The transcripts of the official inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the press. More…

No, what we had in mind there is effectively an arbitration function. I notice quite often when this is discussed, people get confused about the -- not the Inquiry, but the media, and laypeople get confused about the distinctions.

Arbitration is of course always possible. Anybody can arbitrate now, because all you have to do is sign an arbitration agreement and appoint an arbitrator.

So disputes between the media and individuals could always be arbitrated.

But of course, you can't force people to arbitrate. It requires the agreement of both sides. So the idea is that the MSA would provide an arbitration function in effect through the dispute resolution tribunal, but that would have to be consensual.

Sorry, and the second part, as it were, is if it's a complaint of a code breach -- let's say inaccuracy. Some form of inaccuracy or unfairness, which is not actionable in civil law, or only in part -- then the idea would be, again, make a complaint, mediation. And then, if the complainant isn't satisfied with the result, or it can't be resolved, then to have the tribunal resolve that complaint.

The third level is, it seems to me, vital that the MSA must be able to initiate complaints itself. If the MSA perceives that some newspaper or other publisher is behaving in a way that's unfair, inaccurate, in breach of the code, to bring a complaint itself, and the third process is designed to resolve that.

Keyboard shortcuts

j previous speech k next speech