ANNUAL REPORT 2014-2015 No

ANNUAL REPORT 2014-2015 No. 39

The Australian Press Council Address: Level 6, 309 Kent Street Sydney 2000 Phone: (02) 9261 1930 or 1800 025 712 Fax: (02) 9267 6826 Email: [email protected] Web: http://www.presscouncil.org.au

ANNUAL REPORT 2014-2015

Annual Report No. 39 Year ending 30 June 2015 Level 6, 309 Kent Street SYDNEY NSW 2000 Australia Telephone: (02) 9261 1930 1 800 025 712

E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.presscouncil.org.au

Photo credits Page 2: Britta Campion/Newspix Pages 12,19,20,26,42: Leanne Ho

ISSN 0156-1308

Chair’s Foreword It was a great honour and a privilege to be appointed the eighth Chair of the Australian Press Council on 28 November 2014, officially taking up the office on 1 March 2015. As foreshadowed in the Annual Report for 2013-14, the period covered in this Report was one of significant achievement but also considerable tumult. Two Council resolutions relevant to this are set out in Appendix 4. Happily, I can report that the Council has now returned to operating in a very harmonious and productive manner, with few if any unwanted distractions. As I have been strongly and publicly emphasising, the prevailing ethos must be that we are all part of a shared enterprise to maintain high standards of journalism, maintain a high level of public confidence in those standards, and do everything possible to ensure a free and effective press. As a new Chair of the Council and new to the industry, much of the first six months of 2015 was devoted to learning the ropes and meeting with our publisher members, editors, leading journalists, senior officers of the MEAA (the union to which most journalists belong) and the Walkley Foundation, media and communications academics and educators, and members of the NGOs, peak associations, and community groups with which the Council interacts. The body of this report contains the fundamental information about the Council’s operations in 2014- 2015, including membership of the governing body and its various committees; the staffing profile of the Secretariat; the basic facts and figures about complaints-handling (our core function); the development of standards and policy; finances; and other key activities. We have endeavoured to make this Annual Report easier and more rewarding to read. We have increased the use of charts, tables, graphs and photos in order to present the information in a more engaging and helpful way. With that essential information already included, this Foreword will focus on a few key areas that I believe are worth highlighting. Improvements to the complaints-handling process Although there is always room for improvement, the Council does a good job on behalf of the community by: (a) resolving the concerns of complainants and delivering targeted remedies in a low cost, low risk system; and (b) holding the media to account and working with the industry to lift standards and performance. Less than 10 per cent of complaints are referred to the Adjudication Panel for determination, with around 75 per cent of those complaints fully or partly upheld. This pattern is broadly consistent with other industry complaints-handling schemes, ombudsman’s offices and public regulators in Australia and overseas. It is also broadly consistent with the general legal system, in which the overwhelming number of civil claims and criminal charges are disposed of consensually or summarily, with only a few per cent of the most serious, complex and intractable matters reaching the “pointy end” of the system. The Adjudication Panel is independent and operates without fear or favour. Each Panel session is currently chaired by me or one of our distinguished Vice-Chairs: the Hon John Doyle AC, the former Chief Justice of South Australia, and Julian Gardner AM, formerly Public Advocate and Director of Legal Aid in Victoria. Having observed the Adjudication Panels in action, I am constantly impressed by the diligence, seriousness and judgment of Panel members. It is a cost-free jurisdiction for complainants, and a very cost-effective process for publishers, who would otherwise bear the risks of huge legal costs and damages and wasted senior staff time in defamation actions and related legal proceedings. As detailed elsewhere in this Report, the Council is continuously seeking to refine its processes to make them more streamlined and efficient, and more responsive to feedback from complainants and publications.

3 Promoting a collegial, learning culture As a body with a large mandate but limited resources, the Press Council must constantly work to ensure that its culture is collegial and intelligent, continually learns from experience—both good and bad—and, as mentioned, fosters the view that the maintenance of high standards in the media is a shared enterprise. While the need to resolve complaints will always remain a core function, the Council is developing and testing other strategies for achieving industry-wide improvement, and reassuring the community that this is the case. For example, Council is now being informed more regularly and more fully of the broad patterns of complaints received and the areas in which there appear to be emerging community concerns or sensitivities. Council can then respond to this experience by developing new Specific Standards, or by developing best practice guidelines and other guidance material, or by developing educational and training materials, or some combination of those things, as appropriate to the particular circumstances. There is considerable interest and enthusiasm from newspaper and online editors and managers in the Council partnering in, developing or directly providing education and training programs for working journalists, cadets and others on the Council’s Standards of Practice and on emerging media law issues, such as metadata retention, secrecy laws, whistleblower laws, and anti-terrorism laws that may inadvertently entangle journalists. Strategic planning and organisational reviews With changes in Secretariat personnel, a new Chair and the milestone of the Council’s 40th Anniversary approaching in 2016, we have embarked on a number of important planning and review exercises. These include a review of the Council’s staffing structure, duty statements, reporting lines and HR policies; a review of the effectiveness of our corporate governance mechanisms; and the development of the Council’s first Strategic Plan, to commence in 2016. The Standards of Practice In June 2014, after a substantial period of consultation and refinement, the Press Council approved a revised set of eight General Principles that set out the basic standards of practice expected of member publications (commencing on 1 August 2014). There is general agreement that the General Principles are now in excellent shape: they are clear and concise, sensible and practical, and compliance should not be onerous or unnatural for working journalists, even under pressure. The General Principles have been supplemented by the development of a number of Specific Standards, where appropriate, to be applied in defined circumstances. Again, as part of the attempt to learn from the complaints-handling experience and other feedback, Council may consider from time to time developing new Specific Standards, or guidance, or educational programs. Broadening the membership The Press Council is justifiably proud of the breadth and depth of its membership, encompassing all but one of the major newspaper and magazine publishers in Australia — over 850 mastheads and around 95 per cent of circulation. The Council has also done a reasonably good job in accommodating the digital revolution, both in terms of embracing the associated online websites of traditional/mainstream publishers, as well as the new generation of online-only publishers. Of the top 20 most-visited online news and current affairs sites, about four-fifths are members of the Press Council (for example ninemsn, mUmBRELLA, New Matilda, The New Daily and Crikey, as well as the online operations of News Corp Australia and Fairfax Media) and we are in active talks with a number of possible new entrants. However, there is still one surprising gap in the Council’s membership: the thriving multicultural or “ethnic” press that reflects the reality and vibrancy of our society, in which one in four Australians was born overseas. The Council is now committed to redressing this omission.

4 This growth is not only important for the continued intellectual and financial vitality of the Council, but it also underpins the Council’s very existence. The Council has been successful to date in reassuring the community, and therefore the Commonwealth Government, that there is no need for a formal regulatory apparatus to deal with the press in the manner that the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) licenses and regulates radio and TV broadcasters. There is a strong and coherent view among publications, shared by civil libertarians, that more government intervention would imperil freedom of the press and free speech in Australia. Consequently, the Press Council must be able to demonstrate not only its effectiveness in maintaining high standards of journalism, but also that it effectively covers the whole field. Advocacy for free speech and freedom of the press The first Chair of the Press Council, retired High Court Justice Sir Frank Kitto, was of the view that the Council’s main role in advancing freedom of the press should be its complaints-handling function, which ensures public confidence in the integrity and standard of media practice. But he also acknowledged that the Council needed to be an advocate for press freedom. Times have changed, and the current circumstances require more emphasis on this advocacy responsibility. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press may have a strong cultural hold in Australia, but in the absence of entrenched constitutional or statutory protection they rest on flimsy legal foundations. Unfortunately, the traditionally fine balance has been tipping steadily against freedom in recent times. We have had 40 “anti-terrorism” laws passed, often with insufficient parliamentary scrutiny of the potential effects on free speech and press freedom. Among other things, amendments to the ASIO Act 1979 (Cth) now make disclosure of information relating to a “special intelligence operation” a crime carrying a maximum penalty of five years’ gaol. I have spoken publicly about the new metadata retention laws potentially dealing a severe blow to investigative journalism and freedom of the press. Similarly, under the new Australian Border Force Act 2015 (Cth) s 42, “entrusted persons” (public servants, doctors, lawyers, social workers) employed by the Australian Government who disclose “protected information” (such as allegations of malpractice or abuse) risk two years’ gaol. In these circumstances, it is not sufficient to hope that individual publishers and journalists will be successful in resisting these incursions, and the Press Council must take a strong stand in favour of free speech and press freedom. Similarly, the Press Council must actively work to diminish private or civil obstacles to investigative reporting, press freedom and free speech. Again, we are well behind comparable nations here. The United States has long had constitutionally-mandated restraints on defamation law, especially where the person concerned is a “public figure”. England and Wales have new legislation (in force in 2014) that provides an effective balance between protecting the reputation of ordinary citizens and recognising the role of the press in a democratic nation. The Council should be actively involved in driving significant reform in this important area. 40th Anniversary The Council will celebrate its 40th Anniversary in May 2016 with a major international conference in Sydney on the theme of “Press Freedom in a Challenging Environment”, exploring contemporary press issues associated with globalisation, digitalisation, government over-regulation, increasing commercial pressures and changing technology and social attitudes. The Council is actively engaged in planning the conference program, which will feature leading speakers from Australia and overseas, and include some unique features, such as master classes for journalists and communications students, a free event for the general community, a featured event on photojournalism, and a session on how press council functions are handled in a range of other countries.

Professor David Weisbrot AM FAAL

6 Executive Director’s Report As I was appointed Executive Director on 9 June 2014, this Annual Report for the 2014-15 financial year covers my first full year in the role. The Australian Press Council strives to preserve freedom of speech and freedom of the press, while driving appropriate standards of practice and providing the community with a no-cost and low-risk method of raising grievances about press coverage. To do this, the Council needs to be independent of government and sufficiently independent of the publishers, notwithstanding that the publisher members fund the Council. These tensions find daily resolution in the Council’s work and particularly its complaints-handling work, which has real consequences for both complainants and publications, as well as in its advocacy work, which has real influence on public debate. In performing these roles, the Australian Press Council follows in a long tradition of independent press councils around the world. The Swedish Press Council celebrates its 100th anniversary in 2016 and the United Kingdom and Germany have had press councils for more than 60 years. The contemporary benefits of press councils is demonstrated in the many independent and conscientious press councils that have sprung up in the countries of the former Soviet bloc, as they make their way towards pluralist democracy underpinned by a vigorous free press. The 2014-15 year was one of major transition for the Australian Press Council. On 28 February 2015, Professor Julian Disney AO stepped down as Chair after five years in the role. On 1 March 2015, Professor David Weisbrot AM took up his appointment as Chair. It is appropriate to acknowledge Professor Disney’s success over his term in substantially strengthening the effectiveness of the Council. It is notable that some of these reforms have since been emulated by other press councils of the world. The Council Secretariat—its resources, staff and facilities—stands as one of many fine tributes to him. It is also appropriate to acknowledge Professor Disney’s steadfastness and determination in dealing with a period of discord in the relationship between the Council and The Australian newspaper, commencing in August 2014, which included publication of a series of contentious articles relating to the Council and its powers, processes and activities. This lead to a substantial disruption in the Council’s complaints- handling process and other activities in the latter part of 2014. Happily, this difficulty ended and workflow returned to normal after a few months. Professor Weisbrot took up his role as Chair with energy and charm. He articulated strongly a vision for the Council as a shared enterprise between the community and the publishers to achieve the Council’s aims independently of government regulation. Professor Weisbrot quickly led the Council to strategically review its systems, policies and practices; greatly enhanced its role in advocating for free speech and press freedom; encouraged the multicultural press to consider membership; and launched plans for a major international conference on press freedom to mark the Council’s 40th Anniversary year in 2016. It is a measure of the value and reputation of the Council that the year saw The New Daily and New Matilda join as publisher members and expressions of interest by The Daily Mail, HuffPost Australia and the Monthly Chronicle (which led to them formally joining shortly after the year-end). The Council is delighted to welcome these new members. Sincere gratitude must go to the women and men of the Council and its Adjudication Panel, who gave their time and toil over what was at times a very challenging year. I would like to acknowledge in particular the contributions of both the Vice-Chairs: Julian Gardner AM and John Doyle AC. I also wish to express my deep and heartfelt appreciation to all the extraordinarily dedicated and hardworking staff of the Secretariat. John Pender

9 10 Contents

About the Council ...... 13 Overview ...... 13 Membership of the governing body ...... 15 Changes to membership ...... 17 Constituent bodies of the Council ...... 18 Council sub-committees ...... 18 Secretariat ...... 19 2. Standards and policy ...... 21 The Council’s Standards of Practice ...... 21 Specific Standards on Contacting Patients ...... 22 Consultation with media and the community ...... 22 Policy ...... 24 3. Complaints ...... 27 Complaints-handling ...... 27 Changes in procedures ...... 28 Handling of a Complaint - Workflow ...... 29 Complaints Charts ...... 30 Remedies without adjudication ...... 32 4. Public Affairs ...... 35 Media Coverage ...... 35 Speeches and public appearances ...... 36 New Initiatives ...... 37 Meetings with external organisations ...... 38 Research and education ...... 39 Prizes ...... 41 5. Finances ...... 43 Funding in 2014-15 ...... 43 Triennial commitments ...... 43 Statement of Financial Position ...... 45 Appendices ...... 47 A1. Constituent bodies of the Council ...... 49 A2. Publishers’ rights and obligations ...... 65 A3. Specific Standards on Contacting Patients ...... 69 A4. Council resolutions 28.08.2014 and 17.02.2015 ...... 71 A5. Detailed complaints statistics ...... 73 A6. Adjudication summaries ...... 77 A7. Full adjudications ...... 81

12 1 About the Council

Overview The Australian Press Council was established in 1976 and is responsible for promoting good standards of media practice, community access to information of public interest, and freedom of expression through the media. The Council is also the principal body with responsibility for setting standards and responding to complaints about material in Australian newspapers, magazines, their associated digital outlets, as well as growing number of major online-only publications. The Council pursues its goals by:  developing standards of practice and assessing levels of compliance with them;  considering complaints and concerns about material in newspapers and magazines published either in print or digital form;  encouraging and supporting initiatives to address the causes for readers’ complaints and concerns;  keeping under review and, where appropriate, challenging developments which may adversely affect dissemination of information of public interest;  undertaking research and making representations to governments, public inquiries and other forums on matters concerning freedom of expression and access to information; and  promoting an understanding of the workings of the Council and its Standards of Practice within the print and online media and the broader community, through forums and consultations and encouraging feedback for the Council’s consideration.

The Council’s work can be broadly divided into the following three areas:

Standards The Council’s Standards of Practice are contained in its Statements of Principles and Specific Standards. The Standards of Practice are applied by the Council when considering complaints and are used as the basis for statements by Council representatives about good media practice. Complaints The Council considers complaints and other expressions of concern about any member print or online publication. Where appropriate, it seeks to achieve agreed remedies, issues letters of advice to publishers or publishes an adjudication. Policy The Council issues statements on policy matters within its areas of interest. It also undertakes research and convenes or participates in Round Tables, seminars and conferences on policy issues.

14 Membership of the governing body At the conclusion of the reporting year, the governing body of the Council had 24 members, comprising:  the independent Chair and 10 public members who have no affiliations with a media organisation;  nine constituent members who are nominated by publishers of newspapers, magazines and online media, as well as by the principal union for employees in the media industry;  four journalist members who are not employed by a publisher which is subject to the jurisdiction of the Council. Professor Julian Disney AO concluded his term as Chair on 28 February 2015 after five years in the role and more than halfway through the reporting period. Professor David Weisbrot AM began his term as Chair for a period of three years from 1 March 2015. The following were the members of the governing body of the Council as at 30 June 2015:

Prof David Weisbrot AM Chair Emeritus Professor, The University of Sydney • Hon John Doyle AC (Vice-Chair) • Julian Gardner AM (Vice-Chair) Public members former Chief Justice of South Consultant; former Public Advocate Australia, Adelaide for Victoria, Melbourne • John Bedwell • Dr Suzanne Martin former high school principal, Veterinary Surgeon, Sydney Deloraine (Tas) • Jennifer Elliott • Andrew Podger AO former Manager Director and Professor of Public Policy, Regional Head, ANU, Canberra Moody’s Asia Pacific, Sydney • Robyne Schwarz AM • Julie Kinross former President, Health Services Adjunct Professor, Review Council, Melbourne University of Queensland, Brisbane • Melissa Seymour-Dearness • Dr Felicity-ann Lewis Principal Solicitor, Taylor Street Senior Lecturer, Community Legal Service, Flinders University, Adelaide Hervey Bay (Qld) • Sean Aylmer • Alan Kennedy Constituent Fairfax Media Media, Entertainment and Arts members Group Director, Business Media, Alliance Sydney Member of Federal Council, • Hal Crawford Sydney ninemsn • Bob Osburn Editor-in-Chief and Publisher, Community Newspapers Australia Sydney former Editor-in-Chief, Cumberland • John Dunnet Newspapers, Sydney Country Press Australia • Campbell Reid former Managing Director, The News Corp Australia Courier, Narrabri Group Editorial Director, Sydney • Tony Gillies • Susan Skelly Australian Associated Press Bauer Media Group Editor-in-Chief, Sydney Editorial Director, BauerWorks and • Bryce Johns Bauer Custom Media, Sydney APN News & Media Editorial Director, ARM, Brisbane

15 • Peter Kerr Independent • Anna Reynolds former Executive Editor, former Managing Editor, journalist members Sydney Morning Herald, Sydney The Courier-Mail, Brisbane • Simon Mann • Mike Steketee former Senior Deputy Editor, former National Affairs Editor, The Age, Melbourne The Australian, Sydney Panel members • Cheryl Attenborough • John Fleetwood • Sue Carter • Russell Robinson • David Fagan • Barry Wilson

Left to right: Council Members Robyne Schwarz, Anna Reynolds, Julie Kinross, Jennifer Elliott

16 Changes to membership At a function following the February 2015 meeting, Council members farewelled Professor Julian Disney and expressed their sincere appreciation for his leadership and achievements, including oversight of significant revisions to the Statement of General Principles and increasing the effectiveness of the Council by securing a major increase in resources.

The following other changes in membership of the Council occurred during the reporting period:  John Bedwell was appointed as a public member for a period of three years from 1 July 2014.  Dr Felicity-ann Lewis was appointed as a public member for a period of three years from 28 August 2014.  Sean Aylmer replaced Glenn Burge as the Fairfax Media nominee on 28 August 2014.  Anna Reynolds was appointed as an independent journalist member for a period of three years from 1 December 2014.  Robyne Schwarz was reappointed as a public member for three years after expiration of her term on 1 December 2014.  Melissa Seymour-Dearness was reappointed as a public member from 28 March 2015 for a further term of one year.  Gerard Noonan resigned as an independent journalist member on 28 February 2015.  Simon Mann was appointed as an independent journalist member for a period of three years from 1 March 2015.  Jennifer Elliott was appointed as a public member for a period of three years from 22 May 2015.  Deborah Thomas replaced Pam Walkley as nominee of Bauer Media Group on 17 February 2015. Susan Skelly replaced Deborah Thomas as nominee of Bauer Media Group on 22 May 2015.  Warren Beeby and Adrian McGregor retired as industry panel members on 31 December 2014.

The following changes in industry and public panel members occurred during the reporting period:  Russell Robinson, Amanda Wilson and Barry Wilson commenced on 1 July 2014 as industry members for a period of two years. Amanda Wilson resigned on 29 May 2015.  Sue Carter and David Fagan commenced on 1 September 2014 as industry panel members for a period of two years.  Cheryl Attenborough and John Fleetwood were reappointed as public panel members for two years from 1 January 2015.

With the growth in membership and routine turnover, the Council developed and ran its first induction/orientation day for new members on 26 June 2015, with positive feedback from participants. This will be a regular program in future.

17 Constituent Bodies of the Council The "constituent bodies" are the publishers and other organisations in the media industry that have agreed to abide by the Council’s Constitution, provide funding, cooperate with the Council’s consideration of complaints against them and publish any resultant adjudications. Publications of constituent bodies are responsible for about 95 per cent of all newspaper sales and most magazine sales in Australia. They are also responsible for most of the country’s major news and current affairs websites. At Large Media Pty Ltd (publisher of New Matilda) and The New Daily joined the Council as constituent bodies on 1 March 2015. On 27 April 2015, the Press Council created an additional member position to represent smaller publisher members without their own Council representative and, later, Council approved a process for the election and appointment of that representative. In 2015, the Council decided to engage more energetically with the multicultural press in Australia and encourage participation both in terms of formal membership as well as in access to Council programs and activities. In the next reporting year, the Chair and staff will make a concerted effort to meet with newspaper and website proprietors, editors, journalists and leaders from Australia’s Chinese, Filipino, Vietnamese and other communities to determine how to best advance these matters. A full list of constituent bodies is contained in Appendix 1.

Council members Pam Walkley, Peter Kerr and others. Members Gerard Noonan, Alan Kennedy and Mike Steketee.

Council sub-committees The Council has an Adjudication Panel (Complaints Sub-Committee), a Constituent Funding Sub- Committee and an Administration and Finance Sub-Committee:

This Panel considers and decides complaints referred to it for adjudication Adjudication Panel by the Executive Director. It usually comprises the Chair or a Vice-Chair, three public members and three industry members. This sub-committee determines the overall level of funding for the Constituent Funding Council and the contributions to be made by each constituent body. It Sub-Committee comprises the Chair, Vice-Chairs and one nominee of each constituent body. This sub-committee oversees administration and finances for the Council. Administration and It comprises the Chair and at least two other public members, two Finance Sub- publisher members and either one journalist member or the Council Committee member nominated by the MEAA.

18 Secretariat The Council Secretariat is based in Sydney and headed by an Executive Director appointed by the Council. The staff members as at 30 June 2015 were as follows:

Executive Director John Pender Deputy Executive Director Georgina Dridan Director of Complaints Paul Nangle Director of Research and Michael Rose Communications Complaints and Justin Levy Compliance Officer Research and Standards Betheli O’Carroll Officer

Office Manager Shamim Islam Information Officer Amado Jovellana

Staffing changes:  Alanna Harper resigned as Research and Standards Officer effective 3 October 2014.  Jeannie Sotheran resigned as Administrative Assistant effective 30 April 2015.  Lynda Burke joined staff as Administration Officer shortly after the end of the reporting period.

Left to right: Council Chair David Weisbrot with Shamim Islam, Georgina Dridan, Paul Nangle, Lynda Burke, Michael Rose, Amado Jovellana, Justin Levy, John Pender. Absent: Betheli O’Carroll.

19 20 2 Standards and Policy

The Council’s Standards of Practice The Council’s Standards of Practice are developed after consultation with the media industry and members of the broader community. They comprise the Statement of General Principles, the Statement of Privacy Principles and some Specific Standards. These, along with the Council’s various Advisory Guidelines, are all subject to ongoing review in the light of experience, research and consultation. They are also subject to ongoing assessment against current media practices to ensure they are promoting good practice, as well as freedom of expression, access to reliable information and an independent and vigorous media. The Council revised its Statement of General Principles in the previous reporting year. The eight revised Principles, which set out the basic standards of practice applied by the Council when handling complaints and making adjudications, came into effect on 1 August 2014. At the end of the current reporting period, the revised General Principles had been applied in many adjudications and were working effectively.

21 Specific Standards on Contacting Patients On 23 July 2014, the Council issued new Specific Standards of Practice for journalists wishing to contact patients in hospitals or residents in other care facilities. These Specific Standards are applied by the Council when considering any complaints about the behaviour of journalists, photographers and other practitioners in print and online media. They were developed after extensive consultation with representatives from the media and the public and private health sectors. Their main aims are to:  promote a cooperative approach between journalists and hospitals;  prevent inappropriate contact by journalists with a patient who is in a vulnerable position;  prevent undue intrusion by journalists on other patients and hospital staff; and  prevent unreasonable exclusion of journalists from hospitals. The full text of the Specific Standards on Contacting Patients is set out in Appendix 3.

Consultations with media and the community During the reporting period, the Council consulted widely with the media industry and the broader community. This included Round Tables and discussions with editors and journalists, as well as with community and industry groups.

Council member John Bedwell (left) and Director of Research and Communications Michael Rose (centre) meeting a delegation of Chinese journalists at the Secretariat.

In 2014-15, these included:  consultations with editors about the introduction of the revised Statement of General Principles and Specific Standards of Practice;  Round Table on 14 July 2014 in Adelaide with invitees from a wide range of community backgrounds to consider strengths and weaknesses in current media practice and the revised Statement of General Principles;  Round Table on 15 July 2014 in Adelaide with invitees from print and online media to discuss the Council's revised Statement of General Principles and emerging areas of practice;

22  Round Tables on 16 February 2015 in Melbourne and 23 February 2015 in Sydney with invitees from a wide range of community and business backgrounds to identify and discuss concerns about print and online media practice;  meetings in relation to native advertising with the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) on 23 January 2015; the Advertising Standards Bureau and the Australian Association of National Advertisers on 17 March 2015; the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission on 2 April 2015 and CHOICE on 7 May 2015;  meeting with SANE Australia on 2 April 2015 in relation to reporting of mental health; and  meeting on 13 May 2015 with ACMA about media standards and greater cooperation between ACMA and the Press Council.

During the course of the year, preliminary work took place to investigate developing potential new Specific Standards, guidelines and/or educational programs in a range of areas, including:  identification and disclosure requirements around the publication of so-called “sponsored content” or “native advertising”;  respectful reporting around race and religion;  reporting of family violence;  reporting around LGBTI individuals; and  the appropriation and publication of online photos (e.g. from Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and other social media platforms), especially where this concerns children.

Council member Robyne Schwarz consulting with Executive Director John Pender.

A process was also commenced to update the Council’s Statement of Privacy Principles to take into account changes that had been made to the Statement of General Principles, as well as amendments to the Privacy Act 1998 (Cth). Council members discussed suggested amendments to the Statement of Privacy Principles at the May 2015 Council meeting. A draft revised version was to be prepared for an upcoming meeting, following consultation with the Australian Privacy Commissioner.

23 Policy One of the Council’s roles is making public statements on relevant policy issues, especially about freedom of speech, public access to information and freedom of the press. The Press Council’s Constitution notes that it shall “promote freedom of speech through responsible and independent print and digital media, and adherence to high journalistic and editorial standards” through a number of means, including:  keeping under review, and where appropriate, challenging political, legislative, commercial or other developments which may adversely affect the dissemination of information of public interest, and may consequently threaten the public's right to know;  making representations to governments, public inquiries and other forums as appropriate on matters concerning freedom of speech and access to information; and  undertaking research and consultation on developments in public policy affecting freedom of speech, and promoting public awareness of such issues. An important example of this work was the Council’s two-year campaign under the then Chair Julian Disney against proposals that a statutory authority be set up to regulate the press. In 2014-15, the Council contributed to a range of policy initiatives, including analysis, participating in government inquiries, and responding to proposed regulatory changes. For example, the then Chair, Professor Julian Disney, appeared before a hearing of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee in Sydney on 10 November 2014 regarding the Freedom of Information Amendment (New Arrangements) Bill 2014 (Cth). Shortly after taking up duties as Chair, Professor David Weisbrot issued a public statement on 11 March 2015 about the risks the federal government’s proposed metadata retention law could pose to freedom of the press generally and investigative journalism in particular. In that statement, Prof Weisbrot noted that: “The proposed new metadata retention laws represent a fundamental change to the way governments interact with citizens and with the press, initiating a new era of comprehensive surveillance. Given the serious erosion of traditional civil liberties involved, the bar should be set very high for justifying this new approach, and for reassuring the community that its legitimate concerns about overreach are being addressed effectively. “Our major fear is that the new regime will crush investigative journalism in Australia and deal a serious blow to freedom of speech and press freedom. It will dissuade whistleblowers and confidential sources from engaging with the media…. “It is our strong belief that these legitimate concerns cannot be addressed effectively short of exempting journalists and media organisations, at least, from the proposed law’s application, recognising the broader public interest in openness and accountability.” Toward the end of the reporting period, Professor Weisbrot emphasised the importance of such advocacy by the Press Council, including a pledge to encourage the reform of defamation legislation. This move away from the view maintained in some quarters in the Council’s earlier days that its role in advancing freedom of the press should be largely restricted to its complaints-handling function was warmly received by major publisher members of the Council, as well as by media commentators. On possible defamation law reform, Professor Weisbrot noted in public statements during the reporting period: “Free speech and freedom of the press in Australia rest on very delicate foundations. While we may justifiably congratulate ourselves on a culture that values larrikin attitudes and robust public debate, we lag a long way behind the rest of the democratic world in providing the solid legal underpinnings that enable these freedoms to be realised and maintained.”

24 He suggested as a possible model for Australia the UK’s Defamation Act 2013, which was developed after a long period of research and consultation and commenced operation on 1 January 2014. He added, however: “I believe that a model Australian defamation law should require a further balancing test, so that the court must consider whether the public interest in maintaining the plaintiff’s defamation claim outweighs the public interest in informing the public about matters of public concern and the interests in allowing press freedom and freedom of speech.”

26 3 Complaints

Complaints-handling The public’s increasing confidence in the Press Council’s complaints-handling system is borne out by the 2014-15 statistics. During the reporting year, the Council received complaints from more than 3,700 people or organisations regarding more than 500 items published by newspapers, magazines and their associated websites, or by online only publications. This represents an increase of about 13 per cent in complaint numbers as compared to the previous year. However, this was an extraordinary four-fold jump in the number of complainants, in large part reflecting the phenomenon of complaint-by-social-media, and at the same time highlighting the fact that the Council and its processes are more relevant than ever in the social media era. Campaigns on social media platforms such as Change.org regularly urge individuals to complain directly to the Press Council, and provide a template or suggested form of words as well as a link to the Council’s online complaint form. The growth of online news and social media platforms has raised the profile of the Council across that readership, and complaints-handling processes needed to be adjusted accordingly.

Complaints to the Council may lead to one of three outcomes:  Adjudication - the Council issues an adjudication upholding or not upholding the complaint; or  Remedy without adjudication - the publisher takes action facilitated by Council staff, e.g. provides a right of reply, correction or apology, as a result of which the complaint does not proceed to an adjudication by the Council; or  Other - the complaint does not proceed to resolution or adjudication because, for example, the Executive Director decides that the matter is unlikely to be a breach of the Council’s Standards of Practice or the complainant does not pursue the matter.

Upon receipt, all complaints are reviewed by Council complaints staff, and then carefully “triaged”, with the more complex or difficult matters reviewed extensively at a senior level. Generally, just over one third are dismissed, another third are withdrawn or discontinued, and about one quarter yield a remedy negotiated by Council staff with the cooperation of the publication. Approximately 5-10 per cent of complaints require or result in referral to the Council’s Adjudication Panel for determination, with around three- quarters of those complaints eventually upheld. The outcomes of all complaints finalised during 2014-15 are shown in Appendices 6-7. Thirty-eight adjudications were issued, in 28 of which the complaint was upheld either fully or in part.

Changes in procedures The Council’s revised Statement of General Principles came into effect from 1 August 2014 and all complaints received for material published on or after this date were assessed and processed in accordance with these. As the Council generally applies a 30-day time limit to complaints, for a limited time complaints were processed against two sets of General Principles. This change mainly impacted upon the statistical recording of “Issues” (see Appendix 5), which categorises these in slightly different language. During the reporting period, the Council continued its program of improvements and refinements to its complaints-handling procedures including:  discontinuing use of the “Complaint Note”;  refinements to the process for secondary complaints;  refinements to its processes for publication of adjudications;  upgrading the web-based complaints form and associated databases;  working to improve the initial analysis and triage process;  investigating implementation of an electronic complaints-management system; and  adding another “direct” adjudication process, so that complaints that are not novel or complex may be dealt with by panels comprising three persons (rather than five or seven) and determined “on the papers”. The Council also created and filled a new Information Officer position in the Secretariat, with responsibility for, among other things, coding, records-management and statistical reports.

Remedies without adjudication Upon receipt of a complaint, Council staff wil often discuss with the complainant options for resolving the matter. Such remedies are achieved by staff working closely with the complainant and the publication to try to find an outcome that is mutually acceptable. A remedy may be proposed by the complainant, the publication or Council staff. Where a remedy is not achieved, the matter may be referred to adjudication.

The following are some examples of remedies achieved without adjudication in 2014-15.

Example 1 The complainant expressed concern that an article in an online publication incorrectly and unfairly reported that a Supreme Court ruling had not been in her favour. Though the publication had removed the online version of the article by the time of her complaint to the Press Council, it had not published a requested retraction or apology. As a result of discussions initiated by Council staff, the publication agreed to publish an online apology and the exact wording and placement of the apology were also facilitated by Council staff. Additionally, as the article was linked to an item on the publication’s home page, the publication agreed to publish a linked item in the same location.

Example 2 The complainant expressed concern about the accuracy and fairness of an article published in print and online which reported that one of his postings on Twitter had “inflamed a war” between himself and residents of a certain community. The complainant said that, contrary to what was stated in the article, his tweet was made in support of the residents. The complainant also expressed concern about balance, in that his subsequent letter to the editor was not published. As a result of efforts by Council staff, the publication agreed to publish the complainant’s letter to the editor clarifying his position and the context of the tweet in question.

Example 3 The complainant, the brother of a deceased man identified by name and in a photograph in a report about a crime, expressed concern that the publication did so without respect for their family’s privacy, particularly their Aboriginal cultural practice as it relates to identifying deceased persons. The publication removed the photograph and the reference to the complainant’s brother; made an undertaking not to repeat the error in future; and, as proposed and approved by the complainant, wrote a private letter of apology to the complainant’s mother, who was said to be distraught over the report.

Research and Standards Officer Betheli O’Carroll

34 4 Public Affairs

Media coverage 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. The newspaper argued that the Council and its then Chair, Professor Julian Disney, had overstepped its mandate and it challenged the findings of some adjudications. The Council rejected what it considered were misrepresentations made about the Chair and the Council in that material, and considered that the newspaper’s conduct was not consistent with its obligations as a constituent body. (See Appendix 4) A significant amount of staff time was expended on responding to the allegations. However, by the end of the reporting period, the negative coverage of the Press Council by News Corp Australia had ceased.

There was keen media interest when Professor Disney concluded his term as Chair in February 2015 and Professor David Weisbrot took up the position on 1 March 2015. Mainstream newspapers, industry publications, the ABC and online-only outlets such as Crikey and mUmBRELLA all reported and commented upon the transition.

Speeches and public appearances

Outgoing Chair Julian Disney delivered an address to the National Press Club in Canberra on 4 February 2015, summing up his five years’ of work at the Council and outlining his views on major issues facing the media and the Council.

Professor Julian Disney at the National Press Club in Canberra.

Incoming Chair David Weisbrot delivered an address to the mUmBRELLA 360 Conference in Sydney on 4 June 2015 entitled “Do we Really Want Free Speech?” Prof Weisbrot joined a panel including Jason Morrison, a media commentator; Darren Goodsir, Editor-in-Chief of The Sydney Morning Herald and the Herald Sun; and Bruce Belsham, Head of Current Affairs for the ABC.

Prof David Weisbrot (seated) at the mUmBRELLA 360 Conference in Sydney.

36 New initiatives The Council continued to expand and improve its communications activities during the reporting period. A Twitter account was established to disseminate news about the organisation and to engage in social media conversations about journalism standards and other matters. The account was soon followed by some 400 people and organisations, including a number of leading journalists and researchers. That number was growing steadily at the end of the reporting period. A number of key “influencers” in the social media sphere relevant to the Press Council’s work also began to regularly retweet some of the Twitter postings, thus significantly expanding the reach of statements and materials. Some re-tweets resulted in Council messaging potentially being seen by tens of thousands of Twitter users.

Screenshot of Twitter page: @AusPressCouncil

The Council decided to celebrate its 40th Anniversary in May 2016 with a major international conference in Sydney on the theme of “Press Freedom in a Challenging Environment”. In association with an industry reference group and assistance from the Media Entertainment & Arts Alliance and the Walkley Foundation, the Council began planning the conference program, which will feature leading speakers from Australia and overseas, and include a major public event and master classes for journalists, journalism students and communications professionals.

Meetings with external organisations During the 2014-15 reporting year, the Council received at the office in Sydney or met externally with a number of delegations/bodies, including:  on 24 September 2014, State and Territory police communications managers;  on 14 November 2014, a Jiangsu News delegation from China;  on 2 March 2015, a delegation of the Lao National Steering Committee on Human Rights, together with officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade;  on 18 March 2015, Race Discrimination Commissioner Dr Tim Soutphommasane;  on 19 March 2015, a delegation of Chinese officials, headed by the Chinese Academy of Press and Publication;  on 7 May 2015, the Director of Public Affairs of the NSW Police Force, Strath Gordon; and  on 23 June 2015, a delegation of senior Chinese journalists in Australia on exchange organised by the Asia Pacific Journalism Centre. In December 2014, Executive Director John Pender met in London with the Executive Director of the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) and in Dublin with the Irish Press Ombudsman.

Press Council staff with a delegation of visiting journalists in Sydney as part of the 2015 China Australia Journalist Exchange. John Wallace, Director of the Asia Pacific Journalism Centre, is third from right, back row. Council Member John Bedwell is second from right.

38 Research and education Three research projects commissioned late in the 2013-14 reporting period were completed in the 2014- 15 period. The results were not intended for publication, as they were preliminary projects with small sample sizes, aimed at establishing a basis for development of other research questions and possible future surveys.

Comment streams in selected news sites The purpose of this research was to examine current policies and practices of selected local and international news organisations concerning comments made about published online articles. The research was designed to provide a snapshot of who leaves comments on stories posted on news websites and whether the resultant series of comments (threads/streams) are dominated by certain key individual commenters. Comment threads were examined in a selection of news articles published by two Australian news outlets during a selected week in April 2014 (The Sydney Morning Herald and News Corp’s online site, news.com.au) and two international outlets (The Guardian UK online and The New York Times online).

Focus Groups The Council commissioned three focus groups, as an initial foray into some qualitative research that could be useful in strategic discussions and for planning possible future quantitative research. The scope of this first focus group exercise allowed for hypotheses to be formulated but no generalisations to the broader population. Issues of interest to the Council in this initial research project were:  perceived strengths and weaknesses of news and current affairs sections of Australian newspapers and websites;  views on expressions of opinion and whether opinion pieces require special treatment/labelling;  views regarding publication of corrections;  treatment of targets of criticism in articles;  whether balanced coverage of controversial topics over time is expected;  the circumstances in which publications should be free to take photographs of people who are (a) on private property, or (b) in places open to the public;  whether publications are expected to take reasonable care not to cause offence/distress;  whether readers should be able to be post comments directly on to a publication’s website without the comments being moderated beforehand;  whether people who are subsequently cleared of a serious allegation which has been reported on a website should be entitled to have the initial reports removed, altered or annotated to record the subsequent dismissal of charges;  whether, if words are in quotation marks, they should have to be direct quotes, or merely accurate paraphrases, and is there is a difference if they are in headlines versus article text;  awareness of the Press Council, its activities and performance.

Online corrections practices on selected news sites This project looked at how a number of major media organisations handle their online corrections. The researcher looked at The Sydney Morning Herald, The Daily Telegraph, The West Australian, Sunshine Coast Daily and ninemsn. Questions posed:  what statements are made in public via media websites as to the companies’ policies and procedures regarding online corrections?  how are corrections, clarifications and apologies actually published online?  how is a reader’s attention drawn to such corrections, clarifications and apologies?  what technical website design devices, or other means, are used to draw attention to corrections?  how are problematic stories removed/annotated/altered/replaced?  under what circumstances would an item be deleted entirely?

Teaching materials A package of teaching materials about the work of the Press Council was completed in PowerPoint format. Adjudication case studies can be chosen and adapted for inclusion with these materials when used for educational sessions with cadet journalists, university journalism students and other audiences.

Video production A five-minute video describing the objectives of the Press Council and the range of its standards, policy and complaints-handling work was completed and posted on the Council’s website.

Australian Press Council video screen shot

Archiving of materials An agreement was reached with the Australasian Legal Information Institute (AustLII) to digitise archival hard copies of the “APC News”, a hard copy newsletter produced by the Press Council until August 2010, and of the “APC Update”, which is produced in digital-only format on a regular basis for subscribers. The publications will be available online to researchers and other interested parties. All editions of the APC Update are to be automatically archived on the AustLII database.

40 Prizes The Council continued to fund prizes for outstanding achievement in courses directly related to the study of journalism (particularly in the area of ethics) or for a particular piece of work in that area. This included prizes awarded by The University of Newcastle, Edith Cowan University, Queensland University of Technology, University of Canberra, University of Wollongong and The University of Sydney.

Executive Director John Pender with winner Mary Ward at The University of Sydney.

Deputy Executive Director Georgina Dridan with Jessica Sparks at University of Wollongong.

42 5 Finances As stated in its Constitution, the Australian Press Council Inc. is “an incorporated association of organisations and persons established on 22 July 1976”. It is funded by contributions made by its constituent bodies and receives no government funding. There was no significant change to the nature of activities occurred during the financial year. The principal activities of the Press Council were to promote good standards of media practice and to be the principal body for responding to complaints about material in Australian newspapers, magazines and online media. Total income for the year 2014-2015 was $1,896,900, increased by 2.5 per cent from 2013-14.

Funding in 2014-15 Contributions are made by constituent bodies according to a sliding scale based on the agreed budget for the year. Contribution bands for 2014-2015 were as follows:  Up to one per cent each: Australian Rural Publishers Association, Community Newspapers Australia, Country Press Australia, Focal Attractions, Private Media, Property Review, Urban Cinefile, WorkDay Media, The New Daily, At Large Media;  1-10 per cent each: Australian Associated Press, APN News & Media, Bauer Media Group, Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance, ninemsn;  11-30 per cent: Fairfax Media;  31-60 per cent: News Corp Australia.

Triennial commitments Constituent bodies now agree specific funding commitments three years in advance. It was agreed during the reporting year that the increase in funding for 2016-17 will be 2.5 per cent.

Comparison of 2014 and 2015 Assets & Liabilities

$700,000 $623,405 $668,309 $600,000 $500,000 $400,000 $300,000 $167,480 $200,000 $137,516 $100,000 $0 $ $ 2015 2014 TOTAL ASSETS TOTAL LIABILITIES

30 June 2015 Assets & Liabilities

$455,925 $530,851 TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS

TOTAL NON-CURRENT ASSETS TOTAL LIABILITIES

$167,480 $92,554 TOTAL EQUITY

44 Statement of Financial Position (as at 30 June 2015)

2015 2014 $ $ ASSETS CURRENT ASSETS Cash and cash equivalents 500,691 492,650 Trade and other receivables 20,179 21,815 Current tax receivable 9,981 21,351 Other assets - 16,278 TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS 530,851 552,094

NON-CURRENT ASSETS Property, plant and equipment 92,554 116,215 TOTAL NON-CURRENT ASSETS 92,554 116,215

TOTAL ASSETS 623,405 668,309

LIABILITIES CURRENT LIABILITIES Trade and other payables 74,650 57,151 Borrowings - - Current tax liabilities 45,447 50,356 Short-term provisions - - Employee Benefits 47,383 30,000 TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES 167,480 137,516

TOTAL LIABILITIES 167,480 137,516

NET ASSETS 455,925 530,793

EQUITY Retained earnings 455,925 530,793 TOTAL EQUITY 455,925 530,793

46 A Appendices

1 Constituent Bodies 2 Publishers’ rights and obligations 3 Text of Specific Standards on Contacting Patients 4 Council resolutions 28.08.2014 and 17.02.2015 5 Detailed complaints statistics 6 Summaries of adjudications 7 Full adjudications

48 A1. Constituent bodies of the Council The following publishers and associations of publishers, together with the MEAA media union, were the constituent bodies of the Council at 30 June 2015. They agreed to abide by the Council’s Standards of Practice and complaints-handling processes, as well as to provide the Council’s core funding.

APN News & Media At Large Media Australian Associated Press Australian Rural Publishers Association Bauer Media Group Community Newspapers Australia Country Press Australia Fairfax Media Focal Attractions Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance News Corp Australia ninemsn Private Media Property Review Australia The New Daily Urban Cinefile WorkDay Media

Associated Publications of Constituent Bodies

The lists on the following pages show the publications that are published by, or are members of, the constituent body under which they are listed, as at 30 June 2015. They and their associated websites are subject to the Council’s jurisdiction in relation to the Standards of Practice and adjudication of complaints.

APN News & Media

Ballina Shire Advocate QT - The Queensland Times Balonne Beacon Rural Weekly Bayside & Northern Suburbs South Burnett Mail Star South Burnett Times Big Rigs Southern Downs Weekly Blackwater Herald Sunshine Coast Daily Bribie Weekly Sunshine Coast Seniors Brisbane Seniors Sunshine Coast Sunday Buderim Chronicle Surat Basin News Byron Shire News The Chronicle Caboolture News The Coffs Coast Advocate Caloundra Weekly The Community Advocate Capricorn Coast Mirror The Daily Examiner Central & North Burnett The Gympie Times Times The Ipswich Advertiser Central Queensland News The Kolan Recorder Central Telegraph The Logan Reporter Chinchilla News and Murilla The Maryborough Herald Advertiser The Midweek Coastal Views The Morning Bulletin Cooloola Advertiser The Northern Rivers Echo Coolum & North Shore News The Northern Star CQ Industry The Observer Daily Mercury The Range News Dalby Herald The Richmond River Express Fraser Coast Chronicle Examiner Gatton, Lockyer and Brisbane The Satellite Valley Star The Stanthorpe Border Post Seniors Gold Coast/Tweed The Western Star Hervey Bay Observer Lifestyle The Woolgoolga Advertiser Isis Town & Country Toowoomba Life Kawana Weekly Toowoomba Seniors Laidley Plainland Leader Tweed Daily News - Community Edition Maroochy Weekly Tweed Daily News Nambour Weekly Warwick Daily News NewsMail Western Times Noosa News Whitsunday Coast Guardian Northern Downs News Whitsunday Times

50 Australian Rural Publishers Association

Agriculture Today ALFA Lot Feeding Australian Cotton and Grain Outlook Australian Dairyfarmer Australian Farm Journal Australian Horticulture Farm Weekly Farming Small Areas Good Fruit and Vegetables GrapeGrowers and Vignerons Horse Deals Irrigation and Water Resources North Queensland Register Northern Dairy Farmer Queensland Country Life Ripe Smart Farmer Stock and Land Stock Journal The Grower The Land Turfcraft International

Bauer Media Group

4 x 4 Australia Pic Premium-Babes Restricted AG Outdoor Pic Premium-Babes UnRestricted AMCN Picture Magazine Australian Gourmet Traveller Picture Premium - Babes Australian Bus and Coach Plant & Equipment Australasian Dirt Bike Puzzle Book Australian Geographic Real Living Magazine Australian House & Garden Mag Recipes Plus Magazine Australian Motorcycle Trader Rugby League Week Magazine Australian Transport News SHOP Till You Drop Australian Women's Weekly Shopping for baby Magazine Auto Action Magazine Street Machine Belle Take 5 Blues Country Magazine Take 5 Pocket Puzzler Camper Trailer Mag The Pic-Home Girls Restricted Caravan World Mag The Pic-Home Girls Unrestricted Cleo Magazine The Picture - 100% Home Girls Cosmopolitan The Picture Premium Cosmopolitan Body The Picture Premium Restricted Cosmopolitan Brides The Picture Premium Unrestricted Cosmopolitan Extensions Top Gear Magazine Deals On Wheels Trade-a-boat Mag Dolly Magazine TV Week Earth Movers & Excavators Mag TV Week Soap Extra Elle Unique Cars Mag Empire Magazine Weight Watchers Magazine Expert Parenting Oneshots Wheels Farms & Farm Machinery Woman's Day Fun 4 Everyone Mag World of Knowledge Good Health Magazine Yours Harper’s Bazaar Zoo Magazine Homes + Inside Rugby Little Active Learners Love 2 Learn Mag Bauer Custom Media Men's Style Magazine AIM Money Magazine Myer Emporium Mother & Baby Magazine Telstra Smarter Business Ideas Motor Westfield Motorhome & Caravan Trader CPA INTHEBLACK New Farm Machinery Weight Watchers Magazine NW Weight Watchers Cookbook OK Magazine AWU Owner Driver Mag Foxtel People Magazine

52 Community Newspapers Australia

Advocate Hornsby and Upper North Shore Albert and Logan News Hume Leader Auburn Review Pictorial Inner West Courier Bankstown Canterbury Torch Journal News Bayside Leader Knox Leader Bendigo Weekly Leader Messenger Berwick Leader Lilydale & Yarra Valley Leader Berwick News Liverpool City Champion Blacktown Advocate Liverpool Leader Blacktown Sun Logan West Leader Brimbank & Northwest Star Weekly MacArthur Chronicle Brimbank Leader Manly Daily Caboolture Shire Herald Manningham Leader Camden Advertiser Maribyrnong & Hobsons Bay Star Weekly Campbelltown-Macarthur Advertiser Maribyrnong Leader Canning Times Maroondah Leader Canterbury-Bankstown Express Melbourne Leader Caulfield Glen Eira/ Port Phillip Leader Melton & Moorabool Star Weekly Central Coast Express Advocate Melton Leader City Messenger Melville Times City North Messenger Midland/Kalamunda Reporter City North News Moonee Valley Leader City South News Moorabbin Kingston/ Cooks River Valley Times Moorabbin Glen Eira Leader Cranbourne Leader Mordialloc Chelsea Leader Cranbourne News Moreland Leader Dandenong Journal Mornington Peninsula Leader Dandenong/ Springvale Mosman Daily Dandenong Leader Mount Druitt & St Marys Standard Diamond Valley Leader Mountain Views Mail East Torrens Messenger News Review Messenger Eastern Courier Messenger Norrn District Times Echo Norrn Star Weekly Fairfield Advance Norrn Times Fairfield City Champion North Lakes Times Ferntree Gully Mail North Shore Times Frankston Standard Leader Northcote Leader Free Press Leader Northside Chronicle Fremantle Cockburn Gazette North-West News Geelong Independent Pakenham Gazette Geelong News Pakenham Officer News Guardian Messenger Parramatta Advertiser Hawkesbury Gazette Parramatta Sun Hawkesbury Gazette Penrith City Star Heidelberg Leader Penrith Press Hills & Valley Messenger Pine Rivers Press Hills Gazette/Avon Valley Gazette Port Stephens Examiner Hills News Portside Messenger Hills Shire Times Preston Leader Hobsons Bay Leader Progress Leader

Ranges Trader Mail Redcliffe & Bayside Herald Rouse Hill Times Rouse Hill-Stanhope Gardens News Sourn Courier Sourn Gazette Sourn Times Messenger South West Advertiser South-East Advertiser South-West News Springfield News St George and Sutherland Shire Leader St Marys Mt Druitt Star Stonnington Leader Sunbury & Macedon Ranges Star Weekly Sunbury/ Macedon Ranges Leader Upper Yarra Mail Village Voice Waverley/Oakleigh Monash Leader Weekly Times Weekly Times Messenger Wentworth Courier Westside News Whitehorse Leader Whittlesea Leader Wollondilly Advertiser Wyndham Leader Wyndham Star Weekly Wynnum Herald

54 Country Press Australia

Albury Wodonga News Weekly Daylesford Hepurn Shire Advocate Alexandra Eildon Marysville Standard Deniliquin Pastoral Times Armidale Express Dimboola Banner Armidale Express Extra Donnybrook-Bridgetown Mail Augusta Margaret River Mail Dungog Chronicle Avon Valley Advocate East Gippsland News Bairnsdale Advertiser Eastern Riverina Chronicle Barossa & Light Herald Eden Imlay Magnet Barrier Daily Truth Elliottprint Bay Post Eurobodalla Shire Independent Beaudesert Times Eyre Peninsula Tribune Bega District News Geelong Independent Bellingen Shire Courier Sun Gippsland Times & Maffra Spectator Benalla Ensign Glen Innes Examiner Bendigo Weekly Gloucester Advocate Bingara Advocate Goondiwindi Argus Blayney Chronicle Goulburn Post Blue Mountains Gazette Goulburn Post Weekly Blue Mountains Review Great Lakes Advocate Bombala Times Harden Murumbarrah Express Boorowa News Hawkesbury Courier Border Chronicle Hawkesbury Gazette Border News Hibiscus Happynings Braidwood Times Highlands Post Bunbury Mail Hopetoun Courier & Mallee Pioneer Busselton-Dunsborough Mail Hunter Valley News Camden Haven Courier Huon Valley News Campaspe News James Yeates Printing & Design Camperdown Chronicle Jimboomba Times Canowinda News Kaniva Times Casterton News Kiama Independent Castlemaine Mail King Island Courier Central Midlands & Coast Advocate Kingborough Chronicle Central Western Daily Kyabram Free Press Cessnock Advertiser Lake Cargelligo News Circular Head Chronicle Lake Times Cobden Timboon Coast Times Lakes Post Colac Herald Latrobe Valley Express Collie Mail Lithgow Mercury Cooma-Monaro Express Lower Hunter Star News Coonabrabran Times Macedon Ranges Guardian Cootamundra Herald Macleay Valley Happynings Corryong Courier Mailbox Shopper Country Leader Maitland Mercury Country Music Capital News Mandurah Mail Cowra Guardian Manning Great Lakes Extra Crookwell Gazette Manning River Times

Mansfield Courier South Gippsland Sentinel Times Merimbula News Weekly Southern Highland News Merredin Wheatbelt Mercury Southern Riverina News Mid Coast Happenings Southern Weekly Magazine Mid Coast Observer Surf Coast Times Midland Express Temora Independent Midstate Observer Tenterfield Star Mildura Midweek Terang Express Mildura Weekly The Ararat Advertiser Milton Ulladulla Times The Area News Moorabool News The Australian Senior Moree Champion The Baw Baw Shire & West Gippsland Mortlake Dispatch Trader Moruya Examiner The Border Times Mountain Views Mail The Border Watch Mudgee Guardian & Gulgong Advertiser The Bridge Mudgee Weekly The Buloke Times Murray Valley Standard The Bunyip MV Printers Pty Ltd The Cobram Courier Myrtleford Times Alpine Observer The Courier Nambucca Guardian News The Courier - Mt Barker Namoi Valley Independent The Esperance Express Naracoorte Herald The Euroa Gazette Narooma News The Fassifern Guardian Narromine News The Flinders News Nhill Free Press The Forbes Advocate North Central News The Free Press (Corowa) North West Express The Gannawarra Times North West Magazine The Gilgandra Weekly Numurkah Leader The Great Southern Star Nyngan Observer The Grenfell Record On The Coast The Guardian Swan Hill Pakenham Gazette The Guyra Argus Parkes Champion Post The Inverell Times Phillip Island & San Remo Advertiser The Irrigator Port Lincoln Times The Islander Port Macquarie Express The Katherine Times Port Macquarie News The Leader Portland Observer and Guardian The Loddon Times Property Press - Bowral The Longreach Leader Pyrenees Advocate The Loxton News Rainbow Jeparit Argus The Macleay Argus Redland City Bulletin The Maryborough District Advertiser Riverine Herald The McIvor Times Roxby Downs Sun The Miner News Sapphire Coaster The Mirror Sapphire Sun The Molong Express Sea Lake & Wycheproof Times Ensign The Moyne Gazette Seymour Telegraph The Murray Pioneer Shepparton News The Muswellbrook Chronicle Shoalhaven & Nowra News The North Central Review Snowy River Mail The Northern Argus South Coast Register The Northern Daily Leader South East Coastal Leader The Coly Point Observer

56 The Ovens & Murray Advertiser The Western Herald The Penola Pennant The Wimmera Mail-Times The Plains Producer Town & Country Magazine Goulburn The Queanbeyan Age Tully Times The Recorder Wagin Argus The Ridge News Wangaratta Chronicle The River News Warracknabeal Herald The Riverina Leader Wauchope Gazette The Riverine Grazier Wellington Times The Robinvale Sentinel West Coast Sentinel The Scone Advocate West Wimmera Advocate The Shepparton Adviser West Wyalong Advocate The Singleton Argus Western Advocate The Southern Argus Western Magazine The Southern Cross Western Times The Spectator WestonPrint Pty Ltd The Star, Newcastle & Lake Macquarie Whyalla News The Stawell Times-News Wingham Chronicle The Tamworth Times Yarram Standard The Tarrangower Times Yarrawonga Chronicle The Transcontinental Yass Tribune The Walcha News Yea Chronicle The Warragul & Drouin Gazette Yorke Peninsula Country Times The Weekly Advertiser Young Witness

Fairfax Media

Auburn Review Eyre Peninsula Tribune Augusta-Margaret River Mail Fairfield City Champion Australian Cotton Outlook Farm Equipment Trader Australian Senior Farm Weekly Bankstown-Canterbury Torch Farm Weekly Magazine Barossa & Light Herald Farming Small Areas Bay Post Financial Review BOSS Bayside Mail Financial Review Smart Investor Beaudesert Times Focus (Coffs Coast) Bega District News Focus (Greater Port Macquarie) Blacktown City Sun Focus (Manning-Great Lakes) Blayney Chronicle Focus (New England) Blue Mountains Gazette Forbes Advocate Blue Mountains Wonderland Magazine Gilgandra Weekly Bombala Times Gippsland Farmer Boorowa News Gippsland Times Border Chronicle Glen Innes Examiner Border News Gloucester Advocate Braidwood Times Good Fruit & Vegetables Brimbank & North West Star Weekly Good Weekend Bunbury Mail Goondiwindi Argus Busselton-Dunsborough Mail Goulburn Post Camden Haven Courier Great Lakes Advocate Camden Narellan Advertiser Great Lakes Extra Canberra Times Guardian News Canowindra News Harden Murrumburrah Express Central Midlands & Coastal Advocate Harvey Mail Central Western Daily Hawkesbury Courier Coastal Leader Hawkesbury Gazette Coleamabally Observer Hibiscus Happynings Collie Mail Highlands Post Colourworld Hills News Cooks River Valley Times Horse Deals Cooma-Monaro Express Hortguide Cootamundra Herald Hunter Valley News Country Leader Hunter Valley Star News Country Music Capital News Illawarra Mercury Cowra Guardian In Business Tasmania Cronulla Magazine Island of Contrast Crookwell Gazette Jimboomba Times Daily Liberal Katherine Times Directory of Australian Country Music Kiama Independent Domain Canberra Lake Times Domain Melbourne Latrobe Valley Express Domain Sydney Life & Leisure Luxury Donnybrook-Bridgetown Mail Life & Leisure The Sophisticated Traveller Dungog Chronicle Lithgow Mercury Eurobadalla Independent Liverpool City Champion Explore Tasmania Lotfeeding Express Extra (Armidale) Macleay Valley Happynings

58 Magnet Senior Post Mailbox Shopper Senior Traveller Mandurah Mail Shoalhaven & Nowra News Manning River Times Smart Farmer Maribyrnong & Hobsons Bay Star Weekly Snowy Times Melton & Moorabool Star Weekly South Australia Senior Merimbula News Weekly South Coast Register Merredin-Wheatbelt Mercury South West Advertiser Mid Coast Happenings Southern Bay News Mid Coast Observer Southern Cross (Junee) Mid State Observer Southern Highland News Milton Ulladulla Times Southern Weekly Moe & Narracan News St George & Sutherland Shire Leader Moree Champion St Mary’s-Mt Druitt Star Moruya Examiner Stock and Land Mudgee Guardian Stock Journal Murray Mail Summit Sun Muswellbrook Chronicle Sunbury & Macedon Ranges Star Weekly My Family Magazine Sunday Canberra Times Namoi Valley Independent Sunday Examiner Tasmanian Parent Naracoorte Herald Sunday Life Narooma News Tamworth Times Narromine News Tarralgon Journal Newcastle Herald Tasmanian Farmer North Queensland Register Tasmanian Senior North West Country Tenterfield Star Northern Argus The Advertiser (Bendigo) Northern Star Weekly The Advertiser (Cessnock) NSW Ag Today The Advocate (Burnie) Nyngan Observer The Advocate (Hepburn) Oberon Review The Age Official Guide to Tamworth Country Music The Ararat Advertiser Festival The Area News (Griffith) On the Coast The Armidale Express Parkes Champion-Post The Australian Dairyfarmer Parramatta & Holyroyd Sun The Australian Financial Review Penrith City Star The Australian Financial Review Magazine Port Lincoln Times The Avon Valley Advocate Port Macquarie Express The Bellingen Shire Courier Sun Port Macquarie News The Border Mail Port Stephens Examiner The Campbelltown Macarthur Advertiser Post Weekly The Chronicle Property Press The Courier Public Sector Informant The Daily Advertiser (Wagga) Queensland Country Life The Esperance Express Queensland Grains Outlook The Examiner Queensland Senior The Flinders News Queensland Smart Farmer The Grenfell Record Redland City Bulletin The Guyra Argus Review Magazine The Inverell Times Ripe The Irrigator (Leeton) Rouse Hill-Stanhope Gardens News The Islander Roxby Downs Sun The Lakes Mail Sapphire Coaster The Land

The Leader (Wagga) The Weekly Review Eastern The Macleay Argus The Weekly Review Greater Geelong The Maitland Mercury The Weekly Review Ivanhoe & Valley The Moyne Gazette The Weekly Review Melbourne Times The Mudgee Weekly The Weekly Review Stonnington & The Murray Valley Standard Boroondara The Newcastle and Lake Macquarie Star The Wimmera Mail-Times The North West Star The Young Witness The Northern Daily Leader Town & Country (Hunter Valley/North The Queanbeyan Age Coast) The Recorder Town & Country Magazine The Ridge News Travelways The Rural Turfcraft The Scone Advocate Victorian Senior The Singleton Argus Walcha News The Standard Wauchope Gazette The Stawell Times-News Wellington Times The Sunday Age West Australian Senior The Sun-Herald West Coast Sentinel The Sydney Morning Herald Western Advocate The Times Western Magazine The Tourist News Western Times The Transcontinental Whyalla News The Wagin Argus Wingham Chronicle The Warrnambool Extra Wollondilly Advertiser The Weekend Financial Review Wollongong Advertiser The Weekly Review Wyndham Star Weekly The Weekly Review Bayside & Port Phillip Yass Tribune The Weekly Review City

60 News Corp Australia

Adelaide Magazine Gold Coast Bulletin Advertiser Advocate Gold Coast Sun GQ Advocate Guardian Express Albert & Logan News Guardian Messenger The Australian Heidelberg Leader Australian Country Style Herald Sun Australian Golf Digest Herbert River Express Australian Good Taste Hills and Valley Messenger Bayside Leader Hills Shire Times Berwick/Pakenham Cardinia Leader Hobsons Bay Leader Big League Hornsby and Upper North Shore Advocate Blacktown Advocate Hume Leader Bowen Independent Inner West Courier Brimbank Leader Innisfail Advocate Brisbane News InsideOut Business Spectator Joondalup-Wanneroo Times Caboolture Shire Herald Kidspot Cairns Post Knox Leader Cairns Sun Leader Messenger Canning Times Lifestyle Pools Canterbury-BankstownExpress Lilydale & Yarra Valley Leader Caulfield Glen Eira/Port Phillip Leader Live to Ride Central (Sydney) Liverpool Leader Central Coast Express Advocate Macarthur Chronicle Centralian Advocate Alice Springs Mandurah Coastal Times City Messenger Manly Daily Manningham City North Messenger Leader City North News Maribyrnong Leader City South News Maroondah Leader Comment News MasterChef Magazine The Courier-Mail Melbourne Leader Cranbourne Leader Melton/Moorabool Leader Daily Telegraph Melville Times Dandenong/Springvale Mercury Dandenong Leader Midland-Kalamunda Reporter Darwin Sun Moonee Valley Leader Delicious Moorabbin Kingston/Moorabbin Glen Eira Derwent Valley Gazette Leader Diamond Valley Leader Mordialloc Chelsea Leader Donna Hay Moreland Leader East Torrens Messenger Mornington Peninsula Leader Mosman Daily Eastern Courier Mt Druitt-St Marys Standard Eastern Reporter mX The Echo-Geelong News.com.au Eureka Report News Review Messenger Fairfield Advance North Coast Times North Lakes Times North Frankston Standard/ Hastings Leader Shore Times Northcote Leader Free Press Leader Northern District Times Northern Miner Fremantle-Cockburn Gazette Northern Times Northside Geelong Advertiser Northside Chronicle North-West News

NT News Darwin Overlander 4WD Parramatta Sunday Territorian Darwin Sunday Times Advertiser Penrith Press Super Food Ideas Tablelands Advertiser Pine Rivers Press Tasmanian Country Port Douglas & Mossman Gazette Portside Taste Messenger The Tablelander Preston Leader Progress Leader Times Messenger Redcliffe & Bayside Herald Rouse Hill Times Total Pine Rivers Press and North Lakes SA Weekend Times South-East Advertiser Southern Courier Total South-West News and Springfield News Southern Gazette Townsville Bulletin Southern Star Townsville Sun Southern Times Messenger South-West News Village Voice Sportsman Sydney Vogue Australia Vogue Living Springfield News Wanneroo-Joondalup Times/Weekender Stirling Times Waverley/Oakleigh Monash Leader Weekend Stonnington Leader Courier Sunbury/Macedon Ranges Leader Weekender Sunday Herald Weekly Times Wentworth Courier Westside Sun Melbourne News Whitehorse Leader Whittlesea Leader Sunday Mail Wyndham Leader Wynnum Herald Sunday Mail Adelaide Sunday Tasmanian Hobart Sunday Telegraph

62 At Large Media New Matilda

Focal Attractions mUmBRELLA.com.au gotothesource.com.au

ninemsn ninemsn.com.au

Private Media Crikey The Mandarin Smart Company StartupSmart Women’s Agenda

Property Review Australia Property Review Australia

The New Daily The New Daily

Urban Cinefile Urban Cinefile

WorkDay Media Banking Day

64 A2. Publishers’ rights and obligations at 30 June 2015

Designated Resolutions The following designated resolutions have been passed by the Australian Press Council Inc. under section 27 of the Constitution.

1. Constituent Bodies

In accordance with section 7(3) of the Constitution, the following organisations are confirmed as constituent bodies of the association and the number, if any, of constituent members of the Council whom they may nominate is indicated in parentheses after their names. All constituent bodies that do not have a number after their name are entitled to vote in a collective process to nominate one person as a constituent member of the Council under section 7(3) and (4) of the Constitution. The voting will be conducted in accordance with a process specified by the Council. At Large Media Australian Associated Press (1) APN News and Media (1) Australian Rural Publishers Association Bauer Media Group (1) Community Newspapers of Australia (1) Country Press Australia (1) Fairfax Media (1) Focal Attractions Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (1) News Limited (1) ninemsn (1) Private Media propertyreview.com.au The New Daily Urban Cinefile WorkDay Media

2. Members of the Council

In accordance with sections 7(3) and (7) of the Constitution, the numbers of members of the Council at any one time, in addition to the Chair, shall be as follows: - constituent members – 9-12; - public members – 9-12; - journalist members – 4-6.

3. Administration and Finance Sub-Committee

In accordance with section 15(4)(c) of the Constitution, the publisher members on the Administration and Finance Committee will include those representing the two constituent bodies which are contributing the highest proportions of CB core funding.

4. Publication of Adjudications

(1) Each publisher must ensure that any Council adjudication relating to a publication which it controls is published in that publication. (2) The adjudication must be published in full and headed “Press Council Adjudication” or “Press Council Ruling”, together with the Council’s logo. It must not be accompanied by editorial comment, and any subsequent reporting of or comment upon, the adjudication must comply with the Council’s Standards of Practice. (3) In the case of daily publications, the adjudication must be published within seven days of the final adjudication being notified to them. In the case of other publications, it must be published no later than the first issue after the seven day period. (4) The adjudication must be published with due prominence in a position in the publication which the Executive Director has approved as likely to be seen by those who saw the material on which the complaint was based. (5) Where the adjudication relates to online material, a brief summary note providing a link to the full adjudication must be published for at least 24 hours on the home page of the website. The content of the summary note and its position on the home page must be approved by the Executive Director. (6) An annotation in terms approved by the Executive Director must also be added to the publisher’s online versions (whether archived or publicly available) of the material to which it relates, together with a link to the full adjudication. (7) A publisher or complainant may request the Executive Director to relax the above requirements in relation to a particular adjudication. Both the publisher and the complainant should usually be consulted before any substantial relaxation is approved. (8) The request may be granted if the Executive Director considers that the requested relaxation (a) will enhance, or at least not reduce, the likelihood of the adjudication being seen by people who saw the original material; or (b) is necessary to avoid an unreasonable burden on the publisher (especially where the complaint was wholly or partially dismissed by the Council); or (c) is in the interests of the complainant. (9) At the request of the publisher or complainant, a decision by the Executive Director under paragraph (8) is subject to review by a three-person Review Committee. The Review Committee will be appointed by the Chair and include at least one publisher member and one public member.

5. Publication of notices about the Council

(1) Each publisher must publish a notice about the Council in each print publication it controls and on each website it controls. (2) The content and format of the notice will be as determined from time to time by the Council. The notice is to be published in a prominent position on the same page as letters to the editor or the home page of a website, or in such other position as is agreed with the Executive Director of the Council.

6. Provision of contact lists

Each publisher is obliged to provide the Council with (a) up-to-date lists of the names of all print and online media publications which it controls; (b) the name of the relevant contact persons for dealing with complaints to the Council relating to its respective publications (including a person who acts in that role during the absence of the usual contact person).

66 7. Composition of Adjudication Panels

The following definitions shall apply in relation to section 15(4) of the Constitution: (a) “Panel Chair”: the Chair of the Council; the Vice-Chairs of the Council; any other public member appointed for that purpose by the Council; (b) “industry panel member”: any person appointed as such by the Council who is (i) a journalist member of the Council; (ii) a constituent member of the Council who has been nominated by an association or similar corporate entity, not by a particular publisher; or (iii) eligible to be appointed as a journalist member of the Council; (c) “public panel member”: any person appointed as such by the Council who is (i) a public member of the Council; or (ii) is eligible to be appointed as a public member of the Council.

68 A3. Specific Standards on Contacting Patients

Introduction The aim of these Standards is to facilitate media contact with people in hospitals and residential care facilities, while also ensuring respect for the health, dignity and privacy of those people and their families and for the general provision of care on the premises. In particular, the Standards aim to  prevent unreasonable exclusion of journalists from hospitals;  promote a co-operative approach between journalists and hospitals;  prevent inappropriate contact by journalists with a patient who is in a vulnerable position;  prevent undue intrusion by journalists on other patients and hospital staff. The Standards apply to contact by journalists with patients who are in hospitals and residents in other care facilities. They do not apply to visits which do not involve contacting those people. All publisher members of the Press Council have made a legally-binding commitment to these Standards and all of the Council’s other Standards of Practice. The Standards are based on several of the Council’s General Principles and Privacy Principles, namely those requiring publications to take reasonable steps to:  avoid intruding on a person’s reasonable expectations of privacy, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest (General Principle 5);  avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest (General Principle 6);  avoid publishing material which has been gathered by deceptive or unfair means, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest (General Principle 7);  show respect for the dignity and sensitivity of people encountered in the course of gathering news (Privacy Principle 1);  allow a victim or bereaved person to refuse or terminate an interview or photographic session, and not exploit a person caught up in newsworthy events (Privacy Principle 7).

Specific Standards on Contacting Patients

Informed consent from the patient [* means see Explanatory notes below] 1. Before making any contact* with a patient* in hospital*, journalists* should obtain the patient’s informed consent unless (a) the activity is an initial communication from outside the hospital for the purpose of seeking informed consent*; or (b) an authorised person* confirms to them that informed consent has been given by the patient; or (c) an authorised person has approved the contact on condition that no patient will be identifiable in any published material. 2. Journalists are responsible for establishing any claim by them that it was reasonable to believe informed consent has been given by the patient. This may often be difficult to achieve unless medical or other expert advice has been sought on the matter and been recorded.

Permission to visit the patient 3. Before visiting a patient in a part of the hospital in which patient care occurs, journalists should identify themselves and their publication to an authorised person and obtain permission for the proposed visit. However, making contact without permission is acceptable if doing so is clearly necessary as a matter of substantial public importance and has been approved at senior editorial level for recorded reasons. 4. Journalists are responsible for establishing any claim by them that (a) they obtained permission from a person whom it was reasonable to believe was an authorised person; and (b) they made adequate disclosure to that person of the nature and purpose of the proposed contact. 5. Where the hospital has given permission to visit the patient, it is reasonable for the journalist to assume the patient is in a medical condition which enables informed consent to be given. When visiting the patient, however, it will still be necessary for the journalist to explain the nature of what is being sought from the patient and obtain informed consent.

Ceasing contact with the patient 6. Journalists should immediately cease the contact if they are (a) asked to do so by the patient, or by an authorised person on reasonable grounds; or (b) it becomes reasonably clear that the patient is not adequately aware of what the contact involves and its likely consequences.

Explanatory Notes “Authorised person” means a person authorised by a hospital to make decisions about journalists making contact with patients. Unless clearly indicated otherwise by the hospital, the person must be a senior administrator or a senior health professional. “Contact” includes speaking, listening, looking or touching and communicating in any other way with a patient. “Hospitals” includes hospitals, day surgeries and residential facilities providing care for people who are aged, have disabilities or are especially vulnerable for some other reason. “Informed consent” exists where a patient agrees to a request for contact while having a reasonable understanding of the proposed contact, including the issues to be raised, and any consequences for the patient which are reasonably foreseeable. It must be given clearly and without pressure and it must relate to the contact and occasion in question unless there is good reason to believe that an earlier consent continues to apply. Informed consent cannot be given by another person unless he or she is legally authorised to act on the person’s behalf. However, it may be reasonable to take into account a statement by a close relative, friend or representative that the patient has provided informed consent, or that the patient is in a fit state to provide informed consent. Where the patient is not able to provide informed consent and no one is legally authorised to act on his or her behalf, informed consent for the taking of photographs (but not other forms of contact) may be obtained from a close relative or, where applicable, by police. “Journalists” includes journalists, photographers and other people involved in gathering information, opinion or images for possible inclusion in publications that are subject to the Council’s jurisdiction. “Patients” includes patients and residents, and any person legally authorised to act on their behalf.

70 A4. Council resolutions 28.08.2014 and 17.02.2015

The following resolution was passed by the Council at its quarterly meeting in Sydney on 28 August 2014: “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.” The resolution was passed 19-0 with one abstention

The following resolution was passed by the Council at its quarterly meeting in Melbourne on 17 February 2015: “The Council Expresses deep concern that, notwithstanding assurances at its last Council meeting that News Corp publications were complying with the obligations of Council membership, The Australian has again chosen consciously to breach one of the Council’s firmest requirements concerning the confidentiality of its provisional adjudications; Agrees that until The Australian provides assurance that it will abide by Council’s requirements, complainants against the publication will be advised that confidentiality cannot be assured, but that the Council will still consider the complaint if the complainant so desires; Requests the Executive Director to make a public statement explaining the Council’s concern and asks the Chair to write to the Editor of The Australian calling on him to abide by the obligations of a member of the Council; Denies the assertion by The Australian that the Council has exceeded its authority and notes with concern The Australian’s further misrepresentations of the role and policies of the Council and views of its Chair since his Press Club speech.” The resolution was passed 18-1 with one abstention.

72 A5. Detailed complaints statistics

The nature and outcome of complaints The following tables provide details of the nature and outcome of complaints that were received and/or finalised by the Council in 2014-15. The methodology and presentation was revised in 2012-13 in order to improve clarity and accuracy. Aspects of the new methodology are summarised below. “Complainants” and “complaints”: Where complaints are made by a number of different complainants about the same material and on broadly similar grounds, they are counted as only one complaint for the purposes of the statistics based on numbers of complaints (see Tables 1 and 4-7). However, all of the complainants are counted in the statistics relating to numbers of complainants (see Tables 1,2 and 3). “Issues”: Where a number of different issues are raised in a complaint (e.g. alleged inaccuracy and breach of privacy) each issue is counted separately for the purposes of the statistics relating to issues. “Out-of-scope complaints”: The number of complaints to the Council about material which is not within its jurisdiction (for example, advertising material or radio broadcasts) is shown in Table 1 under the heading “out-of-scope complaints” but they are not included in subsequent tables.

SECTION A OVERVIEW OF CASELOAD

Table 1 TOTAL NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS, COMPLAINANTS AND ISSUES 2014-15 2013-14 2012-13 2011-12 2010-11 New complaints received during year1 525 467 504 562 325 Complainants making these complaints2 3,742 849 713 753 463 Issues raised by these complainants3 678 650 1106 923 566

Contacts not included above - out-of-scope complaints4 287 78 130 81 49

Notes 1. Where there was more than one complainant about a particular matter, only one complaint is recorded in this total. 2. In Annual Reports until 2012, this was the result presented as “complaints received”. 3. Two issues will be counted here if, for example, a complaint relates to alleged inaccuracy and breach of privacy. 4. These are matters which are outside the Council’s jurisdiction.

SECTION B COMPLAINANTS

Table 2 Table 3 TYPE OF COMPLAINANT LOCATION OF COMPLAINANT For complaints received during 2014-15 For complaints received during year 2014-15 year New South Wales 154 Individuals 3,689 Victoria 108 Associations, companies and 29 Queensland 86 other Western Australia 11 non-government bodies South Australia 24 Government and other public 1 Tasmania 10 bodies1 Australian Capital Territory 10 Politicians, councillors, electoral 13 Northern Territory 4 candidates and political Overseas 6 parties Unspecified 3,329 Other2 10 Total 3,742 Total 3,742

Notes 1. This includes local Councils but, for example, does not include individual councillors or members of parliament. 2. This includes complaints not otherwise classifiable.

SECTION C PUBLICATIONS

Table 4 Table 5 TYPE OF PUBLICATION TYPE OF PLATFORM For complaints received during 2014-15 For complaints received during year1 2014-15 year Online only 114 Newspapers and their digital Print only 49 platforms Print and online and blanks/failure 362 - National 51 to publish - State 322 Total 525

- Regional and rural 83 Note - Suburban 10 1. These data relate to the platforms in which the relevant material appeared, not Magazines and their digital 2 only the platform in which the complainant accessed it. platforms 1 Online-only publications 54 Other 3 Total 525 Note 1. Not including the websites and other digital platforms of print publishers.

74 SECTION D OUTCOMES OF COMPLAINTS

Table 6 Table 7 OUTCOME OF COMPLAINT DETAILS OF REMEDIES For complaints closed during 2014-15 For complaints closed during year1 2014-15 year1 Remedy without adjudication Declined by the Council at initial 200 Apology (public or private) 2 stage Retraction, correction or clarification 22 Withdrawn or discontinued2 170 published Remedy without adjudication 44 Material deleted entirely 4 Not pursued by complainant 59 Response by complainant published 2 Adjudication Other similar action 12 Complaint fully or partly 28 Remedy by adjudication upheld3 Complaint fully or partly upheld 28 Complaint not upheld 10 Total 70 Total 511 Note Notes 1. The table provides a breakdown of the remedies recorded in Table 6. 1. The numbers in this table relate to the different complaints that were closed during the year, including any which had been opened earlier. The total number is different from the number of complaints represented in Table 1 (number of complainants making complaints) and Tables 4 and 5 (complaints received). 2. Includes complaints withdrawn by the complainant and those discontinued by the complainant or the Council. 3. Includes one unpublished matter.

SECTION E ISSUES

Table 8 Annex to Table 8 Categories of Issues ISSUES RAISED BY COMPLAINT Accuracy and clarity For complaints received during year 2014-15 1. Ensure that factual material in news reports and elsewhere is accurate and not misleading, and is distinguishable from other material such as News – Accuracy/Fact/Opinion 270 opinion. Correction/Action 18 2. Provide a correction or other adequate remedial action if published Opinion – Accuracy/Fair 49 material is significantly inaccurate or misleading. Opinion/Reply 19 Fairness and balance 3. Ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and Intrusion on Privacy 82 balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on Offence/Prejudice/Distress 192 significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts. Deception investigation 31 4. Ensure that where material refers adversely to a person, a fair opportunity is given for subsequent publication of a reply if that is reasonably Conflict of Interest 9 necessary to address a possible breach of General Principle 3. Other 8 Privacy and avoidance of harm Total 678 5. Avoid intruding on a person’s reasonable expectations of privacy, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest. 6. Avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest. Integrity and transparency 7. Avoid publishing material which has been gathered by deceptive or unfair means, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest. 8. Ensure that conflicts of interests are avoided or adequately disclosed, and that they do not influence published material.

76 A6. Summaries of adjudications Summaries of all the Press Council’s adjudications for the 2014-15 financial year are provided below. Copies of the full adjudications follow this list of summaries.

Adjudication 1604: Geoff Lake/Herald Sun (July 2014) A complaint that allegations of council-related impropriety attributed to a mayor and the ALP candidate in the 2013 federal election were inaccurate and unfair.

Adjudication 1605: Geoff Lake/The Daily Telegraph (July 2014) A complaint that allegations of council-related impropriety attributed to a mayor and the ALP candidate in the 2013 federal election were inaccurate, unfair and unbalanced.

Adjudication 1593: Frank Carbone/The Sydney Morning Herald (July 2014) A complaint that references such as being “Treasurer Chris Bowen’s lieutenant” and “the landlord at an illegal brothel” were inaccurate and unfair.

Adjudication 1598: Cameron Byers and others/The Australian (July 2014) A complaint that aspects of a draft IPCC report were misrepresented and that a subsequent clarification was inadequate.

Adjudication 1609: MaryAnn Beregi/Mosman Daily (July 2014) A complaint that coverage of the status of a council’s development proposal was misleading and unbalanced.

Adjudication 1607: Complainant/The Sydney Morning Herald (August 2014) A complaint that a series of articles reporting on a NSW Bill known as “Zoe’s Law” was unfair and unbalanced in favour of opponents of the Bill.

Adjudication 1614: Complainant/The Daily Telegraph (August 2014) A complaint that a homepage headline “KIDS GRIEVE FOR JUNKIE ACTOR DAD”, concerning the death of Philip Seymour Hoffman, was unfair and offensive.

Adjudication 1612: Michael Burns/The Sydney Morning Herald (August 2014) A complaint that coverage of a funeral in one article involved a breach of privacy and sensibilities and that a serious error in a second article was not promptly or adequately corrected.

Adjudication 1621: Sharon Doyle/Bundaberg News Mail (August 2014) A complaint that coverage of a fatal collision, including detail of and speculation about what occurred, involved a breach of privacy and sensibilities.

Adjudication 1622: Nikki Sutterby/The Weekend Australian (September 2014) A complaint that a feature on the kangaroo-culling industry was inaccurate and unfair and did not disclose a potential conflict of interest.

Adjudication 1619: Allan House/The Sydney Morning Herald (September 2014) A complaint that suggestions iron levels in the Waratah Rivulet posed a risk to consumer health were inaccurate and unfair.

Adjudication 1610: Complainant/Herald Sun (October 2014) A complaint that allegations about a “murder sex tape link” in a “cold case” were unsubstantiated and a breach of privacy.

Adjudication 1624: Complainant/The Daily Telegraph (October 2014) A complaint that a front page photograph of a body wrapped in a tarpaulin and floating in the ocean was offensive.

Adjudication 1617: John McLean/Climate Spectator (November 2014) A complaint that criticisms of a person’s standing and expertise to comment on climate science were inaccurate and unfair.

Adjudication 1618: John McLean/Crikey (November 2014) A complaint that criticisms of a person’s standing and expertise to comment on climate science were inaccurate and unfair.

Adjudication 1626: Judith Troeth/The Age (November 2014) A complaint that aspects of two articles concerning Austin Hospital, the first about hospital waiting times and the second about a new booking system, were inaccurate and unfair.

Adjudication 1627: Complainant/The Daily Telegraph (December 2014) A complaint that a front page comparison of NSW’s disability support pensioners and Australia’s war- wounded, headed “Slackers & Slouch Hats”, was unfair and offensive.

Adjudication 1620: Complainant/The Sydney Morning Herald (December 2014) A complaint that a reference to Channel Seven paying for Schapelle Corby’s mother to fly to Bali in the article “Bidding war for Schapelle Corby’s first post-jail interview” was unsubstantiated.

Adjudication 1628: Complainant/Sunday Herald Sun (January 2015) A complaint that disclosing the identities of several Essendon Football Club players and confidential statements to ASADA concerning alleged administration of banned drugs breached their privacy.

Adjudication 1634: Complainant/The Sydney Morning Herald (January 2015) A complaint that a cartoon of a man characterised with Jewish symbols such as a kippah and Star of David, seated and pointing a TV remote control at explosions in Gaza was offensive.

78 Adjudication 1629: Margaret MacDonald-Hill/Newcastle Herald (January 2015) A complaint that a series of articles focusing on potential conflicts of interest in a one person’s capacity as an arbitrator in mining land-access disputes was not accurate, fair or balanced.

Adjudication 1635: Complainant/The Daily Telegraph (February 2015) A complaint that a front page still image from a terrorist video of a journalist moments before he was beheaded was offensive.

Adjudication 1633: Complainant/Gippsland Times (February 2015) A complaint that an article sourced almost verbatim from a Government Minister’s press release was not balanced or adequately identified as opinion.

Adjudication 1625: Tony Murphy/The Age (March 2015) A complaint that allegations such as being “implicated in kickbacks for contracts racket” were inaccurately and unfairly reported as statements of fact and without balancing comment sought.

Adjudication 1639: Complainant/The Observer (Gladstone) (March 2015) A complaint that a letter to the editor published with the writer’s name despite an explicit request for anonymity was a serious breach of privacy.

Adjudication 1630: Jane Butler/Macedon Ranges Free Press (March 2015) A complaint that a council’s response to a letter to the editor, published with a headline “Clarification”, was inaccurate, unfair and unbalanced as a counter-letter was rejected.

Adjudication 1632: AIMPE/The Australian Financial Review (March 2015) A complaint that a headline referring to the highest estimates of remuneration for a sector of employees on strike was inaccurate and unfair.

Adjudication 1643: Kylie Keel/The Moorabool News (March 2015) A complaint that images on the publication’s Facebook page of an ultimately fatal car crash and accompanying comments about the driver were offensive and a breach of privacy.

Adjudication 1637: Complainant/The Weekend Australian (April 2015) A complaint that a front page photograph of the crash site of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17, including graphic depiction of bodies, was offensive and a breach of privacy and sensibilities.

Adjudication 1641: Macquarie Group Ltd/The Sydney Morning Herald (April 2015) A complaint that articles including allegations of cheating and misclassification in financial advice exams were inaccurate and unfair, and that a fair opportunity to respond was not provided.

Adjudication 1642: Macquarie Group Ltd/The Age (April 2015) A complaint that articles including allegations of cheating and misclassification in financial advice exams were inaccurate and unfair, and that a fair opportunity to respond was not provided.

Adjudication 1631: Diane Frola/The Sun-Herald (April 2015) A complaint that descriptions of a supporter of Schapelle Corby, including terms such as “conspiracy theorist” and “UFO lady”, were inaccurate and unfair.

Adjudication 1636: Complainant/The Sunday Mail (April 2015) A complaint that an editorial headed “Poll supports asset sales” cited a poll in support of a premise presenting statements as factual though without relevant facts such as details of the poll.

Adjudication 1638: Complainant/The Age (May 2015) A complaint that a homepage headline “James Hird removed as Essendon coach”, linking to an article supporting this statement, was significantly inaccurate.

Adjudication 1646: NECA/The Australian (June 2015) A complaint that allegations about the National Electrical and Communications Association’s business practices were inaccurate, unfair and a fair opportunity to respond was not provided.

Adjudication 1640: Complainant/The Australian Financial Review (June 2015) A complaint that a reported definition of “gender pay gap” was inconsistent and inaccurate, and not corrected by the publication.

Adjudication 1645: Complainant/New Weekly (NW) (June 2015) A complaint that a photograph of the UK’s Prince Harry showing a smartphone to a group of children, one of whom was attributed as saying in a speech bubble “Hot damn! Granny is a GILF”, was offensive.

80 A7. Full adjudications

Geoff Lake/Herald Sun Adjudication 1604 (July 2014) The Press Council has considered complaints about two articles published by the Herald Sun on 10 and 11 August 2013. They were lodged by Geoff Lake, then ALP candidate for Hotham in the impending federal election. The articles were headed "RUDD’S BULLY BOY/Revealed – Star Victorian recruit’s vile abuse of wheelchair-bound woman" and "Rudd dumps bully/Two Labor candidates cop one for the team". Both appeared in print and, with a different heading, online. The first article focused mainly on an incident in 2002 involving Mr Lake and a fellow Monash councillor, Kathy Magee. The second article reported the decision of the ALP to dis-endorse him as a candidate for the 2013 election, and in doing so referred to the incident with Ms Magee. Amongst other things, the articles reported that “Kevin Rudd’s star recruit for a safe seat in Victoria has admitted he abused a woman in a wheelchair” and that “Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has dumped two Labor candidates, including a man who abused a woman in a wheelchair”. They said Mr Lake called Ms Magee a “F…ing bitch” and a “slut”. The articles also reported that Mr Lake “admitted he had been accused of stalking a political rival”, that there were “allegations that ALP campaign officials had improperly used retiring member Simon Crean’s printing entitlement to distribute election material in the seat”, and that Mr Lake resigned after the publication approached the ALP on the previous evening about these allegations. The incident with Ms Magee Mr Lake complained that some aspects of the reports of the incident in relation to Ms Magee were unfair. He said the events occurred more than eleven years ago, he had acknowledged at that time his behaviour had been inappropriate, and he had apologised to Ms Magee on three occasions, including on the night of the incident. He also said unnecessary emphasis was put on her disability and it was misleading to state the issue had been “revealed” by the publication, when in fact the incident had been reported in local media at the time and since. While acknowledging his behaviour towards Ms Magee at that time was inappropriate, he said the other incidents reported in the article did not show a pattern of behaviour either at the time of the incident with Ms Magee in 2002 or since that deserved characterisation of him in general terms as a “bully”. He said they did not support the characterisation of him as abusive or the label of “bully” used in the headlines to both articles, the first of which appeared very prominently on the first page of the newspaper. He said he had since held senior, professional positions and was held in high regard by a wide range of people. The Herald Sun responded that it was reasonable to report the incident with Ms Magee as Mr Lake was now a federal election candidate, previous reports had been largely confined to suburban publications, and some of the most senior figures in the ALP were apparently unaware of the matter. Also, some aspects had not been reported before (for example, that he had called Ms Magee a “f…ing slut” and a “f...ing bitch”). It said the substance of the incident with Ms Magee was not in dispute. It also said reporting on his being “forced” to apologise was reasonable because Mr Lake’s most far-reaching apology was in the settlement of a complaint by Ms Magee to the Equal Opportunity Commission (EOC). It added that her disability had been mentioned in her complaint about his behaviour to the EOC. The publication said Mr Lake was asked for comment prior to publication and several quotes were included.

The Council’s Principles state: “Publications should take reasonable steps to ensure reports are accurate, fair and balanced.” Although there was disagreement about some aspects of the incident with Ms Magee and it may have been more accurate to describe Mr Lake as having bullied Ms Magee, rather than to describe him in general terms as a “bully”, it was not disputed that Mr Lake has used the quoted abusive words about her. Mr Lake’s apologies were not reported but the publication sufficiently reported his acknowledgment to her that his actions had been inappropriate. Although the incident was not recent, most previous public references to it had been in suburban media and as Mr Lake was now a Federal election candidate it was reasonable to present the information more broadly. Accordingly, the Council has decided that, in general, the complaints about reporting of Mr Lake’s behaviour towards Ms Magee did not constitute a breach of its Principle relating to fairness and are not upheld. Allegations of stalking Mr Lake complained the allegation of “stalking” another councillor unfairly failed to mention the claim was specifically rejected by a magistrate, especially as the rejection was brought to the journalist’s attention. The publication responded that the word “stalking” had been used by the councillor in question, and his complaint had been withdrawn only when Mr Lake agreed to apologise for any distress caused to him. The Council considers that the publication unfairly failed to mention the magistrate’s rejection of the stalking allegation. Accordingly, these aspects of the complaints are upheld on the grounds of inaccuracy and unfairness. Printing entitlements Mr Lake said it was unfair to allege unlawful use of printing entitlements without giving him a prior opportunity to deny it. He added it was inaccurate and unfair to report that he resigned as a candidate after the ALP was told of this allegation. In fact, he had already been dis-endorsed by that time. The publication said Mr Lake was given an opportunity to respond about the printing entitlements issue in a later article published on 12 August. However, it acknowledged the allegation about resignation was incorrect. The Council agrees with Mr Lake that the incorrect report of his resignation in the second article unfairly conveyed an impression that by doing so he had acknowledged fault. Accordingly, this complaint is upheld. Note (not required for publication): In addition to the matters outlined above, Mr Lake complained about a reference in the first article to another incident involving Ms Magee, but the Council has not upheld that aspect of the complaint because Mr Lake’s rejection of her claims was clearly recorded in the article by way of quotes from him. Mr Lake also complained the publication included information he provided to it “off the record”. The publication rejected this assertion. The Council decided there was insufficient evidence to decide whether comments made “off the record” had been included, noting that Mr Lake’s email describing information as “background” was not sufficiently clear for that purpose. Accordingly, this complaint is not upheld.

Geoff Lake/The Daily Telegraph Adjudication 1605 (July 2014) The Press Council has considered complaints about three reports in The Daily Telegraph on 10 and 11 August 2013. They were lodged by Geoff Lake, then ALP candidate for Hotham in the 2013 federal election. Two of the articles were headed "Kevin Rudd’s star Victorian recruit Geoff Lake’s abuse of wheelchair- bound woman revealed" (published online) and "ALP DIRT FILE – Reforms at risk as hacks attack own

82 candidate" (in print and, with a different heading, online). They focused mainly on an incident in 2002 involving Mr Lake and a fellow Monash councillor, Kathy Magee. The third article was online and headed "Kevin Rudd dumps candidates Geoff Lake and Ken Robertson". It reported the decision of the ALP to dis-endorse him as a candidate for the 2013 election, and in doing so referred to the incident with Ms Magee. Amongst other things, the articles reported that “Kevin Rudd’s star recruit for a safe seat in Victoria has admitted he abused a woman in a wheelchair”, “Kevin Rudd’s political reform agenda has been undermined after Labor Party members released a dirt file on one of their own candidates to reveal he once called a disabled woman a ‘f…ing slut’”, “Geoff Lake, a local Melbourne Mayor, was slapped with a sexual harassment claim by a Liberal councillor Kathy Magee in 2002 after calling her a ‘f…ing bitch’ and a ‘f…ing slut’ during a council meeting”, and “Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has dumped two Labor candidates, included a man who abused a woman in a wheelchair”. The articles also reported that Mr Lake had been “accused of stalking a political rival”, that he was “also subject to court orders alleging he stalked and harassed two other councillors”, that there were “allegations that ALP campaign officials had improperly used retiring member Simon Crean’s printing entitlement to distribute election material in the seat”, and that Mr Lake resigned after another publication approached the ALP on the previous evening about these allegations. The incident with Ms Magee Mr Lake complained some aspects of the reports of the incident in relation to Ms Magee were unfair. He said the events occurred more than eleven years ago, he had acknowledged at that time that his behaviour had been inappropriate, and had apologised to Ms Magee on three occasions, including on the night of the incident. He also said unnecessary emphasis was put on her disability, and it was misleading to state the issue had been “revealed” by the publication, when in fact the incident had been reported in local media at the time and since. He vigorously rejected her claim that at the time of the incident “he pushed me back in my wheelchair”. Mr Lake said this aspect had never been alleged previously by her or anyone else or in other media reports. While acknowledging his behaviour towards Ms Magee at that time was inappropriate, he said the other matters reported in the articles did not show a pattern of inappropriate behaviour or conduct. He said he had since held senior, professional positions and was held in high regard by a wide range of people. The Daily Telegraph responded that it was reasonable to report the incident with Ms Magee as Mr Lake was now a Federal election candidate, previous reports had been largely confined to suburban publications, and some of the most senior figures in the ALP were apparently unaware of the matter. Also, some aspects had not been reported before (for example, that he had called Ms Magee a “f...ing slut” and a “f...ing bitch”). It said the substance of the incident with Ms Magee was not in dispute. It also said reporting on his being “forced” to apologise was reasonable because Mr Lake’s most far-reaching apology was in the settlement of a complaint by Ms Magee to the Equal Opportunity Commission (EOC). It added that her disability had been mentioned in her complaint about his behaviour to the EOC, and the reference to Mr Lake pushing her wheelchair was a direct quote from Ms Magee. The publication said Mr Lake was asked for comment prior to publication and several quotes were included. The Press Council’s Principles state: “Publications should take reasonable steps to ensure reports are accurate, fair and balanced.” Although there was disagreement about some aspects of the incident with Ms Magee, it was not disputed that Mr Lake had used the quoted abusive words about her. Mr Lake’s apologies were not reported but the publication sufficiently reported his acknowledgement to her that his actions had been inappropriate. Although the incident was not recent, most previous public references to it had been in suburban media and as Mr Lake was now a federal election candidate it was reasonable to present the information more broadly.

Accordingly, the Council has decided that, in general, the complaints about reporting of Mr Lake’s behaviour towards Ms Magee did not constitute a breach of its Principle relating to fairness and are not upheld. However, the claim about pushing her wheelchair significantly heightened the seriousness of the allegations and was not previously on the public record. As the Council considers that claim should not have reported without including at least some response from Mr Lake, the complaint on that ground is upheld. Allegations of stalking Mr Lake complained the allegation of “stalking” another councillor unfairly failed to mention the claim was specifically rejected by a magistrate, especially as that rejection was brought to the journalist’s attention. The publication responded that the word “stalking” had been used by the councillor in question, and his complaint had been withdrawn only when Mr Lake agreed to apologise for any distress caused to him. The Council considers that the publication unfairly failed to mention the magistrate’s rejection of the stalking allegation, and to mention the EOC’s decision that a complaint by another councillor lacked substance and two associated complaints by her against Mr Lake had been withdrawn. The publication had also incorrectly referred to “court orders” against Mr Lake in relation to these matters but later corrected this in the online version of the article to read “complaints”. Accordingly, these aspects of the complaints are upheld on the grounds of inaccuracy and unfairness. Printing entitlements Mr Lake said it was unfair to allege unlawful use of printing entitlements without giving him a prior opportunity to deny it. He added it was inaccurate and unfair to report that he resigned as a candidate after the ALP was told of this allegation. In fact, he had already been dis-endorsed by that time. The publication said Mr Lake was given an opportunity to respond about the printing entitlements in a later article published on 12 August. However, it acknowledged the allegation about resignation was incorrect. The Council agrees with Mr Lake that the incorrect report of his resignation unfairly conveyed an impression that by doing so he had acknowledged fault. Accordingly, this complaint is upheld. Note (not required for publication): In addition to the matters outlined above, Mr Lake complained about a reference in the first article to another incident involving Ms Magee, but the Council has not upheld that aspect of the complaint because Mr Lake’s rejection of her claims was clearly recorded in the article by way of quotes from him. Mr Lake also complained the publication included information he provided to it “off the record”. The publication rejected this assertion. The Council decided there was insufficient evidence to decide whether comments made “off the record” had been included, noting that Mr Lake’s email describing information as “background” was not sufficiently clear for that purpose. Accordingly, this complaint is not upheld.

Frank Carbone/The Sydney Morning Herald Adjudication 1593 (July 2014) The Press Council has considered a complaint about an article headed “Treasurer Chris Bowen’s lieutenant was the landlord at an illegal brothel” in The Sydney Morning Herald on 2 September 2013. It reported that before becoming Mayor of Fairfield in Western Sydney, Frank Carbone had been the landlord of a business that was said to have operated as a “massage parlour” in 2005. The article was published in the week leading up the federal election and included references to political developments affecting the area. Mr Carbone complained the article incorrectly referred to the business as a “massage parlour” known as “Rainbow Healthy and Massages” but the name was “Rainbow Healthy and Beauty” and the nature of the business to which he, as landlord, consented in 2002 was a health and beauty salon which would

84 also offer massages. He said he did not know about sexual services being offered, and the 2005 development applications for the business had not been made by him and his signature on them was forged. He said it was unfair to refer to him as the “landlord”, implying he was involved in running the business. He acknowledged Fairfield Council found that on two occasions the business offered sexual services, but said the business had then dismissed the two staff members involved. Mr Carbone said he had explained these points to the reporter and had asked for time to consult Fairfield Council files on the next working day so he could respond more fully. He said after the article appeared he contacted the newspaper about the errors in the article, which should then have been corrected. He also complained that describing him as the Treasurer’s “key local lieutenant” incorrectly implied he was a senior figure in the Treasurer’s campaign. The publication responded that the business had been known by different names, had publicly advertised Chinese massage, and had been found by the Fairfield Council to have offered sexual services. It denied the article implied Mr Carbone had been involved in running the business, and it pointed out the article included comments that he was unaware of what was happening at the business. The publication said the article did not refer to a particular letter in the Council files because Mr Carbone said it was a fake. The reporter did not recall him saying signatures on some development applications were forgeries. The publication said there were no inaccuracies in the article and Mr Carbone had declined its offer to publish a letter to the editor by him. The publication said Mr Carbone told the reporter he would hand out how-to-vote cards for Mr Bowen in the last week of the federal campaign. It pointed out that after the article appeared, it had added to the online version a denial by Mr Bowen that Mr Carbone was a member of his campaign team. The Press Council has concluded the publication did not take sufficient steps to ensure fairness to Mr Carbone when stating in the headline that “Treasurer Chris Bowen’s lieutenant was the landlord at an illegal brothel”. This description implied at least knowledge and acceptance of brothel operations. The headline does not reflect the first sentence of the article itself which said Mr Carbone was the landlord at “premises operating as” a brothel, and was followed immediately by his denial of having any knowledge of these operations. Accordingly, the complaint about this aspect of the headline is upheld. The Press Council has concluded that describing Mr Carbone as “Treasurer Bowen’s lieutenant” in the headline and “a key local lieutenant of Treasurer Chris Bowen” in the first paragraph were both inaccurate and unfair. There was no evidence of any involvement in Mr Bowen’s campaign beyond an intention to distribute how-to-vote cards, which does not justify the term “lieutenant”, let alone “key local lieutenant”. The Council considered the publication should also have changed these aspects of the online version of the article, rather than just adding the comment by Mr Bowen. Accordingly, this aspect of the complaint is also upheld. The Press Council has concluded the article’s references to the nature of the business complied with its requirements for accuracy and fairness. Fairfield Council documents established the premises had been used for “‘brothel’ purposes” at least on two occasions and there was evidence of the business having advertised massage services. Accordingly, this aspect of the complaint is not upheld. The Council is unable to conclusively determine some matters relating to other aspects of the complaint and is not satisfied there was a sufficiently significant breach of its Standards for those aspects to be upheld. However, there may well have been good cause for further investigation before publishing the story, especially as it appeared only a few days before the federal election. Note (not required for publication): After publication of the article, both Fairfield Council and NSW Police confirmed development applications relating to Cr Carbone’s property appeared to include a forged copy of his signature.

Cameron Byers and others/The Australian Adjudication 1598 (July 2014) The Press Council has considered a complaint about a number of items published in The Australian in September 2013, a week before the release of the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The first article, "We got it wrong on warming, says IPCC", published on pages 1 and 6 on 16 September, began: “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest assessment reportedly admits its computer drastically overestimated rising temperatures, and over the past 60 years the world has in fact been warming at half the rate claimed in the previous IPCC report in 2007. More importantly, according to reports in British and US media, the draft report appears to suggest global temperatures were less sensitive to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide than was previously thought. The 2007 assessment report said the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2C every decade, but according to Britain’s The Daily Mail the draft update report says the true figure since 1951 has been 0.12C.” An editorial headed "The warm hard facts – Climate change should always be about the science" was published the following day. Amongst other things, it said: “Exaggerated, imprecise and even oxymoronic language pollutes the climate change debate”, and emphasised the need to have regard to the facts of climate science, not simply “beliefs”. It accused specific people and organisations of inaccurate and unbalanced contributions which had generated undue alarm about climate change. It reiterated the key assertion in the previous article, saying: “Later this month, the next iteration of the IPCC’s climate assessment will revise downwards (by close to 50 per cent) warming trends.” The same issue included a letter to the editor from David Karoly, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Melbourne and a contributor to the IPCC report, which pointed out: “The observed rate of global average warming of surface air temperature over the past 60 years of 0.12C per decade is almost identical to the value reported in the IPCC report in 2007 of 0.13C per decade for the period 1956-2005.” The letter was placed fifth amongst six letters published on that day under the general heading "Climate sceptics sense a modicum of vindication". The writers of the first four letters were highly critical of the IPCC, clearly having assumed the newspaper’s original article was correct. Four days after the original article appeared, the online headline was changed to read "Doubts over IPCC’s global warming rates". A brief “Clarification” was added, noting the article’s reference to a rate of 0.2C and stating: “In fact, the new rate of 0.12C every decade is almost the same as the IPCC’s 2007 figure of 0.13C every decade over the 50 years to 2005.” It also said: “The report was based on a British media article that has since been corrected.” It also acknowledged the original article erred in saying the IPCC conducted its own computer modelling, explaining: “That error was made in the production process.” Five days after the original article, a single paragraph headed “Correction” was published in the lower half of page 2 of the print version of The Weekend Australian. It provided the same information as the online “Clarification”. Cameron Byers and others complained to the Council about the inaccuracy to which Professor Karoly had referred. They also said the original article was unfair and unbalanced because it included little comment from the IPCC and implied error and concealment by the IPCC, for example: “the IPCC was forced to deny it was locked in crisis talks.” Mr Byers said Professor Karoly’s letter should have been given more prominence and should have alerted the publication to the need to check carefully whether the claim in its original report was accurate before publishing an editorial which repeated the claim. He also said the online “Clarification” should have been headed “Correction”, both it and the print correction should have been published much earlier, and the print correction should have been more prominent.

86 The publication subsequently acknowledged to the Press Council that the headline and first sentence of the original article were incorrect, but it said that in all other respects the article was fair and balanced. It said the IPCC had been asked to comment but had declined to respond as the assertions were based on the alleged contents of a draft report which had not been completed or published. The publication said there was no reason for it to have suspected errors in the articles in The Mail on Sunday and noted that The Wall Street Journal had also published an article containing the same error. It also noted that on the day after the original article it reported that Australian climate scientists believed the alleged IPCC revision was consistent with its 2007 report. The publication acknowledged to the Council that Professor Karoly’s letter should have prompted it to investigate the matter and then publish the correction in the newspaper more promptly. It also acknowledged that the online “Clarification” should perhaps have been called a “Correction”, but it said the print correction on page 2 was adequate because that is where it traditionally places corrections. The Council has considered the complaint by reference to the following parts of its General Principles: “Publications should take reasonable steps to ensure reports are accurate, fair and balanced”; “relevant facts should not be misrepresented or suppressed”; and “Where it is established that a serious inaccuracy has been published, a publication should promptly correct the error, giving the correction due prominence.” The Council has concluded that the erroneous claim about the revised warming rate was very serious, given the importance of the issue and of the need for accuracy (both of which were emphasised in the editorial that repeated the claim without qualification). Although based on another publication’s report, the claim was unequivocally asserted in The Australian headline, "We got it wrong on warming, says IPCC", which also implied the IPCC had acknowledged the alleged error. The impression that the claim was correct was reinforced by The Australian saying the IPCC had been “forced to deny” that it was in crisis talks. The Council considers rigorous steps should have been taken before giving such forceful and prominent credence to The Mail on Sunday’s claim. Accordingly, the complaint on that ground is upheld. Given Professor Karoly’s expertise and the importance of the issue, his letter should have triggered a prompt and thorough investigation by the publication. Instead, the error was repeated in an editorial on the page opposite his letter. Moreover, his letter was published below other letters which assumed the original article was true and under a collective heading which reflected their views, rather than his correction. The Council considers the gravity of the erroneous claim, and its repetition without qualification in the editorial, required a correction which was more substantial, and much more prominent than a single paragraph in the lower half of page 2. The heading should also have given a brief indication of the subject matter in order to help attract the attention of readers of the original article (and editorial), and thereby meet the Council’s long-standing requirement that a correction “has the effect, as far as possible, of neutralising any damage arising from” the original article. Accordingly, the complaints about the correction are upheld. The Council welcomes the acknowledgements of error and expressions of regret which the publication eventually made to it. But they should have been made very much earlier, and made directly to the publication’s readers in a frank and specific manner. It is a matter of considerable concern that this approach was not adopted. The Council emphasises that, of course, this adjudication neither endorses nor rejects any particular theories or predictions about global warming and related issues.

MaryAnn Beregi/Mosman Daily Adjudication 1609 (July 2014) The Press Council has considered a complaint about an article in the Mosman Daily on 12 December 2013. The article was headed "Save our park" on the front page and continued on page 5 under the heading, "Open space is worth saving – Mack backs park group as study gets ok". It concerned proposals for an indoor sports centre and car park underneath St Leonards Park in Sydney. The main heading on the front page was followed by a single sentence: “A community campaign to save public open space in St Leonards Park has ramped up as councillors push ahead with a feasibility study for an indoor sports centre.” An accompanying photograph showed two women in the park with a caption saying they “don’t want a sports centre at St Leonards Park”. The full report began with views expressed by former North Sydney Mayor, Ted Mack, when opposing the proposal at a meeting of North Sydney Council earlier that week. There was also a photograph of five people with a caption stating they “are among the residents fighting to preserve open space at St Leonards Park”. A North Sydney Councillor, MaryAnn Beregi, complained to the Press Council that the very prominent headings implied the Council had decided to proceed with the sports centre and that parkland would be lost, but in fact the Council had only commissioned a feasibility study and the proposal was not even at the stage of a Development Application. She also said Mr Mack’s comments could lead readers to believe his suggestion buildings could be erected on the parkland itself, but councillors at the meeting had pointed out the proposal involved building under the park. Cr Beregi said the article lacked balance because it included comments from Mr Mack and a resident complaining about lack of transparency and consultation but no comments from councillors supporting the study. She said letters criticising the proposal had been published but she had not been contacted for comment or had her own letter published, even though she was the Chair of the committee that proposed the study. The publication said readers would not have been misled about the proposal as the front page referred explicitly to it as “a feasibility study” and the sub-heading on page 5 referred to it as a “study”. Also, the article said “the council voted to push ahead with the feasibility study”, and that “the feasibility study will examine a concept by [the] architect”, before adding: “Community consultations will take place when a concept has been developed”. The publication said the article explained the proposal was for underground facilities “with a landscaped roof featuring sporting courts”, and that opponents wanted to retain the park for “passive recreation”. The publication said Mr Mack’s comments were the most newsworthy development at the time of the article and a councillor had declined an invitation to comment. It said Cr Beregi’s letter arrived after the deadline for publication of that issue, but shortly before and after it had published letters from councillors supporting the study, one of which covered many of the points raised by Cr Beregi. Her views had already been mentioned twice in recent online articles, including her explanation that the proposal “was still in the initial concept stage and would not progress if the study revealed the majority of residents did not want it”. The Press Council’s Principles require that publications take reasonable steps to ensure reports are accurate, fair and balanced. The Council has concluded that the headlines and the article itself made it clear the proposal was only a feasibility study of facilities to be built underground, and that community consultation would occur. Earlier articles and letters had presented the views of supporters of the proposal, and it was reasonable also to report the views of a community group campaigning against it and those of Mr Mack. It may have been preferable to include a comment from Cr Beregi herself, as the Chair of the committee, but she had previously been quoted and the article provided sufficient balance without that inclusion. Accordingly, the complaint is not upheld.

88 Complainant/The Sydney Morning Herald Adjudication 1607 (August 2014) The Press Council has considered whether a series of news reports in The Sydney Morning Herald between August and December 2013 breached its Standards of Practice. The articles concerned public and parliamentary debate about a Bill in the Parliament of New South Wales seeking to define a foetus as a legally recognised person once it reached 20 weeks or 400 grams, for the purposes of the crime of causing grievous bodily harm to a person. The relevant Standards of Practice relate to fairness and balance in the overall coverage by the publication. The headlines on all but one of the articles highlighted the views of opponents of the Bill, rather than its supporters. Examples include “Doctors, lawyers push case against planned abortion law”; “Proposed amendment to Zoe’s bill dismissed by critics”; “Law on foetal rights bill ‘will put many women at risk’”; “No need for foetal rights bill, says Law Society”. The articles reported a number of parliamentarians as supporters or opponents of the Bill, but while it reported the view of many community sources who opposed the Bill, very few community voices in support were reported. The parliamentary debate was reported very sparsely, despite being subsequently described by one of the publication’s journalists as of an unusually high standard. A small majority of speeches were by opponents and they were reported a little more than those by supporters. A number of opinion articles and letters were published during this time in addition to the news reports. None of them appeared to be in support of the legislation, although nine opposing pieces were published. The publication submitted to the Council that the articles “reflected the fierce debate and wide-ranging voices in the community as parliamentary debate progressed”. It said most of the main public voices opposed the Bill, including in statements by leading legal, medical and women's groups and by a number of female MPs. The publication said its frequent efforts to find people willing to publicly support the Bill were largely unsuccessful. In particular, it said it could not find any medical or health group willing to do so. It said the few prominent supporters who would speak publicly were reported, including on several occasions the MP who introduced the Bill as well as the Attorney-General and another Minister. It also said because this was a private member’s Bill and there was no public consultation process before it was introduced to parliament, it was in the public interest to report the views of these many groups. The Council has noted many opponents reported by the publication were prominent representative bodies and there was no evidence any similar body which supported the Bill had been ignored. On the other hand, 22 speakers in the parliamentary debate supported the Bill, often at some length, but it appears none of them nor anyone else was invited to submit an opinion piece or letter to the editor so the publication’s coverage might be more balanced. Publications should, and commonly do, make some effort to identify and publish a range of different views on controversial issues of public importance. But the Council’s Standards do not require complete or approximate balance, especially where little or no material from a particular viewpoint is submitted to it or readily obtainable. In any event, there are many circumstances which may justify greater emphasis being given to particular perspectives in the coverage of an issue. The Council considers the publication might well have achieved better fairness and balance in this case by giving prominence to some of the supportive speeches in the parliament or asking the speakers to submit a letter or opinion piece, in the lengthy period during which the parliamentary debate continued. However, the Council does not consider the failure to do so in these particular circumstances so significant as to constitute a breach of the relevant Standard of Practice.

Complainant/The Daily Telegraph Adjudication 1614 (August 2014) The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by material published on The Daily Telegraph's website on 3 February 2014 concerning the death in New York of the actor, Philip Seymour Hoffman. The material was first published a few hours after the discovery of Mr Hoffman’s death, apparently from a drug overdose. It consisted of a heading, photographs, brief text and a link to an article about his death. The material was changed on a number of occasions in the hours following its first publication. The version of greatest potential concern as a breach of the Council’s Standards was posted some hours after the first version. This version was headed “KIDS GRIEVE FOR JUNKIE ACTOR DAD” and was accompanied by a photograph of the actor with his three young children, and an inset of the street outside Mr Hoffman’s apartment. Underneath were the words “Philip Seymour Hoffman always kept his children out of the spotlight, but Cooper, Willa and Tallulah, pictured last April, will be struggling to understand how he died in the bathroom of his New York apartment, inset, with a hypodermic needle still in his arm”. The Council asked the publication to comment on whether the material breached its Standards of Practice relating to fairness and to the need to “balance the public interest with the sensibilities of readers, particularly when the material, such as photographs, could reasonably be expected to cause offence”. The publication said although it did not consider the article breached the Council’s Standards, it had nevertheless responded to complaints from readers on the morning of the publication and had removed the headline within approximately 30 minutes to an hour. The publication acknowledged the word “junkie” did cause offence to some readers but said it was accurate because it simply means an addict to heroin or other hard drugs, which Mr Hoffman had been in an earlier period of his life, and returned to being in the year before his death. It said the majority of its readers would not have been offended and the use of the term was consistent with its long-standing campaign on drug issues. In any event, it said, use of the term and the focus on his children was appropriate because he was due to pick them up but instead decided to inject heroin, and also because they would have felt let down by his actions. The Council notes the word “junkie” is widely regarded as a broader and more pejorative term than a neutral description of someone who is addicted to heroin or other such illicit drugs. This is reflected in the deep offence at its usage in this material, expressed in many comments posted on the publication’s website and on other websites in Australia and overseas. It also considers the headline was likely to be interpreted by many readers as implying his children would be thinking of him in that way. The Council has concluded that the combined impact of the references to the children and their alleged feelings, the photograph of them, and the use of the term “junkie” was highly unfair and offensive, especially as the material was published only a few hours after Mr Hoffman’s death. It was entirely justifiable in the public interest to report at that time the known facts of his cause of death and that he had young children. But this did not provide adequate justification for the unfairness and offensiveness of some of the words and one of the photographs used in this instance. Accordingly, the Council has concluded that publication of the material constituted a serious breach of its Standards of Practice. The removal of the offending aspects of the material from the publication’s website within an hour was welcome, but they had already been read by many people and circulated on the internet by other means, and were further circulated in unamended form thereafter. As the publication acknowledged, this wider circulation and permanent presence on the internet was inevitable. The full extent of this dissemination may have been largely beyond its control but of course, no such problem would have arisen if it had not posted the offending aspects in the first instance. The Council emphasises that compliance with its Standards must be ensured before a publication posts material, rather than relying on being able to make changes thereafter. A publication must take account

90 not only of the material being read before any change is made but also of whether the unamended material is likely to remain accessible from other internet sources.

Michael Burns/The Sydney Morning Herald Adjudication 1612 (August 2014) The Press Council has considered a complaint about two articles in The Sydney Morning Herald. The first, headed “Kate Malonyay’s mother laments loss of a life full of promise”, was published on the website on 3 May 2013. The second, headed “Secrets and lies”, was published on the website on 9 January 2014 and in print a day later. The articles arose from the killing of Kate Malonyay, after which police traced her former partner, Elliott Coulson, to a Gold Coast apartment. When they entered the room, he ran to the balcony and jumped to his death. The first article was published on the day of Ms Malonyay’s funeral on the NSW Central Coast. The second article was published after release of a Coroner’s report into the death of Mr Coulson. It recounted the relationship between him and Ms Malonyay and the events surrounding their deaths. Michael Burns, Ms Malonyay’s cousin, complained on behalf of her mother and brother. He said her funeral was a private event and in attending, the publication intruded on the family’s privacy. He said by including a picture of the memorial card, quotes from the eulogy and a photograph of the family carrying the coffin, the first article had exploited the family and breached their privacy, without sufficient justification for doing so in the public interest. He said the family had refused media requests for interviews and her brother had made it clear in a Facebook post that media were not invited to the funeral. Mr Burns said the second article inaccurately reported that a police officer said Mr Coulson had said “just let go” when the officer grabbed his forearm as he stood on the balcony ledge. In fact, the police officer told the Coroner that Mr Coulson said nothing. Mr Burns said the publication took more than a month to correct this error, which was much too slow. He also complained that the article unfairly presented assertions about Ms Malonyay’s state of mind as if they were facts, even though he had already told the publication about the family’s concerns with the first article. The publication replied that it had not known the funeral was private. It said although a friend of Ms Malonyay had posted a Facebook message asking reporters not to contact Ms Malonyay’s friends, the friend’s later public post about the funeral did not say it was to be a private event. It said her brother’s Facebook message was only accessible to his Facebook friends. The publication said the funeral chapel and gardens are open to the public, and, on arrival, the journalist approached a uniformed police officer and obtained permission to attend. It said he and a photographer had remained at a respectful distance, he was handed the memorial card at the funeral, and the eulogy was broadcast outside the chapel. The publication said it had corrected the inaccuracy about the words “just let go” when made aware of the mistake. It said the second article included information from the Coroner’s report that it had not previously published and was not inappropriate or insensitive. Conclusions The Press Council’s General Principles require news and comment to be presented fairly and with respect for people’s privacy and sensibilities, although this does not require omission of matters which are on the public record or significantly in the public interest. Its Privacy Principles require that in gathering news, journalists should not unduly intrude on the privacy of individuals and that members of the public caught up in newsworthy events should not be exploited. In this case, the brother’s Facebook post about the funeral was not accessible by the publication and the friend’s earlier Facebook post was not sufficiently specific as to constitute a request from the family and friends for the media not to attend. Nevertheless, the family had avoided contact with the media and the

91 publication was aware of the friend’s Facebook post requesting privacy from the media for her and other friends of Ms Malonyay. The Council considers that, in general, publications should check directly with the family or funeral director whether they can attend a funeral, publish images of it or quote material from the ceremony. It does not consider that coverage of this funeral was of sufficient importance in the public interest to justify publishing the material without the consent of the family. A matter is not in the public interest merely because members of the public are interested in it. The Council also does not consider it was reasonable to rely on the apparent approval from a police officer for them to attend, especially as the publication already had reason to believe its presence might not be welcome. Accordingly, the complaint relating to attending the funeral and publishing material obtained by doing so is upheld as a breach of privacy. The Council considers the inaccuracy in the second article about the police officer’s words to the Coroner was very serious. The delay of almost a month between learning of the error and publishing a correction was excessive and, although the correction was on page 2 of the newspaper, it lacked a heading to identify the subject matter. By contrast, the article to which it related had occupied all of page 22 and had been very prominently referred to on the cover of the Summer lift-out section in which it appeared. Accordingly, the complaint about late and inadequate correction is upheld. The Council did not consider, however, that the second article breached its Principles. The article appeared about eight months after the funeral and its coverage was not unduly insensitive or sensationalist. Accordingly, this aspect of the complaint is not upheld.

Sharon Doyle/Bundaberg News Mail Adjudication 1621 (August 2014) The Press Council has considered a complaint about an article in the Bundaberg News Mail on 23 April 2014 headed “Fatal car crash a sad end to Easter” (in print) and “Cruel Carving left on tree as tragic crash is investigated” (online). The article concerned a fatal collision between a car and a tree, which occurred on 20 April without the apparent involvement of another vehicle. A short report of the collision had appeared on 22 April. The complainant is a member of the victim’s family and said the article caused unnecessary offence to the grieving family and breached its privacy. In particular, it reported a witness describing the scene as “horrific”, a police officer speculating about possible causes of the accident and some words (which she regarded as cruel and offensive) being carved on the tree after the accident. It also published a photograph of the tree, although the words of the carving were not clearly visible. She said these matters were not sufficiently in the public interest to justify the grave impact on the family, especially as the accident occurred outside the town and had already been reported in the publication. The publication said the accident was of significant public interest for the local community and the report was similar to the manner in which it usually reported serious accidents, including comments by police about possible causes. It pointed out that the victim was not named and said the description of the scene as “horrific” was not detailed or graphic. It said it deliberately did not report other rumours circulating in the town about the accident, and that the carving was so unusual and distasteful that it was appropriate for readers to know about it. Conclusions The Council’s Standards of Practice require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure reports are accurate, fair and balanced and to respect the privacy and sensibility of individuals, while remaining free to publish matters if it is sufficiently in the public interest to do so. The Council considered that the article, coming two days after the initial report of the accident, gave more emphasis than necessary to the selective speculation of the police officer about the possible cause

92 of the accident, and could reasonably have been expected to give more emphasis to the behaviour of whoever carved the offensive words in the tree (which the witness described as "horrific"). The Council has concluded, however, that it was sufficiently in the public interest to report the witness’s statement, the police comments and the words on the tree, despite the likely impact on the grieving family. Accordingly, while the article might have been written with more sympathy for the family, the complaint is not upheld. However, the Council reiterates the need for great caution in cases of this kind to avoid causing unnecessary distress or invasion of privacy, particularly in reporting speculation about the cause of an accident.

Nikki Sutterby/The Weekend Australian Adjudication 1622 (September 2014) The Press Council has considered a complaint about an article which was headed "Roo the day" in the Food and Wine section of The Weekend Australian on 11-12 January 2014. The article described the “modern face of the [kangaroo] harvest” or “roo shooting”. It was based on the writer’s observations when accompanying a shooter. The complainant is the President of the Australian Society for Kangaroos. She said the article was inaccurate and unfair in saying that kangaroo harvesting involved “world’s best practice”, is “tightly regulated”, and “the most humane harvest in the world”. She said it misleadingly presented the kangaroo shoot in which the writer participated as if it represented general standards of harvesting. She said Russia had banned import of kangaroo meat (except from one producer, Macro Meats) due to concerns about contamination, and a number of organisations had provided evidence that the meat breaches food hygiene standards and the harvesting is not “the most humane”. The complainant also said that, although the article disclosed that the author “travelled courtesy of Liquid Ideas”, it did not explain that Liquid Ideas was a promotional company for Macro Meats, which had proposed and paid for the trip. The publication said the article was clearly a subjective portrayal of the journalist’s experiences and impressions from tracing the harvest of kangaroo meat by Macro Meats from the paddock to the plate. The print version was prefaced by a reference to the author’s “passionate argument for eating kangaroo” and described him as “an advocate for eating kangaroo”. It said the Russian ban had been lifted in 2012 and that the author saw convincing evidence of the industry being tightly regulated. He was shown what the shooters said was world’s best practice and was not seeking to assess the conduct of a particular producer or the industry. The publication said the journalist received only modest accommodation and transport, and never felt any obligation to write a favourable story. It said the Liquid Ideas website showed Macro Meats as a client. It acknowledged, however, that the article should have disclosed the involvement of Macro Meats. Conclusions The Council's Standards of Practice state that publications must ensure readers can recognise what is fact and what is opinion and that relevant facts are not misrepresented or suppressed. They also state that readers must be advised of any potential conflict of interest. The Council considers that the statements about kangaroo harvesting in the article were likely to be read as subjective assessments by the journalist rather than verified statements of fact. The journalist is a well- known food writer and readers would recognise it was not an investigation into the kangaroo industry, but part of a paddock to plate series in a weekend section on food and wine. There was no basis for concluding that any evidence of Macro Meats’ processes being inhumane or unhygienic had been omitted. Accordingly, the complaint relating to inaccuracy and unfairness is not upheld. The Council has concluded that the involvement of Macro Meats in proposing and sponsoring the trip amounted to a potential conflict of interest and should have been disclosed explicitly to readers.

Accordingly, that aspect of the complaint is upheld. The publication’s subsequent disclosure in the online archived version of the article is welcome but does not eliminate the breach.

Allan House/The Sydney Morning Herald Adjudication 1619 (September 2014) The Press Council has considered a complaint from Allan House concerning an article in The Sydney Morning Herald on 25 February 2014 about Waratah Rivulet. The print heading was “Reservoir source dries up: longwall coalmining gets blame”. The online heading was “Woronora reservoir source dries up: longwall coalmining gets blame”. The article stated that coalmining under “an important feeder pool” to Sydney’s water catchment had “triggered extensive iron contamination”. It said: “The mine’s 2012 annual report found that iron concentrations in the rivulet had doubled since the expansion of the mine, to levels which exceeded Australian Drinking Water Guidelines by 30 per cent.” It also said: “the health of part of the water supply to Sydney’s 4.6 million consumers” was “at stake”. The complainant said the word “contamination” was misleading because the article said iron levels in the rivulet were 0.39mg/l but the Guidelines say that although natural iron levels in water are usually less than 1mg/l they may be up to 100mg/l. He said the level of 0.39mg/l was within the site specific standard specified for the Woronora Reservoir. He said the Guidelines did not set any health related level and although the Guidelines specified an aesthetic level for filtered drinking water of 0.3mg/l this did not apply to water in the rivulet. He also said the article inaccurately and unfairly raised alarm that people’s health was at risk. The publication said that after mine expansion began the average iron level in the rivulet rose from 0.18 mg/l to 0.40 mg/l, and the latter figure is within the ordinary meaning of “contamination”. It said the increase was also a “detrimental change”, which is the term used by the Planning Assessment Commission and the Sydney Catchment Authority to define “contamination”. It said the Guidelines recommend a limit of 0.3 mg/l for human health reasons, which shows the increase to 0.39mg/l was significant. It said the reference to health related to the river system, not directly to human health. Conclusions The Council’s Standards of Practice require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure reports are accurate, fair and balanced, and are not deliberately misleading. The Council considers that the article was inaccurate and unfair in suggesting the iron levels posed a risk to the health of consumers. The article should have made it clear that the level exceeded in the rivulet was an aesthetic standard which only applied to filtered water and was not a health-related standard. Accordingly, this aspect of the complaint is upheld. The Council considers that use of the term “contamination” might have been accurate in a technical sense but it was likely to be misunderstood by many readers. Nevertheless, the Council has concluded, on balance, that in this instance the breach of its Standards was not sufficiently significant for this aspect of the complaint to be upheld.

Complainant/Herald Sun Adjudication 1610 (October 2014) The Press Council has considered a complaint about an article, “Murder sex tape link – Fresh look at killing of mother and daughter”, in the Herald Sun newspaper on 20 March 2013. The first sentence read: “A home-made sex videotape could have triggered the unsolved … murders of a mother and daughter.” The sentence also mentioned the particular year during the 1980s in which the murders occurred. The article said police were “having a fresh look” at the murders and the associated rape of the daughter and that “one clue the review will be examining” was that the woman had been having an affair with a

94 man (which the article described by reference to his profession) who had then died before her murder. It said after his death his wife found a videotape of him having sex with the woman and “angrily confronted” her. The article also said that: “Police have discovered the [man’s] wife was living with a paedophile at the time” of the murders and rape; “[d]ocuments reveal the [man’s] wife paid the paedophile $52,000 about the time of the murders”; and letters from relatives of the man had said his wife hated the woman and “was capable of murdering her”. The man’s wife complained to the Council that the article was inaccurate and unfair because she had found the sex tape before her husband died, not after, she never spoke to the woman about it, and the friend was not a paedophile and had never lived with her. She said the $52,000 payment was a loan from her husband and herself. She provided the Council with documents recording the loan being paid in five instalments – the first three before her husband died and the last paid 15 months before the murders. The documents also recorded the security given for the loan and its release in 1997, but actual repayment of the loan as a loan was not clearly documented. The complainant said the article did not respect her privacy because it gave details of her husband’s profession, the murders and the locality, which allowed her to be identified. She said to her knowledge she was not a suspect and had not been interviewed by police since shortly after the murders, more than 25 years ago. She said the police officer handling the case had told her solicitor recently that if he had felt it necessary to contact her, he would have done so. She said she would have corrected the allegations she maintains are false if the journalist had contacted her before publication. The publication said the article’s statements about the sex tape and the woman’s friend being an alleged paedophile were based on confidential but highly credible sources which it could not disclose but would be verified by material in the police files. It said although the claim of paedophilia was not based on any record of a charge or conviction, the claim was supported by information in materials made available by a confidential source. It said it had also seen material reporting assertions that the money was paid early in the year of the murders, that the former wife of the friend told police the money was a present, and that the money was never repaid. It had not, however, seen any financial records on these matters. It said the journalist knew the complainant was a “person of interest” to police and therefore it would have been irresponsible to contact her for comment prior to publication and risk interfering with a murder investigation by, for example, enabling her to alter or conceal evidence. It said the journalist was an experienced crime reporter and knew that police do not like journalists interviewing suspects before the police have done so, but it conceded that it had not been told of any intention to re-interview her. It said the complainant was not identifiable from the article because the names of her and her husband had not been published and the murders happened long ago. Although the complainant had been referred to as “the [professional’s] wife”, the murdered woman had had several lovers from the same profession. It said any privacy concerns were outweighed by the fact that publishing the article might help solve the murders. Conclusions The Council’s Principles state that publications should take reasonable steps to ensure reports are accurate, fair and balanced. The requisite steps commonly include giving persons an opportunity to respond to allegations before publication and to have their views reasonably reflected in the published material. This is especially so in this case where several of the allegations inferred that the complainant was likely to have arranged two murders. The Council considers that, if the publication was concerned that approaching the complainant for comment might hinder a police investigation, it should have explicitly asked the police. The Council took this course when the publication initially said that consideration of the complaint was likely to hinder the police. The police told the Council they had no such concerns. Moreover, any risks of alerting the complainant to fresh allegations were greatly diminished by the fact that almost all of them had been reported five years earlier by the same journalist in the same publication.

The Council considers that the failure to contact the complainant was aggravated by the exceptional prominence given on this occasion to the “sex videotape” allegation, the statement that she “paid” the friend although the publication had reason to believe it needed further investigation, and the failure to mention any of the other people regarded as possible suspects. Many of these people were named in a longer online version of the article published the previous day. The failure to seek comment was aggravated by the article using words such as “reveal” and “discover” in relation to matters which were actually allegations, not established facts. The Council has concluded that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure accuracy and fairness. Accordingly, that aspect of the complaint is upheld. The failure was of a very serious nature and of considerable concern to the Council. The publication’s assertion that it had relevant and credible information from a confidential source did not remove the need to seek comment and to avoid publishing the claims as if they were established facts. In relation to the complaint about privacy, the Council recognises it is often necessary to disclose considerable detail when an article aims to trigger recollections among readers that might assist a “cold case” investigation. However, this does not justify portraying allegations as if they are facts. Moreover, if the publication is correct in saying the complainant was not identifiable from the article, then the likelihood of triggering relevant memories about her may have been somewhat remote. The Council considers that, especially because her husband’s profession and his death were mentioned, the complainant would have been identifiable to some people who knew some of her background but not necessarily some or all of the adverse statements made about her in the article. It has concluded that a significant breach of privacy occurred and that the public interest justification which might often apply to “cold case” articles is not sustainable in this instance because of the failure to give the complainant an opportunity to comment and the description of grave allegations as if they were established facts. Accordingly, that aspect of the complaint is also upheld.

Complainant/The Daily Telegraph Adjudication 1624 (October 2014) The Press Council has considered complaints about a photograph in The Daily Telegraph on 27 May 2014. The headline was “Deep blue murder: Ex cops at centre of death probe as body surfaces”. The photograph occupied much of the front page and showed a body-sized shape wrapped in a tarpaulin floating in the ocean. A foot clothed in a shoe could be seen protruding from the end of the tarpaulin. The police suspected at the time, and subsequently confirmed, the body in the tarpaulin was that of a student whom the police believed had been murdered a week earlier in relation to a drug deal. The front page also had insets of an earlier photograph of the student when alive, and of two people suspected of involvement in the alleged murder. The Council asked the publication to comment on whether the front page breached its Standards of Practice about publishing photographs which could reasonably cause offence. The publication replied that the decision to publish the images was taken extremely seriously and on justifiable public interest grounds. After referring to its campaigns over many years against particularly drug and gun crimes, it said that, despite the risk of offending some readers, publishing the photograph was appropriate to show the awful consequences that could occur from getting involved in drug-related crime, especially as this case appeared to involve a young and perhaps naïve person. The publication acknowledged that a graphic warning was placed on the online version some hours after the print version was published, but said that even if it was possible to apply a graphic warning to the print version there was no need to do so. The Council’s relevant Standard of Practice requires that any reasonably likely offence to sensibilities should be weighed against the importance of publishing the photograph in the public interest. Of course, the fact that a photograph may be of interest to the public does not mean that it is in the public interest.

96 The Council considers that, especially by showing the foot, the photograph was likely to cause great offence to a significant number of people, including those who merely saw it on a newsstand. A substantial number of people who saw it are likely to have known the student. On the other hand, the Council believes that powerful exposure in this way of the risks of becoming involved in drug deals can be of substantial importance in the public interest. This effect would have been less powerful if the foot had not been shown to establish that the bag contained a body. The Council’s principal concern was that the photograph was shown on the front page and was very large. Placing it on a very prominent inner page, with a clear warning on the front page, could have substantially reduced the risk of offence while not greatly reducing its effectiveness in raising awareness of the drug trade’s dangers. In some instances, therefore, placement of photographs on the front page may breach the Council’s Standards even though they would have been acceptable inside the newspaper. On balance, however, the Council considers in this case that publishing the photograph did not breach its Standards, even though it was very prominent on the front page. This is mainly because there was a very strong justification in the public interest and also because the foot was not shown in graphic detail. Accordingly, the Council has concluded that its Standards of Practice were not breached.

John McLean/Climate Spectator Adjudication 1617 (November 2014) The Press Council has considered a complaint about an article by Elaine McKewon headed “Fairfax falls for the climate conman” on the Climate Spectator website on 14 January 2014. The heading was subsequently changed to “Fairfax misleads on self-titled climate expert”. Ms McKewon’s article referred to an article by John McLean in the Fairfax Media publications The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, which had criticised journalists for being insufficiently sceptical about climate change and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Mr Mclean was described at the end of his article as “the author of three peer-reviewed papers on climate”, “an expert reviewer for the latest IPCC report”, “a climate data analyst” and a “member of the International Climate Science Coalition” (ICSC). Ms McKewon’s article described Mr Mclean as being “misinformed”, “falsely presented as an expert on climate science”, “not affiliated with any university”, and having “no verifiable qualifications in the field of climate science” or “standing or expertise in climate science”. It also said his articles advanced the ICSC’s aims of “discrediting authoritative science on climate change”, and the ICSC was funded by the Heartland Institute which was historically funded by the oil company Exxon. It said The Sydney Morning Herald had previously announced it “would not publish letters from climate change deniers that misrepresented the facts”. Mr McLean complained that the claims about his lack of standing and expertise were inaccurate and unfair. He said his papers had been peer-reviewed, cited in several books and referred to in the US Senate, and he had also been an “Expert Reviewer” for the latest IPCC report. He said he was enrolled at James Cook University as a PhD candidate and his topic, when chosen, would relate to climate science. He denied deceiving the newspapers about his expertise and said that, in any event, they were under no obligation to publish only the opinions of climate science experts. He especially criticised the word “conman” in the article’s headline. He also complained that the statements about his links with the ICSC and its funding were inaccurate and unfair. He said that he was a member of ICSC but had received no money from it and, in fact, had made a small donation to it. He also said that ICSC does not disclose its donors but he understood that Exxon’s support for it was not substantial. The Climate Spectator replied that the headline and article intended to communicate that the newspapers and readers were effectively deceived because some of the evidence relied on by Mr McLean was incorrect, and there was no mention that some of his views conflicted with major scientific bodies

97 from a wide range of countries. It said he had also deceived readers into thinking that the IPCC’s Assessment Reports do not take account of natural factors that influence climate. The publication also said Mr McLean’s claims to expertise were misleading. It said that being a PhD candidate at a very preliminary stage does not necessarily amount to affiliation with a university and he had no formal qualifications in climate science. It also said two of his three papers were not in high- quality journals and the third had been criticised for serious flaws. It said the position of “Expert Reviewer” to the IPCC did not involve any independent recognition of expertise. It also said Ms McKewon’s statements about the ICSC were accurate. Conclusions The Council’s General Principles recognise the importance of free expression of opinion in published material but they also state that relevant facts should not be misrepresented or suppressed. The Council considers that the word “conman” in the headline could reasonably be read as implying Mr McLean had actively deceived the newspapers and readers. As no reasonable basis for that implication has been provided to the Council, this aspect of the complaint is upheld. The publication’s subsequent change to the headline was welcome but does not eliminate the initial breach. In any event, the initial headline is likely to have been read by many people and become permanently available on the internet through re-publication by others. Mr McLean’s claims to standing and expertise, however, were not of sufficiently compelling force to establish misrepresentation or suppression by Ms McKewon in that respect. The same applies to his criticisms of her references to the ICSC and its funding. Accordingly, these aspects of the complaint are not upheld. It must be emphasised, however, that this conclusion does not amount to a finding that her claims were necessarily correct. It also does not involve an endorsement or rejection of any particular theories or predictions about climate change warming and related issues. Note (not required for publication by the website): Mr McLean also complained that the publication’s offer to publish his response unreasonably specified what it must cover and he had not been confident it would be published. The publication said it offered to publish both his response and an additional article giving evidence in support of his views. As the Council considers there is no compelling evidence that the offer was unsatisfactory, this aspect of the complaint is not upheld.

John McLean/Crikey Adjudication 1618 (November 2014) The Press Council has considered a complaint about an article by Elaine McKewon headed “Big Oil-backed climate denier who hoodwinked Fairfax” on the Crikey website on 13 January 2014. Ms McKewon’s article referred to an article by John McLean in the Fairfax Media publications The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, which had criticised journalists for being insufficiently sceptical about climate change and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Mr Mclean was described at the end of his article as “the author of three peer-reviewed papers on climate”, “an expert reviewer for the latest IPCC report”, “a climate data analyst” and a “member of the International Climate Science Coalition” (ICSC). Ms McKewon’s article described Mr Mclean as being “misinformed”, “falsely presented as an expert on climate science”, “not affiliated with any university”, and having “no verifiable qualifications in the field of climate science” or “standing or expertise in climate science”. It also said his articles advanced the ICSC’s aims of “discrediting authoritative science on climate change”, and the ICSC was funded by the Heartland Institute which was historically funded by the oil company Exxon. It said The Sydney Morning Herald had

98 previously announced it “would not publish letters from climate change deniers that misrepresented the facts”. Mr McLean complained that the claims about his lack of standing and expertise were inaccurate and unfair. He said that his papers had been peer-reviewed, cited in several books and referred to in the US Senate, and he had also been an “Expert Reviewer” for the latest IPCC report. He said he was enrolled at James Cook University as a PhD candidate and his topic, when chosen, would relate to climate science. He denied deceiving the newspapers about his expertise and said that, in any event, they were under no obligation to publish only the opinions of experts in climate science. He was especially critical of the word “hoodwinked” in the headline. He also complained that the headline and statements about his links with the ICSC and “big oil” were inaccurate and unfair. He said that he was a member of ICSC, but had received no money from it and, in fact, had made a small donation to it. He also said that ICSC does not disclose its donors but he understood that Exxon’s support for it was not substantial. Crikey replied that reasonable readers would not interpret Ms McKewon’s article as implying Mr McLean literally deceived the newspapers. It said, however, that his claimed work and qualifications did not refute her claim about his lack of scientific standing or expertise in the field. It said the position of “Expert Reviewer” to the IPCC was basically self-appointed and did not provide any independent recognition of expertise. It said the reference to university affiliation had now been removed from her article. It said she did not claim Mr McLean had any financial relationship with ICSC but had correctly claimed he was a member of ICSC which Exxon had funded indirectly. Conclusions The Council’s General Principles recognise the importance of free expression of opinion in published material but also state that relevant facts should not be misrepresented or suppressed. The Council considers that the words “hoodwinked Fairfax” in the headline could reasonably be read as implying Mr McLean had actively deceived the newspapers into publishing his opinion piece. As no reasonable basis for that implication has been provided to the Council, that aspect of the complaint is upheld. Mr McLean’s claims to standing and expertise were not of sufficiently compelling force to establish misrepresentation or suppression by Ms McKewon in that respect. The same applies to his criticisms of her references to the ICSC and his links with the oil industry. Accordingly, these aspects of the complaint are not upheld. It must be emphasised, however, that this conclusion does not amount to a finding that her claims were necessarily correct. It also does not involve an endorsement or rejection of any particular theories or predictions about climate change warming and related issues. Note (not required for publication by the website): Mr McLean also complained that his response to Ms McKewon’s article was published by Crikey behind a log-in requirement. It replied, however, that the response was at the bottom of the original article which had been published in the same way, and was also published in its comments and corrections section which was accessible without logging in. Accordingly, that aspect of the complaint is not upheld.

Judith Troeth/The Age Adjudication 1626 (November 2014)

The Press Council has considered a complaint on behalf of Austin Hospital about two articles in The Age concerning the hospital’s waiting times and new booking system. The first article was headed “Patients suffer for years” (print) and “Patients suffer for years in surgery queues, say GPs” (online) and published on 15 March 2014. It reported that a named patient’s GP had

99 referred her to Austin Health for an outpatient appointment in May 2011 and her surgery occurred “almost 3 years later”, and it quoted the patient as saying “It’s a long time to wait for a new knee”. The second was headed “Austin’s booking system brings grief to cancer sufferer” (print) and “Austin Hospital’s booking system brings grief to cancer sufferer” (online) and was published on 2 April 2014. It said a particular patient had been telephoned twice by a nurse asking why he did not attend an appointment for treatment, but he had not previously been told he needed treatment or had an appointment. It said the patient “believed the new booking system had caused the ‘appalling cock-ups’ and was letting hospital staff down". Judith Troeth, Chairman of Austin Health which runs the hospital, complained that the first article was inaccurate and unfair. She said the named patient waited only eight months from the date on which the specialist recommended surgery, and that the wait was partly due to the patient’s decision to wait for a particular surgeon. She said the publication was informed to this effect shortly after the article appeared, but it had not published any correction. The publication responded that the almost three-year wait mentioned in the article was from when the patient’s GP referred her to the specialist until the surgery took place. It said the article sought to show that the time patients were waiting for surgery was often much longer than the time they were on the official waiting list for surgery. It said that when approached by the hospital after the article appeared, it offered to re-investigate and publish a further article including the hospital’s version of events, but the hospital declined the offer. Ms Troeth said the headlines of the second article unfairly and inaccurately stated as a fact that the hospital’s new booking system caused a miscommunication between it and a particular patient. She said the new system was not used on that occasion and the cause was actually human error. The publication said the text of the article reported the hospital’s claim about the cause of miscommunication with the patient, but the headline could not reflect all versions and had focused on the patient’s view which the publication had no reason to doubt. Conclusions The Council’s relevant Standards of Practice state that reasonable steps should be taken to ensure reports are accurate and fair; serious inaccuracies should be corrected promptly; opinions should be readily distinguishable from facts; and headlines should reflect the tenor of the accompanying article. The Council considers that the first article implied the knee replacement did not occur until more than three years after it was needed. In fact, it occurred only about eight months after the specialist recommended it and the patient was put on the waiting list for surgery. The operation could have been earlier if the patient had not wanted to wait for a particular surgeon. The incorrect implication could have been avoided by checking with the hospital beforehand. Accordingly, the complaint about the first article is upheld on the ground of failure to take reasonable steps to ensure accuracy and fairness. The publication was obliged to publish a prompt correction, but the Council is not satisfied that the hospital promptly provided the publication with sufficient verification. Also, the hospital did not accept the offer of a follow-up article. Accordingly, that aspect of the complaint is not upheld. The Council has concluded that, although the headline of the second article stated as a fact that the new booking system had caused the miscommunication between the hospital and a patient, the publication had not taken reasonable steps to ensure the statement was accurate and fair. The headline also failed to fairly reflect the tenor of the text of the article, in which the hospital’s differing version was mentioned at some length. Accordingly, the complaint against the headline of the second article is upheld on those grounds.

100 Complainant/The Daily Telegraph Adjudication 1627 (December 2014) The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by material published on the front page of The Daily Telegraph on 22 May 2014 relating to the Disability Support Pension (DSP). The material included a large headline “Slackers & Slouch Hats”, above which was a secondary heading “NSW Disability Support Pensioners now outnumber Australia’s total war wounded by more than 44,000”. Alongside the headline was a single sentence of text reading: “The state’s army of disability pensioners has hit record levels with NSW’s tally of DSP claimants soaring almost 20,000 in the past 3 years to 270,415, outnumbering Australia’s war-wounded by more than 44,000.” It was followed by a small note: “FULL REPORT PAGES 8-9”. Above this material were two large photographs presented in a way which reflected the invitation to draw the comparison made in the secondary heading. One photograph showed a queue of about twenty people, none of whom had an apparent disability. Superimposed were the words “NSW DSP Recipients: 270,415”. The other was a well-known and striking photograph of a severely wounded soldier being helped to walk through the jungle of Papua New Guinea during World War II. Superimposed were the words “Nation’s war wounded: 226,016”. After receiving a complaint about the front page, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether the material breached the Council’s Standards of Practice, including those relating to accuracy, fairness and balance, and to not causing greater offence than is justifiable in the public interest. The publication said the front page headline was intended to summarise the coverage in that particular edition of the newspaper, which also included articles on later pages and an editorial. It said the front page and other material was also intended to encourage public debate on whether too many people were receiving DSP at excessive cost to taxpayers, which were matters to which the Federal Government had been drawing attention. The publication said the headline and other material on the front page did not suggest all DSP recipients are “slackers” or undeserving of assistance, and in its editorial the publication had accepted that not all recipients were undeserving. It said the comparison between the numbers of these recipients and the numbers of war-wounded people was valid and fair, especially as a way of stimulating public debate. The publication also said the photograph of a queue was intended merely to show a large number of people and it had not been stated or implied that the people in the queue had disabilities or were DSP recipients. It said use of a photograph of such people had been deliberately avoided. It said the vast majority of its readers would have understood that it was not intending to offend them, and would not have been offended. Conclusions The Council considers that the headline and other material on the front page collectively imply that a high proportion of DSP recipients are “slackers” and should not be receiving DSP. This implication is due partly to the fact that the comparison in the words prominently super-imposed on the two photographs, and in the article on the front page, was between the full number of war-wounded people and the full number of DSP recipients. The implication is also contributed to by the stark contrast between the apparently able-bodied people in the queue and the severely wounded soldier. The impact of the front page presentation was not adequately dispelled by any of the material that appeared on subsequent pages, and evidence provided did not justify the implication. Accordingly, the Council has concluded that the headline, headings and text on the front page breached the Standards of Practice requiring reasonable steps to ensure accuracy and fairness. The Council also considers the implication that a high proportion of DSP recipients are “slackers” and should not be receiving DSP was offensive to an extent not justified by the public interest. Accordingly, the material also breached the Standards of Practice on that ground.

101

Complainant/The Sydney Morning Herald Adjudication 1620 (December 2014) The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an online article in The Sydney Morning Herald on 22 January 2014 headed “Bidding war for Schapelle Corby’s first post-jail interview”. The article said the Corby family was in negotiations with TV networks for the first interview with Schapelle Corby after her release from jail in Bali. It also said her mother, Rosleigh Rose, “even allowed the (Seven) network to fly her to Bali”. After the article appeared, a member of a support group for Ms Corby told the publication in an email that the statement was false and that it should contact Ms Rose. The support group was known to have had close associations with the Corby family over some years. The member then contacted the Press Council and later Ms Rose herself told the Council that after seeing the article she left a message with the publication denying that the network paid for her to go to Bali, but she received no reply. The Council asked the publication to comment on three issues concerning possible breach of the Standards of Practice. First, were reasonable steps taken to ensure accuracy and fairness in the article? Second, was Ms Rose given a reasonable opportunity to comment before publication or to have a response published? Third, if there were any serious inaccuracies in the article were they corrected promptly and with due prominence? The publication said the article did not suggest Ms Rose had done anything wrong. It said the statement about Ms Rose’s flight was based on two independent sources, each of whom was directly involved in the matter and had knowledge of the flight arrangements. These sources refused to provide details of the method of payment for the flight, lest they risk damage to their relationship with the Corby family. The publication said it had no evidence to refute the sources and the publication’s strained relationship with the family weakened its capacity to communicate with Ms Rose. It outlined several ways in which it said unsuccessfully attempts had been made to get her contact details in order to seek comment before publication. It said it had no record of a message from Ms Rose but that after receiving the support group member’s email it re-checked with its sources at the network who reiterated that the network had arranged to fly Ms Rose to Bali. It said it did not reply to the email because it did not know whether the sender was acting on Ms Rose’s behalf. Conclusions The Council has been unable to ascertain with a sufficient degree of confidence whether the Seven network paid or arranged for Ms Rose’s flight and whether the publication took reasonable steps to check the matter before publication. Consequently, no breach of its Standards of Practice can be found in this respect. However, the Council has concluded that once the publication had been alerted to a possible error of fact, particularly given that the source was a member of a support group known to have close connections to the Corby family, it should have taken further steps to contact Ms Rose (including through the sender of the email) to give her an opportunity to comment, even if that attempt was ultimately unsuccessful. Failure to do so falls within and is a breach of General Principle 3 of the Council’s Standards of Practice which provides that a reasonable opportunity should be provided for a balancing response in circumstances of this kind.

Complainant/Sunday Herald Sun Adjudication 1628 (January 2015) The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by material in the Sunday Herald Sun on 2 March 2014. The material included an article on page 1 headed: “EXCLUSIVE The 12 AFL stars still in ASADA limbo: DONS DRUG HELL”, and an article on pages 8-9 headed “BOMBERS IN THE DARK: Thirteen months after the drugs in sport scandal broke, these AFL players are still looking for closure”. An online version was headed “Bombers in the dark: The 12 AFL stars still in ASADA limbo”. The

102 second article was accompanied by prominent photographs of 14 players it named as having told the Australian Sports and Drugs Agency (ASADA) that they thought they had been injected with peptides during their time with the Essendon Football Club (EFC). The material was published while ASADA was looking into the possible administration of banned drugs to players at the EFC. Where information had been provided by players in response to the ASADA investigation it was on a confidential basis. The Council asked the publication to comment on whether the material breached the Council’s Standards of Practice relating to accurate, fair and balanced reporting and to the need to respect the privacy and sensibilities of individuals unless there is sufficient justification in the public interest for not doing so. The publication replied that after the article appeared, ASADA issued “show cause” notices to the named players. It said it sought prior comment from the EFC and the AFL Players Association (AFLPA) and read the proposed article to the CEO of the AFLPA, but none had wished to comment. The Council noted, however, that the AFLPA subsequently advised the Council had expressed concern to the publication about the proposal to publish names. The publication published those concerns. The publication said the article had been supportive of the players’ predicament, including a statement that they deserved closure and fairness. It said the ASADA investigation was a matter of public record and extensive media coverage. It said a public cloud of suspicion had been over all EFC players and that naming the 12 players “cleared the air” for the club’s other 26 players. It also said disclosure was in the public interest because of the public’s right to know about matters which greatly affect a sport in which very many people participate or are deeply interested. Conclusions The Council considers that the disclosure clearly intruded on the named players’ privacy and may have caused them significant harm. Despite this impact, disclosure could be regarded as being in the public interest because of the importance of the allegations to the game of AFL, its administration and the safety of players, as well as the desirability of dispelling unjustified suspicion of other EFC players. On the other hand, disclosure could be regarded as against the public interest due to the risk of discouraging candour with ASADA and thereby hindering the investigation of this and analogous matters of considerable public concern. Having balanced these competing considerations, the Council is not satisfied there was a clear breach of its Standards of Practice in this instance. In doing so, it is influenced partly by the late stage of the protracted investigative process at which the disclosure was made.

Complainant/The Sydney Morning Herald Adjudication 1634 (January 2015) The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by a cartoon in The Sydney Morning Herald on 26 July 2014. It was associated with an opinion piece on the conflict in Gaza and depicted an elderly man with a large nose, wearing the distinctively Jewish head covering called a kippah or yarmulke, and sitting in an armchair emblazoned with the Star of David. He was pointing a TV remote control device at an exploding cityscape, implied to be Gaza. The Council asked the publication to comment on whether the cartoon placed gratuitous emphasis on race or religion. It also asked the publication whether the cartoon could reasonably have been expected to cause offence and showed insufficient concern for balancing the sensibilities of some readers with the broader public interest. In response, the publication agreed that the cartoon had placed gratuitous emphasis on the Jewishness of its subject and in doing so had inappropriately emphasised religious persuasion rather than Israeli nationality, thereby causing offence. It pointed out that a 650-word apology had been published about a week later.

103

The publication also pointed out that the newspaper’s Editor in Chief and News Director had subsequently participated in seminars facilitated by the Jewish Board of Deputies to raise awareness about imagery that could be construed as anti-Semitic. It said further seminars were planned and would be expanded to include the newspaper’s senior editorial staff. The publication also said that a requirement for extra layers of approval had subsequently been introduced for all cartoons prior to publication.

Conclusions The Council emphasises that cartoons are subject to its Standards of Practice. The application of those Standards however, takes account of the fact that readers can reasonably be expected to recognise that cartoons commonly use exaggeration and caricature to a considerable degree and therefore should be interpreted by them with this in mind. In this instance, the cartoon’s linkage between the Jewish faith and the Israeli rocket attacks on Gaza was reasonably likely to cause great offence to many readers. A linkage with Israeli nationality might have been justifiable in the public interest, despite being likely to cause offence. But the same cannot be said of the implied linkage with the Jewish faith that arose from inclusion of the kippah and the Star of David. Accordingly, the Council’s Standards of Practice were breached on the ground of causing greater offence to readers’ sensibilities than was justifiable in the public interest. The Council welcomes the prominent, extensive and closely-reasoned apology by the publication and its subsequent action to reduce the risk of repetition. The Council commends this approach to other publications.

Margaret MacDonald-Hill/Newcastle Herald Adjudication 1629 (January 2015) The Press Council has considered a complaint by Margaret MacDonald-Hill about a series of articles in the Newcastle Herald relating to chairs of Community Consultative Committees (CCCs) and selection of arbitrators to preside over land access disputes between mining companies and landowners. The first article headed “Mining dispute system faulted” was published on 10 April 2014 (print and online). It reported that Ms MacDonald-Hill worked as an arbitrator while being paid undisclosed amounts by mining companies to chair nearly a dozen CCCs. It quoted her comments about declaring appointments and not arbitrating disputes for companies for which she chairs CCCs. It also reported an instance where she had stood aside due to conflict of interest. The second article “Consultation risks loss of faith – committee gravy train leaves no minutes” was published on 12 April 2014 in print (and under the headline “Consultation risks loss of faith” online on 11 April 2014). It reported on the issue of potential conflicts of interest. It mentioned Ms MacDonald-Hill in this context but did not give details of her work for CCCs or the payments she received. The third article “Arbitration scrutiny” was published in print on 15 April (and online under the headline “Mining land dispute process in the spotlight” on 14 April). Its relevant content was similar to the first article. Ms MacDonald-Hill complained that it was unfair for the articles to focus only on her because other chairs are also “high profile and act in multi capacities” and the articles did not mention there have never been any complaints from landholders. She said the unfairness was exacerbated by comments suggesting that she is either acting inappropriately or is not acting in the best interests of the parties, but nothing positive is said about her work. She said the headline “Consultation risks loss of faith: Committee gravy train leaves no minutes” unfairly and inaccurately suggests that the chair of the committees (including her) are paid highly for minimal work and does not fairly reflect the tenor of the article, as the article does not mention anything about

104 the level of payment to her. She also said the publication eventually agreed to publish a clarification but it was not published in the agreed position. The publication said the articles were accurate, fair and balanced and related to matters of public interest about the CCCs. It said both sides of politics, lawyers and landholders had raised or investigated potential conflicts of interest in the CCC process. It said the articles include positive material in quoting from her and the Department of Planning. It pointed out that it mentioned Ms MacDonald-Hill had stood aside on at least one occasion after a possible conflict had been raised. It said that when asked to disclose her level of payment she exercised her prerogative to decline. It also said it did not cause the delay in agreeing a clarification, which had then been published in accordance with the agreement. Conclusions The Council does not consider that it was unfair or unbalanced for one of the articles in particular to focus on Ms MacDonald-Hill as part of their examination of the system, especially as she chaired so many CCCs and her side of the issue was quoted. Accordingly that aspect of the complaint was not upheld. The Council considers that the reference to a “gravy train” in the headline of the second article suggested she was paid highly for minimal work. It has concluded that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure accuracy, fairness and balance in this respect. Also, the headline did not fairly reflect the tenor of the article, which did not say anything about her level of payment or the nature and amount of the work she does. Accordingly the Council upholds these aspects of the complaint. On the material available to the Council it is unable to resolve the issues around the delay in the correction or its placement.

Complainant/The Daily Telegraph Adjudication 1635 (February 2015) The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by the publication of a photograph in The Daily Telegraph on 21 August 2014. The headline was “Barbarians behead US journalist in grotesque propaganda clip. PURE EVIL”. The image occupied much of the front page and showed journalist, James Foley, kneeling in front of a hooded person who had one hand clasped around Mr Foley’s jaw as the other hand brandished a long knife in close proximity to Mr Foley’s throat. Some other news outlets around the world have published the same image from the video, while others published images showing the knife further away from Mr Foley or, in at least one case, when it had moved closer. The images came from a video apparently posted on the internet by the group often known as Islamic State on the basis of which it was generally believed, and was stated by the publication, that Mr Foley had been beheaded very shortly after the action shown in the published image. The Council asked the publication to comment on whether the front-page image breached its Standards of Practice requiring that reasonable steps be taken to “avoid causing substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest”. The publication said the image was confronting but was greatly in the public interest to show the “wickedness” and “horror” of the Islamic State’s behaviour and also to “let the world see how horrible wars can be”. It likened the image and its impact on public opinion and policy to a famous image published during the Vietnam War of a young girl running naked after being severely burned by a napalm attack. The publication also said the image which it chose from the video was before the execution had “formally started” and did not show the actual beheading, and it “stopped short” of images that had been published by some other outlets.

105

Conclusions The Council considers that the image was likely to cause substantial offence and distress to a significant number of people. This impact was due largely to the close proximity of the knife to Mr Foley’s neck and thus to what readers might have perceived as the actual beheading. On the other hand, the Council agrees it is sometimes in the public interest for people to be exposed in a powerful way to realities which they may find upsetting but about which it is important that public opinion is well-informed. This applies especially to behaviour that, as in this case, is of an extreme kind with which they may not already be familiar and which has potentially far-reaching consequences. The Council considers that the image could well have been published on an inner page without losing its effectiveness. This would have reduced the risk of offence or undue harm to children and others including those who merely saw it in passing. The risk could also have been reduced by choosing, as did many other publications, an image less close to the actual beheading but still powerfully graphic. On balance, however, the Council has concluded that publication of the image was not a breach of its Standards. This is mainly because there was a very strong justification in the public interest due to the extreme behaviour about which it was reasonable to believe readers should be well-informed. The Council welcomes the careful consideration in the publication of images of this nature, but emphasises that where the justification is less powerful than in this case, some images may breach its Standards of Practice if published on the front page even though they would not have done so if published less prominently. The particular placement of material is not usually a matter for consideration by the Council but in some cases it may affect whether the Standards have been breached because, for example, it substantially affects the circumstances in which the material is seen, the range of people who see it, or the nature of its impact on them. Accordingly, the Council has concluded that its Standards of Practice were not breached.

Complainant/Gippsland Times Adjudication 1633 (February 2015) The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article in the Gippsland Times on 15 April 2014 headed “Labor labelled as health ‘hypocrites’”. The article said that according to Victorian Health Minister David Davis, health funding in Central Gippsland had increased under the current Liberal government, contrary to the Opposition’s concerns that severe cuts would be made to funding for Victorian hospitals. The article drew substantially from a press release by Mr Davis on 3 April, “Coalition boosts funding to Central Gippsland Health Service”, including a quote in that release from an earlier press release by the Opposition Leader, Daniel Andrews. The Council asked the publication to comment on whether reasonable steps had been taken to ensure accuracy, fairness and balance in the article. In particular, it asked for comment on the fact that almost all of the article was taken verbatim from the Minister’s press release. Almost all passages taken from the Minister’s release were attributed to him. This was not done, however, in relation to the words “Labor MPs voted against the interests of Victorians and voted in favour of Julia Gillard’s $107 million cut to Victorian hospitals in 2012-13”. The Council asked the publication to comment on why these words had not also been attributed. The publication confirmed the article had been constructed from the Minister’s press release, which it said was not an unusual practice for small regional newspapers. It conceded that, although the publication had very few staff, the failure to attribute one of the statements to Mr Davis should have been noticed and corrected before publication.

106 The publication also said the article accurately quoted from the Minister’s press release and included balancing comment from Mr Andrews’s release. It said it had intended to include other material from the Opposition’s release in an earlier article but had not done so because of space constraints. Conclusions The Press Council considers that newspapers are entitled to draw heavily on a press release provided that in doing so they comply with the Council's Standards in relation to such matters as accuracy, fairness and balance. It emphasises that any material taken from a press release should be presented in such a way that facts or opinion being asserted by the issuer of the release are clearly distinguishable from those being asserted by the publication itself. The Council considers therefore that the article’s heavy reliance on a press release was not in itself a breach of the Council’s Standards of Practice. But the failure to present some material as a statement of opinion from the Minister’s release did constitute a breach. The Council welcomes the publication’s acknowledgement of error and of the need to avoid repetition. It commends this approach for adoption by other publications.

Tony Murphy/The Age Adjudication 1625 (March 2015) The Press Council has considered a complaint by Tony Murphy about a print and online article headed “Former boss at second building union named as scandal widens” with an additional heading “Kickback scandal spreads to second union as former plumbers’ national boss is implicated” on 10 February 2014. The article said Mr Murphy was “implicated in kickbacks for contracts racket” and that the publication “can also reveal that” Mr Murphy, “a former national president and Victorian Assistant Secretary of the Plumbing Trades Employees Union… sought kickbacks from several subcontractors in return for helping them win work on sites”. It said law enforcement agencies “have evidence” that he “demanded payments as part of a cash-for-contracts racket” and that senior plumbers union officials removed him from his role in early 2012 “after hearing allegations of his improper behaviour”. It also said he “could not be reached for comment”. Mr Murphy said he had never sought or accepted kickbacks and the statement that he had been removed from his role in 2012 is incorrect and unfair as he resigned from his role due to health reasons, which had been reported at the time. He said the publication did not ask him to comment before the article appeared, even though he had a publicly-listed telephone with a message bank and a google search would show where he has lived for eight years. He said an associate with whom he had previously worked closely visited him four days before the article appeared and told him of some matters in which The Age was interested but did not tell him about the main allegations that were subsequently published. The publication reiterated the assertions in the article. In relation to contacting Mr Murphy for prior comment, it said that it did not know where he lived and could not get his phone number. It said that during the week or so before the article appeared it spoke with the associate about its intention to write about Mr Murphy’s activities. The associate asked “what does [Tony Murphy] need to know about” and, knowing they had been close associates, the publication then asked him to pass the allegations on to Mr Murphy. It concluded that he would act as an intermediary in this way. The publication later found out from other sources that the associate had done so. It also texted the associate that “if [Mr Murphy] wants to hear what [one of the relevant journalists] wants to ask him, call [the journalist] on [a stated number]”. The associate responded that he did not have any contact details for Mr Murphy. After the article appeared, the publication offered to interview Mr Murphy for a further article but he declined.

107

Conclusions The assertion that Mr Murphy received illegal kickbacks was very serious one and was presented as a statement of fact, not an allegation or suspicion. In these circumstances it is usually necessary in the interests of both accuracy and fairness to make reasonable efforts to contact the person to whom the statement relates so that his or her comments can be taken into account and included to some extent in the article. This may apply even if the publication is firmly and justifiably convinced that the statements are accurate Exceptions to this general requirement may include, for example, situations where advance warning could enable the person to leave the country, to intimidate sources, or to unreasonably seek an injunction to prevent the assertion being published. But the publication did not argue that any such exceptions applied in this case. The information obtainable by the Council does not enable it to be entirely sure whether the publication made reasonable attempts to contact Mr Murphy directly or that its use of the associate as an intermediary was sufficient to ensure reasonable fairness and accuracy. However, the apparently incorrect statement by the associate that he could not contact Mr Murphy, together with the subsequent refusal of Mr Murphy to put his side of the case, tend to confirm the publication’s assertion that he was given sufficient opportunity to comment before and after the article appeared. They also tend to confirm that the publication had taken reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of its assertions. On this basis, the complaints are not upheld.

Complainant/The Observer (Gladstone) Adjudication 1639 (March 2015) The Press Council has considered a complaint about the way in which The Observer (Gladstone) handled a letter to the editor. The complainant said that when submitting the letter she explicitly requested that her name and address be withheld to avoid possible adverse effects on her employment. She said the publication nevertheless published her name with the letter, thereby causing severe repercussions from her employer of which the letter had been critical. The publication acknowledged to the Council that publishing her name was a highly regrettable staff error. It said that the letter should not have been published and she should have been contacted to explain its policy of not publishing anonymous letters. It also said the complainant had been contacted by a senior editor, a sincere oral apology had been made and a written apology had been offered. It said it had taken steps to ensure relevant staff understood its procedures for assessing letters and its requirement for greater consultation with letter writers before publication. Conclusions The Council considers that publishing the complainant’s letter with her name was a very serious and damaging breach of privacy. The request to withhold her name was clear, and there was no ground on which failure to do so could be justified as in the public interest. Accordingly, the complaint is upheld. The Council welcomes the publication’s apology to the complainant. It also welcomes the steps which the publication says have been taken to avoid similar mistakes in future. In the absence of these responses, a formal censure might well have been considered necessary in light of the gravity of the mistake and its predictable consequences.

Jane Butler/Macedon Ranges Free Press Adjudication 1630 (March 2015)

108 The Press Council has considered a complaint by Jane Butler about material published in the Macedon Ranges Free Press on 8 April 2014. The material was headed “CLARIFICATION” and was in a box on the letters page. The “clarification” related to a letter by Ms Butler, published a week earlier, in which she claimed that the Macedon Ranges Shire Council had wrongly issued an Animal Keeping Permit and was not providing honest answers about the issue. The “clarification” said the Shire Council had responded in writing to each of forty queries by Ms Butler and had never denied issuing the permit. The “clarification” had been written at the instigation of the Shire Council but was not attributed to it and Ms Butler was not consulted about it. Ms Butler complained to the Press Council that the “clarification” had implied she was a liar and troublemaker and had stated that her letter incorrectly claimed Macedon Ranges Shire Council officers refused on several occasions to respond to her concerns. She also said the “clarification” had incorrectly stated that the Shire Council never denied issuing an Animal Keeping Permit. She said the publication had refused to publish a letter from her responding to the “clarification”. The publication told the Press Council that the clarification had been based on statements made to it by the Shire Council. It said the second letter by Ms Butler was too long to be published, and that she had had a fair opportunity to express her views in the publication and in public meetings. It also said the letter was inappropriate because the issue had become a legal matter due to her lawyer speaking with the Shire Council’s lawyer. Conclusions The Press Council considers that the “clarification” was presented as if it was a news report. The Council’s Standards of Practice require that reasonable steps are taken to ensure such reports are accurate, fair and balanced. The Press Council has concluded that the “clarification” was inaccurate and unfair in stating that Ms Butler claimed the Macedon Ranges Shire Council had not responded to her queries. In fact, she said it had not replied honestly. The Press Council also considers that the publication did not take reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy, fairness and balance of its statement in the “clarification” that the Shire Council never denied issuing the Animal Keeping Permit. Accordingly, these aspects of the complaint are upheld. The Press Council’s Standards of Practice require that if an article has not been fair and balanced, the publication must provide a reasonable and swift opportunity for a balancing response in an appropriate section of the publication. The Council agrees that the publication was justified in rejecting Ms Butler’s second letter as much too long to be published. But it considers that, in the particular circumstances of this case, the publication should have discussed with her the possibility of providing a shorter version which could be published. Accordingly, this aspect of the complaint is also upheld.

AIMPE/The Australian Financial Review Adjudication 1632 (March 2015) The Press Council has considered a complaint about an article headed “$390k tugboat workers to strike for 40pc rise” in The Australian Financial Review on 7 August 2014. It reported that tugboat operator Teekay Shipping would seek a Federal Court injunction against proposed strike action over wage and shift conditions by 52 members of the Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers (AIMPE) employed at Port Hedland. The article was published two days before the proposed strike and said it would lead to suspension of tugboat services and significant delays to exports worth about $100m per day. Andrew Williamson of the AIMPE complained that the headline was inaccurate and misleading by implying all 52 engineers earned $390,000 per annum and that the dispute centred on a 40% pay rise. He said the base salary for the engineers was $229,000 and even the three who received housing allowances in Port Hedland did not receive total remuneration as high as $390,000.

109

The complainant also said it was inaccurate and misleading to allege the claim was for a “40pc rise”. He said an ambit claim for an increase of 38% over four years was made 13 months before the article appeared but had progressively been reduced to 14% over four years by the time the article was published. He said he made this clear to the journalist and the claim was reported accurately in the article itself but the headline reference was misleading and grossly unfair. The publication responded that the reference to $390,000 accurately reported Teekay as saying that when account is taken of housing and other subsidies, engineers at Port Hedland could earn between $280,000 and $390,000 per year. It said the reference to the 40% claim reflected the union’s formal log of claim which equated to 38% over four years and had been rounded to 40% in the headline. The publication said it was not possible to encapsulate all of the claims in the headline, but when read together with the article both sides’ positions had been reflected accurately. It said the reduction to a 14% claim had not been placed in writing at that time of publication but the article had quoted the union as saying “it was pushing for a 14 per cent increase, or 3.5 per cent a year”. The publication also said in response to Mr Williamson’s subsequent complaint it had offered him an opportunity to further explain the position in a letter to the editor. Conclusions The Press Council has concluded that the headline was inaccurate, misleading and unfair in describing the engineers as “390k tugboat workers” when that figure was at the top of a large range of earnings across which individual tugboat workers earnings might lie. The Council has arrived at the same conclusion about the description of the claim as being for a “40pc rise” when the claim had been reduced to 14% over four years not to a single year. The article itself described each of these aspects of the situation more accurately than did the headline, but that does not adequately compensate for the failings of the headline. It cannot generally be assumed that readers of a striking but inaccurate headline will also read and analyse all or most of an accompanying article which explains the situation more accurately. As there was no adequate justification for such an assumption in this case, the complaint is upheld.

Kylie Keel/The Moorabool News Adjudication 1643 (March 2015) The Press Council has considered a complaint by Kylie Keel about material on The Moorabool News Facebook page relating to a collision between a car and a tree on 9 October 2014. The driver, who was the only occupant, later died in hospital. Ms Keel is a member of the driver’s family. She said the images of the accident scene and some readers’ comments on the page caused great offence to the family and breached its privacy. She said some images, including of responders kneeling over what might have been the driver’s body, were posted within about 30 minutes of the collision when most of the family had not been informed. Ms Keel also complained about some offensive and distressing comments by readers on the page. These included: “20 year old kid… deserves what he got not the poor old tree”, “thankfully the idiot travelling at 150km per hour is not on our roads tonight”, and “he did it deliberately”. She said the publication refused family members’ requests to remove these comments, even though it had removed one comment that included a coarse word, and another about a member of the editor’s family. The publication said the incident was of significant public interest because the local community was greatly concerned about the high rate of serious accidents on the highway in question. It said the images were also justified to graphically emphasise the possible consequences of unsafe driving. The publication said the limited control provided to people who set up a Facebook page meant it was a contributor to the page, not a publisher. It said readers’ comments on Facebook were very difficult for such a small publication to monitor. It said users of social media choose what to contribute or see, and in

110 some ways the medium was “self-adjudicating”. It pointed out that several comments were sympathetic to the family and some directly criticised disparaging comments about the driver. The publication said police at the scene told it the driver’s father had been informed. It also said that it could not reasonably wait until it knew all members had been formally advised of the collision, especially as the family in this case was extensive and complex. However, it said it did not name the driver or show images that would enable the car to be identified as belonging to him, and it had withheld other information about the driver and collision that might have invaded privacy or caused offence or distress. Conclusions The Council’s Standards of Practice require reasonable steps to avoid publishing material that could reasonably be expected to cause or contribute to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or risks to public health or safety, unless it is sufficiently justifiable to do so in the public interest. They also require reasonable steps to avoid intruding on reasonable expectations of privacy, again subject to the public interest exemption. In relation to the publication of images, the Council appreciates they would have been distressing to family members in particular. But it considers they were not so graphic – especially as they did not show the driver – that they overrode the public interest justification of trying to deter dangerous driving in an area where it is common. Also, taking account of the relative lack of identifying features in the images, the police statement about the father’s knowledge and the complexity of the family in question, the Council does not consider the images were published so rapidly as to breach its Standards. Accordingly, those aspects of the complaint are not upheld. In relation to the readers’ comments, the Council emphasises that its Standards of Practice apply to its members’ Facebook and other social media platforms, not only to their print and other online publications. If a publication establishes a Facebook page, it is a publisher of that page even if Facebook may also be regarded as a publisher. Accordingly, it must take reasonable steps to monitor readers’ comments and delete them if they breach the Council’s Standards, especially if particular material is reasonably likely to lead to readers’ comments that constitute a breach. In this case, the publication noticed and deleted some comments, but not those that the driver’s family understandably found to be very offensive. Indeed, it did not delete them even when asked to do so by the family. The fact that by then the report and comments may already have been read widely does not justify failing to delete them. Accordingly, this aspect of the complaint is upheld.

Complainant/The Weekend Australian Adjudication 1637 (April 2015) The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by a front-page photograph in The Weekend Australian on 19-20 July 2014 of part of the crash site of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH 17. The colour image was about 9x10cm in size, in the bottom left-hand corner of the page, and accompanied by an article headed “Brackets, seats and bodies… it’s 100 per cent civilian”. In the foreground of the image were two or three clothed figures, one of which was apparently female and lying on her side with an elbow raised in the air. Another figure appeared to be partially covered by plane wreckage, but the nature and colour of their clothing was distinct. After receiving a complaint, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether publishing the image in this manner breached the Standards of Practice about privacy and the sensibilities of individuals, especially those who may have had connections with victims of the crash. It also asked whether the image could reasonably have been expected to cause greater offence than was justified by any countervailing benefits in the broader public interest. The publication said the image was confronting but conveyed the truth of a tragic event which was a “horror”, and of significant public interest with far-reaching political consequences. It emphasised the significance of the fact that a substantial number of Australians died in the crash.

111

The publication said the decision to publish the image was made after careful consideration by its senior staff. It said the image was much less graphic than many that were widely available, some of which had been published in print and online around the world. It also said the image had been cropped to ensure particular bodies were not identifiable, and had been deliberately placed “below the fold” of the page in order to reduce the likelihood of being seen by incidental readers or passers-by. On the following day an editorial explained its reasons for publishing the image, and they were also explained in a letter to people who had complained directly to the publication. Conclusions The Council considers that the graphic depiction of bodies was confronting. It was likely to cause substantial offence and distress to a significant number of people, especially as the full impact of the tragedy was still unfolding and many of the victims were Australian. The Council considers that the nature and scale of the disaster, including the death of many Australians and the controversy about its cause, provided a very strong justification in the public interest for powerfully conveying the tragic consequences. It was also important, however, to avoid causing undue distress and especially to avoid the risk of victims’ relatives or friends being able to identify the bodies. The Council notes the steps taken by the publication to reduce these risks. It also notes, however, that the risks could have been further reduced by placing the image on an inside page or pixilating parts of the image which might enable identification of victims or unduly exacerbate distress in some other way. These kinds of steps were taken by a number of other publications. On balance, however, the Council does not consider that a clear breach of its Standards of Practice has occurred. This is due mainly to the steps taken by the publication to reduce the risk of severe offence or breaches of privacy; the scale of the tragedy; the undoubted public importance of its alleged causes and implications; and the number of Australian victims. Where such factors do not apply, publishing images of this kind in this manner may well breach the Council’s Standards, especially if there is a significant risk of bodies being identifiable by some readers. Note (not required for publication): The image also appeared in the online version of the publication but it was not put on the homepage and therefore was not as likely to be seen unwittingly by readers or passers-by. The Council considers that there should have been a warning on the homepage link but, as with the print version, it considers that in the particular circumstances of this case there was no clear breach of the Standards of Practice.

Macquarie Group Ltd/The Sydney Morning Herald Adjudication 1641 (April 2015) The Press Council has considered a complaint by Macquarie Group Ltd (“Macquarie”) about articles published in the print and online editions of The Sydney Morning Herald from 1-5 August 2014. The two articles of principal concern appeared in print on 2 August. One was headed “Financial planning: Existence of ‘Penske File’ revealed. Macquarie supplied cheat sheet to advisers” (published online on 1 August headed “Macquarie advisers cheated on competency test and exposed clients”). The second was headed “Down the hole: The silver doughnut that left a big hole” (published online on 2 August headed “Macquarie Private Wealth: The silver doughnut that left a big hole in investors’ nest eggs”). Allegations of cheating Macquarie complained that the headline of the first article inaccurately and unfairly implied that the corporation’s subsidiary, Macquarie Private Wealth (“MPW”), had assisted its financial advisers to cheat in compulsory competency examinations by giving them a “cheat sheet” of answers which the publication dubbed “the Penske file”. Macquarie also complained that it had not been given a fair opportunity to comment before publication on the allegation that conduct was of the corporation itself (rather than only action by some staff), and that its subsequent responses were not adequately reported. It pointed out that the publication asked

112 whether it knew the relevant material had been “circulated” amongst its advisers and, if so by whom, but did not ask whether management had been involved in doing so. It said it was given only 24 hours to respond to these and many other specific questions on the matter. The publication responded that neither the headline nor the text of the first article suggested Macquarie had officially authorised cheating by the MPW advisers. But the publication said it knew from reliable sources that the cheating had been well-known at very senior levels. It said Macquarie had been asked some detailed questions in writing relating to one of the matters in the weeks before the first article appeared, and further detailed written questions were sent approximately 36 hours before, but in both instances Macquarie did not provide any specific replies despite a follow-up call by the publication. It said the only points of substance in Macquarie’s response had been reported in the first article. It also said further written questions had been sent after the first article appeared but again no substantive response was provided. Allegations of misclassification Macquarie complained that the second article inaccurately and unfairly implied it had deliberately misclassified some clients as sophisticated investors. It focused particularly on the statement: “A Fairfax Media Investigation can reveal that [a named client is] one of hundreds – possibly thousands – of customers of Macquarie who may have been deliberately misclassified as sophisticated or wholesale investors rather than retail investors to avoid paperwork and the extra regulatory requirements attached to retail clients”. It said the only example the publication gave for this allegation had not been misclassified, and had always been treated by it as a retail client. Macquarie also complained that it had not been given a fair opportunity to respond beforehand to the proposed allegations, especially that it had deliberately misclassified clients to avoid regulatory requirements, or to respond to the case of the named client on which the article focused heavily as an example of the alleged conduct and consequences. It said that had the case of the named client been put to Macquarie, it would have given a detailed response about it. It complained that it had been given only 24 hours to respond to many detailed questions on the matter and that its subsequent response had not been adequately reported by the publication. The publication responded that several reliable sources, including the named client and the wording of mass MPW mail-outs to clients, supported the second article’s allegations of misclassifications. It said the article stated only that deliberate misclassification “may” have occurred, not that it definitely did occur. It said that no specific responses had been given to the detailed questions sent to Macquarie, and that if requested it would have given Macquarie more time to answer. It said the case of the named client had not been raised beforehand with Macquarie because the client had been very hesitant about having his affairs and identity published, and it feared that if Macquarie was given advance notice he might be persuaded to withdraw his permission. Conclusions The Council’s Standards of Practice require reasonable steps to ensure factual material is accurate, not misleading, and reasonably fair and balanced; and to publish corrections or take other adequate remedial action in response to any significant inaccuracies. They also require reasonable steps to ensure that opinions are readily distinguishable from facts, and that people adversely referred to in an article are given a fair opportunity for publication of a reply. The Council considers that the headline in the first article implied that assistance to cheat had been provided with high-level corporate approval. The text, however, referred only to “a document circulated by management” and did not provide evidence to support this or the allegation implicit in the headline. While the Council is not in a position to determine whether management circulated such a document, the complaint about the headline is upheld for failure to take reasonable steps to ensure fairness. The Council considers that Macquarie was given a fair opportunity to provide relevant information and comment on the issue of whether a document was circulated and that its responses were adequately reported. In coming to this conclusion, the Council took account of the fact that, being a large and

113 sophisticated corporation, Macquarie was given sufficient notice to respond or to negotiate in good faith for extra time to do so. Accordingly, the complaint on that ground is not upheld. The Council considers the second article’s conjecture that misclassifications might have been deliberate, and about the motives for doing so, was serious enough that Macquarie needed to be given specific notice and a fair opportunity for its response to be included in the article. The failure to do so was unreasonable, even after taking account of Macquarie’s apparent reluctance to respond to specific questions. Accordingly, that aspect of the complaint is upheld for failure to ensure reasonable fairness. In view of the prominence and emphasis given to the experiences of the named client, there was a strong case for Macquarie being given a prior opportunity to comment on his case. On the other hand, the client’s hesitancy about revealing his identity, and the company’s generally uncooperative response to the publication’s investigations, lead the Council to conclude, on balance, that the complaint on that ground should not be upheld. In many other circumstances, however, a prominent case study of this kind should be disclosed in time for comment before publication. The Council considers that Macquarie’s responses to the second article were reasonably reported. Accordingly, the complaint on that ground is not upheld. Note (not required for publication): The Council also considered the following articles, but found they did not raise any grounds for upholding a complaint: “The questions Macquarie won’t answer”, (online 4 August 2014); “Class-action lawyers loom over Macquarie”, “Lawyers sniff money in the making over Macquarie advice” (pp 21 and 28, 4 August 2014); and “Doubts over Macquarie Private Wealth compensation”, (p 12, 5 August 2014).

Macquarie Group Ltd/The Age Adjudication 1642 (April 2015) The Press Council has considered a complaint by Macquarie Group Ltd (“Macquarie”) about articles published in the print and online editions of The Age from 1-5 August 2014. The two articles of principal concern appeared in print on 2 August. One was headed “Macquarie advisers used ‘cheat’ document (published online on 1 August headed “Macquarie advisers cheated on competency test and exposed clients”). The second was headed “Down the hole: The silver doughnut that left a big hole” (published online on 2 August headed “Macquarie Private Wealth: The silver doughnut that left a big hole in investors’ nest eggs”). Allegations of cheating Macquarie complained that it had not been given a fair opportunity to comment before publication on whether the alleged circulation was by the corporation itself (rather than only action by some staff), and that its subsequent responses were not adequately reported. It pointed out that the publication asked whether it knew the relevant material had been “circulated” amongst its advisers, and if so by whom, but did not ask whether management had been involved in doing so. It said it was given only 24 hours to respond to these and many other specific questions on the matter. The publication responded that Macquarie had been asked some detailed questions in writing relating to one of the matters in the weeks before the first article appeared, and further detailed written questions were sent approximately 36 hours before, but in both instances Macquarie did not provide any specific replies despite a follow-up call by the publication. It said the only points of substance in Macquarie’s response had been reported in the first article. It also said further written questions had been sent after the first article appeared but again no substantive response was provided. Allegations of misclassification Macquarie complained that the second article inaccurately and unfairly implied that it had deliberately misclassified some clients as sophisticated investors. It focused particularly on the statement: “A Fairfax Media Investigation can reveal that [a named client is] one of hundreds – possibly thousands – of customers of Macquarie who may have been deliberately misclassified as sophisticated or wholesale

114 investors rather than retail investors to avoid paperwork and the extra regulatory requirements attached to retail clients”. It said the only example the publication gave for this allegation had not been misclassified, and had always been treated by it as a retail client. Macquarie also complained that it had not been given a fair opportunity to respond beforehand to the proposed allegations, especially that it had deliberately misclassified clients to avoid regulatory requirements, or to respond to the case of the named client on which the article focused heavily as an example of the alleged conduct and consequences. It said that had the case of the named client been put to Macquarie, it would have given a detailed response about it. It complained that it had been given only 24 hours to respond to many detailed questions on the matter and that its subsequent response had not been adequately reported by the publication. The publication responded that several reliable sources, including the named client and the wording of mass MPW mail-outs to clients, supported the second article’s allegations of misclassifications. It said the article stated only that deliberate misclassification “may” have occurred, not that it definitely did occur. It said no specific responses had been given to the detailed questions sent to Macquarie, and that if requested it would have given Macquarie more time to answer. It said the case of the named client had not been raised beforehand with Macquarie because the client had been very hesitant about having his affairs and identity published and it feared that if Macquarie was given advance notice he might be persuaded to withdraw his permission. Conclusions The Council’s Standards of Practice require reasonable steps to ensure factual material is accurate, not misleading, and reasonably fair and balanced; and to publish corrections or take other adequate remedial action in response to any significant inaccuracies. They also require reasonable steps to ensure that opinions are readily distinguishable from facts, and that people adversely referred to in an article are given a fair opportunity for publication of a reply. In relation to the first article, the Council considers that Macquarie was given a fair opportunity to provide relevant information and comment on the issue of whether a document was circulated and that its responses were adequately reported. In coming to this conclusion, the Council took account of the fact that, being a large and sophisticated corporation, Macquarie was given sufficient notice to respond or to negotiate in good faith for extra time to do so. Accordingly, the complaint on that ground is not upheld. The Council considers that the second article’s conjecture that misclassifications might have been deliberate, and about the motives for doing so, was serious enough that Macquarie needed to be given specific notice and a fair opportunity for its response to be included in the article. The failure to do so was unreasonable, even after taking account of Macquarie’s apparent reluctance to respond to specific questions. Accordingly, that aspect of the complaint is upheld for failure to ensure reasonable fairness. In view of the prominence and emphasis given to the experiences of the named client, there was a strong case for Macquarie being given a prior opportunity to comment on his case. On the other hand, the client’s hesitancy about revealing his identity, and the company’s generally uncooperative response to the publication’s investigations, lead the Council to conclude, on balance, that the complaint on that ground should not be upheld. In many other circumstances, however, a prominent case study of this kind should be disclosed in time for comment before publication. The Council considers that Macquarie’s responses to the second article were reasonably reported. Accordingly, the complaint on that ground is not upheld. Note (not required for publication): The Council also considered the following articles, but found they did not raise any grounds for upholding a complaint: “The questions Macquarie won’t answer”, (online 4 August 2014); “Class-action lawyers loom over Macquarie”, “Lawyers sniff money in the making over Macquarie advice” (pp 21 and 28, 4 August 2014); and “Doubts over Macquarie Private Wealth compensation”, (p 12, 5 August 2014).

115

Diane Frola/The Sun-Herald Adjudication 1631 (April 2015) The Press Council has considered a complaint by Diane Frola about two articles in The Sun-Herald on 9 and 16 February 2014 respectively. The first was headed “Nine battles to keep telemovie on the air” in print and “Channel Nine battles to keep Schapelle Corby telemovie on air” online. The second was headed “Corby a magnet for conspiracy theorists” in print and “Schapelle Corby a magnet for conspiracy theorists” online. The first article said Ms Frola “has her own page” on a website run by supporters of Ms Corby called The Expendable Project and “has uploaded videos” to the site. The second article said she and another named person were a “global collaboration” behind the website and claim to have exposed a conspiracy involving the Australian and Indonesian governments, media and others. It said she is a ‘hanger-on’, “Queensland UFO fanatic, anti-vaccine crusader, fluoride sceptic and conspiracy theorist”, “the UFO lady” who has “a career... publishing… conspiracy theories”, and “the editor of the magazine Hard Evidence, which deals with… the paranormal, crop circles, alien abductions and ‘government conspiracies’”. Ms Frola complained that the articles were inaccurate and misleading in stating or implying she had a strong relationship with the Expendable Project website. She said she did not have a page on it, did not have access to upload videos to the site and was not in a “global collaboration” behind it. She claimed the descriptions of her as a “fanatic” and “conspiracy theorist” were inaccurate and unfair, as was the implication that her involvement with the magazine meant she necessarily believed assertions in it. She said the publication’s email to her before the articles appeared did not ask any specific questions about matters subsequently included in them. She said she replied that she would not answer questions. She also complained that the publication had not complied with her subsequent requests for a retraction. The publication responded by saying the website had a specific page for videos posted by her. It said an interview on the website describes her as part of an international group involved in a movie based on the website, and the link to the interview describes it as Ms Frola discussing “her documentary The Expendable Project." It said she promoted the website from her Facebook page and included its address on her Twitter account. It said donations to The Expendable Project were collected through an account linked to her email address. However, she told the Council this only occurred while she was seeking donations to pay for a transcript of court proceedings she had attended with Schapelle Corby’s sister. The publication also said her interest in UFOs was mentioned in her own online biography and confirmed by her editing the magazine Hard Evidence. It said a posting by her had accused the Australian Federal Police of "suppressing" information about Schapelle Corby. The publication said before the first article appeared it sent questions to an email address provided by her, made many attempts to chase up a reply, and just before publication received a message that she was “unable to assist”. It said subsequent comments on Facebook suggested she never had any intention of responding. It also said before the second article was published, its correspondent happened to meet her but she declined his request to comment. Conclusions The Council’s Standards of Practice require publications to take reasonable care to ensure accuracy, fairness and balance. The Council considers there were sufficient grounds for asserting Ms Frola had a close link to the website and the project, especially as she had refused the prior opportunity to comment. It also considers that, especially in light of that refusal, the publication did not fail to take reasonable steps to ensure fairness in its other statements about her interests and beliefs. The Council has not been provided with any evidence which was sufficiently decisive to require that a correction be published. Accordingly, the complaint against the publication is not upheld. In arriving at this conclusion, the Council is not stating a firm view as to whether the publication’s statements about Ms Frola were accurate. The relevant Standard requires only that reasonable steps were taken to ensure accuracy.

116 Note (not required for publication): Ms Frola complained that the caption on a video linked to the online version of the second article inaccurately said she was the wife of the other person shown in it. After the Council notified this complaint to the publication, the error was promptly corrected. In the particular circumstances of this matter, the Council considered the publication’s conduct breached the Standards of Practice but was not sufficiently serious to require the complaint on this ground be upheld.

Complainant/The Sunday Mail Adjudication 1636 (April 2015) The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by material on page 54 of The Sunday Mail on 25 May 2014 headed “Poll supports asset sales”. The same text appeared online under the heading “Editorial: Galaxy poll shows Queenslanders support asset sales”. The material was not designated as an editorial but it appeared under a heading “Sunday Mail” and was part of a page very prominently headed “COMMENT”. The text of the print and online material included the statement that “[o]ur Galaxy Poll today clearly shows that Queenslanders are embracing asset sales rather than reduce government services or increase taxes”. The material did not provide any statistical results, methodology or other details of the poll. There was no reference to any place where such details might be found. An article on page 8 of the print version did not provide these details. A separate online article on the same day said the survey involved 800 Queenslanders and found “38 per cent of peopled believed asset sales were the best option to reduce debt, compared to 21 per cent for increased taxes and 24 per cent for reduced services”. The Council asked the publication to comment on whether the print material on page 54 and the online editorial complied with the Council’s General Principle 6 that “publications are free to advocate their own views... as long as readers can recognise what is fact and what is opinion. Relevant facts should not be misrepresented or suppressed”. The publication said this print and online material was clearly recognisable to readers as being an expression of opinion in an editorial. It said that sufficient supporting details of the survey and its results had been published in the report on page 8 of the print version and in the separate online article. The publication also provided the Council with further detail of the questions asked in the survey, the statistical results, and other matters. Conclusions The Council considers that the material in question was sufficiently identifiable as being part of an editorial or of a comment piece. However, not all statements in an editorial or comment piece are necessarily expressions of opinion or recognisable as such, rather than being or appearing to be statements of fact. In this case, the unexplained and unqualified reference to the poll results relating to asset sales, government services and taxes was not distinguishable as the publication’s opinion about the meaning of the poll. The material was likely to be read as a statement of fact. The failure to indicate where detail of the poll findings and methodology could be found and the fact that the detail which was provided elsewhere did not enable readers to ascertain whether the statement in the material was opinion or fact, meant that relevant facts were not disclosed. Accordingly, the Council considers that the print material on page 54 and the online editorial were in breach of General Principle 6. It recommends that publications consider the Council’s Advisory Guideline on opinion polls which it issued in 2001.

117

Complainant/The Age Adjudication 1638 (May 2015) The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by online reporting in The Age on 2 October 2014 relating to James Hird, coach of the Essendon Football Club in the Australian Football League (AFL). On 2 October, a headline “James Hird removed as Essendon coach” was posted on the homepage of the publication. It was linked to an article supporting the statement in the headline, however Mr Hird was not in fact removed and continued to be the coach. After receiving complaints, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether the material in its original form breached its Standards of Practice requiring reasonable steps to be taken to ensure accuracy, fairness and balance. It also asked for comment on whether the publication had breached the Standard of Practice requiring reasonable steps to ensure that a correction or other adequate remedial action is provided. The publication said the original statement that Mr Hird had been removed was from a reliable source but it gradually became clear that circumstances had subsequently changed at Essendon. After several hours, the headline was changed to read “James Hird will be removed as Essendon coach in coming days”. Corresponding changes were made in an update to the accompanying article. The publication said the error was “one of timing” resulting from an extremely fast-moving story which it was “adjusting through the day”. It also said it addressed the online error in its next print edition on 3 October in a front page article headlined “Day of execution becomes stay of execution” and a rear page article “Hird axing delayed”. In addition, there was a follow-up piece headed “Essendon still pointing fingers” on 4 October, in which the journalist wrote that she “regrettably reported wrongly that Hird had already been removed […b]ut the firm belief remains that Hird will not coach Essendon again”. Conclusions The publication conceded that the headline on 2 October was inaccurate. The article concerned a matter of widespread interest and considerable importance within the AFL community. Accordingly, it was necessary to be especially rigorous before making the statement, or to make a more qualified and less emphatic statement. The Council concludes that reasonable steps were not taken to justify a report that the removal had already occurred. The Council concludes that its Standard of Practice relating to accuracy was breached in this respect. The Council’s Standards also require that reasonable steps be taken to publish a correction or take other adequate remedial action where published material is significantly inaccurate or misleading. While the correction in the article of 4 October was insufficiently prominent on its own to meet the Standards, the publication promptly updated the online version of the story, and the headline in the print version of 3 October left no doubt amongst readers that Mr Hird had not in fact been removed as coach. Given the steps taken by the publication, the Council is not satisfied that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to provide adequate remedial action and accordingly, there was no breach in this respect.

NECA/The Australian Adjudication 1646 (June 2015) The Press Council considered a complaint by the National Electrical and Communications Association (NECA) about two articles published in the print and online editions of The Australian on 9 September 2014, headed “A dirty deal that sold members down river” and another article on 27 September 2014, headed “Employers do the heavy lifting, unions count their luck”. Suresh Manikam of NECA complained that the articles were inaccurate and misleading in saying that NECA “received secret commissions” and had “forced” or “pushed” members into a “union enterprise bargaining agreement” (EBA) or a “pattern” EBA. He said only a small number of NECA members enter into EBAs with the Electrical Trades Union (ETU) and that NECA only negotiates these when nominated by

118 a member to do so. Mr Manikam said further that some members may choose to negotiate directly with the ETU and some may choose not to enter into any agreement at all. Mr Manikam said NECA is represented on the board of two Australian Tax Office-approved severance funds set up for the exclusive use of the electrical industry and for which NECA receives directors’ fees and a distribution according to the success of the fund. He said this income was not “secret” as it is included in NECA’s accounts, published to all of its members, filed with the Fair Work Commission and audited by an external auditor. NECA said it wrote a letter to the publication after the first article to draw its attention to these inaccuracies and concerns. However, it was not published, nor were these aspects of the article clarified or corrected in any subsequent articles. It said the publication of a short letter by a former state director of NECA, several weeks later, was not an adequate response to the issues raised. The publication said the articles were opinion pieces and labelled as such, and that the writer was expressing a view on NECA’s practices. It said the comments that NECA “forced”, “pushed” and “gets” employers to sign union EBAs was a comment on the behaviour of employer groups in these situations to encourage all members to sign template agreements. The publication said the term “secret commissions” was a comment on the absence of express disclosure by NECA to its members at the time such union EBAs were being negotiated. The publication said that although the fees and disbursements NECA earned through severance funds are published in the company’s accounts, most members would not have been sufficiently alerted to know whether and how to find this information. The publication also said that it published the letter from a former state director of NECA in response to the second article, which it suggested had addressed both aspects of the complainant’s concerns. Conclusions The Press Council concludes that the statement in the first article that NECA had “forced” its members into pattern EBAs was not an accurate reflection of NECA’s business practice – which was to represent those members that requested NECA to negotiate on their behalf. Council notes that the articles were opinion pieces and the writer was entitled to express her view on what she claims is a lack of disclosure by NECA about its returns from severance funds, when putting an EBA to a member to sign. However, Council notes that the term “secret commissions” used in this context tends to connote illicit payments, and the article lacked fairness and balance in omitting to state that the payments were in fact disclosed in NECA’s accounts. Accordingly, these aspects of the complaint are upheld. Council also considers that NECA’s letter of 10 September raised claims of serious inaccuracies, but this was not remedied in the second article on 27 September. The first article contained references which were significantly adverse to NECA and the publication had an obligation to provide a fair opportunity for it to respond. Rather, the only response published by the publication was several weeks after publication of the contentious claims and was from a former state director of the Association. Accordingly, Council concludes that reasonable steps were not taken to provide a published response from NECA or other adequate remedial action and these aspects of the complaint are also upheld.

Complainant/The Australian Financial Review Adjudication 1640 (June 2015) The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by a print and online article “When babies are a good career move” in The Australian Financial Review on 3 September 2014. The writer refers to what she calls the “gender pay gap” as being “18.2%... its highest level in 30 years”. She describes this gap as a measure of “the difference between what men and women are paid for the same job, same hours”. She quotes in support a report by the Federal Government’s Workplace Gender and Equality Agency that the “national gender pay gap” is 18.2%. However, the agency’s report defines

119 that gap as “the difference between women’s and men’s average weekly full-time equivalent earnings, expressed as a percentage of men’s earnings”. After receiving a complaint, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether it had taken reasonable steps to ensure factual material is accurate and not misleading. It also asked the publication to comment on whether it had taken reasonable steps to provide a correction or other adequate remedial action in relation to material which is significantly inaccurate or misleading. The publication said the author’s use of the term “gender pay gap” was a “colloquial” and “short hand term” for what “plenty of people would describe” as the gender pay gap. It conceded, however, that the gap was defined and measured in a different way by the report on which she relied when stating that the gap was 18.2%, and therefore her statement was “technically inaccurate”. But it said that a reader’s concerns on the point would be adequately addressed by writing a letter to the editor, which it would have seriously considered for publication. Conclusions The Council considers that the article clearly stated as fact that the “gender pay gap” was 18.2% when measured by reference to remuneration for the “same job, same hours”. However, the agency report on which it relied for this statistic defined and measured the gap as being, in effect, for the same hours but not necessarily in the same jobs. As this method was made clear in the agency report itself, and the difference is of considerable significance, the Council has concluded there was a failure to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is accurate and not misleading. Accordingly, there was a breach of the Council’s Standards in this respect. The Council’s Standards require a publication to provide a correction or other adequate remedial action if a significant inaccuracy occurs. In this instance, the publication failed to do so even after the inaccuracy had been brought to its attention by the Council. Where an inaccuracy is significant and not reasonably disputable, as in this case, it is usually necessary for the publication to make the correction in its own name rather than to treat it as if just a dispute between two opinions that can be remedied adequately by publishing a letter to the editor. Accordingly, the Council has concluded that there was a breach of the Standards of Practice in this respect.

Complainant/New Weekly (NW) Adjudication 1645 (June 2015) The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article in New Weekly (NW) magazine on 5 January 2015, headlined “Full-colour photo prince”. In the article a large photo depicts a group of young African children sitting with UK Prince Harry, who is holding a camera, apparently showing them pictures on its screen. The image is captioned with speech bubbles, and Prince Harry’s speech bubble says to the children ‘these are the “private” Christmas pics’. A second speech bubble positioned below one of the young boys says ‘Hot damn! Granny is a GILF’ (an acronym for Grandmother I’d Like to F-ck). Text accompanying the picture says “Prince Harry is pretty focused on his charity Sentebale – which translates as ‘Touching Tiny Lives’ and provides health care and education for kids - as he visits youngsters in Lesotho”. The Council asked the publication to comment on whether the material breached its Standards of Practice that require reasonable steps be taken to “avoid causing substantial offence, distress or prejudice… unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest". The publication said that NW is principally a celebrity gossip magazine and a “satirical” publication, and is clearly understood as such by its readers. It said the relevant photograph and caption (“Hot damn! Granny is a GILF”) appeared in the magazine’s ‘Week in Pics’ section, in which the tone is “silly and fun”. The publication said the captions were clearly not the Prince’s own words and were intended as a light hearted joke, characteristic of the type of material commonly featured in the magazine.

120 The publication said it did not consider the treatment offensive or as sexualising the children featured in the photograph. It said publication of the material was within the bounds of freedom of expression and it had received no other complaints about the material. It said ‘GILF’ and other similar acronyms - such as ‘MILF’ and ‘DILF’ - were now part of common parlance and were not intended to be read literally as a sexual term, but instead carried the connotation that a woman was “pretty”. NW said such terms had been used in headlines and other editorial matter, although the publication was unable to indicate whether it had been previously applied in connection with children, as occurred in this case. Conclusions The Council considers that the image involves children in a sexual theme, and many readers would consider the material to be inappropriate and offensive for this reason. The Council notes that if the image had depicted adults in a similar way, the level of offence probably would have been greatly diminished, suggesting that greater care needs to be exercised in the treatment of children when publishing such material. On balance, however, the Council concludes that the level of offence must be considered in the overall context of the magazine and its readership, and was not so substantially offensive as to breach the Council’s Standards.

121