Independent Review Of The NZ Press Council
Independent Review Of The New Zealand Press Council
An independent review of the New Zealand Press Council has been completed by the Hon Sir Ian Barker and Professor Lewis Evans and released publicly today (Wednesday 14 November).
The report was commissioned and funded by the Press Council’s constituent parties, the Newspaper Publishers’ Association (NPA), the Magazine Publishers Association (MPA) and the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union (the EPMU).
President of the NPA,
Michael Muir said today that the report and recommendations
from the review team were very comprehensive and represented
a milestone in the progress of the Press Council, first
established in 1972.
“The NPA and the other funding
parties will now consider the recommendations of the review
team. Meanwhile we believe that in the interests of
transparency the report should be made public,” said Mr
Muir.
The Press Council is Chaired by former High Court Judge, Hon Barry Paterson and adjudicates on complaints of unprofessional and unethical reporting within the print media.
A summary of the recommendations of the review is attached. The full report is available on www.presscouncil.org.nz.
RECOMMENDATIONS
FROM THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE NEW ZEALAND PRESS
COUNCIL
We summarise our Recommendations
thus:
II.1 Function
1. In addition to its complaint
handling role, the Press Council should:
(a) promote
freedom of expression through a responsible and independent
print media and through adherence to high journalistic and
editorial standards;
(b) conduct limited research into
media freedom issue and utilise its consideration of these
issues in its decisions;
(c) sponsor an annual public
lecture on a media-related topic and an annual prize at one
or more journalism schools;
(d) produce occasional papers
on media freedom issues.
II.2 Independence
2. The
Press Council should become an independent legal
entity.
3. The current constitution of the Press Council
should be changed to reflect its position as a separate
legal entity and to incorporate changes listed in this
report designed to enhance the perception of its
independence from its funders.
4. The Press Council
should be more amply resourced to enable it the better to
perform both its existing functions and the additional
functions recommended in this report.
5. All publications
which accept the jurisdiction of the Press Council should
either individually, or through their parent group, agree to
conform to the Press Council’s complaints process,
including the requirement to publish its decisions when
required so to do.
6. The Press Council should continue
to operate from premises separate from those of any of its
funders.
7. Provision should be made for an independent
review of the operation of the Press Council ever five
years.
II.3 Process
8. Amendments to the existing
process should be made as follows:
(a) The Chief
Executive Officer (“CEO”) of the Press Council should
consider all complaints at first instance and act as
“gatekeeper”, to filter either vexatious complaints or
those more appropriately dealt with by other
agencies.
(b) The CEO should deal initially with
complaints which, in the CEO’s view, may be capable of
quick resolution by consultation with the editorial staff
concerned.
(c) The CEO should be trained in mediation
skills and should offer conciliation to the parties to a
complaint once the publication’s response has been
received, as a means of disposing of the complaint to the
mutual satisfaction of both parties. Such
mediation/conciliation would be on a confidential and
without prejudice basis.
(d) There should be an
established “fast track” Complaints Committee,
consisting of the independent chair, one media member and
one public member to deal with complaints that benefit from
rapid consideration. This Committee should have delegated
power from the Press Council to make determinations. It
should operate continuously. These persons need not
necessarily reside in Wellington, given telephone
conferencing and email. There should also be a right of
appeal to this Committee from the refusal by the CEO to
accept a complaint. There should be a right of appeal from
decisions of this Committee to the balance of the Press
Council.
(e) The time limit for laying a complaint to the
Press Council should be reduced to two months after
publication, with the right of the CEO to receive a
complaint within three months in exceptional
circumstances.
(f) The right of the publication to a
“second reply” should be abolished. There should be one
complaint by the Complainant, and one full response by the
publication, with the complainant having a right of reply
only on new matters in the response. In the discretion of
the CEO, a publication should have a limited right of
rebuttal on new matters raised by a complainant in a
reply.
(g) A waiver from bringing suit against the
publication should not be required of
complainants.
(h) Both complainants and publications
should be encouraged to attend Press Council meetings, to
express in an informal way their particular viewpoints. We
see no reason to encourage legal representation in what is
essentially an informal process.
(i) The practice of one
member of the Press Council preparing decisions in draft
should be replaced by one member of the secretariat (if
possible) preparing a précis of the issues and suggesting
possible outcomes.
(j) Press Council decisions should be
written on a standard template and efforts should be made to
diminish any impression of a compromised decision.
(k) A
précis of all decisions should be prepared by the
secretariat suitable for publication in the media, and the
full decision reported on the Press Council
website.
(l) Each publication should have an established
readily-accessible protocol for dealing with complaints.
The Press Council should develop applicable protocols in
consultation with the media.
(m) The Statement of
Principles of the Press Council should be reviewed and
updated regularly by the Press Council itself, which should
take into account submissions from interested parties and
Codes of Practice/Principles from other jurisdictions and
from existing media organisations. Such a review should be
conducted with urgency.
(n) The Press Council should have
a graduated scale of penalties, as detailed in this Review
in Section VII.
(o) There should be a majority of public
members participating in any decision on a
complaint.
(p) One of the nominees of the EPMU on the
Press Council should be replaced by an independent
journalist chosen by the Press Council itself, subject to
the requirements of the form of entity to be
adopted.
(q) The jurisdiction of the Press Council should
encompass e-publications in the same manner as for hard-copy
print publications.
II.4 Management
9. A full-time CEO
should be appointed to run the Press Council, including the
complaints process and to progress the other initiatives
recommended for the Press Council in this Review.
10. The
budget for the Press Council should be set annually by a
Budget Committee of the incorporated body.
11. The
arrangement under which the Press Council rents office space
from the Advertising Standards Authority (“ASA”) should
continue so long as there is space available, particular for
the enlarged functions of the Press Council. The ASA should
be asked to provide office services under contract for the
Press Council, if it is willing to do so.
12. The Press
Council should be more accessible and better known in the
community than it currently is. In addition to
Recommendations II.1, we recommend the following:
(a) The
Press Council should have an 0800 telephone number which
should appear, along with the Press Council’s website
details, in all Press Council publicity.
(b) Newspapers
and magazines should be required to publish a reasonably
regular statement of the rights of the public to approach
the Press Council, just as broadcasters are required to
advise the public of the right to approach the Broadcasting
Standards Authority (“BSA”).
(c) The Press
Council’s website should be brought up to date with past
decisions; care should be taken to ensure that it provides
comprehensive information about the Press Council and its
operations and a digest of previous decisions. The website
should include easily-accessible forms to facilitate the
lodging of complaints.
(d) The Press Council should have
a special committee to increase public awareness of its
services and functions.
(e) The Press Council staff
should be able to track complaints
electronically.
(f) The Press Council should communicate
with kindred organisations overseas – particularly its
Australian counterpart.
Our recommendations entail some
enhancement of resources for the Press Council. Although
they contain avenues of economy, the do imply some increase
in cost. We have been cognisant of this and consider that
we have proposed no more elaborate an institution than need
be in the New Zealand
setting.
ENDS