The sudden departure of the NSW bureaucrat Chris Puplick won't bring on a flood of tears among members of the journalistic trade. As Privacy Commissioner and president of the Anti-Discrimination Board he was a state licensed busybody, who stuck his nose into all manner of enterprises that complainants regarded as being discriminatory and public.
Paul Sheehan has already ticked him off in these pages for his nannyesque report on "Race for the Headlines", which among other things complained that the media's coverage of the attacks by gang rapists in Sydney "racialised" the attackers. The Premier, Bob Carr, told Parliament on May 1 that in his view Puplick's report was "ideological claptrap".
A day later there was a leak of an unfortunate episode which revealed that Puplick assisted a friend called "Bunny" in a gay victimisation complaint that was investigated by the Anti-Discrimination Board, over which he presided.
The next day Puplick resigned from both jobs and now the Ombudsman is investigating the Bunny affair "as well as other matters".
However, there is one story with Puplick in a starring role that has not been told and which reveals quite potently the tensions surrounding the protection of privacy and the media's pursuit of informative and interesting material.
Deborah Cornwall, a former Channel Nine legal affairs reporter, had been discussing with Beyond Productions a 13-part TV series shot in the local courts in and around Sydney. The planning had been going on since February last year.
It was described as an "observational documentary series" that would give the public "an unprecedented insight" into the workings of the Local Court. It was to be called City Court and the pitch said it would be produced along lines similar to the RPA series.
The whole point of the exercise was to capture some of the reality of the criminal justice system, with real accused persons, real prosecutors, real magistrates, real witnesses, the role of legal aid lawyers, the granting of bail, the bargaining with prosecutors - in other words the progress of cases both inside and outside court.
To that end lengthy deliberations took place between the producers and the Attorney-General's Department, the Department of Corrective Services, the Police Service, the Law Society of NSW and the Chief Magistrate. From this emerged a set of protocols that was designed to protect all the parties. The key to it was that "featured persons" would have to provide their consent before being filmed.
A deed of access between the director-general of the NSW Attorney General's Department, Laurie Glanfield, and Beyond Productions was prepared. The venture looked set to proceed but Glanfield thought he had better seek the advice of Puplick as Privacy Commissioner.
Puplick exploded with a 10-page objection: "Given the very obvious and serious privacy issues raised by the proposal, I am dismayed that I have not been asked, as Privacy Commissioner, to comment upon the proposal prior to your recent request. I have the most detailed and profound objections to numerous aspects of this project which, if it proceeds in its current form, will be against my most trenchant opposition." Some of the objections were sound and Beyond did its best to address them in subsequent negotiations.
Puplick said that courts were an artificial environment where people experienced emotional distress and so would be unlikely to be able to provide informed consent to being filmed. The 24-hour period in which consent could be revoked was insufficient. He objected to the whole genre of "reality" television because documentaries are shaped by the biases of the producers and editors. The use of signs around the court that filming by a TV crew was in progress was inadequate. "There is no provision for the signs to be in languages other than English, nor any explanation as to how a person with a visual or intellectual disability or a child might be advised of their right not to be filmed," Puplick complained.
A proposed panel with representatives from various agencies and departments should have power to veto the use of footage which in the panel's opinion is prejudicial to the interests of anyone whose identity is apparent, he said.
On and on he went. While many modifications and safeguards were made, it could still not pass muster and eventually the Attorney-General's Department withdrew its support for the series.
The project was dead. No TV court actuality program for NSW. A great pity really, but that's privacy nannies for you.
view the rest of the comments →
hojuruku ago
How privacy nanny nixed TV series
By Richard Ackland May 9 2003
The sudden departure of the NSW bureaucrat Chris Puplick won't bring on a flood of tears among members of the journalistic trade. As Privacy Commissioner and president of the Anti-Discrimination Board he was a state licensed busybody, who stuck his nose into all manner of enterprises that complainants regarded as being discriminatory and public.
Paul Sheehan has already ticked him off in these pages for his nannyesque report on "Race for the Headlines", which among other things complained that the media's coverage of the attacks by gang rapists in Sydney "racialised" the attackers. The Premier, Bob Carr, told Parliament on May 1 that in his view Puplick's report was "ideological claptrap".
A day later there was a leak of an unfortunate episode which revealed that Puplick assisted a friend called "Bunny" in a gay victimisation complaint that was investigated by the Anti-Discrimination Board, over which he presided.
The next day Puplick resigned from both jobs and now the Ombudsman is investigating the Bunny affair "as well as other matters".
However, there is one story with Puplick in a starring role that has not been told and which reveals quite potently the tensions surrounding the protection of privacy and the media's pursuit of informative and interesting material.
Deborah Cornwall, a former Channel Nine legal affairs reporter, had been discussing with Beyond Productions a 13-part TV series shot in the local courts in and around Sydney. The planning had been going on since February last year.
It was described as an "observational documentary series" that would give the public "an unprecedented insight" into the workings of the Local Court. It was to be called City Court and the pitch said it would be produced along lines similar to the RPA series.
The whole point of the exercise was to capture some of the reality of the criminal justice system, with real accused persons, real prosecutors, real magistrates, real witnesses, the role of legal aid lawyers, the granting of bail, the bargaining with prosecutors - in other words the progress of cases both inside and outside court.
To that end lengthy deliberations took place between the producers and the Attorney-General's Department, the Department of Corrective Services, the Police Service, the Law Society of NSW and the Chief Magistrate. From this emerged a set of protocols that was designed to protect all the parties. The key to it was that "featured persons" would have to provide their consent before being filmed.
A deed of access between the director-general of the NSW Attorney General's Department, Laurie Glanfield, and Beyond Productions was prepared. The venture looked set to proceed but Glanfield thought he had better seek the advice of Puplick as Privacy Commissioner.
Puplick exploded with a 10-page objection: "Given the very obvious and serious privacy issues raised by the proposal, I am dismayed that I have not been asked, as Privacy Commissioner, to comment upon the proposal prior to your recent request. I have the most detailed and profound objections to numerous aspects of this project which, if it proceeds in its current form, will be against my most trenchant opposition." Some of the objections were sound and Beyond did its best to address them in subsequent negotiations.
Puplick said that courts were an artificial environment where people experienced emotional distress and so would be unlikely to be able to provide informed consent to being filmed. The 24-hour period in which consent could be revoked was insufficient. He objected to the whole genre of "reality" television because documentaries are shaped by the biases of the producers and editors. The use of signs around the court that filming by a TV crew was in progress was inadequate. "There is no provision for the signs to be in languages other than English, nor any explanation as to how a person with a visual or intellectual disability or a child might be advised of their right not to be filmed," Puplick complained.
A proposed panel with representatives from various agencies and departments should have power to veto the use of footage which in the panel's opinion is prejudicial to the interests of anyone whose identity is apparent, he said.
On and on he went. While many modifications and safeguards were made, it could still not pass muster and eventually the Attorney-General's Department withdrew its support for the series.
The project was dead. No TV court actuality program for NSW. A great pity really, but that's privacy nannies for you.
[email protected]