Australian press freedom guaranteed by common laws

JAKARTA (JP): "How does the Australian government control the press? Does it harness the media to keep its good relations with Indonesia? How do Australians perceive press freedom?"

Such were questions hurled at David Flint, chairman of the Sydney-based Australian Press Council, who addressed a seminar at the Dr. Soetomo Journalism Institute yesterday.

Flint, who is also Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Technology, Sydney, was discussing press freedom, press law and responsibility in countries adopting common laws, such as Australia, the United States and Britain.

Indonesian lawyer Todung Mulya Lubis and chief editor of the mass circulation Kompas newspaper, Jakob Oetama, were on hand to provide an Indonesian perspective.

With the audience still worried by the Indonesian government's bans against the Tempo, DeTIK and Editor news magazines, the Australian experience is particularly interesting.

"The Australian government cannot control the press," Flint said.

He argued the freedom of expression is an essential feature of a democratic society and is guaranteed by the constitution to encourage discussion on public interests, inform the people on public issues and form the basis for a market economy.

The press is highly valued as it also places checks and balances on power which otherwise tends to corrupt, he said.

Press censorship in a democratic society like Australia is loathed because the people believe that only an unimpeded press can reveal deceptions by the government, he said.

But not all Western democracies guarantee freedom of expression in their constitutions. Britain and Australia are examples where the freedom was guaranteed by common laws.

In commonwealth countries, no legislation exists to restrict freedom of the press.

In Australia, Flint said the major hindrance to press freedom is the defamation law which allows anyone to sue a journalist on defamation charges.

A number of Australian journalists protecting confidential sources which prove to be inaccurate have been jailed for defaming an individual or institution.

The law, Flint pointed out, has restricted the press from more freely revealing corruption in the public sector. In this regard, the American press enjoys greater freedom as its defamation law does not apply to public figures.

By comparison, Jacob called press freedom a classic problem that was never resolved. "The law on the freedom is there but each concerned party has different interpretations and it is essentially a political problem," he said.

Mulya Lubis added that the Indonesian press was staggering with the government's demand for heavy responsibilities but enjoyed little freedom.

The government, he said, could go as far as closing down publications without legal procedures. (pan)