
Both the federal Privacy Commissioner and a Senate Committee have conducted reviews of the federal Privacy Act. The commissioner's review called for revision of media exemption; Senate Committee did not. These conflicting recommendations are still with the federal Attorney-General who is yet to comment publicly on either.
Press Council privacy activity 2004-5
Workplace surveillance
The Council, while generally supporting the proposed Act, expressed concern about aspects of the NSW Workplace Surveillance Bill 2004, particularly clauses 15 and 28 which could have unintended consequences for the media.
Clause 15 specifies that an application for a covert surveillance authority must be dealt with in the absence of the public. The Press Council believes applications should be heard in open court unless extraordinary circumstances warrant otherwise.
Clause 28 prohibits the use or disclosure of information obtained by covert surveillance of an employee at work. The Council suggested that an exemption should be included in the clause to permit the disclosure of information obtained by covert surveillance to the media, and the publication of that material, if it would be in the public interest to do so.
Privacy submissions
The Council made a submission to the Office of the federal Privacy Commissioner as part of its review of the private sector provisions of the Privacy Act 1988. It made a submission along similar lines, but in more detail, to a Senate Committee which concurrently reviewed the Privacy Act.
The Executive Summary of the submissions was largely the same.
As the body which administers the Privacy Standards for the Print Media under the media exemption in the federal Privacy Act 1988, the Australian Press Council submitted that the exemption was working well, that the Council's experience indicates that an appropriate balance between the flow of information of public interest and concern and individuals' rights to privacy in their private affairs has been struck and that, within the print media, the appropriate organisations and activities are covered by the exemption. The Council also appended a brief summary of the privacy matters with which it has dealt in the last three reporting years.
The Council noted that its experience with administering the Standards has been positive. By and large, the print media respect such provisions, as demonstrated by the low number of complaints received each year by the Council on such matters, fewer than 5 per cent of complaints to it are about invasion of privacy. Similarly, the most recently available statistics from the NSW Privacy Commissioner indicate that only 1.6 per cent of complaints received by his office arose from intrusions by the media. Polls and complaints overwhelmingly indicated that the public main concern with respect to privacy invasions is through the proliferation and cross-matching of databases.
The Council concluded that its experience with administering the Standards indicates to it that no changes are needed to the media exemption as it currently stands.
The Council's response to privacy reviews
The Office of the Privacy Commissioner's report recommended that the media exemption in the Act be reviewed, but the Senate Committee, while dissatisfied by some aspects of the Act, did not highlight the media exemption as an area of concern.
The Council then wrote to the federal Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, expressing its concerns with aspects of the report, especially those it saw as not justified by the material before the commissioner and which it argued will make it more difficult for the media to report on matters of public interest and concern.
The Council referred to the review's reliance for its criticism of the exemption on the submissions of three bodies. It argued that the Australian Privacy Foundation's (APF) material offered no proof for its assertion that media codes pay 'lip service' to privacy and that privacy protections are 'widely regarded as ineffectual', whereas the Council's submission detailed its successful handling of privacy complaints through its mediation and adjudication processes over the past three years, since the private sector amendments to the Act became effective. The Australian Medical Association (AMA) and the Mental Health Privacy Coalition (MHPC) referred to the same alleged media intrusion into privacy. The Council said that it was not clear, from the general nature of the concern expressed, where and when alleged intrusions occurred, but the Council could not support the MHPC's claim that the privacy regime should be changed as a result and the media should have to seek the commissioner's imprimatur before reporting on such matters.
Leaving aside the named submissions, the Council noted that the majority of submissions that made any mention of it supported the current media exemption. The overwhelming number of submissions made no comment on the exemption.
The Council noted that it would be happy to help clarify the Act by defining 'journalism' in it, but would be concerned were any inserted definition unfairly to narrow the exemption. The Council reminded the Attorney General of the words of the then Attorney-General in introducing the exemption in the private sector provisions:
The media in Australia have a unique and important role in keeping the Australian public informed. In developing the Bill the government has sought to achieve a balance between the public interest in allowing the free flow of information to the public through the media and the individual's right to privacy. In order to achieve this balance the Bill does not apply to acts and practices of media organisations in the course of journalism.
A range of other provisions in the Bill also recognise the important role of the media in facilitating the free flow of information to the public.
The Council also referred to the report of the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee, The real Big Brother, which made a number of recommendations for the review of the Act, but made no recommendation for any review of the media exemption. The Council said that the Senate committee has got it right in its implicit endorsement of the current exemption.
It particularly noted that the report addressed the vexed question of the use of the provisions of the Privacy Act for improper purposes. The failure to release information of public interest and concern by improper application of the rationale, 'because of the Privacy Act', is an issue that should concern all citizens. The Council sought from the Attorney-General that, in any comments on the reviews, he would address this issue.
Council's policy on privacy
During the year the Council, taking note of existing and likely judicial and legislative developments in the area of privacy, took stock of its own policy position. The Chairman started the debate with an analysis of the current developments, delivered to the Commonwealth Press Union's February conference in Sydney (published as an article by Lexis-Nexis). Subsequently a revised draft policy statement was used to initiate formal debate at a Council meeting. The Council is still working on the draft which it plans to finalise by late 2005.
see also
Index on privacy material
[return to top]
Public-interest Whistleblowing
Background
Public-interest whistleblowing is becoming more fraught with difficulties as exemplified in the case of the public official suspended without pay by the Commonwealth Department of Veterans Affairs, after publication in February 2004 in the Herald Sun of a story exposing the Minister's camouflaged announcement of a cut in a previously announced policy of a promised veterans' benefit. The official has been charged with a criminal offence, to be tried early in 2006.
A quite serious problem is that several newsrooms were visited by police looking for evidence that might help convict public servants suspected of whistleblowing. One such took place in October 2004 when police arrived at News House and demanded Natalie O'Brien of The Australian hand over ASIO documents relating to the Bali bombing and associated terrorism that they suspected were in her possession. No one was charged as a result of this. There was a raid in November 2004 on the National Indigenous Times, after publication of an article related to ATSIC, seeking to recover documents alleged to be in the newspaper's possession. The political hypocrisy involved in these actions is revealed by the fact that the Australian Financial Review, which published the same story on the same day, based on the same documents was not subjected to a raid. Nor was the Herald Sun raided for evidence a year earlier when whistleblower Andrew Wilkie was heavily criticised by commentator Andrew Bolt using secret material from a secret Office of National Assessments analysis that just 'happened' to fall into his hands.
[return to top]
Freedom of Information
Background
In all jurisdictions the ability of journalists to utilise Commonwealth and State Freedom of Information (FoI) legislation to obtain material that would shed a light on government activity is being steadily eroded by the imposition of excessive fees, extensive delays, unreasonable refusal of access, and lengthy lists of exemptions. And when all these hurdles have been overcome the applicant can still be confronted with "conclusive certificates" issued by the relevant Minister. One request relating to animal health issues was held up because terms such as "animals" were not, it was claimed, adequately defined.
In recent years The Australian's Michael McKinnon has been battling to obtain documents which provide the public with important information on the effect of bracket creep on income, on the possible abuse of the first home owner's scheme and the legal advice given on the validity of internment of Australians by US forces in Guantanomo Bay.
His case against the Treasurer continued in 2004-2005, with an unsuccessful appeal against an AAT finding in a full court of the Federal Court, with the court upholding by 2-1 the right of a Minister to issue a conclusive certificate. The court refused to consider the contention that disclosure would be in the public interest, finding that, if reasonable grounds existed for the Minister's claim that it would not be in the public interest, the court had no jurisdiction to review the Minister's assertion. The dissenting judge Richard Conti found The Australian "tendered an impressive array of testimony" including expert evidence in its AAT appeal. He said the evidence was "largely and essentially" inconsistent with one of Treasury's main witnesses. The FOI Act "requires inherently for the tribunal to take a balancing exercise in relation to and as part of its determination of the competing [public interest] claims". Justice Conti also agreed with the submissions of The Australian that the AAT misdirected itself in assessing the public interest by not balancing the evidence of the newspaper's witnesses against that of a key Treasury witness. A submission to the High Court for permission to appeal is pending.
Press Council Freedom of Information representations in 2004-5
Reform of FoI
The Council's Executive Secretary delivered a paper on reform of the freedom of information laws and practices at the Public Right to Know Conference in August 2005 at the University of Technology Sydney. This paper was subsequently published in the last issue of an FoI journal and in the Australian Journalism Review.
McKinnon case
The Council has a strong interest in the McKinnon case, outlined above, because, if the High Court accepts the case there is potential for limitation on the ability of Ministers to issue conclusive certificates. News Corporation, the publishers of The Australian, have indicated than it intends to appeal to the High Court, based in part on the arguments made by Judge Conti.
With the help of constitutional lawyers the Council is preparing to lodge an amicus curiae brief on the case.
[return to top]
Suppression
Background
The Council is concerned about the number of suppression orders being issued, with increasing frequency in many jurisdictions. In mid-2005 the News Ltd database carried 687 notifications from past twelve months. The total number of orders is, in fact, higher, probably closer to 1000, because its offices are not always made aware of suppression orders, and because some courts issue suppression orders on the very fact that a suppression order has been made, particularly in lower courts. News Ltd says that the higher figure equates to about four instances of suppression every court sitting day somewhere in Australia.
As noted, there are problems with the notification of orders from some courts and with information on alterations and removals. For example, in the NSW courts, judges' associates are meant to pass along details of suppressions to the Supreme Court's Public Information Officers. Those in the District Court and Magistrates Courts do not always do so. Nor do they always pass along the advice that an order has been altered or removed.
There are concerns in some jurisdictions with standing to contest orders, even when information on them is available. Orders by magistrates and judges are too often too broad or imprecise. For instance, a ban on reference to any mention of any family members of an accused whose trial was due to start in two months came the day before members of the family were referred to in evidence to a separate inquest. There have been twenty-two orders and variations since 1 June 2005 in that case alone. Moreover challenges to orders that are too broad or imprecise, or just plain unnecessary, cost an average of around $50,000 for each application, often without success.
Judicial recognition of the problem is increasing. In September 2004, NSW Chief Justice, James Spigelman, pointed out that jurors are not fragile or easily influenced by the media and can be trusted to follow directions. Anyone who restricts reporting of a trial should have much better reason than believing a fair trial is at risk.
Similarly, in September 2005, Chief Justice Marilyn Warren of the Supreme Court of Victoria said that a course on Suppression Orders was being drafted by the Judicial College of Victoria, to "raise awareness, educate and develop sensitivity [among judges] as to cases that are appropriate and cases that are inappropriate for Suppression Orders, and the need to carefully consider the ambit of such orders".
Nevertheless there has not as yet been an actual decrease in the rate of issuance of suppression orders.
Press Council suppression orders representation in 2004-5
The Council is seeking two major outcomes, a decrease in the number of ill-advised orders and, second, development of a uniform method applicable to all States of advising the media of the existence, amendment or cessation of suppression orders. Inadvertent publication of suppressed material must be prevented to the maximum extent. While some jurisdictions have taken positive steps, in co-operation with the media, to make the existence of such orders known, the systems vary to an alarming extent and the ad hoc nature of the process is a major concern. An unwelcome possibility is that interstate media unknowingly reporting on the matter may be read within the court's jurisdiction.
The Council is conferring with bodies representing the broadcast media with the intention of making a broader submission to the Chief Justices of all jurisdictions, covering suppression orders and broader issues of court reportage. Subject to industry wide agreement it will recommend that courts establish a Courts-Media liaison committee that can discuss issues arising for the media and the judiciary in relation to media coverage; appoint a courts-media liaison officer; establish a uniform method of reporting suppression orders; and establish uniform methods of reporting court judgments.
What is proposed has financial implications but the Council argues that the minimisation of aborted trials, contempt actions and the like would justify the expense and possibly even save money in the longer term. Both court jurisdictions and the media would benefit. Media organisations are likely to be willing to contribute to facilities that help reduce the risk of infringing upon court orders. Secure on-line databases that the media could consult to determine if a suppression order exists constitute one example of a significant possible development.
see also
Index on courts and contempt
[return to top]
Access to courts and documents
Background
Changes in evidence laws in NSW allegedly designed to enhance access to the courts have had the opposite effect. They are regularly used by magistrates and prosecutors to withhold police charge sheets and other court documents. Material that once was routinely available throughout the court system (and through tribunals) is being systematically locked down in NSW and elsewhere. The resulting restriction on information flow is exacerbated by the increased use of hand-up documents in hearings: material that was formerly spoken of in the court is now routinely passed from the prosecutor or defence lawyer to the bench, without oral reference to it. The only way of accessing this material is through application to the court registry. Registrars are limiting its availability.
There are examples of courts preventing journalist access to court documents, even where these are on the public record as having been presented in open court. The WA Supreme Court registrar recently refused public access to the transcripts of proceedings demonstrating judicial error that led to the abortion of the trial. Despite the demonstrable public interest access was denied on the whim of a registrar.
In NSW, changes to evidence rules covering rape trials and Children's Court matters are severely curtailing the media's ability to cover these matters at all. Reporters covering rape trails will be banned from the courtroom and condemned to hearing evidence over television monitors, if the court happens to have that facility. They also will be denied access to evidence that is deemed by the judge to be "sensitive" in the Children's Court matters.
In Victoria, there was a request by a magistrate for an editor to attend court and explain coverage of a case before him. Such requests unfairly intimidate editors and are destructive of the principle of open courts fairly and accurately reported.
Press Council court access representation in 2004-5
Court transcripts
The Council issued a public statement expressing its deep concern at the decision of the Acting Principal Registrar of the Western Australia Supreme Court to refuse access to the transcripts of a trial sought by The Australian newspaper. It said:
Courts are accountable and transparent through the conduct of proceedings in public. It is inconsistent with these principles for the transcripts to be withheld. The trial's proceedings in this case were not conducted in camera and it is hard to understand the justification for claiming confidentiality regarding the transcripts.
A recent complaint to the Press Council from an officer of the WA Supreme Court has demonstrated how the courts expect newspapers to report court proceedings accurately and fairly. It is imperative that the courts play their part and assist by providing newspapers with access to transcripts of open proceedings.
Criminal proceedings
The Council made a submission to the NSW Attorney-General on the Criminal Procedure Further Amendment (Evidence) Bill 2005 and on recent amendments to the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW). The former would, among other things, automatically close courts when victims of sexual assaults were giving evidence; the latter would preclude the publication of images of minors who were the victim of crime even after their death. The submission argued that:
- The proposed amendment to section 291 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 should be reworded so that courts would retain a discretion as to whether or not to proceed in camera.
- S 281F should make a distinction between images that are obscene or that portray deceased persons and those which are not indecent but which do invade a person's privacy. The act should clearly define what constitutes an interference with a person's privacy, and the media should not be excluded from access to images unless it is clearly established that those images would constitute an invasion of privacy.
- S 11 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 should grant the courts some discretion as to whether a deceased person who was a minor at the time of a sexual assault can be identified by the media.
As a result of the submission, and even stronger suggestions from publishers, the Attorney has agreed to amend the Criminal Procedure Further Amendment (Evidence) Bill 2005 to enable the media fairly to report the evidence of victims of sexual assault even if they were not able to be present in the court.
see also
Index on courts and contempt
[return to top]
Juries
Background
There have been calls from many parties, including state Premiers, for the introduction of majority verdicts, at least in criminal cases. It has already been introduced in one state.
There has also been greater recognition in some section of the judiciary of the essential robustness of juries, as demonstrated by Chief Justice Spigelman's comments above.
Press Council Jury activity in 2004-5
The principal concern of the Council has been to contribute to arguments in favour of juries trials in defamation cases, and to point out the research evidence that juries are robust enough not to need further laws in the guise of tightening of contempt by publication clauses.
see also
material on juries in the index on courts and contempt
[return to top]
Government Suppression
Background
Since 2001 the secretive tendency of governments has been given momentum by the fear of terrorism. Much of the new anti-terrorism legislation, particularly at the federal level, constitutes a significant impediment to free speech.
In 2004-2005 anti-terrorism, ASIO and national security legislation have all proposed or maintained restrictions on the ability of the press to report matters of public interest. Examination of the drafting of the successive Bills has exposed weaknesses, particularly in definitions of terms such as 'national security', which have been far too wide, and reversal of the onus of proof so that defendants have to prove that they are not in possession of information, or of a document. The provisions included in the Acts are more draconian than needed in the light of the threats so far revealed. Such laws must take account of the traditional rights and freedoms of the citizens, and not forfeit the very freedoms that the government says it is trying to protect from terrorism.
Leaving aside the threat of terrorist activity, governments are increasingly ready to restrict openness and fullness in the release of information. They make more use of unattributable comments (leaks) and careful one-sided spin to replace balanced information and the openness of press conferences.
Never before have journalists had to cut their way through so much flak and spin to get the real story. Governments (and corporations imitating their 'success') all have highly paid public relations outfits whose role is to market the approved or sanitised version of a story. The journalist's role is to cut through this static and get to the facts, including those with warts. This is not made easier by increased use of exemptions to limit information available under FoI.
Queensland and Victoria, among other jurisdictions, retain strong restrictions on media contact with prisoners. This has led to a further prosecution in Queensland being initiated this year.
Press Council representations on government suppression 2004-5
National Security Information (Criminal Proceedings) Bill
Last year's report noted that the Bill was still before Parliament and that the Council and some media organisations were making further representations on it, in the light of a Senate Committee's report. The Bill was intended to prevent information that could threaten national security being made public during terrorism trials.
After the 2004 federal elections, the Council wrote to the Attorney-General expressing its continuing concerns regarding the Bill. While it recognised the necessity of legislation to address the issues that arose in the Lappas case, and it acknowledged that the Bill sought to balance the need to protect security sensitive information with fair dispensation of justice, which requires the courts to retain a significant level of discretion, it expressed concerns over certain aspects of the proposed legislation, in particular the broad scope of the definition of "national security", and the potential for the Bill to restrict the public's right to be informed about matters of legitimate public concern.
These concerns were outlined in detail in the August 2004 Press Council News.
In late 2004, the Council, together with representatives of John Fairfax Publishing, met with the Attorney-General to discuss their concerns with the proposals. The definition of "national security" was subsequently narrowed to say "national security means Australia's defence, security, international relations or law enforcement interests". As amended the National Security Information (Criminal Proceedings) Bill became law.
National Security Information Legislation Bill 2005
Early in 2005, the government introduced complementary legislation that would extend the ambit of the restrictions in the National Security Information (Criminal Proceedings) Act to civil, as well as criminal, matters. In April 2005 the Council made a submission to the Australian Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee's Inquiry into the National Security Information Legislation Bill 2005. The submission's Executive Summary read:
The National Security Information (Criminal Proceedings) Act 2004 presents a threat to freedom of the press in Australia. The National Security Information Legislation Bill 2005 would extend that threat. The Australian Press Council is of the view that the Senate should amend this bill so as to reduce the potential of the Act to limit freedom of speech.
- The definition of national security is too broad and should be narrowed.
- It should be an offence to issue certificates under the Act for an improper purpose.
- The media should be given standing to make representations to the court as to whether a hearing should proceed in camera.
- A sunset clause should be inserted into the Act.
- There should be no extension of the power to make regulations without the scrutiny of parliament.
In May 2005 the Senate committee published its report in relation to the National Security Information Legislation Amendment Bill 2005. The committee gave careful consideration to submissions made by several legal, civil liberties and humanitarian organisations and made several recommendations for the modification of the Bill. In broad terms, the committee's recommendations sought to protect a court's discretion with regard to the holding of closed hearings and the treatment of evidence taken in camera. Whereas the government's proposed provisions tend to give the court little option but to hold proceedings in camera, the Senate committee's recommendations seek to give a court the ability to decide for itself, in each instance, whether closure is appropriate, given the competing interests of national security and procedural fairness. The proposed modifications would give a court greater flexibility in deciding whether or not to make transcripts of evidence available to the parties or to the public. The recommendations also seek to make the court and the Attorney-General accountable for any decision to hold proceedings in camera, by requiring the publication of reasons. In addition, the committee is concerned to mitigate the tendency of the legislation to cause unfairness to parties. The committee recommended that the passage of the Bill be subject to these recommendations.
In June the complementary legislation was passed with some of the Senate committee's recommendations included.
ASIO Act Review
In April 2005, the Council made a submission to a joint Parliamentary Committee reviewing the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act. The submission's Executive Summary read:
Division three of part III of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 poses a threat to freedom of speech and has a significant potential to obstruct the ability of the media to ensure that government agencies are held to public account for their actions. The Australian Press Council calls on the government to allow division three of part III to lapse in accordance with s 34Y of the Act. If the government is unwilling to abolish division three, the Australian Press Council calls on the government to make the following amendments be made to the legislation:
- Section 34G should be amended so as to remove from the defence the onus of proof and to place upon the prosecution the onus of proving that a defendant does or did have information in his/her possession.
- The definition of "operational information" in s 34VAA(5) should be narrowed so that the only information which is protected from disclosure is that which would pose a significant threat to Australia's security or defence.
- Section 34VAA (5) should be amended so that a penalty can only be imposed where disclosure would result in a threat to national security.
- Section 34VAA(2) should be deleted or amended so that the prohibition on disclosure ceases when the operation to which the warrant relates has been concluded.
- Section 34VAA(12) should be expanded to include defences for disclosing information where the public interest in disclosure outweighs any threat to national security.
The Council's Chairman and Executive Secretary appeared before the Joint Committee on 6 June to present oral evidence to the review.
[return to top]
Constitutional Law
Background
There is no Bill of Rights, nor any constitutional guarantee of freedoms in the federal or state constitutions or in any over-riding law. Unlike comparable democracies, where any legislation restricting free speech is viewed through the lens of such a guarantee, Australia relies solely on a right to political communication that the High Court found, in Lange, was implied in the Constitution. In September 2005, a movement towards the enactment of a Bill of Rights was started by a citizens' group.
Press Council constitutional law activity in 2004-5
The Council, which broadly supports the introduction of a Bill of Rights, will determine what assistance it should give to this movement in 2005-2006.
[return to top]
Parliamentary and other Inquiries
Press Council activity to parliamentary and other inquiries 2004-5
In addition to those noted elsewhere in this report.
Senate Committees
The Australian Press Council wrote to the Chair of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee outlining its concerns with aspects of its submissions to Senate committees, arising out of its submissions on the National Security Information (Criminal Proceedings) Bill 2004 and associated legislation.
The letter noted that the Council works hard to contribute thoughtful and practical ideas to policy debates that have implications for the freedom and the responsibility of the press. It noted two particular concerns.
The first was the extremely short notice that is increasingly being given for the preparation of submissions or the attendance at hearings. The Press Council is perhaps more fortunate than many groups because we do have some personnel and financial resources that we can apply to such tasks - albeit at the expense of other work. But it is frustrating for the Council secretariat to have to drop everything at short notice to respond to your committees' requests, and to proceed often without the formal endorsement of the Council and almost always without the Council itself having had the opportunity to examine the legislation in question. The result is that the public is offered the illusion of detailed scrutiny by the relevant interest groups when, in fact, it has been a far more cursory review of the many implications in such important legislation.
Again, on reading the Committee's most recent report on the above-mentioned Bills, the Council was struck by an apparent disjuncture between the body of the report - and its seeming acceptance and, indeed, endorsement of some suggestions or criticisms from witnesses like the Council - and the actual recommendations that emerge from the Committee. This conveyed a sense of tokenism, whereby the Committee seems compelled to report favourably on a Bill notwithstanding those shortcomings that the Committee appears, in the body of the report, to acknowledge. A Bill therefore returns to the Senate chamber in a state unaffected by the supposed scrutiny of it by the Committee and by its exposure to the critique of informed and representative interest groups.
The Council expressed its strong support for the role of the Senate as a House of Review but, given an inordinate number of Bills referred to committees over the past few years, it questioned whether all this legislation received the level and quality of scrutiny that is required, especially given the short time frames for submissions in many cases. This is not in the interests of good legislation, and certainly does nothing to reduce public cynicism about the effectiveness of Parliament.
Media Doctor
The Council was asked for comments on a website, coordinated from the university in Newcastle-on-Hunter, which rated media reports on medical breakthroughs and discoveries. The site, mediadoctor.org.au, was publishing the first report on its findings in The Medical Journal of Australia, and the Council was asked to write a commentary that would accompany that publication. The Council, which has a guideline statement cautioning publications on how to handle such material, asked its Executive Secretary, Jack Herman, and an editor member, John Morgan, to draft the commentary, which was submitted to the MJA for publication. A copy of the commentary can be obtained from the Council office.
World Summit for the Information Society action plan
The Council was asked to make submissions on the Australian response to the action plan and did so in June 2005. A copy of the submission can be obtained from the Council office.
[return to top]
Media monitoring and the reporting of crime
Background
Media monitoring and reporting of crime activity is being seriously curtailed by the switch by police in several states from analogue to digital radio transmission, and, sometimes, privacy concerns. In South Australia, for example, journalists are given access to less than a quarter of police incident categories, and delayed access to some important ones such as siege situations where immediate advice to the public in the vicinity might seem to be of some importance.
Journalists in Victoria still monitoring analogue transmissions have been told this has to stop because of privacy laws. Media exemption to federal Privacy law would allow newspapers to publish this information but the police apparently believe there are restrictions on allowing the media to have it.
As a result of the denial of access to radio transmissions, in many locations journalists are now unable to report on crimes and police activity unless the police media liaison officers brief them. This gives the police ability to withhold stories from the public and when they do release them to 'spin' stories to their own advantage. Even when journalists are being informed there is often an unacceptable delay between the event and the communication of that event to the media. Claims that police are being selective about which stories are being passed on to the media are as yet anecdotal.
Press Council activity on crime reporting 2004-5
Last year's report noted that the Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission was looking at ways of allowing media access to digital radio transmissions. The CMC report severely limited such access and formed a police-media liaison committee to oversee the administration of the revised system. The Council is represented on the committee.
[return to top]
Other matters
Anti-vilification laws
Victorian anti-vilification laws have been used to prosecute two Christian ministers for allegedly anti-Islamic comments.
Financial Services legislation
Self-regulation of declarations of financial interests in reports means that most journalists do not need a Financial Services License, except for those who give personal financial product advice.
Tobacco advertising
Legislation restricts the placements of advertising for tobacco products in the media. Some health departments have tried to convince publishers that the incidental representation of tobacco product logos in news reports is 'advertising' and banned.
In October 2003 the Council made a submission to the federal Department of Health and Ageing on its Review of the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992. The Council's principal concern was with any attempt to widen the definition of 'advertising' in the Act to encompass material that is neither advertising nor promotional.
In May 2005, the department informed the Council that the review "concluded that the Act is currently working well to protect the Australian public from advertising messages and the gains made by making amendments to the Act would be insignificant. As a result, the Government does not intend changing the Act at this time."
Reporting of suicide, drugs, children, schools, mental health, body imaging, unauthorised arrivals etc etc
There are persistent calls for restrictive, prescriptive guidelines on press reporting of these, and many other issues. The Council has a number of non-prescriptive guideline statements on its website. These are largely of an advisory nature and draw the attention of editors and journalists to the need for caution in addressing some issues. Throughout the year, the Council resisted calls for an increased number of such statements and for more prescriptive statements in some areas.
Chequebook journalism and other reporting guidelines
Chequebook journalism
The Council reconsidered the desirability of guidance to publications on the question of the payment for stories. It distinguished between the normal payment of freelance contributions and 'money-for-story' situations. Finally it adopted a guideline statement that addressed the question of payments to witnesses and potential witnesses, issued as Guideline No. 264.
Reader-based material
The Council circulated warnings about the use of hoax material in magazines that specialise in reader-based material, suggesting that the magazines should require readers to supply contact details for verification purposes.
Advertorials
The Council looked again at the question of 'advertorials', content that looks like editorial content but is published under a commercial arrangement between an advertiser, promoter or sponsor of goods and/or services and the publisher. It updated its guideline statement (Guideline No. 266) on how publications should clearly distinguish such material and how the Council would deal with future complaints.
Research
The Council initiated a new research grant that was first awarded in 2005.
Following a meeting with a number of tertiary researchers in areas directly related to journalism and the press, and in a number of ancillary research areas which also deal with matters related any of the Council's primary functions, the maintenance of a free and a responsible press, the Council took the decision to assist where possible researchers whose work was seen as having practical benefits in furthering the Council's Objects.
This assistance would take several forms. The Council, and its office, would be receptive to requests from researchers for non-monetary assistance, either by access to the Council's records or by providing access, where possible to its Constituent members, the publishers and associations of publishers. In such a way, the Council might be able to assist researchers in meeting some criteria for the securing of ARC grants.
Of more immediate and practical impact is the Council's decision to allocate up to $5000 in its current budget towards the provision of bridging finance to enable researchers better to develop projects for submission to the Australian Research Council or to similar granting bodies.
The first grant was made to Professor Mark Pearson at Bond University for research in the area of privacy and the press.
At the time of writing, the Council had convened a second meeting with university researchers. The 2005 meeting will discuss how the Council might better assist researchers and which questions that research might address to assist the Council and the industry. It will also look at how the Council can assist researchers in better liaison with the industry to assist their activities.
The question of a possible State of the Print Media project will also be raised.
World Press Freedom Day 2005
On 3 May, the Council issued GPR 265 to mark World Press Freedom Day.
[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.
