| |
Submission
by the Australian Press Council to the Senate Select Committee on Information
Technologies on its Inquiry into Self-regulation in the Information and
Communications Industries.
[Note: A supplementary submission
was sent to the committee some months later. And, at the committee's request
a second supplementary submission was
made in mid 1999.]
1. Introduction
- The Council notes that the Committee is undertaking an inquiry under
part (b) of its terms of appointment into the following matter:
to evaluate the appropriateness, effectiveness and privacy implications
of the existing self-regulatory framework in relation to the information
and communications industries and, in particular, the adequacy of the
complaints regimes.
The Council believes that its background and experience of the self-regulation
of the print media will provide useful information to the committee.
- On the particular aspect of privacy, the Council sees no public interest
in the introduction of laws which would regulate news gathering activities,
in public, whether or not assisted by unusual skills or manufactured
devices.
- The Council has itself looks at, and has ruled on, the ethical legitimacy
of alleged intrusions by invasive means into private property and believes
such intrusions by the press are not a serious concern in Australia.
2. Self-regulation works
The Press Council, dealing with the self-regulation of the print media,
does not have direct experience of the difficulties and problems arising
in the Information and Communications Industries. However it does have
considerable experience with self-regulation of an analogous industry
also dealing with communications.
The system of self-regulation in the print media has worked, and is
working. At the core of this system is the express endorsement by all
of the major press (and by implication by most of the other press who
almost always accept our jurisdiction) of the Council's Statement
of Principles - our code of ethics. This Statement of Principles
is revised from time to time by the independent Council, following input
from the major publishers and publisher organisations, and is endorsed
by those publishers and organisations.
The Council has acted as the self-regulatory body of the print media
industry for over two decades. (A copy of its 
information booklet outlining
its activities and detailing its complaints procedures was enclosed
with this submission.)
The only quantifiable assessment of its success or failure in
the handling of complaints from the public about newspapers and magazines
are two surveys: one of complainants over the period 1989 to 1994, conducted
in 1994-5, and a second of editors who regularly respond to complaints
on behalf of their publications. The survey of complainants was conducted
under the supervision of an independent, highly qualified statistician.
The results are published in the Council's booklet,
Australian Press Council Survey
of Complainants [and Survey of Editors]. As shown there, 73%
of respondents found the Council fair, informal and approachable; 69%
were glad they filed the complaint; and 62% would do so again. Where
applicable, the Council attempts to resolve complaints by mediation.
When the Council had mediated a settlement rather than adjudicated the
complaint, the expressions of satisfaction were even more favourable.
The other consistent measure of press standards over the last twenty
years is in the records of the Press Council itself. The Council records
show an increasing number of complaints are being mediated and/or settled
without the need for a formal adjudication, indicating a greater willingness
on the part of both parties to accept a speedy "win-win" solution.
The number of complaints received by the Press Council increased dramatically
from 1988-9 (when there were 205 complaints received) to 1991-2 (when
421 were received) as a result of a concerted effort by the Council
to publicise its existence. This involved, inter alia, the commencement
of a quarterly newsletter, increased number of meetings held in interstate
and provincial centres, public forums, case studies seminars, greater
involvement in press freedom issues by way of submissions, articles
and speeches, and the provision of a "filler" ad which publishers can
use when they have a spare space of sufficient size. From 1991-2 to
1996-7 (the last year which has been reported), the number of complaints
has stayed level - between 390 and 430 in each of those six years. This
indicates that there is a willingness by the public to use self-regulation
to address their concerns with the print media.
More importantly, for any comparison of standards, there is a remarkable
consistency in the proportion of those adjudicated (about 20% of all
complaints) which are upheld wholly or in part (about 42% of those adjudicated).
Of these, only a small number have ever attracted a strong censure from
the Council. In other words, there has been no decline whatsoever over
the last twenty years in the observance of our ethical codes.
The Council has also observed that, as a result of the self-regulatory
regime, newspapers and magazines are increasingly willing to correct
errors or publish such follow-up material, by way of clarification,
letter or article, that will neutralise any damage perceived to have
arisen from the original material. The Council believes that its experience
shows that self-regulation works in one area of media activity. It holds
the view strongly that the approach that has been followed has avoided
government control of the press while ensuring that the press recognises
its public obligations.
3. Privacy and the Australian Press Council
- The Australian Press Council believes that freedom of the press is
the freedom of the people to be informed. This is the justification
for upholding press freedom as an essential feature of a democratic
society. This freedom, won in centuries of struggle against political
and commercial interests, includes the right of a newspaper to publish
what it reasonably considers to be news, without fear or favour, and
the right to comment fairly upon it.
- The Council believes that freedom of the press is more important because
of the obligations it entails towards the people than because of the
rights it gives to the press.
- The Council has adopted certain general propositions on those obligations.
These are contained in the Statement of Principles. Of particular relevance
is Principle 3 which provides:
Readers of publications are entitled to have news and comment presented
to them honestly and fairly, and with respect for the privacy and sensibilities
of individuals. However, the right to privacy should not prevent publication
of matters of public record or obvious or significant public interest.
Rumour and unconfirmed reports, if published at all, should be identified
as such.
- The Council believes that while there is a need to make better provision
for the protection of privacy in relation to electronic data bases,
the existing common and statutory law provides sufficient protection
of personal privacy.
- In particular, the Council stresses that unlike most comparable democracies,
Australia makes no express provision in the Constitution guaranteeing
freedom of speech and of the press. In this submission the "press" may
be taken to refer to the media generally. (There is a however limited
freedom of political communication recognised as arising from the concept
of representative and responsible government: see Lange v ABC,
High Court, unreported 7 July 1997.) In this context the Council draws
the committee's attention to a New Zealand booklet, Privacy: A Need
for Balance, published by the Newspaper Publishers Association and
the Commonwealth Press Union. It demonstrates the problems arising from
privacy legislation enacting in a jurisdiction in which there is no
over-riding protection of freedom of speech in a Bill of Rights of similar
document. The Council draws attention to an article by Prof Marilyn
Ireland from this booklet.
- In the absence of such an express guarantee, and the minimal impact
of the implied freedom of political communication, laws restricting
free speech and the media will not therefore be subject to the same
judicial scrutiny as in most comparable countries. Hence there is need
for great care in enacting new legislation in this area.
- The Council believes that the role of the press in informing the people
on all matters of public interest necessarily requires that the press
be able to gather that information. Without this prior ability, the
press would be unable to exercise the role which society expects the
press to play.
- While the Council accepts the justification for laws respecting privacy
on private property (eg the laws of trespass, nuisance, and protecting
the privacy of telephonic communications), the Council would be opposed
to laws which restrict legitimate news gathering activities in public
places. In principle there does not seem to be any objection to
the use of unusual skills (eg lip reading), or manufactured devices
(telescopes, binoculars, cameras, video recorders, zoom lenses etc)
to assist this activity. Nor can the Council see any advantage in distinguishing
between those devices of general use which can be used for surveillance,
for example glasses or cameras, and those whose use seems designed for
surveillance, eg zoom lens.
- The Council therefore sees no public interest in the introduction
of laws which would regulate news gathering activities, in public, whether
or not assisted by unusual skills or manufactured devices.
- The Council has itself ruled on the ethical legitimacy of the intrusion
by invasive means into private property in Adjudication
No. 916. It believes that most of the press respect such restrictions
and that, based on the small number of complaints it receives in this
area and the small number of such complaints received by, for example,
the NSW Privacy Commission on similar matters, such intrusions by the
press are not a serious concern in Australia.
Documents with the icon require the Acrobat Reader, a Free Utility from Adobe. Click here for more information.
See also
1997-8 Freedom of the Press Report-
for developments involving the Senate Select Committee on Information
Technologies
Supplementary
submission to the Senate Select Committee on Information Technologies
Second supplementary
submission to the Senate Select Committee on Information Technologies
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.
|
|
|
