Creative Pros Series in Sydney

On August 7th, Sydney PEN Young Writers Committee member, Bonny Cassidy, spoke about being a young and emerging writer for the City of Sydney's Creative Pros series held at Customs House. This is a series of panel discussions with young professionals in various fields, and last week featured writing. Alongside Bonny were slam poet Miles Merrill and journalist Valerie Khoo. The audience was well-sized and consisted mostly of people thinking about changing vocational directions or developing their beginnings in the writing field. Needless to say, Bonny urged all interested writers to join Sydney PEN for networks, support, fellow young writers and for perspectives on and involvement in the current state of writing locally and worldwide. Thanks to the City of Sydney and the Pine Street Arts Centre in particular for the organisation of this fantastic evening.

Read more!

Sydney PEN at the Sydney Writers' Festival!

Sydney PEN and its Young Writers Committee will be participating in a number of Sydney Writers' Festival events this year. Please join us for these exciting discussions!

1. Freedom to Write: The PEN Panel
Sunday June 3 2007, 11.30am - 1pm, SDC 4. Panellists include Eliot Weinberger, Bei Ling, Adib Khan, Rawi Hage and Sydney PEN President Angela Bowne SC.

2. Interface, Vibewire's annual magazine anthology, Launch
Thursday May 31, 2007, 7pm - 9pm, Bangarra Mezzanine
Featuring Interface contributors including Sydney PEN Young Writers Committee member, Hugo Bowne-Anderson.

3. Interface: Fresh Voices, New Ideas
Sunday, June 3, 2007, 11.30am - 1pm, SDC 1
Interface contributors discuss their work and the process of developing a piece for publication. Panel includes Sydney PEN Young Writers Committee member, Hugo Bowne-Anderson.

More Information:

1. The Freedom to Write: The PEN Panel
Sunday June 3 2007, 11.30am - 1pm, SDC 4

Eliot Weinberger's essays represent an important dissenting voice of critical insight into American politics. Bei Ling was imprisoned for publishing his journal in China. Adib Khan consistently embraces intellectual freedom without trepidation in his novels, as does Lebanese-Canadian writer and artist Rawi Hage. They discuss freedom of expression with Angela Bowne, President of Sydney PEN. Sydney PEN is a centre of International PEN that campaigns on behalf of writers around the world persecuted for the expression of their thoughts.

2. Interface, Vibewire's annual magazine anthology, Launch
Thursday May 31, 2007, 7pm - 9pm, Bangarra Mezzanine

Interface, Vibewire's annual magazine anthology, is about bringing promising young writers and thinkers together with their more experienced peers to create essays, feature articles and opinion pieces on social, political and cultural issues that provoke, engage and amuse the reader.Hugo appearing and his essay on the art of sedition.

3. Interface: Fresh Voices, New Ideas
Sunday, June 3, 2007, 11.30am - 1pm, SDC 1

Vibewire's Interface is an anthology of the most exciting new work by non-fiction writers aged 30 years and under. Contributors Amy Corderoy, Nicholas Carah, Scott Hickie, Fiona Wright and Hugo Bowne-Anderson talk about their stories and the process of developing a seed idea for publication with Triple J News presenter Meredith Griffiths.

Hugo Bowne-Anderson is a contributor to Vibewire's Interface anthology. He is a writer and mathematician, currently completing a PhD in Pure Mathematics at UNSW; he also teaches there. He has written numerous plays (produced at the Edge and Cellar Theatres), short and not-so-short, essays and short fiction. He is also a member of the Sydney PEN Centre Young Writers' Committee.

Read more!

Local Press

When I did an interview with a council worker a couple of years ago I asked him about an issue that had popped up in the local newspaper. "That’s just the local rag," he said dismissively.

But according to Bob Carr’s former Chief of Staff Bruce Hawker, research shows that not only do people prefer to read their local rag, but people also read their local papers more carefully than the big city metros. Scott Richardson reports.

Hawker writes in a report for his PR firm that people are more interested in things that impact us directly and immediately. While we might be shocked at the horrors of Iraq he says, we know that we probably care a lot more about the funding cuts to the school down the road: the one we used to go to, the one our kids now go to. Just as importantly, we feel we can do a lot more to save the local school than quell violence on the other side of the world.

“The local media has unprecedented influence and power,” Hawker says.

The Manly Daily is the local paper where I live and to my knowledge is the only daily local paper in Sydney. Indeed, for many people on the Northern Beaches it is the only paper they read. It meant that at the last state election the paper found itself at the centre of a PR battle as two local Independent MPs and two Liberal candidates fought hard for every photo and every story.

The editor of the Manly Daily Kathy Lipari told the Sydney Morning Herald “we take an even-handed approach and I have had the same complaints from all sides of local politics that their press releases and photos don't receive the run that they think they deserve.”

There is no doubting the role the Manly Daily played in getting local issues such as the fight to save Mona Vale hospital and the awful transport situation to the forefront of the election debate in the area.

Not all local news need be in print form of course. Newly created website Village Voice, developed by FPC Community Media Group aims to provide news and local information for people living in the greater Sydney area. While maintaining regular journalists, the site also encourages citizen journalism: allowing locals to write their own stories and post up notices about local events.

So local rags, whether it be jingoistic newspapers or websites promoting ‘citizen journalism’ are here to stay. They have an importance role to play in making the issues and concerns of people heard by those in power and in getting something done about it.

Read more!

Our Declining State of Press Freedom

Last month the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) released their 2007 Press Freedom Report titled Official Spin: Censorship and Control of the Australian Press 2007. The report highlights the declining state of press freedom in Australia, particularly with regard to laws enacted in the name of national security. Scott Richardson takes a look at the report's findings and its implications.

The MEAA report discusses the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission's report into sedition laws. The report suggested that the offence of urging of others to use force should be clearly intentional with the intent being for violence to occur and that a jury should take into consideration the context for which the alleged seditious comments occurred, that is, in an industrial dispute or an artistic performance for example.

The report notes that it took Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock five days to ignore all 27 recommendations and make no amendments.

George Williams, the Anthony Mason Professor and Director of the Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law at UNSW writes in the MEAA report:

"These examples demonstrate how fragile freedom of speech is in Australia. They expose how we assume, rather than actually protect, the freedom. Like other democratic nations, we ought to grant expression specific legal protection in a national charter of rights."

The report goes on to describe the manipulation of non-government organisations (NGOs). Dr Sarah Maddison of UNSW writes that the Federal Government has engaged in unprecedented attacks on NGOs that disagree with Government policy. Dr Maddison argues that questions on their accountability and their future classification as charitable organisations are used to quell their dissenting views. Meanwhile other more ‘disciplined’ NGOs are elevated by funding and through the placement of members onto Government boards.

Dr Maddison writes: "Like individual citizens, community groups are being worn down and are increasingly reluctant to engage in the democratic process because they no longer believe that they can make a difference. There are grounds for serious concern that the longer this continues the more difficult it will be to reshape and rebuild the structures of democratic participation."

The report also discusses the increasing problems with Freedom of Information laws, the increasing concentration of the media market and attacks on the ABC.

It’s not just the MEAA that have been pointing to the worrying status of free press in Australia.

Australia has dropped two places on the Reporters Without Borders annual press freedom index for 2007 to 35th. According to Reporters without Border’s annual report "Australia lost ground because of anti-terrorist laws potentially dangerous for journalists." Australia is now behind developing African nations Benin, Ghana and Namibia.

The RWB report continues: "In February, the government also banned the press from freely covering the arrival in the country of Papuan refugees. Generally speaking, numerous restrictions are imposed on journalists wanting to cover the plight of people in Australia’s camps for asylum-seekers."

The International Federation of Journalists has entered the debate regarding the changes to Australia’s cross-media ownership laws. The IFJ General Secretary Aiden White said "if (the media ownership) laws lead to fewer voices in a media landscape then that is an attack on the right to freedom of expression...in a democracy, when the power to control news and information is reduced to a handful, then that is a fundamental assault on democracy."

Read more!

Freedom of Information

An important part of our democracy is the ability to access privileged information through Freedom of Information legislation. Particularly for journalists who are charged with the responsibility of informing the public, the ability to apply for and be granted documents through FoI is essential. Unfortunately, many FoI requests drag on for years without a result leaving journalists frustrated and the public in the dark. Scott Richardson takes a look at the efficiency of FoI in Australia.

This week the NSW Government announced that its election promise to widen the Spit Bridge in Sydney’s northern beaches has been dumped.

Despite rumours it was going to be dropped, the Government swore by their promise, which formed a significant part of the local Independent MP’s campaign to be re-elected to the seat of Manly.

The Liberal candidate in the seat had launched Freedom of Information requests before the election to determine whether the widening proposal would ultimately go ahead, however there was no response.

Only now, after the election, has the decision to not go ahead with the proposal been announced.

The impotency of our FoI laws in this case clearly shows the ramifications for democracy and how a Government, by ignoring FoI, can try and manipulate an electorate.

This is of course not the only example of FoI failures in Australia.

The recent High Court decision in McKinnon v Secretary, Department of Treasury also demonstrated the limited scope of FoI laws in Australia.

The Australian Press Council said this decision gave “fresh impetus to suppress information that is embarrassing or politically inconvenient.”

News Limited Chairman and Chief Executive John Hartigan was quoted in The Age as saying it was “difficult not to conclude that the Freedom of Information laws are now effectively lost as an avenue for making governments open, transparent and accountable.”

Indeed, there are inherent defects in the Freedom of Information Act (1982) that allow Government agencies to excuse themselves from revealing requested information.

For example, Section 24 of the Act says that FoI requests can be refused if "in the case of an agency--would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of the agency from its other operations."

The first difficulty here is the ambiguity of the phrase ‘unreasonably.’ What is reasonable or unreasonable is at the discretion of the agency itself. Michal Alhadeff’s report Denying the Public’s Right to Know recommends this power be balanced against a public interest provision.

Another issue is with Section 33 (1)(a)(iii) which states that information can be withheld if it "would, or could reasonably be expected to, cause damage to the international relations of the Commonwealth." So does that mean any information of wrongdoing on behalf of the Government, whether it be a trivial error or an issue with serious implications, may be withheld and never come to public attention?

Surely FoI is in need of serious reform and could be strengthened by the following amendments:

1. Create a new FoI system that stops the Government having the ability to make a
final determination of whether certain information is within the scope of the
Freedom of Information Act by abolishing 'conclusive certificates.'

2. Creation of an independent tribunal that adjudicates FoI disputes.

3. Enforce penalties on officials and/or departments that deliberately hinder FoI
requests.

Michal Alhadeff in her report also recommended the following changes:

4. Redraft the language of the Act so that it explicitly favours disclosure of
information.

5. Make all provisions that provide exemption from FoI subject to a ‘tangible harm’
test.

6. Create a ‘new culture’ by promoting FoI inside government and create incentives
to FoI officers as well as comprehensive advice on FoI changes.

7. Create a collective of journalists, academics and interest groups to establish an
information management system so that information is easily traceable.

It should be noted that the federal opposition have recently signalled their intention to make FoI easier and more accessible. We now wait in hope for Mr Howard to match the ALP.

Read more!

Online Political Campaigning

The effectiveness of online political campaigning is contentious. While many politicians view the email templates available from political lobby groups as spam, some of the larger online campaigns have seen great results - GetUp!'s 2006 petition to seek more funding for the ABC accumulated 75,000 signatures and the national broadcaster subsequently received an extra $88.2 million. Scott Richardson reports.

There’s no doubt one of the great things about the Internet has been the ability to communicate. In recent years we’ve seen lobby groups using online petitions and email campaigns to get their message to politicians.

One of these campaigns was from the NSW National Parks Association (NPA) who on their website set up a generic email template to send to state MPs including the Premier Morris Iemma.

The NPA got an unexpected response from the Government’s IT staff telling them to stop their emails, which they labelled spam.

“We are experiencing a high volume of spam from an IP address registered to your organization,” the email to the NPA was reported to have said.

“The pattern and content of these email constitutes spam under the Commonwealth Spam Act of 2003. Please investigate and take action to prevent further spam from these addresses.”

However the Spam Act (2003) only seeks to stop forms of commercial electronic messages not emails sent from individuals. Section 44 expressly states the Act isn’t to be used to stop the constitutional right to freedom of political communication established by the High Court in Lange v ABC: “This Act does not apply to the extent (if any) that it would infringe any constitutional doctrine of implied freedom of political communication.”

Although it appears that any attempt by the NSW Government to take action would be stopped in its tracks, it is nonetheless a worrying sign; worrying in the sense that the Government will try and deter people from writing about genuine concerns and worrying that elected representatives see emails of concern by their constituents as spam.

The spam debate arose when the political advocacy website GetUp! began in 2005 and Coalition MPs received some 15,000 emails in a few days.

On his website Democrat Senator Andrew Bartlett says, “I know many MPs genuinely think of email ‘campaigns’ as basically equivalent to spam. I think this is silly but I guess it says something about the different way many people perceive communication by email compared to letters and phone calls. That said, I’ve known MPs who thought that any time they got a heap of phone calls or letters from people complaining about their actions or views, it was the result of an organised campaign by their political opponents.”

This week it was reported that in New Zealand a woman’s email to Telecom NZ was blocked because her first name, Gay, was tagged as an offensive word and “inappropriate for business-like communication.”

The case demonstrates just how easily emails can be sorted and ignored.

It still seems uncertain whether email campaigns are an effective way of expressing political opinion and grievances. It’s up to us to continue to think of creative ways to express our views and to make sure our opinions aren’t destined for the junk folder.

Read more!

Celebrating Talkback

There is no doubt that talkback radio is an important barometer of public opinion in Australia. But at what point does talkback move from vehicle of free speech to mouthpiece for the inflammatory and discriminative? Scott Richardson muses on the question as talkback turns 40.

This month is the 40 year anniversary of talkback radio in Australia. It was April 1967 when Mike Walsh began his program 2-Way Radio on 2SM.

Revolutionary as it was at the time, talkback is now entrenched in Australian broadcasting. According to Commercial Radio Australia over 50 commercial stations in Australia run talkback shows with one in four Australians tuning in.

However with the controversies in recent years over shock jocks such as Alan Jones, is talkback really a bastion of free speech as the shock jocks claim? Or is it just a weapon for petty grievances and prejudice?

Talkback hosts will tell you free speech is the name of the game. John Laws himself has said that talkback is “a way of really keeping in touch with Australia.”

Indeed, when John Howard went on Charles Woolley’s Across Australia, Terry Hicks rang in and put his questions directly to the Prime Minister who agreed to talk to him on air. “I never refused to take a call from anybody,” the PM said.

Mark Day’s blog on The Australian news website put it well: “Talkback is a worthy and legitimate tool for news-oriented radio. Used to seek out expert opinion or to hear politicians’ justifications for the decisions that affect our communities, or as a way of informing people about what’s happening in their back yards, it is invaluable.

“Used as a method of generating cheap programming - a pot-stirring host inciting his listeners and inviting them to come on air to rant in response - it sinks instantly into a world of the trite and the trivial.”

There is always plenty of colour in talkback of course. Stan Zemanek has called Germaine Greer “a grub, a bitch, a bitter and twisted old tart.” Jones described the men that bashed the Cronulla life savers as “Middle Eastern thugs.”

So what is the alternative? Have the Australian Communications and Media Authority determined for us what can and cannot be broadcast or printed as it did with their Alan Jones ruling?

When there have been incursions of free speech such as the blocking of a site parodying the Prime Minister or the serving of writs by logging company Gunns there are (rightly) many jumping up and down.

But when people like Jones gets similar treatment, who wants to defend what seems to be the indefensible?

The answer is simple – you don’t have to. The point is their right to say it even if what they say is arguably ignorant, uninformed or downright racist and inflammatory.

We need to take heed of Voltaire’s famous adage, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Read more!

The Censorship of Online Content in Australia

In this week's post Sydney PEN Young Writers Committee member Nick Landreth explores the online censorship debate.

At an awards night speech on 21 March, the Federal Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Helen Coonan, reconfirmed her government's commitment to 'protecting Australian families on-line', outlining its role as "ensuring measures are in place that restrict access to offensive online content and protect children from exposure to content that is unsuitable for them." She outlined a new scheme for filtering offensive content, motivated primarily to delimit the reach of those publishing material endorsing violence and sexual abuse.

This address is reflective of much public discussion regarding internet regulation in Australia over the last decade or so. Whilst an authority overseeing illegal material in such an anarchic domain is of some necessity, it also raises concerns over the government’s powers over other internet content.

Amongst a mix of Commonwealth, State and Territory criminal laws pertaining to this content stands Schedule 5 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 which was inserted by the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Act 1999. Schedule 5, while dealing with more specific infringements, enables the Federal government regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, to issue 'take-down' notices to internet service providers carrying what is considered , 'likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult'.

In a political climate where publishers’ incitement of insecurity and moral impropriety is considered an offence, one begins to worry how long it will be before the phrase 'likely to cause offence' is stretched to cover anything likely to stir political discord.

This ability to command the removal of online content has already become an issue to some Australian writers. The reality of the situation is that under current laws, a determination to order the deletion of material does not require any parliamentary approval or a publicised legal excuse. In March last year, internet service provider Melbourne IT removed Richard Neville's satirical website johnhowardpm.org from its servers. For 3 days Neville was given no explanation why this had occurred. Eventually it appeared that a mock transcript apologising for Australia's continued involvement in Iraq he had posted 36 hours prior to the site's removal had been so offensive that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet had complained that the use of the domain name johnhowardpm.org infringed John Howard's intellectual property rights. Neville expressed confusion over why established legal recourse for pursuing intellectual property infringement complaints was not followed, and discovered that Melbourne IT had received calls from three Australian Federal Police following the posting. Melbourne IT would not disclose the subject of these calls.

A year down the track, an early draft of a new Content Services Bill from Coonan's department was released mid-March pushing to make content broadcast over mobile telephones and the internet liable to the same government scrutiny as video game and film classification. Alarm raised by the Australian Publishers Association over government censorship of the written content they provide across the web has led to a redrafting of this bill, but still Australian governmental bodies’ ability to arbitrarily proscribe publications on the internet remains unaddressed.

Convention has kept serious interference with Australian internet publishing relatively minimal, but the anti-censorship lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia has noted that the power of our legislative authorities over internet service providers and the material they carry is amongst the most extensive in the world. The Iranian administration, one of Reporters Without Borders' top fifteen 'Enemies of the Internet', has chosen to exercise the control it has over internet content and ordered the registration of all Iranian websites. Websites that do not meet the criteria for registration or choose not to register can not be accessed within Iran, nor can unregistered Iranian information channels be accessed from abroad. At the same time Iranian authorities, like ours, are increasingly using the internet to spread sanctioned information about Iran in order to influence opinion and communicate their ideals.

Here we have a situation where information is passed if its authors are granted conditional permission, a severe instance of censorship denying expression that does not conform to state-endorsed guidelines. Whilst Iran's is an extreme case, it is perturbing for Australians publishing on the web that the only failsafe against our government engaging similar powers seems to be our trust in them not to.

Read more!