Submission from the Australian Press Council to the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee, on its reference on "Privacy and Media Intrusion".

6 February 2003

Executive Summary

The Council argues for the benefits of press self-regulation through press councils independent of government and against any attempts to impose statutory controls on the press through privacy legislation, particularly in countries which have no express constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech. It notes the position of the UK Press Complaints Commission (PCC) as an independent press self-regulatory system which helps encourage the development of a free and a responsible press, not only in the UK but internationally.

1. Press self-regulation in Australia

The Australian Press Council was established in 1976 by an agreement between the publishers and the journalists' union to provide a forum through which members of the public could complain about the ethical performance of the print media. Its membership consisted, and consists, of members of the public, journalists and representatives of the publishers of metropolitan, suburban, regional and country newspaper and of general interest magazines. Based on the British Press Council as it existed in 1976, the Australian Council carries out two roles, looking after the freedom and the responsibility of the Australian press.

On the responsibility side, it deals with complaints by mediation, if possible, or by adjudication. Newspapers and magazines co-operate with the Council in its role as a complaints body and over 40% of complaints are settled amicably. Fewer than 20% are eventually referred to the Council for adjudication. The Council's sole 'penalty' is the publication of its adjudication by the cited newspaper. In a society that values a free press, the publication by the newspaper of the considered opinion of an independent body, made up of the editor's peers and members of the public, is seen as the most effective remedy. The absence of punitive powers is seen as the Council's most beneficial strength, ensuring the co-operation of the press. Complaints are therefore resolved speedily and at no expense to the complainant.

Self-regulation works in this respect because the newspaper and magazine publishing industry is committed to it. Key to this commitment is the Council's Statement of Principles. The Statement was redrafted in 1996 with the cooperation and support of the publishers and their editors. These Principles are recognised by individual publishers within their codes of practice as integral industry standards. From time to time, the Council issues special guidelines designed to add even further to this protection. Guidelines have been published, for example, regarding the media portrayal of persons suffering from mental illness and on the coverage of youth suicide.

Another of the central benefits of press self-regulation is that it combines high standards of ethical reporting with a free press. In accordance with our Statement of Principles, however, freedom of the press is a freedom that must be used responsibly. The Australian Press Council believes that any statutory controls undermine the freedom of the press. The Council also recognises that without an express Constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and a free press, a statutory regime could be misused by the corrupt to stop newspapers from reporting in the public interest. Self-regulation has none of the problems of such laws - yet still provides a system in which publications are committed to the highest possible ethical standards.

In its work to promote a free press, the Council has, over the past twenty-five years, made many submissions to Governments, parliamentary enquiries, law reform commissions and other bodies. Information is exchanged with other press councils around the world, and with relevant Australian and international organisations. On a continuing basis, the Council scrutinises legislation, court decisions and any activities of politicians, newspaper proprietors or others that may threaten the freedom of the press. Where appropriate, press releases are issued, representations sought and submissions are made to various bodies. The Council also organises seminars and meetings to foster public knowledge of issues relating to press freedom and journalistic ethics.

2. Press self-regulation internationally

The Australian Press Council, in co-operation with the Press Complaints Commission and similar bodies, fosters the development of independent press councils as a way of assisting a free and a responsible press in developing countries and in emerging democracies. The Australian Council's actions are largely taken in the Asia-Pacific region, whereas the PCC is more concerned with Europe and Commonwealth countries in Africa. While press freedom can tend to be taken for granted in developed democracies like the UK and Australia, it is not always so straight-forward in smaller countries. Governments try to influence or control the media for their own purpose. They have often imposed statutory controls, sometimes through a body misleadingly called a 'press council'. Genuine press councils, like the APC and the PCC, are truly independent of government and have representatives of the industry and of the public on them.

The continued independence and effective running of the PCC and the APC are important pour encourager les autres and the imposition of statutory controls on any aspect of the press or the PCC would be seen as encouraging some of the less savoury elements in developing nations to impose more controls on their own press.

3. Privacy legislation in Australia

In 2000, the Australian Parliament introduced legislation to govern the privacy of personal information held by private organizations. This legislation was to complement similar provisions already extant governing the privacy of personal information held by government departments and instrumentalities. During the debate on the legislation, and after strong submissions from the Australian Press Council (with support from the then Chair of the PCC), the government agreed that any such legislation would and should recognise the unique role played by the press in providing information of public interest and concern in a democracy. As a result a media exemption was included in the legislation. The exemption means that media organizations (defined in the Privacy (Private Sector) Amendment Act) involved in the process of journalism would be not be governed by the privacy legislation, provided that they were publicly committed to a set of Privacy Standards. Subsequently, the Press Council has developed such a set of Standards which are now the standards applying to the vast majority of print media outlets.

The Council notes that in Australia the major concern expressed by people about privacy matters is with databanks and the collection and comparison of personal information about them between databases. Concern with intrusions into privacy by the media is rarely mentioned. (The NSW Privacy Commissioner who receives and deals with complaints about intrusions into privacy has noted in his last three reports that fewer than 1% of complaints arise from intrusion by the media. The Council believes that, in the UK, the major concern of the average voter would be with databases, and information held and shared by government departments, not with media intrusion.

Therefore, the Council would recommend that, if any privacy legislation were thought necessary, it should deal with the real threats to personal privacy and contain a media exemption similar to that adopted in Australia, to recognise the primary role of the media in the provision of information on matters of public interest. Similarly, and in line with recommendations it has made in Australia, the Council strongly recommends that any such legislation should include a statement that the administration of the Act should recognise the importance of the principle of freedom of communication and that this principle should be taken into account when decisions relating to claimed breaches of privacy are being made.

4. Protecting the vulnerable

Central to the work of the Council and to the Statement of Principles (and to the work of the PCC and its Code of Ethics) is the protection it gives to particularly vulnerable groups of people. The Council recognises the special interests of children, innocent relatives and friends of those convicted of crime, victims of sexual assault and patients being treated in hospital. It also includes rules on discrimination to protect individuals at risk of racial, religious, sexual or other forms of discrimination. The Council, from time to time, issues special guidelines designed to add even further to this protection. For instance, the Council has issued guidelines on the portrayal in the media of persons suffering from mental illness and on the coverage of youth suicide and on the reporting of "race".

The Council is concerned with proposals for statutory protection of privacy because, far from protecting the vulnerable, they are aimed largely at the protection of the rich and powerful who already have sufficient means to ensure their own protection. In the UK, the second Calcutt report drew most of its examples of alleged press intrusion into privacy from incidents involving the Royal Family and, in Australia, Senate Committees expressing similar concerns have drawn largely on alleged invasions into the privacy of Members of Parliament. It has been said that one role of the press is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. It might well be argued that the call for statutory privacy protection demonstrates that among some members of the 'comfortable' the press is doing its job in exposing matters of public interest and concern.

[return to top]

see also
Council's position on privacy generally

Return to
Submissions list
Freedom of the Press overview

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