The Australian Press Council (APC) was established in 1976 with the goal of promoting high standards of media practice, community access to information of public interest, and freedom of expression through the media. The Council is the leading industry organization for responding to complaints about Australian newspapers, magazines and digital outlets.[1]
The APC was established in 1975, at a time when the Federal Government was threatening legislation to create a government authority to ensure press accountability.[2]
In accordance with its Constitution, the Council pursues its goals by:[3]
The Council has no legal authority to regulate the press, or to impose fines or other penalties.[3] It relies on the press to voluntarily adhere to its standards of conduct and decisions, and to publish its adjudications of complaints. The Council is funded by its member publishers in the newspaper and magazine industries.
Government regulation of broadcast media in Australia is conducted by the Australian Communications and Media Authority.
The Council's standards of good media practice are contained in its Statements of Principles, Specific Standards and Advisory Guidelines.[1] The standards are applied by the Council when considering complaints and are used as the basis for statements by Council representatives about good media practice, whether addressing practitioners within the industry, journalism students or the broader community. The council also undertakes research and convenes conferences and seminars on aspects of media standards.[4]
The Council's mandate to consider complaints extends to all print publications and related digital outlets, such as websites, of publishers which are "constituent bodies" of the council. These publications comprise about 90 percent of all print and online outlets in Australia representing some 850 mastheads.
The Council also issues statements on policy matters within its areas of interest, including through submissions to parliamentary committees, commissions and other public bodies. It also undertakes research and convenes or participates in conferences and seminars on policy issues.
The Australian Press Council comprises:
The independent Chair is appointed by the Council. The Public Members and Independent Journalist Members are appointed by the Council on the nomination of the Chair. The nominees of publishers are chosen by the media organisations which have agreed to support the Council and be subject to its complaints system. It meets quarterly, and is headed on administrative and other matters by an Executive Director.
The current Chair of the Australian Press Council is Neville Stevens (effective 22 January 2018). The inaugural Chairman was Sir Frank Kitto. He was followed by Geoffrey Sawer, Hal Wootten, David Flint, Dennis Pearce, Ken McKinnon, Julian Disney and David Weisbrot.
The APC receives more than 700 complaints each year. About three-quarters of those which are fully pursued by the complainant result in a correction, apology or some other form of action being taken.
The Australian Press Council receives the majority of its funding from News Corporation.
In 2012, in response to frustrations about the inefficacy of the regulatory scheme, Seven West Media, publisher of The West Australian, withdrew from the APC and set up its own complaints body, the Independent Media Council, to handle complaints against its print and publications and websites. [5]
The Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) also withdrew from the Press Council in 1986 but rejoined in 2005. The organisation withdrew once again in 2021, citing deep frustrations and dissatisfaction with the self-regulatory scheme.[6]
MEAA Media Federal President Marcus Strom said that the arbitrations by the Australian Press Council had been "inconsistent, slow, and increasingly out of touch with community expectations", also citing lack of consequences and publishers completely ignoring adjudication outcomes.[7] MEAA Vice President Karen Percy said "It is MEAA's view that unfortunately the Press Council is no longer fit-for-purpose for the modern cross-platform media industry." However, MEAA continues to have a representative on Council as, under the rules of the APC, four years notice to withdraw must be given. The MEAA will complete its exit of the Australian Press Council in 2025.
Throughout 2010-2023, LGBTI peak bodies in Australia have repeatedly questioned whether the Australian Press Council treats complaints about LGBTI topics and individuals less favourably.
In 2013, the Australian Press Council dismissed a complaint about an article which unfairly and inaccurately associated transgender Australians with sex offenders.[8] Seeming to overlook the well-settled 'harm minimisation' principle of Journalism ethics and standards, the Press Council dismissed the complaint citing "Freedom of Expression". In 2015 and several times in 2017, under the leadership of Executive Director John Pender, the Australian Press Council inexplicably dismissed complaints about articles containing obviously gratuitous references to a person's transgender status, often directly contradicting decisions in similar adjudications and well-settled international media ethics principles.[9][10][11]
On 1 June, 2019, the Australian Press Council rejected a complaint about material that invited Australian transgender children to believe that they are "mutilated". In Adjudication 1795, the Australian Press Council dismissed a complaint which ridiculed a transgender person and trivialised and promoted extreme and gratuitous violence on the basis of their transgender status, claiming the article amounted to mere "humour".[12] In subsequent legal proceedings, the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal found that the words implied in the Press Council's Adjudication "suggests that state funded medical treatment should be denied to the individual, specifically on the basis of their transgender status" and that the impugned article "calls for violence against transgender people...".
In 2017, the Australian Press Council began experiencing legal complaints of transgender discrimination. The organisation's 2018-2019 annual report stated that "Council vigorously defended its processes." Press Council Chair Neville Stephen's foreword in the organisation's Annual Report stated that the Council elected to "divert significant resources in this period to defend legal proceedings about its processes and decisions" rather than work with acutely vulnerable transgender groups to improve reporting standards. In 2021, a corpus linguistics analysis by the Professor Alex Garcia at the Sydney University Corpus Linguistics Laboratory found that transgender Australians are "Bombarded by outright harassment in the Australian Press" and that the Australian Press Council processes and procedures failed to uphold responsible reporting standards.[13]
On 24 May 2023, The New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal handed down a decision concerning an application for transgender discrimination,[14] finding that the APC treats complaints about transgender subjects and individuals less favourably:
"When considered at its highest, I am satisfied that the comparators relied upon by the Applicant establishes that, when comparing those matters which involve transgender and non-transgender grounds, there is prima facie evidence of a different decision-making practice by the (Australian Press Council), demonstrating that less favourable treatment is accorded to a complaint of transgender discrimination."
The Council has in the past been criticised for being unable to censure its members in anything more than a minor manner when standards are breached and for being a "toothless tiger" as a result of being funded by the publishers whose work it is meant to evaluate.[15][16]
The former Chairman of Australian Consolidated Press, Kerry Packer described the council as "window dressing" at a 1991 parliamentary inquiry into the print media.[2] A former chair of the council, Professor Dennis Pearce, told the Finkelstein Media Inquiry Archived 27 January 2021 at the Wayback Machine that the authority was overly influenced by concerns of losing its sponsors and that the industry was reluctant to fund its own watchdog.[16]
Another former Chairman, Ken McKinnon supported calls for the APC to have a stronger role and be better resourced, instead of statutory regulation.[17] The Australian Greens Senator Bob Brown has described the APC as a "hollow vessel" and supports reform towards a statutory body with better funding.[18]
In the wake of the Finkelstein Media Inquiry, publishers agreed on a major strengthening of the Press Council. Funding was raised from $0.8 million to $1.6 million in 2012-13 and $1.8 million in the following year.[19] News Corp Australia, Fairfax Media, the media union (MEAA) and the other publisher members of the council agreed to specific funding commitments for the three years, with subsequent commitments to be agreed at least two to three years in advance, all of which have since lapsed.
Beginning in August 2014, The Australian newspaper, owned by News Corp Australia, published a series of more than 20 articles and editorials highly critical of the Press Council’s activities and leadership.[20] The newspaper accused the Council of overstepping its mandate and issuing questionable adjudications.
In an editorial published on 9 August 2014, the newspaper said it had “lost confidence in APC chairman Julian Disney and deplores the direction in which he has taken the council”.
The editorial continued:
“The APC has become erratic in its rulings, unmoored from its foundations, ponderous and serpentine in its procedures, side-tracked by its chairman’s peculiar tastes and political predilections and ineffective as a body that promotes good practice.”[21]
In a subsequent article in Crikey on 11 August 2014, David Salter, the former Executive Producer of the ABC TV Program Media Watch, noted that “The Australian has turned its particular brand of venom on Julian Disney, chair of the Press Council”.
Salter wrote:
“Self-regulation, at least in the ethical fantasyland of News Corp, is only a worthwhile system of media accountability so long as it doesn’t inquire into the abuse of a newspaper’s power to pursue vendettas and parade its own paranoia…. More importantly, this whole unpleasant episode demonstrates the hypocrisies that underpin the media self-regulation construct in Australia. In response to the perceived threats of the Finkelstein Inquiry and the Convergence Review, newspaper proprietors rushed to ‘strengthen’ the Press Council's authority and increase its funding.[22]
Now we have proof that this was all window dressing. If the APC's processes and findings don't suit a powerful member such as News Corp, it refuses to play by the rules and trashes the chair's reputation. Self-regulation is no regulation at all.”[22]
In an interview on ABC Radio’s Media Report program, Julian Disney said: “There's always, over the years, been tensions way back to the start of the Council, not only with News Corp but with Fairfax from time to time. News pulled out only four years into the life of the Council, when the Chair was a High Court judge. So these tensions come and go, and I think they're felt more strongly in some parts of an organisation than others, and sometimes there are other pressures.”[23]
The Press Council pointed out factual inaccuracies in The Australian's criticisms, and an alleged lack of balance and fairness in the series of attack articles. At a Council meeting on 28 August 2014, a resolution re-affirming support for Julian Disney was passed and made public. The resolution, passed by 19 votes to nil, with one abstention, read in part:
“The Press Council reaffirms its confidence in the Chair and rejects the recent misrepresentations made by The Australian about the Chair and the Council. It also deplores the breach by The Australian of obligations of confidentiality during the Council’s complaint processes. The Council will continue to work with News Corp to resolve any legitimate concerns.”[24]
After taking over as chair in March 2015, Professor David Weisbrot spent much of his time meeting with member publishers, editors, leading journalists, officials of the MEAA, media and communications academics, and members of the NGOs, peak associations, and community groups with which the council regularly interacts.
During his tenure as chair, the Press Council:
In a major address to the Melbourne Press Club on 6 August 2015, Professor Weisbrot stated:
“Whatever benefits those procedural refinements may deliver, they are likely to pale in comparison with the benefits that will come from cultural change and a belief that the maintenance of high standards in the industry must be a shared enterprise.
As I mentioned at the outset, for most of its history the Press Council has been perceived as the ‘watchdog’ or the ‘cop on the beat’ - in other words, its presence might tend to discourage poor journalistic practice by putting the fear of God into publishers and practitioners, giving the public an opportunity to bring complaints, and then whacking those unfortunate few whose alleged transgressions happened to be complained about.
And publishers and journalists who pride themselves on their professionalism clearly do not relish the experience of having to publish a negative adjudication.
But focusing on a particular breach of the Council’s Standards in the past and then publicising it probably channels too much energy, attention and resources on the aberrant cases - the roughly 40 cases in any particular year that go all the way from initial receipt to final adjudication.
And since it’s such a relatively small number, most journalists, editors and publishers may feel that those aberrant cases have nothing to do with them.
What we need to do instead is to create a different culture: one that is collegial and intelligent, that continually learns from experience….
We urgently need to move away from the system of punishing individual transgressions in our industry and feeling that such action alone maintains high standards across the entire profession. While the need to identify and sanction poor practice will remain, there are much better strategies for achieving industry-wide improvement, and reassuring the community that this is the case.”[24]
Professor Weisbrot resigned as chair effective 18 July 2017. The council's two vice-chairs, the John Doyle and Julie Kinross, took over the position jointly while a replacement for Professor Weisbrot was being recruited.[25]
The Australian Press Council appointed Neville Stevens as its new chair effective 22 January 2018. Stevens has wide experience chairing panels and reviews in the private and public sectors and is a distinguished former public servant who headed two major Australian government departments, one of them dealing with telecommunications, media and broadcasting.[26]
