A fight for freedom

An op/ed article by Jack R Herman, Executive Secretary of the Australian Press Council, published in the Herald Sun, Melbourne, on 14 May 2007

Australia is a free and open society, tolerant of opposing opinions and with a tradition of a free press and freedom of speech.

The idea of free speech was so obvious that the country's founders saw no need to enshrine its protection in the Constitution.

But, today, there are genuine questions whether the media is free to report on matters of public interest and concern and whether the information they need is available to it.

This is of such concern that the CEOs of the major print and electronic media companies have joined forces to make a stand on the decline in press freedom in Australia and to start a campaign on the issue.

It is time for the withholders of public information to come clean.

The Australian Press Council, an independent body concerned with the freedom and the responsibility of the Australian press, has long argued that governments, parliaments and the courts are eroding our freedom to be informed.

On one international league table that ranks countries according to their press freedom, Australia is in 35th position.

The fact that there are 34 countries with a higher rating would shock most Australians.

They see Australia as a place where the press is free to report so that voters have the information they need to make an informed choice.

There are also many other occasions when the public has a right to know.

Judges, through unwarranted suppression orders and the closing of what should be open courts, are restricting access to information that should be on the public record.

But what politicians are doing is worse. We are moving away from the free flow of information towards more restrictions and secrecy.

Governments of all colours are trying to use their control of information to set the agenda.

The Federal Government is finding new and better ways of keeping matters from the public.

Two Herald Sun journalists awaiting sentence for protecting their sources is a good example of the failure of governments to make themselves properly accountable to the electorate.

The case does not relate to a serious crime or a threat to national security.

It concerns material relating to a minister's attempts to misrepresent the value of a promised program.

The journalists' only "crime" was holding the Government accountable to those who elected it.

The federal prosecutor dragged the journalists before the courts in an attempt to get them to name their source.

When they would not, they were prosecuted.

This is similar to the prosecution of a public servant who was allegedly their source. He was convicted but later exonerated on appeal.

Even more alarming is another case involving the prosecution of an official whose revelations of deficiencies in the national Customs system led to a major reform.

In these cases, efforts to expose malpractice or chicanery led to a draconian response, aimed at intimidating public officials.

The importance of information from confidential sources was demonstrated in Queensland in the late '80s when officials co-operated with the ABC's Four Corners and Brisbane's Courier-Mail newspaper in exposing corruption in Queensland.

Similar information has led to royal commissions into the police and the actions of the AWB in the oil-for-food scandal; also, a number of other cases of government or business malpractice.

Instead of freely available information, government spin is now common.

Media managers exploit a variety of mechanisms to shape public opinion, not all of them reasonable. Pernicious, unattributable background briefings and selective information management are the tools of trade.

Governments do not want journalists to go beyond the official story, which is often only part of the story.

They often prevent media access to information that ought rightfully to be in the public domain.

This was what happened with the Herald Sun story and government actions to keep journalists away from asylum seekers and detention centres.

Freedom of information laws were supposedly designed to give access to material of public concern, but these laws rarely help.

The intention of these laws is being frustrated by deliberate delays, increased costs and the use of "conclusive certificates" to bar access to material.

The refusal by Treasurer Peter Costello to release information about the effect of bracket creep on income tax is a case in point.

The High Court decision to back this refusal demonstrates how this law has become a freedom-from-information law.

Even anti-terrorism laws, passed with the best of intentions to protect us from violence, have become a means of censoring political commentary.

This was especially so when the federal Attorney-General refused to repeal antiquated sedition laws, despite his self-appointed expert recommending he do so.

There are threats to use the classification system to further restrict the publication of books and periodicals.

Governments are not the only culprits in all of this. Corporations, the police, the courts and even sporting bodies are increasingly copying their example.

Fines for players or coaches who dare to discuss umpiring standards are an example.

As are threats to private industry whistleblowers who expose corruption. But they are just the tip of the iceberg.

Governments remain the worst offenders in restricting information.

For that reason, the Press Council calls on all governments to ensure that information is made available and that whistleblowers and journalists are not singled out for punishment.

They are only doing the right thing by voters.

Suppression of information, secrecy and spin and manipulating freedom of information laws are serious matters.

Preventing information about government performance becoming public through the media is of concern to everyone.

The Australian Press Council challenges all governments to ensure such information is available to the public.

If governments and other interested parties were to come clean with the Australian people on matters of public interest and concern, there would be no need for journalists to rely on leaked material and the public would be better informed.

Jack R Herman

[return to top]

see also
Freedom of Speech activities 2005-2006
2006 analysis of press freedom in Australia

Return to
Freedom of the Press overview