ANNUAL REPORT 2015-2016 No

ANNUAL REPORT 2015-2016 No. 40

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 2015-2016

Annual Report No. 40 Year ending 30 June 2016 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

ISSN 0156-1308

Chair’s Foreword This Annual Report covers the financial year 2015-2016, a period characterised both by consolidation and remarkable change. First and foremost, the Australian Press Council celebrated its 40th anniversary with a major international conference on press freedom in Sydney in May 2016. The conference was a huge success, bringing together all parts of the news media in Australia to discuss the critical issues facing us. The Conference was very well-supported by Council members and other sponsors, enabling us to fly in a number of international journalism stars to add a richness and gravitas to the occasion. (See Chapter 5 and Appendix 6.) When the Council was first established in 1976, it was a fragile body. Few paediatricians would have given it 40 years or more to live. There have certainly been ups and down over the decades, but the Council is now firmly fixed in the media landscape and playing a very active and positive role in the interests of both publishers and the general community.

The Press Council’s first Strategic Plan All Press Council members and Secretariat staff engaged in a highly collegial process to develop, workshop and finally approve the organisation’s first ever Strategic Plan, covering 2016-2020. The document itself is important and will be influential, but at least as critical was the high level of good will, energy and constructive engagement that went into its making. In effect, the Strategic Plan has two parts. The first is more reflective and high level, clarifying the Council’s mission, identifying the key challenges and opportunities, and specifying the organisational traits necessary to enable success. The second part identifies our three core objectives (developing and refining the standards of practice; effective complaints-handling; and vigorous advocacy for free speech and press freedom) and the strategies for meeting them. The Strategic Plan crystallises and formalises what I have been publicly emphasising since I assumed my role as the Chair: the prevailing ethos must be that we are all—publishers, editors, journalists, Council staff and readers—part of a shared enterprise to maintain high standards of journalism and to do everything we possibly can to ensure a free and vigorous press.

The Press Council’s first Reconciliation Action Plan In this reporting period, the Press Council also engaged in a consultative process to develop the organisation’s first (and long overdue) Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP), which was submitted to Reconciliation Australia for endorsement. The RAP notes that Australia’s news media routinely identify and report on the systemic disadvantages experienced by most Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, particularly those living in remote areas, including in relation to poor health outcomes, lower than desirable educational outcomes and unconscionable arrest and incarceration rates. The provision of this sort of material to the general community is essential in highlighting the critical need for policies and programs aimed at “closing the gap” between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.

Refining the complaints-handling process The Press Council seeks to provide an important service to the community and the industry 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. A detailed breakdown of the complaints experience in this reporting year is provided elsewhere in this Report. In common with other complaints-handling bodies, the Council is continuously seeking to refine its processes to make them more streamlined and efficient, and more responsive to feedback from both complainants and publications, even as the number and complexity of complaints continue to grow. Two major innovations were launched this year to facilitate more efficient complaints-handling and better reporting. First, the Council selected, purchased and introduced a completely new, information management and database system to track all complaints, from initial reception to final disposition. This

3 new Resolve software (which replaces the previous system that required cutting and pasting of information across a number of different databases and maintaining copious paper-based files) should promote much more efficient and consistent handling of complaints, as well as facilitating more sophisticated reporting and analysis. Second, the Press Council has instituted a second track to the adjudication system, with a new Direct Adjudication available in suitable matters, in which complaints can be determined by a three-person panel solely on the papers, rather than requiring the parties to participate. The aim is to provide greater speed and flexibility in the disposition of complaints that require an adjudicated outcome, but do not contain particularly novel or complex issues.

Monitoring and improving the Standards of Practice The Council is committed to learning from the complaints-handling experience and any other feedback indicating that changing technology, laws or community expectations or sensibilities mean that Council should review its Standards of Practice and perhaps develop new Specific Standards, guidelines, educational programs, or a combination of those things. In March 2016, Australian Press Council issued a comprehensive Advisory Guideline for the Reporting of Family and Domestic Violence, aimed at helping journalists ensure that they produce accurate, balanced and respectful articles about this crucially important subject. Having completed that project, the Press Council is now looking at two other areas that are topical, of community concern, and might benefit from a new guideline, standard or educational initiative: (a) the publication of “sponsored content” or “native advertising”, and the extent to which this material is distinguished from other editorial content; and (b) reporting involving children, which includes such issues as interviewing children without their parents’ or guardians’ presence or consent, the publication of photographs of children in distress or in extremis, and children’s reasonable expectations of privacy— generally and in relation to social media. Importantly, when reviewing its Guidelines, it was decided that a large number of Advisory Guidelines also needed attention, as they appeared to be out of date or out of alignment with the wording of the new General Principles, and thus required either updating or deletion. The Council is currently undertaking this review of all extant Advisory Guidelines and policy documents.

Increasing and broadening the membership Unlike the position with regard to radio and television broadcasters, who are obliged to obtain a government licence and are subject to regulation by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), there is no legal compulsion for a publisher to join the Press Council. In these circumstances, the Council is justifiably proud of its large and steadily growing membership, with over 900 mastheads (print and online) representing 95 per cent of print circulation (all but one of the major newspaper and magazine publishers in Australia), their associated online websites, and most of the leading online-only news and current affairs sites. This now also includes some of the growing number of international publications that have recently established an Australian presence, such as the Daily Mail Online (UK-based) and the Huffington Post (US- based). However, there is also significant frustration that important new entrants to the Australian media market, such as the Guardian Australia, Buzzfeed, Mashable, Junkee and others have not joined the Press Council. These media operations benefit greatly from the work of the Press Council via its Standards of Practice, dealing with complaints from the public, advocating strongly for freedom of the press and— perhaps most importantly—forestalling calls for the Commonwealth Government to formally regulate the press, which would surely arise and intensify if the Press Council was not seen to be doing an effective job in this area. Yet the new entrants appear content to reap these benefits without contributing at all to the financial and intellectual resources necessary for the Press Council to do its work. The most serious gap in the Press Council’s membership, however, is a product of its historical failure to engage fully with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander press and the thriving multicultural or “ethnic”

4 press that reflects the demography and vibrancy of Australia’s multicultural society, in which one in every four Australians was born overseas. The Council is now committed to redressing this omission, and is putting significant time and energy into drawing new members into the fold. In this reporting period, the Council has run a high profile event in Sydney with representatives of Australian Chinese media and Asian-Australian political and community leaders; admitted as a new member the proprietors of an online news service aimed at the Australian Filipino community; made a presentation at the National Conference on Migration, Media and Inclusion in Melbourne; and begun discussions with South Sudanese community leaders in Melbourne regarding their concerns about unfavourable media depictions of their community, especially their youth. Finally, with its first Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP) providing the needed strategic framework and targets, the Australian Press Council has made long overdue approaches to the editors and publishers of Australia’s culturally important Indigenous press, strongly encouraging them to join the Council.

Advocacy for free speech and freedom of the press Investigative journalism in Australia has suffered repeated blows in recent times, with the Press Council strongly arguing against overly broad anti-terrorism laws that may ensnare reporters covering security matters; the palpably diminishing commitment of federal and state governments (both in terms of financial resources and political capital) to Freedom of Information laws and practices, as well as open and transparent government in general; new laws actually criminalising certain forms of whistleblowing, such as with respect to the maladministration of migration detention centres; metadata retention laws that further discourage public interest disclosures to journalists; and the worrying tendency to use the full force of the law to track down the source of leaks that may embarrass politicians and public servants but represent no threat to national security. Consequently, one of the major shifts in priorities since I became Chair is the Press Council’s increasing focus on, and advocacy for, free speech and press freedom. Australia currently ranks 25th out of 180 nations in the World Press Freedom Index, so there are many worse and more dangerous places to be a reporter. However, we must not be complacent. Australia used to be ranked significantly higher and on par with fifth-ranked New Zealand and the Scandinavian countries. Free speech and freedom of the press may have a strong cultural hold in Australia, but they currently rest on flimsy legal foundations. Australia is the world’s only liberal democracy without a constitutional or statutory bill of rights protecting free speech and press freedom. Given that free speech and press freedom underpin our democratic way of life, it is not sufficient to hope that individual publishers and journalists will be successful in resisting these incursions; rather the Australian Press Council must take a strong stand in favour of free speech and press freedom and ensure that they are front and centre in public debates. Prof David Weisbrot AM FAAL DLitt

6 Executive Director’s Report The 2015-16 period was my second year in the role of Executive Director, and the first full year for the Council’s Chair, Professor David Weisbrot. One of the principles Professor Weisbrot brought to his role was an emphasis on the Press Council’s work in maintaining a vital, free and independent press as being a shared enterprise with the Australian public and the Council’s publisher members. This has proven to be a very effective context or frame through which to address the many challenges that arise in the life of any Press Council. I endorse and support the Chair’s view on this and look forward to doing further important work to build on what he has started since taking on the job. The Chair, in his own Foreword to this Annual Report, has summarised well the major developments in the operation of the Press Council over the reporting period. Professor Weisbrot’s summary, and the pages of this Annual Report, indicate very clearly how hard staff and Press Council and Adjudication Panel members have worked to adapt to a changing media landscape and to implement procedural and administrative changes necessary to provide more value and better service for members of the public and for publishers, and to push through the heavy workload of the organisation. I thank and congratulate all Press Council and Adjudication Panel members, and my staff of the Secretariat, on a highly successful year. I would also like to bid a fond farewell, with heartfelt thanks, to Campbell Reid (News Corp Australia), Alan Kennedy (MEAA), Hal Crawford (ninemsn) and John Dunnett (Country Press Australia) who stepped down as Council members after long and valuable service. It is also important to acknowledge the appointment of Chris Graham to the newly-created role as representative of the Press Council’s smaller online and print publisher members. The Council’s 40th Anniversary Conference, as Professor Wesibrot has pointed out and as readers of this Annual Report will see in Chapter 5, was an enormous success. I want to express my appreciation for the generosity of all presenters, panel members, sponsors, past Council members, the Conference Working Group and the many other supporters who helped make this happen. Of course, staff at the Secretariat also worked exceptionally hard on this ambitious project and they deserve praise and thanks as well. I would like to draw attention to a lesser known aspect of our work in recent months. The Chair and I have tried hard to build relationships with a large number of other press councils around the world, to allow us exchange notes on best practice and on the ways they go about their business. The Australian Press Council now enjoys observer status with the Association of Independent Press Councils of Europe (AIPCE), a fascinating group of press councils, large and small, from 34 countries. The Chair and I were privileged to be invited to attend the AIPCE’s annual conference in Vienna in October 2015, and Professor Wesibrot delivered a talk which was extremely well received. We have also reached out to Press Councils in Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, South Africa, Canada and elsewhere in an effort to learn and to assist where possible. In an increasingly inter-connected media world, an article written and published in one country can be read moments later in dozens of other countries via increasingly globalised publishing enterprises and with reach further extended via the rise of social media and news aggregators. These items land in far flung places, with vastly different cultural and professional and regulatory standards regarding media, making close ties between world press councils, and between those striving to ensure high standards of practice, ever more important.

John Pender

8 9 10 Contents

1. About the Press Council ...... 13 Overview ...... 13 Membership of the governing body ...... 15 Changes to membership ...... 17 Constituent bodies of the Press Council ...... 18 Press Council sub-committees ...... 19 Secretariat ...... 19 2. Standards and policy ...... 21 The Press Council’s Standards of Practice ...... 21 Advisory Guideline on Family and Domestic Violence Reporting ...... 22 Freedom of speech ...... 23 Strategic planning ...... 24 3. Complaints ...... 27 Complaints-handling ...... 27 Changes in procedures ...... 28 Chart: Handling of a Complaint—Workflow ...... 29 Complaints charts ...... 30 Remedies without adjudication ...... 32 4. Public Affairs ...... 35 Speeches and public appearances ...... 35 Media coverage ...... 38 Meetings with outside organisations ...... 39 Other initiatives ...... 40 Research and education ...... 41 Prizes ...... 41 5. 40th Anniversary Conference ...... 43 About the conference ...... 43 Program sessions ...... 44 Conference photos ...... 46 6. Finances ...... 49 Funding in 2015-2016 ...... 49 Triennial commitments ...... 49 Statement of financial position ...... 51 Appendices ...... 53 A1. Designated Resolutions ...... 55 A2. Family and Domestic Violence Reporting ...... 59 A3. Strategic Plan 2016-2020 ...... 63 A4. Chair’s speech to Melbourne Press Club ...... 69 A5. Ranald Macdonald address - 5 May 2016 ...... 81 A6. 40th Anniversary conference program ...... 87 A7. Detailed complaints statistics ...... 93 A8. Summaries of adjudications 2015—2016 ...... 97 A9. Full adjudications 2015—2016 ...... 101

1 About the Press 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 Press 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 Press 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 Press Council’s work can be broadly divided into the following three areas:

Standards The Press 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 Press Council considers complaints and other expressions of concern about any print or online publication. Where appropriate, it seeks to achieve agreed remedies, issues letters of advice to publishers, or publishes an adjudication. Policy The Press 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 Press Council had 25 members, comprising:  the independent Chair and 10 public members who have no affiliations with a media organisation;  10 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 David Weisbrot AM completed his first full reporting year as Chair of the Press Council. He 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 Press Council as at 30 June 2016:

• Prof David Weisbrot AM Chair Emeritus Professor of Law

• 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 • Professor Matthew Ricketson Constituent Fairfax Media MEAA members Group Director, Business Media, Professor, Sydney University of Canberra, Canberra • Tony Gillies • Susan Skelly Australian Associated Press Bauer Media Group Editor-in-Chief, Editorial Director, BauerWorks and Sydney Bauer Custom Media, Sydney • Chris Graham • Glenn Stanaway Representing smaller publishers News Corp Australia Publisher and Editor of New Executive Editor, Sydney Matilda, Sydney • Bob Yeates • Bryce Johns Country Press Australia APN News & Media Managing Director, East Gippsland Editorial Director, ARM, Brisbane Newspapers, Bairnsdale • Anita Quigley Community Newspapers Australia Executive Editor, NewsLocal, Sydney

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 • Bob Osburn • David Fagan • Russell Robinson • John Fleetwood • Barry Wilson

Council staff members Lynda Burke and Shamim Islam

16 Changes to membership The following changes in membership of the Press Council occurred during the reporting period:

 Andrew Podger was reappointed as a public member for three years from 1 July 2015 after expiration of his first term.  Tony Gillies was reappointed as a constituent member for three years from 1 July 2015 after expiration of his first term.  Hal Crawford was reappointed as a constituent member for three years from 15 August 2015 after expiration of his first term and resigned on 6 May 2016.  John Dunnet resigned as a Council member on 29 August 2015. Bob Yeates was appointed as a Constituent member on its nomination by Country Press Australia for a three year term from 29 August 2015, replacing John Dunnet.  John Doyle was reappointed as Vice-Chair for a two year term commencing on 5 October 2015.  Julian Gardner was reappointed as Vice-Chair for a two year term from 29 August 2015 and reappointed as a public member for three years commencing from 1 January 2016.  Chris Graham was appointed as the representative of smaller publications for a three-year term on 27 November 2015.  Campbell Reid resigned as Council member on 23 November 2015. Glenn Stanaway was appointed as a Constituent member after nomination by News Corp Australia for a three year term from 27 November 2015 replacing Campbell Reid.  Julie Kinross was reappointed as a public member for a three year term commencing from 1 January 2016.  Bob Osburn retired as Council member on 27 November 2015. Anita Quigley was appointed as Constituent member after nomination by Community Newspapers Australia for a three year term from 26 February 2016, replacing Bob Osburn.  Alan Kennedy retired as Council member on 26 February 2016. Professor Matthew Ricketson was appointed as Constituent member after nomination by the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance for a three year term from 27 February 2016 replacing Alan Kennedy.  Melissa Seymour-Dearness was reappointed as a public member for one year commencing 26 March 2016.

The following changes in industry and public panel members occurred during the reporting period:  Bob Osburn commenced on 27 November 2015 as an industry panel member for a period of two years.  Sue Carter resigned as an industry panel member effective 14 January 2016.

The Press Council held induction/orientation days for new members on 9 February 2016 and 4 April 2016.

17 Constituent bodies of the Press Council The "constituent bodies" are the publishers and other organisations in the media industry that have agreed to abide by the Australian Press 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. Dailymail.com Australia Pty Ltd, The Huffington Post Australia Pty Ltd and Adelphi Printing Pty Ltd (the Monthly Chronicle) joined the Press Council as constituent bodies on 20 August 2015. Schwartz Media (Trustee for the Liberty 2701 Trust in relation to The Saturday Paper and Trustee for The Monthly Trust in relation to The Monthly), The Bushland Shire Telegraph Pty Ltd and Emanila Pty Ltd joined the Press Council as constituent bodies on 27 November 2015. In the reporting period, the Press Council created an additional member position to represent smaller publisher members without their own representative and, later, Council approved a process for the election and appointment of that representative. Mr Chris Graham was elected representative of smaller members, and he was appointed to the Press Council for a term of three years from 27 November 2015. In the last reporting year, the Press 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. The Press Council co-hosted a media conference and luncheon with former Member of the NSW Legislative Council, the Hon Dr Helen Sham-Ho OAM, on 14 August 2015 to engage with Chinese community newspapers. In November 2015, the Australian Press Council welcomed its first multicultural constituent body, Emanila Pty Ltd, an English language online only publication serving the Australian Filipino community. During the reporting year, the Press Council was in conversation with a number of other potential constituent bodies, two of which were admitted shortly after the end of the reporting period.

Press Council members at a meeting in Sydney. Press Council members Hal Crawford and Robyne Schwarz.

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

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

Secretariat The Press Council Secretariat is based in Sydney and headed by an Executive Director appointed by the Council. The staff members as at 30 June 2016 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 Administration Officer Lynda Burke

19 20 2 Standards and Policy

The Press Council’s Standards of Practice The Press 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 Press 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 Press Council revised its Statement of General Principles in the 2013-14. The eight revised Principles, which set out the standards applied by the Council when handling complaints and adjudications, came into effect on 1 August 2014.

Advisory Guideline on Family and Domestic Violence Reporting In March 2016, the Press Council issued a comprehensive new Advisory Guideline on Family and Domestic Violence Reporting, aimed at helping journalists ensure that they produce accurate, balanced and respectful articles about this crucially important subject. The Advisory Guideline was produced after an extensive six-month consultation process, which included Round Tables in three states and a thorough examination of relevant Press Council complaints, similar guidelines by other organisations, and a wide range of research literature. The Round Tables brought together experts from the sector, as well as survivors, police, and senior journalists and editors with experience in such reporting. The Guideline is not intended to constrain or discourage news coverage or forthright debate about family and domestic violence. However, editors and journalists routinely exercise judgment about which events to cover; what information to collect and from whom; what material to include and what should be excluded. The purpose of the Advisory Guideline is to help shape those considerations. Because family and domestic violence is such an urgent concern in our community, the Press Council decided that it should contribute decisively to helping improve and expand the coverage of it and of related social problems. The new Advisory Guideline was distributed widely to journalists working at all of the Press Council's member publications, as well as to other journalists and various organisations in the sector. The Council also prepared related material on the legal restrictions around such reporting, as well as a list of useful references and resources for journalists wishing to arrange interviews with experts or learn more about the subject.

Participants at Press Council Round Tables in Brisbane (left) and Melbourne (below) on Family and Domestic Violence Reporting.

22 A revised version of the Statement of Privacy Principles was approved on 27 November 2015. The Press Council also discontinued its practice of allowing print media organisations not directly (or indirectly) affiliated with the Council to subscribe publicly to the Statement of Privacy Principles. During the year, preliminary work also took place to investigate developing potential new Specific Standards, Advisory Guidelines and/or educational programs in a range of areas, including:  reporting on children;  identification and disclosure requirements around the publication of so-called “sponsored content” or “native advertising”;  respectful reporting around race and religion;  reporting around LGBTI individuals; and  the appropriation and publication of online photos (eg from Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and other social media platforms), especially where this concerns children.

Participants at an Australian Press Council Round Table in Brisbane.

Freedom of speech One of the major shifts in priorities since Professor David Weisbrot became Chair is the Press Council’s increasing focus on, and advocacy for, free speech and press freedom. Over the course of the reporting period, the Chair spoke out strongly against:  overly broad anti-terrorism laws that may ensnare reporters covering security matters;  the palpably diminishing commitment of federal and state governments (both in terms of financial resources and political capital) to Freedom of Information laws and practices, as well as open and transparent government in general;  new laws actually criminalising certain forms of whistleblowing, such as with respect to the maladministration of migration detention centres;  metadata retention laws that further discourage public interest disclosures to journalists; and

Strategic planning The Press Council developed a Strategic Plan for the next five years—the first such document in the organisation’s 40-year history.

The Strategic Plan is composed of two parts. The first is more reflective; clarifying the Press Council’s challenges, opportunities and purpose. It also specifies the key organisational enablers necessary to achieve success. The second part identifies three core objectives and the strategies for meeting them. The Strategic Plan is the product of a major consultation process involving members of the Council, staff at the organisation’s Secretariat, and outside consultants.

Press Council Chair David Weisbrot said:

“I was delighted to oversee development of what is, remarkably, the first Strategic Plan in the Australian Press Council’s 40-year history. This document could not come at a more critical time for the more than 900 mastheads that are members of the Council and account for 95 per cent of print circulation and a high proportion of online news sites.

“The media industry in Australia and overseas is undergoing a dynamic transformation, driven by the powerful forces of rapidly changing information and communications technology, increasing globalisation, and ever more intense competition. The industry must also adapt to changing patterns of news media consumption as electronic platforms begin to dominate, and to the changing social attitudes, expectations and sensitivities about privacy and media portrayals of religion, sexuality, children, and violence—especially violence against women and children.

“My warmest thanks go to the members of the Council and to the Secretariat staff for their good will and energetic and constructive engagement in this endeavour.”

During the year the Press Council also took part in an Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD) Governance Review which asked questions about the perceived effectiveness of the Council’s structures and processes, and sought to identify key issues that require attention as a matter of priority. At the August 2015 Press Council meeting, the AICD facilitated a workshop to discuss the Governance Review which has led to further work in this area.

Foreground: Council member Tony Gillies and Chair David Weisbrot working on the Strategic Plan.

Foreground: Press Council member Melissa Seymour-Dearness working on the Strategic Plan.

26 3 Complaints

Complaints-handling The public’s continuing confidence in the Press Council’s complaints-handling system is borne out by the 2015-16 statistics. This year, the Press Council received complaints from 801 individuals or organisations concerning 500 items published by newspapers, magazines and their associated websites, or by online only publications. The number of complaints represents a decrease from the previous year, when the Press Council received complaints from more than 3,700 people or organisations. The decrease appears to be largely due to the Press Council not receiving as many complaints about matters that have been given attention by social media campaigns than in the previous year. Upon receipt of a complaint, Press Council staff undertake a triage process. This requires making an initial assessment and analysis of each complaint received to determine whether, among other things:

 an arguable breach of the Council’s Standards of Practice has been alleged;  the alleged breach is significant enough to pursue further;  any further information is required;  the complainant was directly affected by the article in question or is a ‘secondary complainant’;  any analogous matters have been handled by Council; and  what remedy the complainant is seeking.

Complaints to the Press Council may lead to one of the following outcomes:  Adjudication —the Council issues an adjudication upholding or not upholding the complaint; or  Remedy without adjudication—the publication takes action facilitated by Council staff; eg 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 Executive Director issues a Letter of Advice or 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.

Of the 500 complaints received in the 2015-16 period, just over 40 per cent were declined upon assessment; around 36 per cent were withdrawn, not pursued by the complainant or discontinued by the Press Council; and approximately 16 per cent yielded a remedy negotiated by Council staff with the cooperation of the publication. Approximately six per cent of complaints resulted in referral to the Press Council’s Adjudication Panel for determination, with more than 75 per cent of those complaints eventually upheld or partially upheld.

The outcomes of all complaints finalised during 2015-16 are shown in Appendices 8 and 9. Thirty adjudications were issued, in 24 of which the complaint was upheld either fully or in part.

Changes in procedures This year saw the introduction of the Direct Adjudication process. The Direct Adjudication process was implemented to increase the speed and reduce the complexity and cost of complaints-handling in appropriate cases. Complaints considered under this process are matters that previously went to the full Adjudication Panel, but did not require either the complainant or the publication to participate in the that Panel’s discussions. The Direct Adjudication process now enables the Adjudication Panel to make a finding based on written materials alone. Experience suggests that for many complainants, prompt resolution is among the most important outcomes. The Direct Adjudication process offers quicker resolutions using fewer Press Council resources.

Complaint Management Software In June 2016, following intensive planning and implementation, the Press Council transitioned to a new Complaint Management System (CMS). The new CMS is designed to deliver greater efficiency and effectiveness in the Press Council’s day-to-day operations in handling of complaints. The CMS replaced an outdated complaint recording system and is based on Resolve software, which is used by most complaint- handling bodies, including many ombudsman’s offices in Australia. The CMS provides a complete record for every complaint, and has allowed the Council to move to a largely paperless records system. The CMS automates some current administrative tasks and will provide additional scope for more data analysis, which will yield increased reporting and trend-analysis capacity.

Complaints charts

Remedies without adjudication Upon receipt of a complaint, Press Council staff may 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 2015-16.

Example 1 The complainant, a prominent politician, expressed concern that an online article’s references to his views on certain subjects were a “gross distortion of the truth” and that an edit to the article based on an earlier complaint to the publication was inadequate.

As a result of discussions initiated by Council staff, the publication agreed to remove the reference to a particular view attributed to the complainant about same-sex relations and published an addendum to the article with an apology for having misrepresented some of the complainant’s views.

Example 2 The complainant, a professor with research expertise in elderly care, expressed concern that a report which described dementia patients in the headline and in the article as “feral” was offensive and used discriminatory language to characterise elderly dementia sufferers.

As a result of Council staff discussing the issues with the complainant and publication, the publication agreed to publish a letter by the complainant in response to the specific matter and another letter that commented on how media representation of dementia can influence the way society perceives people with the condition.

Example 3 The complainant expressed concern about an error in an article which referred to his father as a Victoria Cross recipient and that after contacting the publication numerous times, he had had no success in obtaining a correction.

After being contacted by Council staff, the publication agreed to publish a print and online correction, including an apology. The publication also provided the complainant with a private apology by way of letter for both the error and the delay in addressing his concerns.

4 Public Affairs

Speeches and public appearances The Press Council’s most significant public affairs event of the reporting period was the exceptionally successful international conference organised to help celebrate the organisation’s 40 th Anniversary. Chapter 5 of this report provides details as to the aims, agenda and outcome of that event. However, a number of other important public affairs initiatives were also undertaken in 2015-16. On 6 August 2015, the Chair delivered a major address to the Melbourne Press Club in which he set out his concerns and objectives for the first year of his tenure. The event was well attended by senior journalists and editors, as well as by leading members of the business and academic communities. In his speech, the Chair noted the various important improvements that had been made to Press Council procedures, but he emphasised that he also wanted to change the basic culture of the organisation: “Whatever benefits those procedural refinements may deliver, they are likely to pale in comparison with the benefits that will come from cultural change and a belief that the maintenance of high standards in the industry must be a shared enterprise. …For most of its history the Press Council has been perceived as the ‘watchdog’ or the ‘cop on the beat’—in other words, its presence might tend to discourage poor journalistic practice by putting the fear of God into publishers and practitioners, giving the public an opportunity to bring complaints, and then whacking those unfortunate few whose alleged transgressions happened to be complained about. And publishers and journalists who pride themselves on their professionalism clearly do not relish the experience of having to publish a negative adjudication. But focusing on a particular breach of the Council’s Standards in the past and then publicising it probably channels too much energy, attention and resources on the aberrant cases — the roughly 40 cases in any particular year that go all the way from initial receipt to final adjudication. And since it’s such a relatively small number, most journalists, editors and publishers may feel that those aberrant cases have nothing to do with them. What we need to do instead is to create a different culture: one that is collegial and intelligent, that continually learns from experience.” The Chair also made clear in the speech that he saw advocacy for press freedom as a crucial and legitimate role for the Press Council, in addition to its traditional work as a complaints body. “…Freedom of speech and freedom of the press may have a strong cultural hold in Australia, but they rest on flimsy legal foundations. …Unfortunately, the traditionally fine balance has been tipping steadily against freedom in recent times. We’ve had 40 ‘anti-terrorism’ laws passed, often with insufficient Parliamentary scrutiny of the potential effects on free speech and press freedom.... The Press Council must actively work to diminish private or civil obstacles to investigative reporting, press freedom and free speech.”

The address received wide play in the media and a positive reaction from journalists, Council members and other stakeholders.

36 The Chair took part in a panel at the annual conference of the Journalism Education and Research Association of Australia (JERAA) on 2 December 2015 at Charles Sturt University in Bathurst, NSW. He joined Andrew Cornell, Managing Editor of ANZ BlueNotes, for a discussion on “Brand Journalism — Challenges and Opportunities”. On 13 November 2015, the Chair and Deputy Executive Director Georgina Dridan attended the annual conference of the Victorian Country Press Association in San Remo, Victoria. The Chair spoke on “The Work of the Australian Press Council and its Support for Country Press”.

Chair David Weisbrot delivered an Editorial Master Class at the Future Forum conference in Sydney. September 2015.

Executive Director John Pender delivered an address to the annual conference of the International Society of Weekly Newspaper Editors. (ISWNE) in Melbourne.

In October 2015, the Director of Research and Communications Michael Rose and the Deputy Executive Director traveled to Hobart to make a presentation at the annual meeting of police communications officers. The meeting brings together representatives of all state police forces, as well as the Australian Federal Police and the New Zealand Police. Areas of common interest were discussed, as well as problems noted in media reporting of police activities.

Media coverage The Press Council’s work continued to receive widespread and positive media coverage during the year. Outlets such as Crikey, Mumbrella and Guardian Australia regularly reported on Council adjudications, as did the respected New York-based iMediaEthics website. The Chair was interviewed on 2 September 2015 on ABC Radio’s The Media Report with Richard Aedy. In that interview, David expressed his concerns about the government’s controversial metadata retention legislation and also set out his priorities for the Press Council. The Australian’s then media correspondent, Sharri Markson, filed an article in October 2015 about the Chair’s views on the metadata retention laws, noting that he feared they would likely have a chilling effect on free speech and investigative journalism. A press conference organised on 14 August 2015 in Sydney’s Chinatown district to announce the Press Council’s push to attract new members from the country's thriving multicultural press received wide coverage. As a result of that event, staged in association with the local Chinese-Australian media, and of a 28 October 2015 meeting with representatives of the Filipino Australian press, the Council received a number of formal applications for membership and some informal approaches for further information.

Chinese community participants in the 14 August 2015 media event. Press Council Chair David Weisbrot is seated, centre. Executive Director John Pender is to Professor Weisbrot’s left.

38 Meetings with outside organisations During the reporting period, the Press Council consulted widely with the media industry and the broader community as it considered the need for new standards or guidelines. This effort included Round Tables and discussions with editors and journalists, as well as with community and industry groups.

Eric Maliwat of the Philippine Community Herald with Press Council Chair David Weisbrot

During the 2015-16 reporting year, the Press Council received at the office in Sydney or met externally with representatives of a number of other organisations to discuss matters of mutual interest, including:  AFL Media;  DART Center for Journalism and Trauma Centre (Asia Pacific);  Mashable;  Financial Services Association;  Macleay College;  Public Relations Institute of Australia;  Office of the Australian Information Commissioner;  Mumbrella;  The NewspaperWorks; and  Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

On 7 September 2015, Deputy Executive Director Georgina Dridan and the Chair participated in a Round Table on Reporting Family Violence, hosted by the then Minister for Communications Malcolm Turnbull and the Minister for Women, Michaelia Cash, in Parliament House, Canberra. On 5 October 2015, the Chair had a meeting in Toronto with the newly-established National NewsMedia Council of Canada (following the merger of five provincial and regional press councils), including President and CEO John Fraser and Executive Director Don McCurdy. On 7-8 October 2015 in Vienna, the Chair participated, along with Executive Director John Pender, in the annual meeting of the Alliance of Independent Press Councils of Europe (AIPCE), attended by about 90

39 people from 50 press councils internationally. The Executive Director subsequently met in London with the Chair and the CEO of the Independent Press Standards Organisation, Sir Alan Moses and Matt Tee, as well as representatives of the Daily Mail, Kings College London and the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics.

Other initiatives The Press Council has worked to diminish private or civil obstacles to investigative reporting, press freedom and free speech. Examples of activities include:  The Chair issued a public statement welcoming a new report by the Human Rights Law Centre that documented how federal and state governments are adopting laws and practices that undermine critical components of the nation’s democracy.  The Chair accepted an invitation for the Press Council to join the Australian Open Government Partnership Network (AOGPN). The AOGPN was established in December 2015 as a coalition of individuals and organisations for the purpose of engaging with government in the development of Australia’s Open Government Partnership (OGP) National Action Plan and participating in efforts to enhance and improve democratic practices in Australia and the Asia-Pacific region.  The Chair’s public statement calling on the government to send a high level delegation to the Open Government Partnership’s Global Summit in Mexico City, which was to be held on 27-29 October 2015. The Chair noted in his statement that Australia is no longer one of the world’s leaders in promoting open government and freedom of information.  The Chair’s media release and subsequent statements on the urgent need for defamation law reform received wide media play and positive reaction from publishers and others.

The Press Council continued to expand and improve its other communications activities during the reporting period. The decision to use Twitter to disseminate information about the Press Council has borne fruit. Some 700 people, many of them influential journalists or opinion leaders, were following the Press Council on Twitter by the end of the reporting period and Council tweets were regularly being re-tweeted by major organisations such as the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance to thousands of other people. The Press Council also provided strong support to the Reporting Islam Project at Griffith University. This project aims to improve the quality of mainstream news media reporting on matters relating to Islam and to develop resources to help journalists report effectively and accurately about Islam and Muslims. Deputy Executive Director Georgina Dridan became a member of the project’s Steering Committee, travelling to Brisbane for discussion and contributing the important perspective of a complaints body.

40 Research and education The time and effort required to organise a major international conference in 2015-16 meant that less work was done on research projects than in the previous year. However, at the end of the reporting period, discussions were underway as to some other research projects that might be undertaken. As well, a discussion paper was completed by the Director of Research and Communication as to possible next steps in developing a training program for journalism students and cadet journalists in major news organisations. Further work on developing training materials and a suitable program were planned for 2016-17, as well as consultations with the Journalism Education and Research Association of Australia and the cadet training managers at Fairfax Media and News Corp Australia.

Prizes The Press 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. This program was under review at the end of the reporting period. It is thought that the program should be changed to involve more of the country’s approximately 30 journalism schools and to make nomination and judging criteria more uniform. The Director of Research and Communications was to prepare a discussion paper and some options for the future direction of the prizes program.

Prize winner Jacqueline Krynda, Shamim Islam of the Press Council and Dr Alana Mann at The University of Sydney. The other prize winner from this university in 2015-16 was Karen Hui Yee Tong.

5 40th Anniversary Conference

About the Conference The Press 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, the Press Council began planning in late 2015 for a conference program which would feature leading speakers from Australia and overseas, as well as a major free public event and master classes for journalists, journalism students and communications professionals. Two full days of keynote speeches and panels generated exceptionally valuable discussion on matters of crucial importance to the media and to media standards and quality, and this was followed by a full day of Master Classes for journalism students and others. Some 150 tickets were sold for the two day main conference at L’Aqua venue at Sydney’s Darling Harbour, and 27 sponsors provided crucial financial or other support. The full conference program, including a list of all sponsors, is reproduced in Appendix 6. One highlight of the conference was the retrospective address by Ranald Macdonald, a veteran Australian journalist and publisher, whose observations constitute a valuable historical record as to the formation of the Australian Press Council in 1976. This document is reproduced in full in Appendix 5. The decision to award two Press Freedom medals at the conference was another major success. Investigative journalists Kate McClymont and Paul Maley were selected as recipients and the awards were presented at a ceremony on Day 2 of the conference. This event received wide media coverage. Press Council Chair David Weisbrot said: "The conference was a major success and addressed some of the most important issues affecting quality journalism today. We believe that the video recordings of each session will become an extremely important resource for anyone with an interest in the state of the media locally and internationally, and its future prospects.”

Program sessions

Day 1 - Session 1 Press Freedom and other matters of life and death Keynote Speaker: Anna Nemtsova (Daily Beast, Moscow).

Day 1 - Session 2 Too terrified to speak Moderator: Cameron Stewart Guests: Peter Greste (Free Speech Campaigner), Bret Walker SC (Former National Security Monitor), Jacinta Carroll (Australian Strategic Policy Institute), Bambang Harymurti (Tempo Magazine, Jakarta).

Day 1 - Session 3 Is Investigative Journalism an Expensive Luxury or a Necessity? Host: Michelle Gunn (News Corp Australia) Guests: David Barstow (The New York Times), Kate McClymont (Fairfax Media).

Day 1 - Session 4 Local standards, global content Host: Bryce Johns (APN) Guests: Jane Wardell (Reuters), Tory Maguire (Huff Post Australia), Peter Holder (Daily Mail Australia), John Dunnet (Past President, Country Press Australia).

Day 2 - Session 1 Ranald Macdonald in Conversation: A 40-year retrospective Moderator: Gerard Noonan (Media Super).

Day 2 - Session 2 Press Councils: a global perspective Moderator: Sir John Hansen (Chair, NZ Press Council) Guests: Alexander Warzilek (Austria), ), Matt Tee (UK), Mary Major, (NZ), Joe Thloloe (South AfricaJohn Pender (Aus).

Day 2 - Session 3 Contracting out our Press Freedom Moderator: Mark Hollands not pictured (The Newspaper Works) Guests: Tony Gillies (AAP), Andrew Cornell (ANZ Bluenotes), Michael Tormey (AFL Media), Adam Suckling (Copyright Agency).

Day 2 - Session 4 Dark days or bright futures? The future of journalism Host: Hal Crawford (ninemsn) Guests: Jonathan Harley(Twitter), Daniel Sankey (news.com.au), Conal Hanna (Fairfax Media), Jenni Ryall (Mashable).

Conference photos

1 Anna Nemtsova. 2 Joe Thloloe, South African Press Council and John Pender, Executive Director, Australian Press Council. 3 Madhu Trehan of India asks a question. 4 Press Freedom Medal winners Kate McClymont and Paul Maley. 5 David Barstow and Kate McClymont take questions. 6 Australian Press Council Chair David Weisbrot. 7 Dr Derek Wilding, former Press Council Executive Director, asks a question of panellists.

1 Ranald Macdonald and Gerard Noonan. 2 Front row: Alexander Warzilek (Austria), Matt Tee (UK), Mary Major (NZ). Back row: Sir John Hansen (NZ), John Pender (Australia), Joe Thloloe (South Africa). 3 Public event at The University of Sydney. 4 David Barstow (The New York Times) and Caro Meldrum-Hanna (ABC TV). 5 Katrina Rathie (King&Wood Mallesons) and Professor Gillian Triggs (Australian Human Rights Commission). 6 Photojournalist Kate Geraghty (Fairfax Media) and Mike Bowers (Guardian Australia). 7 Dr Catherine Keenan (The University of Sydney) and the Press Council’s Shamim Islam on opening day.

6 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 that occurred during the financial year. The main 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 2015-2016 was $2,089,280—an increase of 2.5 per cent from 2014-2015.

Funding in 2015-2016 Contributions are made by constituent bodies according to a sliding scale based on the agreed budget for the year. Contribution bands for 2015-2016 were as follows:  Up to one per cent each: Adelphi Printing Pty Ltd, At Large Media, Australian Rural Publishers Association, The Bushland Shire Telegraph Pty Ltd, Emanila Pty Ltd. Community Newspapers Australia, Country Press Australia, Focal Attractions, The Huffington Post Australia Pty Ltd, The New Daily, Private Media, Property Review, Schwartz Media (Trustee for the Liberty 2701 Trust in relation to The Saturday Paper and Trustee for The Monthly Trust in relation to The Monthly) Urban Cinefile, WorkDay Media;  1-10 per cent each: Australian Associated Press, APN News & Media, Bauer Media Group, Daily Mail.com Australia Pty Ltd; Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance, nine.com.au;  11-30 per cent: Fairfax Media; and  31-60 per cent: News Corp Australia.

Triennial commitments Constituent bodies agree specific funding commitments three years in advance. It was agreed during the reporting year that the increase in funding for 2017-2018 will be 2.5 per cent.

2016 and 2015 Assets & Liabilities $651,657 $700,000 $623,405 $600,000 $500,000 $400,000 $300,000 $205,609 $200,000 $167,480 $100,000 $0 $ $ 2016 2015 TOTAL ASSETS TOTAL LIABILITIES

Assets & Liabilities as at 30 June 2016

$446,048.00 $552,699.00 TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS

TOTAL NON-CURRENT ASSETS TOTAL LIABILITIES $205,609.00 $98,958.00 TOTAL EQUITY

50 Statement of financial position (as at 30 June 2016)

2016 2015 $ $ ASSETS CURRENT ASSETS Cash and cash equivalents 525,500 500,691 Trade and other receivables 7,678 20,179 Current tax receivable 19,521 9,981 Other assets - - TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS 552,699 530,851

NON-CURRENT ASSETS Property, plant and equipment 68,882 92,554 Intangible assets 30,076 - TOTAL NON-CURRENT ASSETS 98,958 92,554

TOTAL ASSETS 651,657 623,405

LIABILITIES CURRENT LIABILITIES Trade and other payables 57,660 74,650 Borrowings - - Current tax liabilities 86,692 45,447 Short-term provisions - - Employee benefits 61,257 47,383 TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES 205,609 167,480

TOTAL LIABILITIES 205,609 167,480

NET ASSETS 446,048 455,925

EQUITY Retained earnings 446,048 455,925 TOTAL EQUITY 446,048 455,925

52 A Appendices

A1. Designated Resolutions A2. Family and Domestic Violence Reporting A3. Strategic Plan 2016-2020 A4. Chair’s speech to Melbourne Press Club A5. Ranald Macdonald address – 5 May 2016 A6. 40th Anniversary conference program A7. Detailed complaints statistics A8. Summaries of adjudications 2015—2016 A9. Full adjudications 2015—2016

54 A1. Designated Resolutions The following are Designated Resolutions passed by the Australian Press Council Inc. under section 27 of the Constitution as at 30 June 2016. Designated Resolution 1 lists publishers and associations of publishers, which together with the MEAA media union, were the constituent bodies of the Press Council at 30 June 2016. These bodies agree to abide by the Council’s Standards of Practice and complaints-handling processes, as well as to provide the organisation’s core funding.

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 Press 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 Press Council under section 7(3) and (4) of the Constitution. The voting will be conducted in accordance with a process specified by the Press Council. Adelphi Printing Pty Ltd (the Monthly Chronicle) 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) Dailymail.com Australia Pty Ltd (1) Emanila Pty Ltd Fairfax Media (1) Focal Attractions Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (1) News Limited (1) nine.com.au (1) Private Media propertyreview.com.au Schwartz Media (Trustee for the Liberty 2701 Trust in relation to The Saturday Paper and Trustee for The Monthly Trust in relation to The Monthly) The Bushland Shire Telegraph Pty Ltd The Huffington Post Australia Pty Ltd 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.

56 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). 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.

A2. Family and Domestic Violence Reporting Introduction Family violence is a serious cause of public concern and debate. Reporting on family violence once reflected an earlier social view that family violence was essentially a private, family matter that did not merit significant media coverage or the intervention of police and the criminal law, except perhaps in the most extreme cases. However, social attitudes have shifted dramatically and there is now community acceptance across Australia that family violence is unacceptable and against the law.

Most news coverage is now more responsible and assists with raising awareness. Nevertheless, concerns remain over some media coverage. The Australian Press Council’s Standards of Practice, particularly the Statement of General Principles, provide the standards to which publications must adhere, and which the Press Council refers to when considering complaints. This Advisory Guideline has been developed in consultation with editors, journalists, police, survivors, family violence service providers and others to suggest a “best practice” approach and should be supported by high quality education and training.

The Advisory Guideline is not intended to constrain or discourage news coverage or forthright debate about family violence. However, editors and journalists routinely exercise judgment about which events to cover; what information to collect and from whom; what material to include and what may be excluded in the interests of space and concision; and how to frame the story. The purpose of this Advisory Guideline is to help guide those considerations.

Definition and Scope The Press Council uses the term ‘family violence’ throughout this Advisory Guideline for the sake of simplicity. However, that term is commonly interchanged with “domestic violence” by the public, the media, the service sector and in academic and political discussion.

The relationship between the alleged offender and the victim is the key. Violence inflicted by a stranger would rarely be conceptualised as “family violence”. The coverage of a breaking story may need to respond adeptly to subsequent information from police or other sources when what first appeared to be an “ordinary crime” or a “tragic accident” might now be viewed through the lens of family violence.

The crime statistics indicate most physical violence in the family context is inflicted by men against their female partners (or former partners), but this is by no means the inevitable pattern. Women sometimes use violence against men or children; people in LGBTI relationships may use violence against their same- sex partner; the abuse of elders may be perpetrated by their children or carers; and the abuse of people with an intellectual disability or other vulnerabilities may involve carers or others.

The Council notes that family violence can occur in a variety of forms and may include, but is not limited to, physical assault; sexual violence; emotional abuse; stalking or other types of harassment (in person, by phone or online); and other controlling or intimidating behaviour aimed at making the victim feel frightened or powerless.

Legal restrictions Reporting of family violence is already heavily regulated and restricted by (often inconsistent) State, Territory and Commonwealth laws. Media organisations are subject to at least 40 different laws in this area, the breach of which may amount to an offence or contempt of court, or open up potential liability for damages under defamation law. These issues are considered in more detail on the Press Council’s website.

Safety The safety and well-being of those affected by family violence must be the primary consideration. Publications should not publish information that could cause or contribute to the risk of harm, offence, or distress. Survivors of family violence often comment that their pain and suffering was exacerbated by media coverage. In some circumstances, it may not be safe, appropriate, or legal to use real names or other identifying information. When interviewing a person affected by family violence, journalists should consider whether the person has the necessary support. Publications should consider the unintended consequences that interviews and published material might have on those affected by family violence, especially children, in the immediate short term and the longer term. Responsibility Reporting of family violence should try not to blame a person affected by the violence or suggest that the person somehow enabled the violence or could have avoided it. Publications should also avoid placing undue emphasis on the characteristics or surroundings of the victim, or implying that such things contributed to the family violence, unless doing so is essential to the narrative and sufficiently in the public interest. Use of the active voice in relation to the perpetrator will help avoid placing undue emphasis on the person affected by family violence. For example: “Police charged a 38-year-old Melbourne man with the murder of a 36-year-old woman”, as opposed to, e.g. “A 36- year-old woman was murdered and a 38-year-old Melbourne man has been charged”. Cultural sensitivities When reporting on matters that have occurred within Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, there are cultural practices and sensitivities around releasing names or images of deceased persons from these communities that should be considered. Similarly, publications should endeavour to be aware of such sensitivities in other Australian communities. Context and content The context and complexities of family violence should also be key considerations, such as when an alleged perpetrator may have a mental illness. Publications should note any such factors when it is warranted in a particular case and in the public interest. Care also should be taken to avoid casual stigmatisation, such as by stating or implying that the violence was “caused” by a person’s mental illness or culture. Words matter. Publications should be mindful of the language they use and try to avoid terms that tend to trivialise, demean or inadvertently excuse family violence, such as “a domestic”, “a domestic dispute” or “a troubled marriage”. Where it is lawful to do so, the relationships of the people involved should be described as accurately and precisely as possible. In addition to reporting particular incidents, journalists can play a critical role in deepening readers’ understanding about family violence by referring to resources such as official statistics, peer- reviewed research, and experts, such as domestic violence counsellors and survivors. Publications should also be aware of the potential impact of story layout, headlines and surrounding material (such as advertisements) that may be insensitive or jarring in the circumstances. Sources of assistance Where lawful and appropriate, it is strongly recommended that published material relating to family violence that could be distressing should be accompanied by information about sources of assistance. Neutral phrasing should be used, such as: “If you are affected by this story and want to seek assistance, contact ...”. When dealing with specific communities or circumstances, other useful sources of information should be included, such as the contact details of local or specialised sources of assistance. The Press Council’s website contains suggested sources of assistance and will be updated periodically.

A3. Strategic Plan 2016–2020

68 A4. Chair’s speech to Melbourne Press Club

“Adventures in Media Counter-errorism. The challenges of heading the Press Council in an era of technological convergence, social change and stifling surveillance.”

Melbourne Press Lunch Address Thursday 6 August 2015, 12.15-2pm Crown Metropol Hotel, 8 Whiteman St, Southbank

Introduction As that great former US Vice President Dan Quayle once said, “Before I begin speaking, I would just like to say a few words.”

Thanks very much Mark — both for inviting me to speak today and for that very generous introduction

I should report that I had a gentle tussle with Mark over the precise topic for today’s event. And as is often the case with two people with strong views, we praised each other person’s idea while stubbornly clinging to our own, taking our cues from a wonderful bit of phrasing by Larissa MacFarquhar, who wrote in The New Yorker magazine a few years back that:

“Everyone knows how to damn with faint praise, but damning with extravagant praise is a more esoteric enterprise, the more so because it is frequently unintentional”

So ultimately I was won over by Mark’s utterly brilliant and strikingly original compromise suggestion of “The New Press ‘Counsel’: Lunch with David Weisbrot”.

I mention all of this only because the exchange was emblematic of the themes at play since I’ve assumed the role of Press Council Chair five months ago, and have set out to change the culture of the organisation, and in doing so further increase its effectiveness.

Mark’s initial suggestions turned on the Press Council being the industry “watchdog” or in some other way serving as the cop on the journalistic beat — which in fairness is probably what most people in the media and the general public think.

Whereas I have been strongly promoting a counter-narrative, suggesting we are ALL engaged in “Adventures in Media Counter-errorism”, as both the Press Council and industry tries to navigate successfully in an era of great and dynamic change: technological, social and legal/governmental.

This time last year—almost to the day—I was blissfully enjoying my life as a newly minted retired person, sipping a cocktail by the pool at my hotel on Santorini, perhaps the most beautiful and romantic of the Greek Islands. Then my mobile phone rang ...

“Would I possibly be interested”, the headhunter asked, “in being the next Chair of the Australian Press Council?”.

Well, I majored in Communications and Politics as an undergraduate and then studied Law as a postgraduate—and all the while envisaging myself as a foreign correspondent and/or a crusading investigative journalist.

I was an editor of my award-winning university paper—remarkably, a daily!—which had a circulation that many contemporary Australian newspapers would envy.

I am a voracious reader of news and current affairs and sport—and I subscribe to a large number of newspapers, magazines, and online publications based in Australia, the United States, Canada, the UK and the Pacific Islands. And I’m even willing to pay for them, if I have to.

And I love a challenge, especially if it involves forcing me to master new whole areas—this was the thrill of leading of the Australian Law Reform Commission, where one year you might be immersed in the architecture and efficiency of the federal courts and tribunals, the next year it was marine insurance, then the handling of classified and security sensitive information, the year after that genetic privacy and discrimination and gene patenting, and so on.

So I metaphorically threw my hat in the ring, which these days is possible with just a few clicks on a smartphone, without even having to put down the drink in my other hand.

I must confess that, being overseas at the time, I was completely unaware of the fraught circumstances in which the Press Council found itself, with a breakdown in relations between much of the Council and News Corp, its major funder.

But if Balmain Boys don’t cry, then Brooklyn Boys scare even less easily.

And with all of the diplomatic experience I had gained as a Law Dean and Pro-Vice-Chancellor and a state and federal law reformer, I felt confident that I could create a safe and respectful enough environment for competing interests and ideas to clash and collide—and ultimately for the public interest to prevail.

And I still feel that way—perhaps even more strongly now.

The traditional Press Council The Australian Press Council was established in 1976—we will celebrate our 40th anniversary in May 2016 with a major international conference on the theme of “Press Freedom in challenging times”, exploring contemporary press freedom issues here and overseas and projecting what’s to come over the horizon.

The genesis of the Council was the Whitlam Government’s consideration of instituting some form of public regulation for newspapers and magazines, much in the same way that the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) is the statutory regulator for TV and radio broadcasters. In an effort to stave off government regulation, the Press Council was created as the industry self-regulator.

And similarly, when the Gillard Government considered bringing in a statutory authority in the wake of the UK’s Leveson Inquiry and our own Finkelstein Inquiry into the Media and Media Regulation, the industry bitterly resisted this as potentially infringing upon freedom of the press and free speech.

In order to bolster the argument that the existing system was preferable to government regulation, substantial changes were made to enhance the Press Council’s independence, and powers and to increase and stabilise its budget.

So in its present incarnation, it is now the case that:  the publishers form only a minority—although, to be sure, a powerful minority—of the 24- person Council (with the majority comprised of the Chair, 10 public members and four independent journalist members);  the Council’s funding is assured on a rolling three-year cycle, and levies are payable by publishers even if they withdraw from the Council during that period;

70  publishers are no longer involved in considering and determining complaints, with the task now assigned to panels made up only of public members and independent journalists; and  as was previously the case, publishers remain bound by the Council’s Constitution to cooperate in good faith with the complaints-handling process, including (critically) to publish the outcomes of all adjudications to which they were the respondent.

There are something like 80-100 Press Councils around the world—perhaps 60 of which operate in association with a free press—and few, if any, are in an equal or better position when it comes to cultural independence, adequate human and financial resources to fulfil their mission, and routine cooperation and compliance with their processes.

A ‘toothless tiger’? And yet, if you get most of your information about the Press Council from the Twitterverse, you would quickly get the impression that even the contemporary Press Council is, to use the old lazy cliché, a ‘toothless tiger’.

The toothless tiger accusation is never based on any sound data or analysis, and it is never served up with any better alternatives. For example, I recently followed a Twitter thread that: (a) started with a denunciation of a particular publishing company’s support for the Abbott Government; (b) denounced as a ‘toothless tiger’ the Press Council’s failure to do anything about this, without reference to the handling of any particular complaint; and (c) stated that the only remedy would be abolish the Council and replace it with a Public Interest Media Monitor, to be funded and appointed by the government. It didn’t seem to occur to the proponent or his supporters that this Monitor would be appointed by ... the very government they were bitterly complaining about a few tweets before.

In my view—and I would resign immediately and return to Santorini if it wasn’t my honestly held view— the Council is far from a ‘toothless tiger’. Maybe more of ... a Terrifyingly Tenacious Terrier. We might not kill you, but we can deliver a serious nip around the ankles that you won’t soon forget!

The situation is not helped by the way that Press Council adjudications often get covered—which too much resembles sports or war reporting. So the Press Council is said to have had a ‘big win’ or a media outlet has been ‘rapped over the knuckles’, ‘censured’, ‘slammed’, or ‘lashed’.

Even worse are the articles which tally up the number of adjudications against a particular publisher in a particular year and then suggest that this means ‘the war’ against that media company is either waxing or waning. Most likely it’s a statistical anomaly based on reporting periods, or perhaps there are other more interesting and insightful trends: for example, maybe the editors and journalists in question have actually learned something from previous controversies?

The fact is—although there is plenty of room for improvement at the Press Council, as I will soon discuss in more detail—we are doing a pretty good job on behalf of complainants in resolving their own concerns and delivering targeted remedies in a low cost, low risk system.

(I’d love to ask Joe Hockey now, in a reflective moment, whether he honestly would have been better off lodging a simple complaint with the Press Council than issuing defamation writs and pursuing a high cost, high risk, litigation strategy.)

And we are doing a pretty good job for the broader community in holding the media to account and in working with them to lift standards and performance, in the public interest.

The public’s confidence in the Press Council’s complaints-handling system seems to be borne out by the statistics. In recent years we have been receiving about 500 distinct complaints a year (10 per week), involving 700 complainants (because more than one person may complain about the same article).

In this past year, the Press Council has experienced an increase of about 13 per cent in complaint numbers—but an extraordinary jump of nearly 400% in the number of complainants, reflecting the new 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 this era of emerging social media.

Typically this involves a campaign on social media platforms, such as Change.org or Avaaz, urging individuals to complain directly to the Press Council, and a template or suggested form of words may be provided. In any case, the growth of online news and social media platforms has certainly raised the awareness and profile of the Press Council across that readership, and we are adjusting our processes accordingly.

What we do with complaints Upon receipt, all complaints are subject to review and analysis by the Council’s staff and management. Quite often, we need to chase up further details from the complainant or clarify some aspect with the person.

Complaint files are then carefully ‘triaged’ by Council officers, and the more complex or difficult matters are reviewed by the senior management. The experience in recent years has been that:  just over one third are dismissed; for example, those that o express a general dissatisfaction with the media, but do not allege a particular breach of the Standards; o are trivial in nature or turn out to be factually inaccurate; or o pertain to TV, radio or advertising rather than print or online journalism.  another one third are withdrawn or discontinued, either because the complainant does not pursue the matter (having gotten the matter off their chest) or further investigation finds little substance in the complaint;  about 25 per cent have a remedy negotiated by Council staff with the cooperation of the paper concerned; for example, this might involve an apology, the removal or correction of an article, or the publication of a letter to the editor or an op-ed piece;  about 5-10 per cent of complaints are referred to an Adjudication Panel for determination;  about three quarters of complaints that get this far result in a decision that the article in question breached at least one of the Council’s Standards; and  the remaining one quarter of adjudicated complaints are not upheld, as no (significant) breach of the Standards has been found. 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 percent of the most the most serious, complex and intractable matters reaching the ‘pointy end’ of the system.

Where a complaint results in an Adjudication, constituent members are bound by the Council’s Constitution to publish the adjudication or a summary or both, depending upon the circumstances. All adjudications are also published on the Council’s website, and publicised by media releases and tweets.

The Adjudication Panels are independent and operate without fear or favour. Each Panel is currently chaired by one of our very 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. (I have not engaged in Chairing panels, at least for the time being, as I believe I can add much more value at

72 this stage by being directly involved in the triage of ALL complaints than in the disposition of a relative handful of matters.)

The remaining panelists are drawn equally from the Council’s distinguished group of public members and industry members (former journalists and editors with no current affiliations with publishers). As mentioned above, publishers are not involved in this decision-making process at all. I have sat as an observer at all Adjudications over the last six months, and I am constantly impressed at the diligence, seriousness and judgment of Panel members (even on the rare occasions in which I don’t entirely agree with the outcome).

The Council has no power to censor, or to administer a fine, or to punish or ban an individual journalist, or to shut down a publication (practically impossible in any event, since only broadcast media are required to hold a license to operate)—nor is there any interest whatsoever on the part of Council to have any of these powers. (Although I have to admit that occasionally I have a fleeting temptation to administer corporal punishment!) And as mentioned earlier, most other press councils around the world would be jealous of our existing resources and enforcement powers.

Improvements? While the system I have described is working reasonably well, there is still a great deal that can be done to make it work even better. So let me tell you about the major initiatives that I am currently leading at the Council, and which I undertake to complete well before the end of my three year term.

Streamlining/refining the process The most consistent dissatisfaction heard about the Council is the length of time is takes to finalise complaints through adjudication—a view expressed to me by complainants, publishers and Council members alike.

It is also one of the two most commonly expressed complaints about ALL dispute resolution systems, public and private, here and overseas: excessive cost and delay and are always the twin bugbears.

In the Press Council’s case, at least, it is a cost-free jurisdiction for complainants, so this is major benefit. Similarly, it is a very cost-effective process for publishers, who would otherwise bear the risks of huge legal costs and damages in defamation actions and related legal proceedings.

However, the current leadership of the Council is determined to make its dispute resolution processes more streamlined and efficient. Having led a major review of the federal court system in Australia (and also in Israel, as a consultant), and surveyed the literature internationally, it is clear that there are no easy solutions or silver bullets—but there are plenty of effective strategies for improving efficiency, which individually achieve some benefits and cumulatively can make an important difference.

Among other things, the Council is working towards:  upgrading our web-based complaints form and all associated dispute processing software and databases, to capture information much more efficiently and to speed up analysis and reporting;  improving the triage process, with myself and other senior managers becoming involved earlier and more intensively;  adding another track to the Adjudication process (as recently approved by Council), with complaints that do not appear to be novel, complex or precedent setting dealt with by three- person panels (rather than the current five or seven) on the papers.

Changing the Culture: from policing to education Whatever benefits those procedural refinements may deliver, they are likely to pale in comparison with the benefits that will come from cultural change and a belief that the maintenance of high standards in the industry must be a shared enterprise.

As I mentioned at the outset, for most of its history the Press Council has been perceived as the ‘watchdog’ or the ‘cop on the beat’—in other words, its presence might tend to discourage poor journalistic practice by putting the fear of God into publishers and practitioners, giving the public an opportunity to bring complaints, and then whacking those unfortunate few whose alleged transgressions happened to be complained about.

And publishers and journalists who pride themselves on their professionalism clearly do not relish the experience of having to publish a negative adjudication.

But focusing on a particular breach of Council’s Standards in the past and then publicising it probably channels too much of energy, attention and resources on the aberrant case—the roughly 40 cases in any particular year that go all the way from initial receipt to final adjudication.

And since it’s such a relatively small number, most journalists, editors and publishers may feel that those aberrant cases have nothing to do with them.

What we need to do instead is to create a different culture: one that is collegial and intelligent, that continually learns from experience.

As a career academic I am devoted to the idea that people are educable, especially where it’s greatly in their own interest to learn.

(Although my dedication to this ideal has sometimes been put to the test. I vividly remember a conversation with an under-performing law student some years ago, whom I felt compelled to fail twice. When he tried to enrol for a third time my exasperation got the better of me and I asked him, given his obvious intellectual ability, what the real problem was: “Is it ignorance? Is it apathy?” To which he replied, “Frankly Professor, I don’t know and I don’t care!”).

When I was at the NSW Law Reform Commission in the early 1990s, I designed and recommended the system that is now used across most of Australia to handle complaints against lawyers. One of the most striking features—and failures—of the old legal self-regulatory system that has been replaced is that each case was treated in isolation. The paradigmatic complaint was from clients reporting that their lawyer was failing to keep them informed of the progress of their case, and would not return phone calls. So the Law Society would write a letter to the solicitor ... and hear nothing back. A few months later they would write another letter ... and hear nothing back. Then after several more months, they’d write to the recalcitrant solicitor threatening to suspend his or her practising certificate unless they responded within a week—which the solicitor usually did, stating that he had called the client and gave them a progress report.

The Law Society tended to mark this as a “case closed”. In fact they should have regarded this as clear evidence of poor communication and practice management skills on the part of the particular lawyer. And given the large number of these sorts of complaints, the Law Society should have seen this as clear evidence of a systemic failure needing urgent attention, with articles in professional journals and the development of preventive and remedial educational programs.

We urgently need to move away from the system of punishing individual transgressions in our industry and feeling that such action alone maintains high standards across the entire profession. While the need to identify and sanction poor practice will remain, there are much better strategies for achieving industry- wide improvement, and reassuring the community that this is the case.

I have also witnessed considerable interest and enthusiasm from newspaper and online editors and managers in the Press Council developing and directly providing education and training programs for working journalists, cadets and others, on the Council’s General Principles and Specific Standards, and on emerging media law issues, such as metadata retention, secrecy laws, whistleblower laws, terrorism laws that may entangle journalists, and the like.

Setting Standards Last July, after a period of refinement and consultation, the Press Council approved a revised set of eight General Principles (GPs) that set out the Standards of Practice expected of member publications (from 1.8.2014).

The GPs are now very good: they are clear, concise, sensible and practical, and compliance should not be onerous or unnatural for working journalists, even under pressure. (For example, the GPs are now couched in terms of publications “taking reasonable steps to comply”, rather than rendering every issue black and white, comply or breach.)

The eight GPs cover the areas that any journalist—or indeed any member of the public who gave it some thought—would readily anticipate. Paraphrasing here, this includes: (1) reporting should be accurate; (2) promptly correct material found to be inaccurate or misleading; (3) present material with reasonable fairness and balance; (4) provide a reasonable right of reply; (5) avoid intruding on reasonable expectations of privacy, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest; (6) avoid causing substantial offence, distress or prejudice, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest; (7) don’t obtain information by deceptive or unfair means, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest; and (8) avoid or adequately disclose conflicts of interest.

These broad General Principles may be supplemented by the development of Specific Standards, to be applied in particular circumstances.

Perhaps the best known and most successful of the Specific Standards is the one governing the reporting of suicide and attempted suicide. We are all familiar with the new and more sensitive approach: the word suicide is rarely used, the method of suicide is almost never disclosed (to avoid copycat actions), there is no moralising or titillation, and there is always information at the end of the article about hotlines and crisis counselling.

And based on the run of complaints and feedback from members of the general community, peak associations, advocacy groups and experts, there are a number of other areas in which media practice could be improved to serve the broader public interest. All of these are driven by changing circumstances, whether technological, social, or commercial.

In the coming year, I intend to take to Council draft proposals for Specific Standards on:  reporting of family violence: to ensure greater sensitivity towards victims (including past victims), to ensure that victims are not blamed; and possibly to curtail the level of detail, especially where children or other vulnerable people are concerned;

 reporting of child sexual assault: with similar parameters;  respectful reporting around LGBTI individuals and issues (eg use of the Poynter Institute Guidelines);  respectful reporting around race and religion;  labelling/disclosure requirements around the publication of so-called ‘sponsored content’ or ‘native advertising’, so as not to mislead readers about the nature of the material, but recognise the commercial realities of maintaining a viable industry.  possibly: the appropriation and publication of online photos (eg from Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and other social media), especially where this concerns children’s privacy; and  possibly: the so-called ‘right to be forgotten’, with the need to balance the relevance of stale/sealed/expunged convictions versus the improper alteration or erasure of history.

Broadening the membership The Press Council is justifiably proud of the breadth and depth of its membership, encompassing all but one (Seven West) of the major newspaper and magazine publishers in Australia, 850 mastheads, and 95% of circulation.

The Council has also done a reasonably good job in accommodating the digital revolution, including the associated online websites of traditional/mainstream publishers, as well as the new generation of online- only publishers. I believe that 16 or 17 of the top 20 most-visited online news and current affairs sites are members of the Press Council (such as NineMSN, Mumbrella, New Matilda, the New Daily and Crikey.com, as well as News’ and Fairfax’s online operations) and we are in active talks with a number of new entrants. (For example, The Daily Mail Online and Huffington Post Australia are likely to be admitted at the next meeting of Council.) Others publishers who have seen the benefits of the Council’s complaints system and of being part of the self-regulation, standards-setting and advocacy processes have also expressed keen interest in joining.

However, there is still a glaring—and I would say unforgivable—gap in the Council’s membership: the thriving ‘ethnic press’, that reflects the reality and vibrancy of Australia’s multicultural society.

The current leadership of the Press Council is strongly committed to engaging with the ethnic press in Australia and encouraging the Council’s inclusiveness, both in terms of formal membership as well as in access to Press Council programs and activities. For example, we have just arranged for the translation of the Press Council’s General Principles, and some other key literature, into Mandarin.

Next Friday (14 Aug), I will be hosting a press conference and luncheon in Sydney with Chinese newspaper and website proprietors, editors, journalists and community leaders to kick off serious talks about how we can advance these matters.

We have also identified the Australian Vietnamese, Filipino, Greek, Italian, Indian, Korean, Serbian, Turkish and Arabic-speaking newspapers and communities as promising ones with which to meet, and will soon begin to do so.

Advocacy for free speech and freedom of the press The traditional view of the Press Council, dating from the first Chair, retired High Court Justice Sir Frank Kitto and shared by my immediate predecessor, is that the Press Council’s role in advancing freedom of

76 the press should be largely restricted to its complaints handling function, which ensures public confidence in the integrity and standard of media practice.

But times have changed, and I must now respectfully disagree. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press may have a strong cultural hold in Australia, but they rest on flimsy legal foundations.

The first express legal protection of free speech came in the US Constitution’s First Amendment (1789- 1791), which provided that:

“Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

In the wake of the horrors of WWII and Nazism, the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 (Art 19) provided that:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

And this was reinforced in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR 1966, in force 1976), which protects freedom of expression — but calls for “national, racial or religious hatred” to be prohibited by law.

The ICCPR or its equivalent is enshrined in Constitutions or statutes in US, UK, Canada, NZ, Europe, PNG and most of the Pacific, most of Africa, most of Asia (including Hong Kong, Art 27)—but remarkably not in Australia. (Although Victoria and the ACT now have Human Rights legislation.)

In an attempt to partially remedy this glaring anomaly, in 1992 the High Court of Australia (per Mason CJ) in Capital TV case ruled that there is an implied protection of political communication in the Constitution, as an essential element of the system of democratic and responsible government.

Unfortunately, the traditionally fine balance has been tipping steadily against freedom in recent times. We’ve 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 (introducing s 35P) now make disclosure of information relating to a “special intelligence operation” a crime carrying a maximum penalty of five years’ gaol. How do you know it’s a “special intelligence operation”? Well, we’ll tell you after we arrest you. But then you can’t tell anyone else. (Who knew that modern day Franz Kafkas would have a future in legislative drafting?)

I have already publicly described the new metadata retention laws as a crushing blow to investigative journalism and freedom of the press.

Sadly, these laws received bi-partisan support, with significant opposition in the Parliament only from the Greens and some Independents, like Andrew Wilkie (a former intelligence analyst).

We have seen a Parliamentary committee seriously consider so-called ‘ag-gag’ laws imported from the United States, in which animal welfare campaigners and journalists who expose the patently brutal and unlawful treatment of animals are themselves to serious criminal liability—in other words, punish the whistle blower, not the perpetrator!

On Monday I was pleased to read that one of the first ag-gag laws, in Idaho, has been ruled unconstitutional by the US Federal District Court for impermissibly stifling speech “that advances significant public interests” in animal welfare and human health and safety.

Similarly, under the recently passed Australian Border Force Act 2015 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 2 years’ gaol. So again we punish the bearer of bad news rather than those who let down or actively abuse vulnerable people in our care.

In these circumstances, it is not sufficient to hope that publishers will be successful in resisting these incursions, and the Press Council must take a stand in favour of free speech and press freedom liberty.

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’. The United Kingdom has new legislation that provides an effective balance between protecting the reputation of ordinary citizens and recognising the role of the press in a democratic nation. And so I have pledged to lead a process, commencing soon and culminating next May, to develop a Model Uniform Defamation Law for Australia of which we can finally be proud.

The challenge for the press Let me end with something of a challenge for the media.

I am happy to commit the energy and resources of the Press Council to these campaigns, because I believe they will be vital to shaping the sort of society we leave to our children. The media has an especially critical role to play in an era in which the major political parties risk vacating the field, providing too few ideas, little vision and even less moral leadership.

But the basis for according a high priority to press freedom is that we need freedom of speech and an unfettered press to hold the powerful to account and to facilitate the contest of ideas; in other words, to provide the oxygen required to maintain a thriving democracy and a vital society. It is NOT a smarty-pants tool to poke fun at the powerless and the dispossessed, or to secure the right for some of us to be bigots.

There is a great deal of very high quality journalism being produced in this country, by some very fine journalists and editors. But I do worry about whether the press will be able to resist growing commercial and competitive pressures and continue to match rights with responsibility.

So while we fight together for greater freedom of the press, media outlets must redouble their own efforts to facilitate the contest of ideas, including by publishing material that is complex, controversial, unpopular or poses difficult or painful questions. If the journalism we all admire ‘speaks truth to power’ and ‘holds the rich and rich and powerful’ to account, then lets pledge to produce that sort of journalism, even if it gets fewer clicks than celebrity goss.

It will be so much easier to campaign successfully for press freedom if the community is convinced that this power will be exercised fairly, intelligently and in the public interest. Thanks so much for your kind attention.

80 A5. Ranald Macdonald address – 5 May 2016

“The Australian Press Council’s 40th Anniversary.”

When asked by the Chairman, the ubiquitous Professor David Weisbrot, to talk about the protracted and fraught birthing of the Australian Press Council 40 years ago, I do not think he realised the unlikely role that UNESCO played in his Council’s formation.

There is a remarkable coincidental linkage in my own particular activities around that time.

In 1979, I was the world chairman of the International Press Institute, then the main organization of editors, publishers and journalists fighting around the world for press freedom and for the “free flow of news and information”.

UNESCO was the enemy, despite the iconic United Nations (1948) Article 19 Declaration of Human Rights, theoretically supported by all member nations, when the declaration was established as the gold standard for press freedom and the right of citizens to information.

The MacBride Commission in the late 1970’s morphed into UNESCO’s push for a New World Information order backed by a number of countries, a number of whom had the freedom of journalists to ply their craft and freedom to publish at the very bottom of their agendas.

Indeed, the Tunisian Secretary of State for Information, a Mr. Masmoudi, released the report in 1978, which promoted such things as governments having the right of reply to correct falsehoods in the media, licensing of newspapers, payments by the developed world media organisations to the underdeveloped so they could achieve equality et cetera et cetera.

Here in Australia, some of us had been working with little effect during the late 60’s and into the 70’s to achieve a voluntary and independent Press Council to promote freedom of the press here AND to raise journalistic standards and provide for the public a body to turn to over concerns about unfair or inaccurate reporting.

It was about a ‘fair go’, coupled with self-interest, perhaps, as I and others wanted to show which newspapers were actually trying to provide news coverage, to use sources rather than promoting rumour or sensationalism, and to not be swayed in editorial judgments by self-interest or the exercise of power.

In other words, turning the spotlight onto those serious newspapers attempting to tell the community what was going on and trying to achieve fairness—not balance, but fairness—in news coverage and analysis.

Further, as is inevitable however one crosschecks material, errors do occur when relying on sources, witnesses or leaks. For the credibility of our profession editors needed to fess up when mistakes occurred so as to set the record straight.

In September 1972, I publically called for the establishment of a voluntary, industry-funded Press Council. While this gained considerable publicity, it was NOT a move that achieved much backing from other media chief executives.

However, the issue was put on the public agenda with support coming from then ACTU President Bob Hawke (later to be Prime Minister) and the opposition spokesman on the media, Senator McClelland.

Australian newspaper proprietors have been since the mid-19th century strong-minded, outspoken men who would not brook interference from any quarter.

For example, a forbear of mine publisher David Syme welcomed the return of a NSW Governor to the UK in the following terms.

“Sir Charles Fitzroy is gone, with his feebleness, his utter worthlessness both as a man and a ruler, his immoralities, and his hopeful family. The worn out voluntary—the Claudius of Sydney—was recalled and all flunkeydom fell at his feet to bathe them in grateful tears….”

The Age editorial ended by describing his style of governorship as “doing nothing and doing that well”.

When at 26 I became Managing Director of The Age organization in 1964, the field included the formidable figures of Sirs’ Frank Packer, Warwick Fairfax (with the power behind the throne being tough old managing director Rupert Henderson) and John Williams of the huge Melbourne Herald Group developed through the acquisitive Sir Keith Murdoch.

Rupert Murdoch had already started to display the same ambitions as his father as he built his presence from the unlikely source of the small and easily dismissible Adelaide Evening News.

None of these publishers would have a bar of a voluntary Press Council—and one funded by the newspaper industry —despite the Australian Journalists Association’s advocacy and some ‘idealistic’ others who saw developments overseas which reflected the view that journalism should be more accountable to its public.

By the mid-70’s, there occurred a fortuitous confluence of events.

Not that I am saying that the departure of both Sir John Williams and Sir Frank Packer at that time was something to be applauded, but their successors were more open to persuasion that a Press Council would be in their best interests.

UNESCO had released a background paper providing arguments for its New World Information Order soon after I had given a speech promoting a media code of ethics and urging again the formation of an Australian Press Council.

Dr. Moss Cass was Minister for the Media in the Whitlam Government in 1975 and he released a discussion paper proposing press and media reform, which had as its attachment a page summarizing some of the UNESCO options, which included licensing of newspapers.

Rather unfairly to the estimable Dr. Cass, I— then both President of the Australian Newspaper Publishers Association and Chairman of the Media Council—was able to promote the unhappy spectre, even the ‘threat’, of a Labor Government licensing newspapers.

Some editors disagreed with their bosses and really did support a self-regulatory press council and I had the active backing of David McNicholl—advising Kerry Packer who had just succeeded his father as head of Australian Consolidated Press—and of the outstanding Age editor, Graham Perkin.

Fortunately, enough of those running the newspapers around Australia took the bait, as they feared Government interference in the cherished area of their ability and right to act as they pleased.

Though the body was not actually formalised until 1976, after Malcolm Fraser had become Prime Minister, we had the numbers and the Australian Press Council was agreed to. David McNicholl joined the Council as a founder member.

82 The wise and independent figure of Sir Frank Kitto, a retired High Court judge became the first Chairman, funds were provided, public members chosen and the Australian Press Council was up and running.

Of course, there were—and have been at certain times since—real crises to overcome and times when the Press Council was unable to achieve its objectives. Which were basically:

 to promote freedom of the press (a strong selling point);

 to become known to all newspaper consumers around Australia as the body they could turn to for independent and speedy resolution of their complaints; and

 to ensure that, when judgments were handed down about any complaint, the determination would be published prominently in the newspaper complained against

The growth problems were many and the Press Council watchdog soon became increasing barkless and toothless.

Fairfax (through Warwick Fairfax, its chairman) thought that the Sydney Morning Herald was above the conflict—inviolate even—and so withdrew his backing. Though this stance was not supported by most of his senior editorial staff.

Rupert Murdoch—who had added the Sydney Daily Telegraph to his fledgling media empire—as I think has been demonstrated many times since just does not accept that anyone should question what he or his newspapers do, or why.

So, funding was reduced.

Sir Frank Kitto could not get around the country to fly the flag and explain what the Press Council was trying to achieve AND passive resistance by publishers meant that speedy resolution of referred complaints—so basic for those who feel they have been misreported or unfairly maligned—was rare.

Further, the positioning of a critical finding by the Press Council was often hard to find in the offending newspaper.

Some issues were tackled, though, and some good things achieved.

They included the publishing of well-considered responses to press freedom issues, promoting ethical and professional standards, setting precedent with its findings and making submissions to the government when matters affecting the media were concerned.

So, here we are 40 years on, and the Press Council is still operating and playing a positive role, though in a much altered media landscape.

In supporting it in its reinvigorated and more complicated role, can I return to a couple of points I made at the time of its launching which have proved true.

Complaints against the serious newspapers outweigh those against the tabloids. It is all about level of expectation.

When complainants are satisfied with the speed and the way their concerns are dealt with, legal action does not follow. Everyone benefits.

And, lastly, those within the profession ARE concerned if their fellow journalists and editors adjudge them as having transgressed professional standards of fairness, accuracy, or even intention.

When speaking at the 28th IPI World Congress in Athens in June 1979 at the wonderful theatre of the Herod Atticus on the lower slopes of the Acropolis built in 161 AD, I said:

“We support the efforts of UNESCO to reduce the costs of communications, to encourage new news agencies (although we demand that those State-controlled agencies should be identified as such and that there should be no restriction on the activities of other wire services and news gatherers), to provide equipment and training in the developing world and to encourage the protection of journalists.

But the message should be loud and clear. The aims of preserving local cultures and of attacking the immense problems of poverty, disease, and illiteracy and of righting the imbalance of news flow between the developed and undeveloped nations are all admirable and vital aims. But they cannot be used to justify, and we are not prepared to accept, formalized codes of ethics or behavior, the imposition of a World Press Institute, the acceptance of a system of international right of reply or the licensing of journalists.

In short, we have every reason to suspect the motives of governments, which had shown their determination to limit the free flow of news and information—even if the aims articulated seem impeccable.”

Journalistic freedom to perform is basic, necessary and must be inviolate. Democracy depends on it.

Some progress has been made around the world in recognising the rights of journalists to perform their appointed tasks, though the cases of pressure, threats, imprisonment and death remain all too common —AND in countries which are signatories to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

Also, the advent of social media and smart phones and technological change in broadcasting, has allowed the news to get out when in the past regimes could have suppressed it.

It still, though, requires the determination, courage and commitment of journalists and whistle-blowers in so many countries, who are prepared to sacrifice and risk for the greater good, for us to learn about what is happening.

I welcome the decision of 25 years ago by UNESCO to establish World Press Freedom Day and to turn the spotlight on those who risk a great deal in spreading the news so an informed community can press for informed decisions.

Press freedom and the ‘free flow of information’—which is simply the right of communities to know what is going on—is a fight that sadly continues to be needed to be fought. And, vigorously.

The Australian Press Council has that as one of its major and continuing objectives. The other is raising the standards of the journalistic profession and making publishers more publically accountable.

I wish it well in its future endeavours.

86 A6. 40th Anniversary Conference program

92 A7. 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 2015-16. 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 2015-16 2014-15 2013-14 2012-13 2011-12 2010-11 New complaints received during year1 500 525 467 504 562 325 Complainants making these complaints2 801 3,742 849 713 753 463 Issues raised by these complainants3 577 678 650 1106 923 566

Contacts not included above - out-of-scope complaints4 167 287 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 2015-16 For complaints received during year 2015-16 year New South Wales 217 Individuals 762 Victoria 136 Associations, companies and 35 Queensland 78 other Western Australia 26 non-government bodies South Australia 22 Government and other public 0 Tasmania 10 bodies1 Australian Capital Territory 11 Politicians, councillors, electoral 3 Northern Territory 6 candidates and political parties Overseas 8 Other2 1 Unspecified 287 Total 801 Total 801 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 2015-16 For complaints received during year1 2015-16 year Online only 164 Newspapers and their digital Print only 107 platforms Print and online and blanks/failure 229 - National 43 to publish - State 284 Total 500

- Regional and rural 83 Notes: - Suburban 2 1. These figures relate to the platforms in which the relevant material appeared, not Magazines and their digital 7 only the platform in which the complainant accessed it. platforms Online-only publications1 81 Other 0 Total 500

Notes: 1. Not including the websites and other digital platforms of print publishers.

94 SECTION D OUTCOMES OF COMPLAINTS

Table 6 Table 7 OUTCOME OF COMPLAINT DETAILS OF REMEDIES For complaints closed during 2015-16 For complaints closed during year1 2015-16 year1 Remedy without adjudication Declined by the Council at initial 200 Apology (public or private) 4 stage Retraction, correction or clarification 26 Withdrawn or discontinued2 112 published Remedy without adjudication 78 Letter of Advice 21 Not pursued by complainant 70 Resolved by complainant with 2 Adjudication published Complaint fully or partly upheld3 24 Follow up article published 2 Complaint not upheld 6 Amendment to article 15 Total 490 Other similar action 8

Notes: Remedy by adjudication 1. The numbers in this table relate to the different complaints that were closed during Complaint fully or partly upheld 24 the year, including any which had been opened earlier. The total number is Total 102 different from the number of complaints represented in Table 1 (number of complainants making complaints) and Tables 4 and 5 (complaints received). Notes: 2. Includes complaints withdrawn by the complainant and those discontinued by the 1. The table provides a breakdown of the remedies recorded in Table 6. complainant or the Council. 3. Includes one unpublished matter.

SECTION E ISSUES

Table 8 ISSUES RAISED BY COMPLAINT For complaints received during year 2015-16 News – Accuracy/Fact/Opinion 300 Correction/Action 49 Opinion – Accuracy/Fair 57 Opinion/Reply 15 Intrusion on Privacy 29 Offence/Prejudice/Distress 104 Deception investigation 11 Conflict of Interest 8 Other 4 Total 577

Notes:

Annex to Table 8 Categories of Issues Accuracy and clarity 1. Ensure that factual material in news reports and elsewhere is accurate and not misleading, and is distinguishable from other material such as opinion. 2. Provide a correction or other adequate remedial action if published material is significantly inaccurate or misleading. Fairness and balance 3. Ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts. 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 necessary to address a possible breach of General Principle 3. Privacy and avoidance of harm 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.

96 A8. Summaries of adjudications 2015—2016 Summaries of all the Press Council’s adjudications for the 2015-16 reporting year are provided below. Copies of the full adjudications follow this list of summaries.

Adjudication 1647: National Welfare Rights Network/The Daily Telegraph (July 2015) A complaint that reports implying the NWRN was facilitating exploitation of the Disability Support Pension were inaccurate and unfair.

Adjudication 1644: David Murray/The Sunday Times and Perth Now (August 2015) A complaint that reports alleging a tanning salon operator was “flouting safety regulations” were misleading and unfair.

Adjudication 1650: Complainant/The Courier-Mail (August 2015) A complaint that the prominent characterisation and emphasis of a murder victim’s transgender identity was offensive, distressing and prejudiced.

Adjudication 1651: Complainant/The Sydney Morning Herald (August 2015) A complaint that reporting about a “person of interest” in a missing child investigation was in breach of his privacy and unfair.

Adjudication 1649: Complainant/The Advertiser (August 2015) A complaint that attributing “watering down” of proposed amendments to Foreign Fighters legislation to the Federal Opposition – to a “Labor jihad” – was misleading, unfair and unbalanced.

Adjudication 1623: Dale Gietzelt/The Australian (August 2015) A complaint that allegations of a former Labor Party Minister being closely associated with the Communist Party were unsubstantiated, unfair and unbalanced.

Adjudication 1654: Complainant/The Northern Star (September 2015) A complaint that a prominent report attributing a syringe found on a sports oval to “junkie scum” was misleading, unfair and offensive.

Adjudication 1655: Complainant/Gold Coast Bulletin (September 2015) A complaint that the emphasis and detail of the transgender identity of an alleged offender was unfair and offensive.

Adjudication 1648: Complainant/The Age (September 2015) A complaint that a feature on the success story of a migrant education service’s youth program was misleading and failed to adequately disclose conflicts of interest.

Adjudication 1658: Complainant/Hamilton Spectator (September 2015) A complaint that comments in an editorial concerning a particular gaol sentence being disproportionate to the indecent assault of a minor were offensive and distressing.

Adjudication 1652: Paul Lynch/AAP (October 2015) A complaint that a report describing a cultural festival at which the Shadow Attorney General for NSW was in attendance as a “pro-Russian rebel event” was inaccurate and unfair.

Adjudication 1657: Complainant/NT News (October 2015) A complaint that a prominent homepage article concerning a man apparently engaged in a sex act with the exhaust pipe of a car was offensive.

Adjudication 1656: Nicole Johnston/Brisbane Times (October 2015) A complaint that a report concerning a councillor being “forcibly removed” and “arrested and detained by police outside a bar” was inaccurate, unfair and unbalanced.

Adjudication 1653: Complainant/The Courier-Mail (October 2015) A complaint that a prominent report featuring a light-hearted headline about the disappearance of a NSW woman days before her wedding was offensive and distressing.

Adjudication 1660: Peter Burke/WA Today (November 2015) A complaint that a report concerning the approval of a high-rise development in Perth was inaccurate and failed to correct this, and also failed to disclose a conflict of interest.

Adjudication 1661: Complainant/The Daily Advertiser (November 2015) A complaint that two items, a letter to the Editor and an opinion column, on the subject of same sex marriage were offensive.

Adjudication 1659: Complainant/WA Today (December 2015) A complaint that republished speculation that a school teacher resigned due to a topless or drug-related image of her on social media was inaccurate, unfair, distressing and in breach of her privacy.

Adjudication 1665: Rhonda Hall/Pakenham Gazette (January 2016) A complaint that an article concerning a young man who died of suicide, whose mother was not contacted prior to publication, was distressing and in breach of both privacy and suicide standards.

Adjudication 1667: Complainant/The Australian (February 2016) A complaint that a report concerning a submission to a parliamentary inquiry into the tax-deductibility status of environmental donations was inaccurate, unfair and unbalanced.

Adjudication 1666: Complainant/Herald Sun (February 2016) A complaint that a report describing the long-term unemployed as “milking the tax payer” did not distinguish opinion from factual reporting and was inaccurate, unfair and unbalanced.

Adjudication 1663: Jennifer Rankine/The Australian (March 2016) A complaint that a series of nine articles concerning an integrity investigation into the then South Australian Minister for Education was inaccurate, unfair and unbalanced.

Adjudication 1662: Complainant/The Queensland Times (March 2016) A complaint that the Facebook version of a report concerning a man charged with robbery and weapon offences, which did not edit out photos of his school-age children, breached their privacy.

Adjudication 1664: Michael Sutherland/The Sunday Times and Perth Now (March 2016) A complaint that a report concerning the Western Australian Speaker’s personal expenses, salary and entitlements was misleading and unfair.

Adjudication 1669: CFMEU/Herald Sun (April 2016) A complaint that a report that a police raid had been conducted on a union’s office was inaccurate, unfair and unbalanced, and that adequate remedial action was not provided.

Adjudication 1670: Complainant/news.com.au (April 2016) A complaint that a report featuring a video of women being tortured in Papua New Guinea was offensive and distressing.

Adjudication 1675: Complainant/The Age (May 2016) A complaint that a report concerning an apparent murder-suicide in Austria was offensive and in breach of suicide standards.

Adjudication 1671: Anthony Wilson/The Moorabool News (May 2016) A complaint that a report concerning the court costs of a local council’s legal action against the owners of dog the subject of an attack was misleading and unfair.

Adjudication 1679: Complainant/The Australian (June 2016) A complaint that two articles concerning a refugee detained in Nauru breached her privacy, were offensive, distressing and prejudiced, and published unfairly or dishonestly obtained material.

Adjudication 1673: West Coast Eagles/Herald Sun (June 2016) A complaint that a prominent article featuring a former player’s allegations of substance abuse at a club published two days before its Grand Final appearance was misleading, unfair and unbalanced.

Adjudication 1677: NBN Co/Tully Times (June 2016) A complaint that two articles criticising the local rollout of the National Broadband Network was misleading, unfair and unbalanced, and that adequate remedial action was not provided.

100 A9. Full adjudications 2015—2016

National Welfare Rights Network/The Daily Telegraph Adjudication 1647 (July 2015) The Press Council considered a complaint by the National Welfare Rights Network (NWRN) about articles published in The Daily Telegraph on 30 September 2014. The first article appeared in the print edition headed “Rorters sharing tips to get on disability pension: Bludge School, how to fudge a bludge”; an online version was headed “It’s so easy to fudge a bludge: Online guides used to con doctors into giving out disability support pensions”. The articles quoted website forums that were said to share information for claimants on how to obtain or remain on the Disability Support Pension (DSP), including the use of “form letters” for doctors. The complaint also referred to an editorial, in print and online editions, headed “Benefits of bludger busting”. Amie Meers of the NWRN complained that the organisation was inaccurately named in the article as one of four groups that “run” the website forums quoted. It said it did not run a forum and that none of the quotes were from its website. It also said the statement that such “sites also provide form letters to slip to doctors” was false and misleading because the NWRN was the only organisation of the four named in the article that provided a “form letter” for doctors. The complainant said that the form letter is not designed to “con” but is a neutrally worded document, intended to assist claimants and their doctors in providing all relevant information needed by Centrelink to assess a claim. The complainant also said it had written to the publication after the article appeared requesting a correction. However, rather than making any correction, the publication included comments from the NWRN letter within a subsequent article headed “Bludging guides to stay on”. The complainant said that when the NWRN complained again, the publication offered to run the organisation’s full letter in its letters section. The complainant said it rejected this offer because the letters section is in the rear of the paper, away from the front news section and not prominent enough. The publication argued that the term “forum” was intended to convey the organisation provided a “forum” where people could access information on the DSP. It also agreed that none of the quotes were from the NWRN website. The publication acknowledged that the original article drew on material provided by the organisation’s website as it was the only one of the four groups mentioned which provided a “form letter” for doctors. However it said the article did not imply the NWRN letter itself was part of a “con”. It said the article was reporting on concerns expressed by the federal government about the number of genuine DSP claims and alerting readers to the opportunity for non-genuine claimants to use online resources to exploit the system. The publication said it had provided a right of reply to the complainant the day after the article was published, given the second article quoted material from the NWRN’s letter. The publication also said that upon receiving a further complaint from the organisation, it had offered to publish their entire letter or another letter by the NWRN in relation to the issues it raised, but the complainant had not accepted this offer made in good faith. Conclusion The Press Council concludes that the article inaccurately and unfairly implied the NWRN ran a forum, that the quotes in the article came from its website, and that the form letter it produced was part of an attempt to “con” doctors, an allegation that was reinforced by the use of the word “slip”. The Council considers that the implication was particularly strong in the online version given the nature of the headline. Accordingly, this aspect of the complaint is upheld. Given the article’s inaccurate imputations about the complainant’s practices, the Press Council does not accept that using parts of the complainant’s letter in a subsequent article without consulting the complainant was adequate remedial action. However, the publication’s subsequent offer to print the

101 complainant’s letter in full did constitute the taking of reasonable steps under the Council’s Standards. It was not obliged to meet the complainant’s request for placement in the paper other than in the letters section. Therefore the Council considers that there was no breach of its Standards in this respect.

David Murray/The Sunday Times and PerthNow Adjudication 1644 (August 2015) The Press Council considered a complaint about an article published on 31 August 2014 in The Sunday Times print edition headed “IT’S NOT FAIR: Tanning salons snub safety laws” and in PerthNow online headed “Pressure on WA Health Minister Kim Hames to pull plug on solariums, with tanning salons in Perth flouting safety regulations”. The article dealt with a reporter’s attendance at three tanning solariums to enquire about having tanning. David Murray, the operator of a solarium, said the statement that stores “snub” or were “blatantly flouting” safety regulations was inaccurate and misleading because the solariums had not knowingly or wilfully breached safety regulations. He said the articles stated each of the salons had allowed the reporter to make an appointment to tan despite her having “Type I” fair skin, but omitted to mention that the skin type analysis conducted prior to tanning relied heavily on the misleading information supplied by the reporter in an assessment form she completed. This resulted in an assessment of “Type II” skin (meaning she could tan minimally) and there was no reason to disagree with this assessment. He said his salon manager had taken the necessary steps under the regulations to ensure the skin assessment was carried out correctly and had the reporter answered questions accurately she may have been given a rating of “Type I” skin (meaning she was not permitted to tan). The complainant also said that had the journalist elected to proceed through to the tanning unit, the information not adequately addressed in her form - such as additional freckles and moles covered by clothing - would have been detected in the final physical check prior to entering the tanning unit. The complainant also said that if the manager’s assessment and the “Type II” skin assessment on the form did not correlate, then the issue would have been discussed further with the reporter. The complainant said after the articles appeared he had written to the publication to complain about them and seek remedial action, but no response was received. The publication said the articles raised an important public issue by demonstrating the inadequacy of the regulations, given that it was easy for the public to misrepresent their skin type. It said the headlines and articles were justified in their assertion that safety regulations were snubbed and flouted because the industry standard and the relevant agency place the onus on the operator to do a rigorous assessment of skin type. It said skin analysis should rely not only on a form completed by the customer, but also the operators’ assessment of those answers, questions to the client and a visual assessment. It also said that although the reporter had not answered questions on the form accurately, the reporter is noticeably fair skinned and the operator should have conducted a proper assessment by checking the answers she had provided and doing a physical check. The publication also said after the articles were published it tried unsuccessfully to contact Mr Murray to offer to publish a letter from him. Conclusion The Council’s Standards of Practice require publications to take reasonable care to ensure factual material is accurate and presented with reasonable fairness, and that opinions are not based on inaccurate or omitted key facts. The Council considers the article did not adequately explain the way in which the reporter’s skin type analysis was arrived at, nor reveal the extent to which the reporter had misrepresented her self-assessment, and the impact this information may have had in triggering a more rigorous assessment by the operators or further interrogation which may have been deemed necessary. The Council considers that while the article could have highlighted deficiencies in the regulations, it did not do so but instead alleged that the operators were flouting the regulations. In addition, the omission

102 to inform readers that the assertions operators “snub” or “blatantly flout” safety laws was predicated on forms that were filled out untruthfully by the reporter was unfair and significantly misleading. Accordingly, the Council upholds the complaint.

Complainant/The Courier-Mail Adjudication 1650 (August 2015) The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by the publication of articles in The Courier-Mail on 7 October 2014 reporting on the murder and mutilation of Mayang Prasetyo by her partner Marcus Volke and his subsequent suicide. The material consisted of a front page article with the headline “Monster Chef and the She Male” together with a large photo of the victim, Mayang Prasetyo, wearing a bikini. On pages four and five were further articles with the headline “Ladyboy and the butcher” which included additional photos of the victim from an “escort website” and a photo of the victim in a white swimsuit. The articles contained references, in the opening paragraph and elsewhere, to the victim’s sex work activities and also quoted from her advertisements for sex work. The Council asked the publication to comment on whether the material 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 Council also asked the publication whether it took reasonable steps to ensure fairness and balance in its treatment of the murder and mutilation victim, Mayang Prasetyo, and whether subsequent actions by the publication had provided a reasonable opportunity to address any possible breach. The publication said that this murder suicide was one of the more gruesome crimes in the state’s history and of significant public interest. It said the police had examined details of the victim and her partner’s background, including their sex work, as part of the investigation into the murder and as such, these were legitimate matters to report. The publication said the victim had identified herself as “transgender” and a “ladyboy” and promoted herself as a “top class Asian she male”. It said “ladyboy” was a term applied regularly to transsexuals in Asia. The publication said one of Ms Prasetyo’s Indonesian friends among those quoted in the article, had referred to her as a “ladyboy”. The publication said the pictures used were taken from Ms Prasetyo’s own public Facebook page, and the publication noted these were images she had used to promote herself and it said she had told friends she was “proud” of them. However, the publication said it accepted that the terms used had evidently caused offence and in responding to complaints it had taken several steps to address the concerns of readers. It said it had published a prominent editorial the following day headed “Victim’s memory should be valued”, saying that it had “no intention of diminishing the value of Mayang’s life”. The publication also said in the two weeks following publication of the articles, it published a number of letters and articles critical of the publication including a lengthy comment piece from the Transgender Support Association of Queensland. In a second prominent editorial on October 25, the publication said its coverage was confronting and evoked a range of responses, but “intentional offence” was not its purpose and it said sorry to those it unintentionally offended. It had adopted the ‘how to’ guide published by the Poynter Institute, “Nine ways journalists can do justice to transgender people's stories”, and had implemented training and counselling of its relevant editorial staff to emphasise the need for a more sensitive approach to reporting such issues, and to reduce the likelihood of offence in any future reporting. Conclusion The Council considers that the prominent treatment given to the victim’s gender, and the repetitive detail of her sex work, was gratuitous and contributed to the substantial offence caused by the terminology used to describe the murder victim. This was not sufficiently warranted in the public

103 interest. For the same reasons, Ms Prasetyo’s death was presented in a manner that was not reasonably fair and balanced. Accordingly, the Council finds a breach of its Standards in relation to General Principles 3 and 6. The Council notes the steps taken by the publication to address the complaints and commends it for its work to ensure such issues are covered sensitively in future. Accordingly, in this aspect of the complaint, the Council finds no breach of General Principle 4.

Complainant/The Sydney Morning Herald Adjudication 1651 (August 2015) The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by two articles published in The Sydney Morning Herald on 22 January 2015, relating to police investigations into a missing child, William Tyrrell. The first article, a front page report, was headed “Investigation focuses on tradesman” and the second was an online article headed “William Harrie Spedding the focus of William Tyrell [sic] investigation”. The front page article included a large photograph of Mr Spedding and a smaller inset image of the missing “toddler”, William Tyrrell. It reported on developments in a police investigation into the missing child including searches of Mr Spedding’s properties, and excavations carried out at his home. After receiving a complaint, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether such prominent treatment focusing on a single “person of interest” had breached the Standards of Practice relating to privacy and fairness, as Mr Spedding had not been arrested or charged and police said at the time it was “not a major breakthrough”, “no person had been charged” and “a number of persons had been spoken to as part of this phase of the investigation”. The publication said it had accurately reported details of what it said was a major development in the police investigation into the disappearance of William Tyrrell, missing since September 2014. It said in reporting on these developments, it had taken steps to offer several opportunities to Mr Spedding and his family to address the police interest in him. Although Mr Spedding declined to comment, a close friend “had spoken on his behalf” and his comments defending Mr Spedding were prominently featured in the article. The publication also said the article was balanced and not limited to reporting on Mr Spedding as it had also reported another line of enquiry, the police search of a local caravan park. The publication said it did not dispute the intrusion on Mr Spedding’s privacy created by the coverage of the developments in the police investigation. However, it said this was justified given the case was of significant public interest. The search for the child had continued for several months. This was a two- day, very public search in a small local community, of Mr Spedding’s premises. The publication said this included the excavation of a septic tank in the backyard of his property and noted that the level of local disruption and attention created by the searches significantly diminished Mr Spedding’s reasonable expectation of privacy. Conclusion The Press Council’s General Principles require material to be presented with reasonable fairness and balance and to avoid intruding on a person’s reasonable expectations of privacy. This is especially so in cases reporting on police investigations, as prominent treatment of a person may cause readers to infer the culpability of a person who may not in fact be implicated in a crime. However, this does not necessarily require omission of matters which are on the public record or significantly in the public interest, provided such details are reported accurately and fairly. The Council considers these articles accurately reflected the shifting focus of a lengthy and involved police operation conducted over several months and of great public interest. At the time of the report, the police interest in Mr Spedding had intensified with police conducting searches of two properties of his in the public gaze. The expectation of privacy in such circumstances is lower. In the circumstances, the article did not infringe on a reasonable expectation of privacy. As to fairness and balance, the article

104 informed the public of the progress of the investigation and of the level of scrutiny focused on Mr Spedding at that time. The headline did not imply that Mr Spedding was the only person of interest. Council is of the view that more prominence could have been given to police comments that Mr Spedding was only a “person of interest”. However, the inclusion of comments in support of Mr Spedding contributed to the articles’ overall fairness and balance. Accordingly, Council has concluded that its Standards of Practice were not breached.

Complainant/The Advertiser Adjudication 1649 (August 2015) The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by the publication of an article in The Advertiser on 3 January 2015. The headline was “How Labor jihad dented PM’s law on terror travel”. An online version of the article was published on 2 January 2015 with the headline “Labor to blame for watering down law that make it harder to jail returning jihadis”. The article asserted the federal Labor opposition was responsible for “watering down” proposed amendments to the Foreign Fighters Bill following a recommendation to ban travel to regions within countries, rather than travel to specific countries as had been proposed by the government. The Council asked the publication to comment on whether the article had breached its Standards of Practice requiring that reasonable steps be taken to “ensure that factual material in news reports and elsewhere is accurate and not misleading”, “is presented with reasonable fairness and balance” and “that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on… omission of key facts”. The publication said the article accurately reflected the circumstance that the Labor Party had been the “driving force” behind changes to the Foreign Fighters Bill. It said that to ensure the passing of this legislation, the Government had sought bipartisan support. Labor had indicated disagreement with the travel restrictions and so the Government had sought a compromise in order to ensure passage of the legislation by the Senate. The publication said as a consequence, the Bill was referred to the Committee for review, consisting of Coalition and Labor MPs, and the changes pressed for by Labor were recommended. It said without a campaign by Labor to have changes made, the legislation would have been “tougher”. The publication said the use of the term “jihad” was not intended to be literal, but was in keeping with the dictionary definition of a “crusade” or “campaign” which it said Labor had pursued to have the legislation amended. It said this was reflected in the body of the article. Conclusion The Council considers that “jihad” is a term with connotations of extremist behaviour. Its use in the headline had the result that the material was not presented with reasonably fairness and balance. The Council is not satisfied that the article is inaccurate or misleading to the extent that it accurately attributes the recommended changes to the “joint intelligence committee, which included Liberal MPs”. However, Council notes that the 11-member Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which recommended the changes, had a majority of six Coalition members and that Labor members made up the minority of the Committee. The Council concluded that the omission of this significant fact together with the headline, and the lack of any explanation to support the assertion that the recommendation is wholly attributable to the Labor opposition, contributed to the article’s lack of fairness and balance. Accordingly, the Council was not satisfied that the material was in breach of General Principle 1. The material was accurate as far as it went, but the material was presented in a manner which gave rise to a breach of General Principle 3.

105

Dale Gietzelt/The Weekend Australian Adjudication 1623 (August 2015) The Press Council has considered a complaint by Ms Dale Gietzelt about a report by Troy Bramston in The Weekend Australian of 11-12 January 2014 headed “Colleagues suspected Gietzelt was a communist” and an opinion piece in the same issue headed “Communist Party’s shadow man pursued utterly discredited ideal” relating to her father Arthur Gietzelt. They were published in print and online. The principal focus of the articles was whether Mr Gietzelt, who was a Labor Senator from 1970-89 and a Minister from 1983-87, was at any time a member of the Communist Party or had close associations with it. They referred to a range of material from ASIO files, interviews with former Labor Party figures, a book by a former member of the Communist Party and a number of other sources. The material provided evidence of varying strengths that he had been a member or was reputed to have been a member at least up to his appointment as a Minister or was closely involved in Communist Party activities or had beliefs similar to those of the party or had been the Labor Party’s main link with the Communist Party. The material related to the period up to 1983 but often was not specific about the relevant periods of time. Ms Gietzelt complained that the material was inaccurate, unfair and unbalanced. She said although a particular ASIO document from 1983 was mentioned, the report did not quote or adequately paraphrase the statement in the document that, due to matters relating to a particular source, “without further corroborating evidence a statement that Gietzelt was a secret Party member would not stand close scrutiny”. She also complained about omission of another ASIO document from 1983 which said that Mr Gietzelt had been and possibly continued to be a secret member but “it was not possible to state precisely when he was or was not”, and “there has been no indication of involvement with [the Party] since 1979”. Ms Gietzelt said that the articles did not provide a fair representation of the range of views amongst her father’s contemporaries in the Labor Party and, for example, did not fairly present the views of the former Prime Minister Bob Hawke. She said much of the cited material was irrelevant or ambiguous, claims of corroboration were exaggerated, and more attention should have been given to his undoubted contributions in public life. Ms Gietzelt also complained that the articles were unfair and unbalanced because her opportunity to comment before publication was provided at unreasonably short notice and on very limited aspects, and because the article did not summarise the basis of the denials by her father and his family that he was ever a member of the Communist Party with sufficient prominence. She said the newspaper also failed to publish any of several letters which were subsequently submitted by critics of the articles. She complained that publication of the articles three days before his funeral was an unreasonable intrusion on the family’s privacy and grief. She said that the writer had a conflict of interest because in 1999 he had unsuccessfully sought Mr Gietzelt’s support for pre-selection in a local government election by the Labor Party branch of which Mr Gietzelt was an influential member. In this context, she said that Mr Bramston had written six lengthy articles within the last five years about her father and the Communist Party. The publication responded that the articles drew on a very extensive examination of ASIO files as well as personal interviews and other material. It said it had mentioned one of the 1983 ASIO documents as saying that evidence of Mr Gietzelt’s links needed corroboration, but there was no need to quote it or mention the other document because there was a very large number of other ASIO documents (one of which was a few months later in 1983) which stated or suggested that Mr Gietzelt had been a member of the Communist Party or very closely linked with it. The publication also denied that the range of politicians quoted was unrepresentative and it pointed to the number of other sources to which the article referred. It said the articles never stated conclusively

106 that Mr Gietzelt was a member of the Communist Party and it also referred to the mention made of his achievements in public life. The publication said that Ms Gietzelt had been given enough time to comment and had made a response within its deadline. The articles had mentioned the denials by Mr Gietzelt and his family, and there was no requirement to publish the critical letters which it received subsequently. It said the articles were published six days after her father’s death, at which time it was reasonable to publish material of this kind on such a significant public figure. It said the journalist had no relevant conflict of interest because the pre-selection occurred fifteen years ago, the relevant letter was sent to all local branch members, he did not know how Mr Gietzelt had voted, he had not been active in local Labor Party politics for more than a decade and he is no longer a member. Conclusion The Council has noted that some of the material cited by the journalist about the precise nature of Mr Gietzelt’s involvement with the Communist Party was uncertain or ambiguous, and often involved statements about his reputed involvement rather than first hand evidence. Other material, however, was reasonably specific, significant and credibly sourced. As the articles did not state a firm and specific conclusion about Mr Gietzelt’s involvement, the Council does not consider that there was a failure to take reasonable steps to be accurate or in any other way to comply with the Council’s Principles relating to accuracy. Accordingly, that aspect of the complaint is not upheld. The Council considers that the requirements for fairness and balance in these articles must take account of their length and their publication at a highly sensitive time for the Gietzelt family. In these circumstances, it considers that the passages quoted above in relation to two 1983 ASIO documents should have been quoted or adequately paraphrased, even if accompanied by a reminder of the extensive material to different effect. The Council did not accept the publication’s argument that material referred to in an article printed two years earlier on the same topic was sufficient to provide fairness and balance. The Council considers that the detailed nature of the articles, including new evidence, meant that Ms Gietzelt should have been given more detail and a longer period than what was effectively only a few waking hours to comment before publication, especially as it occurred at a time of grief. This applies even though the journalist could readily predict the general theme of her likely response. Also, the basis of denials by her father and his family should have been reported in greater detail and more prominently. Failure to do so made it unreasonable not to publish any of the critical letters which were subsequently sent to the newspaper, especially as the articles were lengthy and included serious allegations. When taken collectively, these factors have led the Council to conclude that there was a failure to provide reasonable fairness and balance and to provide a reasonable opportunity for a balancing response. This conclusion is very dependent on the length, detail and timing of the articles and the extent to which they could reasonably be interpreted as making serious allegations. Accordingly, that aspect of the complaint is upheld, although not on all of the grounds advanced by Ms Gietzelt. The Council does not consider that, in principle, publication of an article focusing on Mr Gietzelt’s possible links with the Communist Party constituted a greater intrusion on the family’s privacy and grief than could be justified as being in the public interest. Accordingly, that aspect of the complaint is not upheld. The Council considers that the letter on which the allegation of conflict of interest was based shows only a tenuous and fleeting link, the disclosure of which was not required. The number of his other articles about Mr Gietzelt does not invalidate that conclusion. Accordingly, that aspect of the complaint is not upheld. The publication pointed out that Ms Gietzelt had made an earlier complaint about the same material to the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance and the complaint was not upheld. The criteria and

107 processes for considering such complaints differ significantly from those of the Press Council, which is bound to arrive at its own Conclusion in accordance with its own rules.

Complainant/The Northern Star Adjudication 1654 (September 2015) The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by The Northern Star in relation to material published on 30 January 2015 reporting the apparent discovery of a discarded syringe at a local sports oval. The published material consisted of a newsagent display poster “JUNKIE SCUM: PICK UP SYRINGES” and two associated articles published in print and online. The online article was headed “Blood-filled syringe found on junior sports ground” and featured a close-up photograph of what appeared to be a discarded syringe resting among blades of grass. A caption read: “Used syringe laying on Local Sports Oval in Lismore. Corner of Magellan and Brewster St.” The print version of the article consisted of a larger version of the same photograph on page one and a prominent headline “Blood-filled syringe a sharp reminder”. A second smaller caption reading “Discarded syringe found on sports ground used by juniors. BEWARE: …” was situated beneath the image. It also included a pointer to an article on page three: “Blood-filled syringe found on junior sports ground”. The Council asked the publication to comment on whether the material breached General Principles 1 and 3 of its Standards of Practice which respectively require that a publication take reasonable steps to “ensure that factual material in news reports and elsewhere is accurate…” and are reported with “reasonable fairness and balance”. Council also asked the publication whether it took steps 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”, as required by General Principle 6. The publication said that the information was brought to its attention after the image was posted on social media. It said the assertion the syringe was “blood-filled” was made in the caption of the social media post. On its examination of a blown-up version of the image, it had surmised there was blood in the syringe. It said it had tried to verify the details in the online post by sending a photographer to the scene. However, the syringe could not be found. The publication said the report was of significant public interest as it concerned a “pattern of behaviour” which needed to be highlighted to the community because it is a public safety issue. It said a follow-up article it had published, “Readers' outrage at used syringe found at junior sports oval", indicated the issue was of great concern in the local community. In regard to the terms used in the print poster, the publication said “junkie” was a widely used term. It was not aware that the term was offensive to a large section of the community or to intravenous drug users. It said space considerations meant terms such as “intravenous drug user” were not practical for poster headlines. Although the article does not refer to the owner of the needle as a drug user, the publication said the poster was justified as it considered it would be “highly improbable” that a user for medical purposes would discard a needle in such a way. The publication said it quickly became aware that the term “Junkie Scum” was contentious and in response, it had published a comment piece five days later in which its editor acknowledged it was “a poorly worded, over-the-top, tabloid reaction” to the front page story and apologised for any offence caused. Conclusion The Council considers that the headlines prominently promoted the claim that the syringe was “blood- filled”. It is apparent from the image that this is an exaggeration. At most there appears to be some trace of what might be blood. Council notes that the basis of the report was material taken from a social media source. The publication had adopted the information with little effort to establish the accuracy of

108 the assertion and without qualifying the assertion about the location of the syringe. Similarly, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to provide fairness and balance in the report by not reporting the circumstances in a more qualified way. Accordingly, the Council finds a breach of its Standards in relation to General Principle 1 and General Principle 3. Council also considers the implication that all syringe users are “junkie scum” was likely to cause substantial offence. Accordingly, the Council finds a breach of its Standards in relation to General Principle 6. In doing so, Council notes and welcomes the publication’s apology in this regard.

Complainant/Gold Coast Bulletin Adjudication 1655 (September 2015) The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by the publication on 16 April 2015 of an online article in the Gold Coast Bulletin headed “Police forced to use Taser on transgender woman in dramatic Southport arrest”. The article reported the arrest of a transgender woman in the early hours of a morning. The woman allegedly became violent during a confrontation with police, during which she allegedly produced a knife, which she refused to drop. The woman was Tasered during the confrontation. The material included references to the woman's transgender status in the headline, the first paragraph and four other places in the article. The article referred to her as a "pre-surgery” transgender woman. It included five photographs of the woman taken during the incident, two of which were captioned: “A transgender woman played it up for the cameras as police led her away, even giving a sultry hair flick” and "The high slit on the dress left little to the imagination". The Council asked the publication to comment on whether the material breached General Principle 6 of its Standards of Practice requiring a publication to take reasonable steps 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”. Council also asked the publication whether it took steps to ensure “reasonable fairness and balance” in its treatment of the arrested woman, as required by General Principle 3, and whether a fair opportunity to reply was required to address a possible breach of General Principle 3, as required by General Principle 4. The publication said the article was an accurate report of an arrest during which the alleged offender was Tasered by police. The incident occurred when the woman allegedly became violent whilst armed with a knife, while apparently under the influence of a drug, suspected to be ice. It said it had used appropriate terminology to report the woman’s transgender status. The police had referred to her transgender status when explaining why they had Tasered the woman, suggesting that she had “the strength of a man”. The publication said the captions describing the woman’s appearance and behaviour were intended to convey her casual reaction, despite the gravity of situation, including the threat her alleged conduct posed to bystanders, police and emergency workers. The publication said police use of Tasers in Queensland had been the subject of public debate for some time and had recently become the centre of local debate following an incident two months prior, in which a woman had been reportedly partially blinded as a result of the use of a police Taser. For this reason, it said that it had reported the explanation by police for employing the Taser on the woman, namely that “although she looks feminine, this offender still has the strength of a man”. That was why the descriptions of the alleged offender as "transgender" and "pre-surgery transgender woman" were relevant. However, it acknowledged that in the production process, Superintendent Hanbridge’s above comments – which were published in the print edition of the newspaper – were inadvertently edited out of the online article. The publication said it had taken steps to update the article with the police comments, and had reduced the number of references to transgender and removed the term “pre- surgery”.

109

The publication said it had made available to all relevant editorial staff the guide published by the Poynter Institute: “Nine ways journalists can do justice to transgender people's stories”. Conclusion The Council is sensitive to the issue of the media’s portrayal of transgender issues. However, the alleged offender’s transgender status was central to the police explanation of the reason for use of the Taser. Accordingly, there was no breach of General Principle 3 or 6. The Council also notes the steps taken by the publication to address the complaint and to ensure such issues are covered sensitively.

Complainant/The Age Adjudication 1648 (September 2015) The Press Council has considered a complaint about an article published in The Age on 8 December 2014. The article appeared in the Education supplement of the print edition, headed “Young refugees learn by joining in”, and online as “Refugees learn English by doing, playing, working”. The article featured successful students in a youth program run by Victorian-based Adult Migrant Education Service (AMES) and research results said to confirm the benefits of the program. The Complainant, a former employee of AMES and experienced in the adult migrant education sector, complained the article was misleading and the publication failed adequately to disclose conflicts of interest. She said the online article as it originally appeared did not disclose that the writer was employed by AMES, although the print version noted that the writer “is a writer with AMES”. The Complainant said the reference to a “research paper commissioned by AMES” which “recommended additional funding into the AMEP” (Australian Migrant Education Program) misleadingly suggests there had been independent or external research, without disclosing that the researcher was a long-term employee of AMES. Similarly, the article misleadingly presented the research as an endorsement of further investment in the federally-funded AMEP, without adequately disclosing the funding relationship between AMEP and AMES. The Complainant said without such disclosure, the ordinary reader would not be aware of these matters. The Complainant wrote to the publication about her concerns, but the only action taken was to add the omitted disclosure statement about the AMES writer to the online version. She said this inadequately addressed the issues she had raised about the research and funding aspects of the article. The publication said that the article was a feature piece within a package presenting one teacher’s experience of migrant education over thirty years. It said it was not a campaign or promotional piece on AMES and the appropriate attribution was published. The publication said the fact that the researcher was an employee of AMES did not necessarily indicate that the results were biased or lacked validity. It also said the term “commissioned” did not necessarily mean that the research was external. The publication said the article was not an ‘advertorial’ as no payment had been made for placement of the article, and it was simply intended as a positive and informative overview of migrant education containing a sympathetic ‘success story’. The publication said the absence of a disclaimer on the online version of the article was an oversight which was rectified as soon as it was pointed out by the complainant. Conclusion The Council’s relevant Standards of Practice require that reasonable steps must be taken to ensure that factual material in news reports and elsewhere is accurate and not misleading and that conflicts of interests are avoided or adequately disclosed, and that they do not influence published material.

110 The Council considers the print version of the article was clear about the author’s relationship and welcomes the publication’s prompt action in applying the same disclosure to the online version. The Council concludes that the disclosure was adequate in advising readers of the writer’s connections. Based on the available evidence, the Council is not able to determine with sufficient certainty whether or not reasonable steps were taken to ensure there was no influence on published material. The Council concludes that the term “research…commissioned” suggests an independent, external evaluation of the program, but the article failed to reveal that it was produced by an employee and this omission created a misleading impression. It also concludes that there was a lack of clarity regarding the nature of the funding relationships between AMES and AMEP which was also misleading. Accordingly, these aspects of the complaint are upheld.

Complainant/Hamilton Spectator Adjudication 1658 (September 2015) The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by the publication of an editorial in the Hamilton Spectator on 25 April 2015, which formed part of the paper’s weekly editorial known as “The Spec ‘BLOG’”. It commented on the punishment of two offenders in separate child abuse cases. One involved a former priest who had lost an appeal against a prison sentence for the indecent assault of a nine year old girl. The other involved a former Hamilton teacher, sentenced to imprisonment for 18 months. The editorial opined that the suspended sentence for an 83 year old infirm priest living in a nursing home “seemed pointless” and that he was “obviously not going to re- offend”. The former teacher was said to have “got 18 months gaol for merely touching an U16 girl’s breast and genitals”. The editorial noted the judge in the matter had described the offence as “‘at the lower end of the scale’”, and “yet the guy still drew 18 months with six to be served immediately”. The editorial stated “something like this for the middle-age bachelor has the hallmarks of misguided curiosity” and “you could argue that this was closer to a case of appalling manners than major crime”. The Council asked the publication to comment on whether the material breached its Standards of Practice requiring that reasonable steps be taken to “avoid causing substantial offence, distress or prejudice”. The publication was also asked to comment on the references to the teacher “merely touching” the female student, to the “misguided curiosity” of the offender, and the suggestion the child abuse was “closer to a case of appalling manners than a major crime”. The publication said the intention was to consider the wide range of impacts that such abuse can have. The editorial had repeated what a judge had said in one of the cases that the offence was “at the lower end of the scale”. The publication said the scale concerned would be the worst crimes at one end, and bad manners at the other, and that its attempt was to echo what the judge had said, namely that in some cases the offence could be at the lower “bad manners” end of that scale. It said it was not suggesting child abuse was akin to bad manners and acknowledged the poor choice of words had contributed to the offence caused to many readers. The publication said it had done all it could to rectify the misunderstanding. It provided substantial opportunities for readers and editorial staff to publish criticism of the editorial. It said it also published a follow-up “Blog” in which it acknowledged the word “merely” has been “thoughtless” and “clearly offensive”. It said sexual assault involving children was “particularly repugnant”, that it apologised to victims of sexual abuse and their families, and noted this apology had received wide distribution across several media outlets and via social media. Conclusion The Council accepts that some of the opinions expressed in the editorial may have been the result of poor expression. However, the effect of the editorial was to trivialise the crime and crimes of that kind.

111

The expressions used with reference to child sexual assault, in particular terms such as “merely touching” and “misguided curiosity” reflect a significant misunderstanding of the nature and effects of this type of offending and of its seriousness. The Press Council notes the paper published a number of critical responses, including from its own staff. A follow-up editorial on 29 April expressed regret, although no apology, and stood by the comments which were made. A subsequent piece published on 2 May contained a more general but qualified apology that began with a claim that the publication’s critics were like a “lynch mob”. The Press Council concludes that the editorial would have caused substantial offence to a large number of victims, their families and to members of the wider community. The measures taken by the publication in publishing responses does not remove the effects of the breach, nor does the rather grudging apology prevent the matter being treated as a significant breach. Accordingly, the Council finds a breach of its Standards in relation to General Principle 6.

Paul Lynch/AAP Adjudication 1652 (October 2015) The Press Council considered a complaint by NSW Labor MP Mr Paul Lynch, about an article published by AAP on 5 February 2015, some weeks prior to the NSW State Election. The online report was published with the headline “Labor MPs at pro-Russian rebel event”. The article referred to “a meeting organised in support of pro-Russian separatists” that took place at the Serbian Club. It said the event was attended by Mr Lynch, the Shadow Attorney General for NSW, another Labor MP Mr Nick Lalich, the Russian Consul General Sergey Shipilov and Mr Semyon Boikov, the “leader” of the Zabaikal Cossack Society of Australia. It added that Mr Boikov was being monitored by ASIO. It also said that Mr Boikov “spoke during the event, reportedly calling for a swift victory in Ukraine by pro-Russian separatists”, a group “accused of shooting down flight MH17”. It also reported that during the event a “flag representing New Russia - the name given by separatists to the region in east Ukraine they are trying to claim - was raised”. Mr Lynch said the article’s claim that he had attended “a meeting organised in support of pro-Russian separatists” was not accurate. Mr Lynch said that he had been invited to and attended the 24th St Sava Youth Festival at the Serbian Cultural Club at which the main theme was “community building and support”. Mr Lynch said he gave a speech “praising the contribution of the Serbian community to local multiculturalism”. He said the event consisted of several hours of Serbian folkloric performances. There were a number of speeches, of which one was by someone he subsequently learned was Semyon Boikov, during which a flag was produced. Mr Lynch said he was not aware it was a flag representing “New Russia”. He said the report unfairly omitted details of the other public officials who were in attendance, which included a Liverpool Council Deputy Mayor, a Bankstown Councillor and a Liberal Party candidate for the NSW seat of Cabramatta. Mr Lynch said he was first contacted by the publication by text message and two phone calls, about two hours prior to publication. The matter of interest to the AAP was not indicated until an email which arrived at 2:43pm, about 45 minutes prior to publication. No deadline was given for a response. Mr Lynch said at 3pm his press officer advised the publication to expect a response “in the next half hour”, and at 3:48pm a response was given to the publication. However, Mr Lynch said the article appeared just prior to this at 3:38pm “without further warning”. The publication said the article was factually correct given the information available at the time of publication. It said at the time it had no knowledge of the other persons at the event and noted that none had the high profile of the Shadow Attorney General. It said a number of attempts outlined above were made to get Mr Lynch’s comment during the two hours prior to publication.

112 The publication noted that when it received a copy of the invitation to the event, which indicated the nature of the event and included Mr Lynch’s response to its questions, the publication had updated the article with this information within about two and a half hours. The publication said the revised article underwent additional checks by a senior editor and careful consideration was applied to ensure this version was fair and balanced. As a result, it said this added to the length of time before it was submitted for posting online. The publication accepted that Mr Lynch was invited to the Serbian Club for the St Sava Youth Festival, but notes there was “significant pro-Russian sentiment evident” which it identified by the presence of the Russian consul, the flag representing New Russia and the speech by Mr Boikov. Mr Lynch’s profile as a person who could become Attorney General for NSW, made his attendance at the event of significant public interest. Conclusion The Council considers the description of the event in the headline and first sentence of the article as a “pro-Russian rebel event” and “in support of Pro-Russian separatists” was not accurate. The use of the term “meeting” and the terms of the article implied Mr Lynch was party to the reported pro-Russian separatist sentiment. Council notes the focus on Mr Lynch’s attendance was compounded by the omission to mention the many other attendees and as a result, the events were not reported with reasonable fairness or balance. The apparent failure by the publication to seek more accurate information in relation to the event from other sources such as the organisers of the event, or to provide more time for the complainant to respond, has resulted in the material not being presented with reasonable fairness and balance. Accordingly, the Council finds a breach of its Standards in regard to accuracy and fairness. The Council notes the revised article with the headline “NSW: Anger as MP poses with man on ASIO list” (referring to a photograph taken at the event) maintained a focus on pro-Russian separatist elements at the gathering and the description of the event as a “meeting” rather than identifying the occasion as a traditional St Sava day celebration by the Serbian community. The revised article failed to correct inaccurate and unfair aspects of the original article. Accordingly, the Council finds a breach of its Standards in relation to adequate remedial action.

Complainant/NT News Adjudication 1657 (October 2015) The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by the publication of an online article in NT News on 12 May 2015. The article was headed “Overly keen motorist roots car's exhaust pipe" and a homepage item linking to the article was headed “Keen motorist exhausted after root”. The article contained an embedded video featuring a clothed man kneeling behind a car apparently engaged in a sex act with the car’s exhaust pipe. The accompanying article referred to a man who had “made love to more than 700 vehicles”. It noted that such attraction was “known as mechanophilia and is a criminal offence in some countries”. A video link in the article was labelled “I have sex with cars” and was captioned “Edward Smith explains how he first became sexually attracted to cars and later got involved with them”. The Council asked the publication to comment on whether the material breached its Standards of Practice requiring that reasonable steps be taken to “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”. The publication was also asked to comment on the inclusion of a 29 second embedded video of the man apparently engaged in sexual intercourse with a car, what measures the publication employs when deciding what content is posted and whether any restrictions or warnings are applied to material.

113

The publication said it was recognised for its unique style and the “wit and vigour it brings to telling, at times, ribald stories”. It said that it had no written policy in relation to posting content on its website, but relied on a “forum” of senior editors when deciding whether to publish potentially contentious material. It said in some situations it may pixelate images, in particular those involving nudity, or it may apply a viewer warning on digital material containing violent images. However, the publication said in this case the story did not contain any nudity or violence. It said the article was presented very much in the style the NT News is known for and was intended to be a “quirky” and “offbeat” report. It said the article examined an unusual condition in a humorous manner, which ensured that it was not substantially offensive. The publication noted the report highlighted what it said was a genuine medical condition and also advised readers the practice “is a criminal offence in some countries”. The publication said it had regard for the concerns raised by the complaint and in response, had subsequently removed the video and article from its website. Conclusion The Council notes that while publications must comply with Council’s Standards of Practice, including General Principle 6, the style and readership of a publication is to be taken into account when applying these Standards. The Council accepts NT News has a distinctive style, notes it has processes for considering whether and how to publish potentially contentious material, and also notes the publication’s action to remove the material in response to the complaint. The Council considers the level of offence must be assessed in the overall context of the publication, its style and its readership. In the circumstances, the Council considers that the article was not substantially offensive and so did not breach the Council’s Standards in relation to General Principle 6.

Nicole Johnston/Brisbane Times Adjudication 1656 (October 2015) The Press Council considered a complaint by Brisbane City councillor Nicole Johnston, about an article published by the Brisbane Times on Monday 13 April 2015. The online report was headed “Councillor Nicole Johnston charged with being drunk in a public place”. The article was first published at 8:01am and referred to an incident in the early hours of the previous Saturday in which Cr Johnston was “charged with being drunk in a public place”. The article referred to Cr Johnston being “ejected from the council chamber 39 times since 2010” for “inappropriate behaviour” and said the police had been called to “forcibly remove her” from the chamber a number of times. Cr Johnston said that the statements in the article that she had been “arrested and detained by police outside a bar in Ann Street about 1am Saturday” and that she “became aggravated after being refused entry” were not accurate. They were not supported by any official document or account of her arrest. The statement that she had been “forcibly removed” from Council chambers was misleading. She had been asked to leave in accordance with Council regulations, and had done so when police arrived and escorted her out. Cr Johnston said the photo accompanying the article and the term “forcibly” accompanying the report of her arrest had unfairly contributed to an adverse implication about her. Cr Johnston said that no-one from the publication had contacted her before the article first appeared to check the reasons for her arrest. She said that after the first version of the article, she had contacted the publication to correct the statements about her. A follow-up report repeated the untrue assertion that she was refused entry to a bar. She said it was untrue and unfair to state that “Cr Johnston declined to comment” when she had specifically told the reporter that part of the information they had published was incorrect. Cr Johnston said the publication did not meet her subsequent requests to have the article altered and for an apology.

114 The publication said Cr Johnston’s objection to the use of the term “forcibly” was a matter of semantics. The statement was fair given that police had been called numerous times to the Council chambers after the Chair had directed her to leave and she had refused. However, it said that after being contacted by the complainant, it had removed the word “forcibly”. The publication said that the article was published in good faith based on the information provided by police sources at that time. It said after further checking with police, it emerged that the arrest was at a taxi rank, and not outside a bar, and that aspect was corrected in a revised version at 9.47am. The publication also said that it published a response by the complainant on the matter in a further revised version at 11.03am. Conclusion The Council’s Standards of Practice require reasonable steps to ensure that factual material is accurate, and not misleading (General Principle 1); is reasonably fair and balanced (General Principle 3); and to publish corrections or take other adequate remedial action if published material is significantly inaccurate or misleading (General Principle 2). They also require reasonable steps to ensure that a person adversely referred to is given a fair opportunity for publication of a reply (General Principle 4). The Council considers that on the material available it cannot determine the precise circumstances of Cr Johnston’s arrest, nor whether the publication took reasonable steps to ensure accuracy. The Council makes no finding with reference to General Principle 1 or 2. The publication’s report appears to be based on police sources and an earlier report by another publication. The inclusion of the disputed assertions about the circumstances of the arrest were significant enough to require that Cr Johnston be given a fair opportunity for her response to be included in the first version published at 8.01am. The earlier report of the incident by another publication had not included these details. The failure to give that opportunity was unreasonable, and was compounded by the statement in the revised article at 9.47am that Cr Johnston had declined to comment, despite her contacting the publication to dispute aspects of its account. The Council concludes that the publication failed to ensure reasonable fairness and had failed to give a fair opportunity for a reply. The reference to Cr Johnston being “forcibly” removed was not necessarily inaccurate. However, the Council considers that it unfairly suggested a pattern of behaviour linked to the statements about the circumstances of her arrest. This enhanced the Council’s concerns about the publication’s failure to comply with its Standards in relation to fairness and balance and the opportunity for a reply. Accordingly, the Council finds a breach of its Standards in regard to General Principles 3 and 4.

Complainant/The Courier-Mail Adjudication 1653 (October 2015) The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by the publication of an article in The Courier-Mail on 9 April 2015. The report centred on a NSW woman’s disappearance, six days before her wedding. It consisted of a large front page photograph of the woman wearing a dress and pink sash bearing the words “Bride to Be”, a very prominent headline “BRIDE AND SEEK” and two smaller headings, “FAIRYTALE TURNS NIGHTMARE” and “Six days to wedding and she just vanished”. The article reported circumstances surrounding the woman’s disappearance after she was last seen four days prior to publication. It said that police could not say whether the disappearance was a result of “cold feet” or “something more sinister”. However, a public statement by police early on the morning of publication said that murder charges were expected following the arrest of a suspect in relation to the woman’s disappearance. The Council asked the publication to comment on whether the material breached General Principle 6 of its Standards of Practice requiring that reasonable steps be taken to “avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless

115 doing so is sufficiently in the public interest”. The publication was also asked about two media statements released by police on the two days prior to publication, stating they held concerns for the woman’s welfare as her disappearance was “out of character". In the police media statement on the morning of the publication, the police stated that investigators had been questioning the suspect “since around 7:30pm" the evening before the article was published and that he was “subsequently arrested”. The publication said the headline reflected the focus of the report: the vanishing of a bride-to-be and the search for her. It said this was why it had used the word 'seek' and that the article was based on information which was available to the publication at the time of printing of the newspaper on the evening of Wednesday 8 April. The publication noted the article was consistent with other media reports on the disappearance and canvassed a number of lines of enquiry, including suggestions that she may have experienced “cold feet”. The publication said that when the article was prepared and printed on the evening of 8 April, the official police position was that it was a “missing person case”. The publication said the news of the arrest and pending murder charges did not emerge until approximately seven hours after the article was prepared and after distribution of that edition had occurred. It said there had been no intention to make light of a shocking event. The publication said staff had been horrified to discover there were such tragic circumstances around the disappearance. The publication said after becoming aware the case was a murder investigation it took swift steps to remove the cover page from all of its digital platforms and also changed its online coverage. Conclusion The Press Council accepts that on the information available at the time of printing and distribution, it was possible that the woman was a missing person. The publication did not know about the arrest. It repeated statements by friends and family and concerns expressed by police indicating that flight was a remote and slender possibility. The Press Council concludes the publication’s elevation of this possibility to the very prominent “Bride and Seek” headline and the front page treatment it received, in addition to the light-hearted tenor of the headline, was substantially offensive to many people, and could be expected to have caused distress in particular to those who knew the woman. Accordingly, the Council finds a breach of its Standards of Practice in relation to General Principle 6.

Peter Burke/WA Today Adjudication 1660 (November 2015) The Press Council considered a complaint by Peter Burke of the Handle Property Group about an article in WA Today on 4 September 2014 headed “High-rise process ignores rights of Perth residents”. The article referred to planning approvals through the WA Planning Commission's Development Assessment Panel (DAP) and proposed developments in the City of St Vincent, and focused on Handle’s development of an apartment complex on Palmerston Street. Mr Burke said the article was inaccurate and misleading in saying that: (a) DAPs “gave developers the right to bypass local councils”; (b) the approval of the Palmerston Street development was “ignoring a condition of sale in 2002 that any development on the site be no higher than three storeys”; and (c) 60 of the 125 proposed units were “already pre-sold”. He also said the images used in the article were old designs and misrepresented the size of the development. Mr Burke said that all development applications with a construction value of over $7m require approval from the DAP and not a council, and no developer has a “right” to bypass council. He said expressions of interest had been taken on units at Palmerston Street, but none had been “pre-sold”. Mr Burke also said the development of the site was consistent with the council’s planning codes and it was misleading to refer to conditions of sale in 2002, given that the conditions had changed since then and the application was compliant with current planning codes.

116 Mr Burke said that the publication did not contact the developer for comment prior to publication. He also said the reporter had a close family member who had actively opposed the development and this conflict of interest was not disclosed. He said he wrote to the publication the day after publication and tried to address the matter, but the publication maintained there were no inaccuracies and he would have an opportunity to comment in further stories planned on the issue. However, no further articles were published. The publication said it was accurate to state the development had “bypassed” local councils because it ‘bypassed’ usual council planning processes since the DAP had the power of approval. It said the initial sale of the Palmerston Street property was under zoning conditions that restricted development to a height of three storeys. However, it acknowledged these conditions later changed and the report could have reflected this more clearly. The publication said the reporter had been told by the agent a number of units had been “reserved”, sold or subject to “expression of interest”, and conceded the article could have included these words rather than “pre-sold”. The publication said the article was the first in a planned series of articles on DAPs, although only this story was published. It said the issues had been brought to its attention through a close family member of the reporter, who owns a property near the development and was one of 70 members of a residents’ action group opposing it. However, it said the sources for the story were a different member of that group, and a state government lobbyist who provided material relating to the development and the DAP process. As a result of further investigation, the focus of the article changed from the development itself to the DAP process and a high-rise density issue in Perth. It said it had attempted to address the complainant’s concerns directly with him, and had offered to include the complainant’s comments in future articles. Conclusion The Council’s Standards of Practice require reasonable steps to ensure that: factual material is accurate and not misleading and corrections or other adequate remedial action are undertaken if material is significantly inaccurate or misleading (General Principles 1 and 2); and conflicts of interests are avoided or adequately disclosed, and do not influence published material (General Principle 8). The Council considers that the Palmerston Street development was the prominent focus of the article and it was misleading to state the approval procedures gave developers the “right” to bypass councils when they had no choice in the matter. The images published were not the design for which approval was being sought, and the publication did not take reasonable steps to ensure accuracy in this respect. The statement that 60 units were “already pre-sold” did not accurately reflect the sales status of the units. Accordingly, the Council considers General Principle 1 breached in these respects. The Council also considers the publication ought to have taken remedial action when the complainant contacted it. The publication’s offer to include the complainant’s views in future stories was inadequate, especially since no further articles were published. Accordingly, the Council finds a breach of General Principle 2. While it may commonly occur that an article is instigated by a reporter’s personal experience or those of relatives and friends, in this instance the article was heavily focused on the particular development which related to the reporter’s interest and was published without seeking a response from the developer. No follow-up stories were published to provide further balance beyond the issue that arose from the reporter’s interest. Accordingly, the Council considers a disclaimer was required clarifying the reporter’s interest in the development and finds a breach of General Principle 8 in this respect.

117

Complainant/The Daily Advertiser Adjudication 1661 (November 2015) The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by the publication of two articles published in The Daily Advertiser. The first article published in print and online was a letter to the editor on 16 June, headed “Maccas’ ads in bad taste, just like gay marriage”. The second article published in print only, was a “Wheeler’s Wisdom” column published on 14 July 2015, headed “Gay marriage is not all it seems”. Both articles appeared in the context of a number of articles and letters which the paper had published on the subject of marriage equality. The first article, a letter by Arnold Jago, suggested homosexuality was analogous to “a little-discussed disorder of coprophagia” and was “unhealthy and abnormal”. The second article commented on the same-sex marriage debate and opined that “[h]omosexual campaigners do not want you to know the facts”, highlighting an increased rate of HIV and AIDS, the “plight of adopted children”, and the suggestion that changes to marriage laws could result in recognition of polyamorous marriage as reasons to support “opposition to homosexual marriage”. The Council asked the publication to comment on whether the two items breached its Standards of Practice requiring that reasonable steps be taken to “avoid causing … substantial offence, distress or prejudice”. The publication was also asked to comment on the publication of material which suggests homosexuality is ”unhealthy and abnormal”, that “gay marriage would be encouraging homosexuality”, that “HIV and AIDS” are “consequences of homosexual sex”, and refers to “the plight of adopted children, and those needing foster care, being sent to a homosexual home”. The publication said it was regrettable that the letter caused offence. However, it said the risk of causing offence to some readers must be balanced with its duty to frame the debate around issues of public importance. It said both items were published in the context of the national debate on same-sex marriage, and had been part of a number of letters and articles published on the issue over the course of several months. The publication said it had taken a “robust pro-gay marriage” stance and “published a number of stories on the issue… written solely from the perspective of local gay couples”. It said it supports comment from those opposed because to censor such views “would be an affront to free speech”. The publication said whilst such views may be “objectionable for some” these comments reflect the views of some of the “deeply conservative electorate” in which the newspaper circulates. The publication noted it received no complaints in relation to the letter and that the Wheelers’ Wisdom column had only appeared in print, but due to an image of the column being made available on social media a large critical response had been registered outside of the column’s immediate circulation area. It said in the interests of addressing this criticism, the publication had taken remedial steps since 14 July, such as dedicating several letters pages wholly to critics of Mr Wheeler, and said it would “continue to run these letters until they are exhausted”. It said it had also published a story “from the perspective of the gay community and their criticism of Mr Wheeler”, more prominently in the front news section and also online (even though the original column was not online). A further article was also published with the assistance of HIV awareness group Positive Life, giving more context around Mr Wheeler's comments on HIV and AIDS and alerting readers to the availability of HIV testing in the local community. The publication also said that despite the Editor being on leave he had taken the time to respond personally to each email received about the column to explain the newspaper’s position. Conclusion Although the Council accepts that some of the views expressed in both the letter and the column may have caused significant offence to a number of people, it considers that the publication clearly treated the overall material as part of a long-running series of articles presenting a broad range of views (some strongly expressed and controversial) within a responsible and balanced debate. It has also published a number of critical responses subsequent to the publication of the column.

118 The Council concludes that the articles were not so offensive as to outweigh the public interest in allowing robust expressions of opinion on issues of national debate. Accordingly, the Council finds no breach of its Standards in relation to General Principle 6.

Complainant/WAtoday Adjudication 1659 (December 2015) The Press Council considered a complaint about an article in WAtoday on 9 May 2015 headed “Bong claims Santa Maria teacher’s job: You’ve got to be toking?” which also appeared on the publication’s associated Twitter and Facebook. The article referred to a teacher losing her position at a named Catholic girls’ school as the result of a “social media incident”. It suggested this involved the circulation of “a photograph of her holding a bong at a music festival” which it said was “highlighted” by a local radio station’s “Rumour File” segment, and also suggested that a topless photograph of the teacher may have been behind the loss of her position. The article was accompanied by a stock image of a person apparently smoking a bong with a qualifying caption. The teacher complained that the article's claim that she lost her employment as a result of a photograph of her holding a bong was completely false, was not the reason behind her resignation, and that no such photo exists. She said the article was based on unsubstantiated rumour, but the headline had an unequivocal statement, compounded by the photograph. The teacher said that although she was not named in the report, the article on Facebook and the identifying details it contained resulted in her being named in comments on the publication’s Facebook feed. She also said the publication revised the article the following day, to include its contact with the Principal, but maintained the false suggestions that a “topless photo” was behind her resignation. She said the alteration to the online article did nothing to remedy the earlier article as it had already been exchanged by “hundreds” of online users. The teacher complained that the publication of unsubstantiated rumours intruded upon her privacy and caused her substantial distress, especially given the potential to impact significantly on her future employment opportunities within the teaching profession. Neither the intrusion on privacy nor the distress was justified in the public interest. The publication acknowledged that its story was based on a radio station “Rumour File” segment and its purpose was to highlight the implications of social media use on a person’s professional life. The publication said it took steps to establish the facts of the teacher’s departure from the school and contacted the Principal. It said when no response was provided it had then contacted Catholic Education Western Australia, and its comment was included in the article. The following day, Catholic Education contacted the publication and the article was updated to include a comment by the Principal that the suggestion that drugs were involved in the teacher’s resignation was “categorically untrue”. The publication acknowledged the complainant’s concerns, but said the article did not name her and social media impacting on people’s employment was a matter of significant public interest. It said that after learning of the complainant’s concerns, it had removed the article from its Facebook page and revised the online article to remove the photograph and the reference to a “bong” from the headline. Conclusion The Council’s Standards of Practice require reasonable steps to ensure: that factual material is accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1); is reasonably fair and balanced (General Principle 3); and to correct or take other adequate remedial action if published material is significantly inaccurate or misleading (General Principle 2). They also require reasonable steps to ensure publications avoid intruding on a person’s reasonable expectations of privacy and avoid contributing materially to

119 substantial offence, distress or prejudice, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest (General Principles 5 and 6). The Council concludes that drugs played no part in the teacher’s resignation and accepts that no photo of the teacher with a bong or topless exists. It considers that as the article had originated from a radio segment “Rumour File” and the allegations were serious, the publication was required to take greater care to establish the facts. It also considers that naming the school made it likely that the individual could be identified. In addition, even after the Principal's denials, the publication repeated the allegations the following day and the article remained online for several months without any remedial action, despite the concerns raised in the complaint to the Council. The Council concludes the publication failed to ensure accuracy and fairness in the initial article and subsequent revisions and also failed to provide adequate remedial action. Accordingly, the Council finds a breach of General Principles 1, 2 and 3 of its Standards. The Council accepts there is a public interest in highlighting the impact of social media on individuals’ professional lives. However, the inaccuracy in the headline and the reporting of unsubstantiated serious allegations intruded upon the teacher’s privacy and caused her significant distress that were not justified by this public interest. Accordingly, the Council also finds a breach of General Principles 5 and 6 of its Standards.

Rhonda Hall/Pakenham Gazette Adjudication 1655 (January 2016) The Press Council considered a complaint by Rhonda Hall about an article in the Pakenham Gazette, headed “Devastated Drydens working to prevent suicide” on 17 August (online) and “Walk to keep going” on 19 August 2015 (in print). The article referred to her grandson’s suicide and included details of the problems he had faced, and promoted a local community event, “Out of the Shadows and into the Light”, a “Lifeline event” aiming to “allow people to show their support in preventing suicide and to remember those lost”. The article also featured the host of the event, a woman who had lost a stepson to suicide in the previous year. The Council’s General Principles 5 and 6 require that publications take reasonable steps to “[a]void intruding on a person’s reasonable expectations of privacy” or “contributing materially to substantial offence [or] distress” – “unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest”. Also, the Council’s Specific Standards on Coverage of Suicide 3 and 4 state that when reporting an individual instance of suicide or the name of a person who has died by suicide, publications must consider whether clear and informed consent has been provided by appropriate relatives or close friends, and whether reporting the death or identity is clearly in the public interest. Specific Standard 8 also requires publications to ensure the contact number for an appropriate support service is included in the material. The complainant said information reported in the article about her grandson was private and the article had been published without the knowledge or consent of her grandson’s mother and without apparent consideration for how it might impact on family and friends such as the young man’s great-grandfather, who was first made aware of the article upon reading it in the publication. Mrs Hall also said there had been no attempt to confirm directly with her daughter – the young man’s mother and one of his legal guardians – or with the appropriate authorities, the accuracy of the information reported about the circumstances of his death. She said at the time of the report an investigation into the circumstances was ongoing and a number of factors were still being considered by the Coroner. The publication said the article was factual. It was based on information provided by the young man’s stepmother, who had consulted with her husband, the young man’s father, who had joint legal guardianship.

120 The publication said it was unaware of the family circumstances of the young man, other than where his mother lived. It had not consulted his mother about the article because she lived “outside the paper’s circulation area”. It said the article was fair and responsible, not sensationalised and did not seek to blame anyone for the death. Upon being made aware of the complaint, it had offered the complainant a private letter of apology and to publish a letter to the editor. It said further training on reporting suicide had also been provided to staff and a new policy implemented to include a number for assistance on all articles related to suicide. Conclusion The Press Council considers that, in relation to General Principle 5, the reporting of the circumstances of the suicide in the degree of detail that was included amounted to an unreasonable intrusion on his mother’s reasonable expectation of privacy. In relation to General Principle 6, the article would have caused substantial distress. Neither aspect was sufficiently justified in the public interest. The Council’s Specific Standards on Coverage of Suicide 3 and 4 require that each report of suicide must be clearly in the public interest, and that informed consent is obtained prior to publication. Ordinarily, this would require both parents or legal guardians to be contacted. Though the report was said to promote an event broadly aimed at suicide awareness, the majority of the article focused on the circumstances of the suicide. The father was not contacted directly but through his wife, the young man’s step-mother. The publication did not take steps to contact the mother at all, despite there being no apparent obstacle to doing so. The level of detail specifically relating to the suicide and the lack of consultation has understandably contributed to the distress of the young man’s mother, grandmother and other family members. In circumstances of such sensitivity, the publication should have sought confirmation from both parents (who had joint custody) that the story was accurate and agreed to it being published in that degree of detail. Accordingly, the Council considers that Specific Standards on Coverage of Suicide 3 and 4 were breached in these respects. The Council also notes that the publication acknowledged the absence of the contact number as required under the Specific Standards on Coverage of Suicide 8. The nature of the report warranted the addition of an appropriate contact for crisis support or a source of assistance. Accordingly, this aspect of the complaint is also upheld. The Council recognises and welcomes the publication’s commitment to avoid future breaches of this kind, in adopting a policy to include an appropriate contact on all future articles relating to suicide and providing specific training for staff on the reporting of suicide.

Complainant/The Australian Adjudication 1667 (February 2016) The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by the publication of an article in The Australian on 3 June 2015, headed “Green protest fines ‘paid by public’” in print and online. The article reported on a submission by Senator Canavan to a House of Representatives inquiry into the use of the Register of Environmental Organisations, which confers tax-deductible status on donations to registered groups. The article reported that he provided evidence “of environmental organisations soliciting for tax-deductible donations to pay court fines”. The article also said that “following substantial fines to anti-coal protesters who disrupted mining activities at Maules Creek, the Forest Alliance solicited for donations to cover the costs of fines”. The article stated that calls had been made for a “crackdown” on this practice, and that Senator Canavan had called for “an audit of environmental organisations’ use of tax-deductible status”. The Council asked the publication to comment on whether the article had breached General Principles 1 and 3 of its Standards of Practice which require that reasonable steps be taken to “[e]nsure that factual

121 material in news reports and elsewhere is accurate and not misleading”, “is presented with reasonable fairness and balance”; and “that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on… omission of key facts”, particularly in light of a complaint being made that the Forest Alliance did not solicit tax- deductible donations to pay fines. The Council also asked the publication to comment on whether a sufficient opportunity for a response was provided to organisations named in the article or other adequate remedial action had been taken, as required by General Principles 2 and 4. The publication said the article was an accurate and fair summary of a long submission by the Senator. It said this article was one of a number of reports on this issue over a period of time, and that the tax- deductibility of donations to registered organisations was of significant public interest. It said the article did not state that Forest Alliance had solicited “tax-deductible” donations. The publication said that the Alliance was made up of a number of groups and individuals, some of whom had tax-deductible donation status. It also said the Senator’s submission referred to a Forest Alliance spokeswoman (quoted in an earlier news report in a different publication) as saying “donations made to various anti-mining movements would help cover costs of some fines”. The publication said that the reporter had taken steps to source comments from some of those groups named in the article, although this was not common practice when reporting on parliamentary submissions. It also said it had sought comment and included a quote from prominent activist group GetUp! and that in a subsequent article it reported the Forest Alliance did not have tax deductible status, including a comment sourced from the group that it "does not and has not solicited donations that are tax-deductible to pay for activist fines". Conclusion The Press Council considers that the article amounts to a summary of a submission by Senator Canavan to a parliamentary inquiry, and accurately summarises the views expressed in the submission. The Council also notes that the reporter made an effort to contact some of the organisations named in the submission for comment. To the extent the article included factual material in its summary of the submission and included expressions of opinion, it accurately summarised the submission. The Council is satisfied there was no breach of General Principle 1. The Council also considers that the article summarised the submission with fairness and balance and, for those reasons, finds no breach of General Principle 3. In light of these Conclusion, the Council considers that no remedial action was required but notes in any case that in a subsequent article, the publication provided an opportunity for Forest Alliance to state their position. Accordingly, the Council considers that there was no breach of its Standards in these respects.

Complainant/Herald Sun Adjudication 1666 (February 2016) The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by the publication of an article in the Herald Sun on 6 July 2015 headed “Welfare reforms ‘needed’”. The article reported on the Commonwealth Government’s proposed welfare reforms, particularly for the long term unemployed. The first sentence read: “MORE than 70 percent of people on the dole have been milking the tax payer for more than a year.” The following sentence reported that “more than 500,000 people, or 70 percent, on the Newstart Allowance had received it for more than a year”. The Council asked the publication to comment on whether the article had breached General Principles 1 and 3 requiring that reasonable steps be taken to “[e]nsure that factual material in news reports and elsewhere is accurate and not misleading”, “is presented with reasonable fairness and balance”, and “that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on… omission of key facts”.

122 The publication said the article was an accurate and fair report on the Commonwealth Government's policy on welfare reform. It said the report focuses on then Social Services Minister Scott Morrison expressing concern about “long term dole dependence” and arguing for welfare reform based on official unemployment data contained in the story, with a reference to the economic problems being experienced in Greece. The publication said the story was a factual report of those statistics. It said the term "milking the taxpayer" was consistent with terminology used by the Government to describe its objectives and approach on welfare reform. The publication referred to other articles in which the Minister reportedly used stronger language in relation to welfare reform, such as “rorting” and “gaming” the system, in reference to welfare recipients. It said the term “milking” had various meanings, including “extract” the expression "milking the system" was not inaccurate or misleading of itself, and was a fair and suitable one as it reflected the tenor of the Government’s position on reforms Conclusion The Press Council considers that the first sentence in the article clearly refers to all of the 70 percent of long term unemployed in suggesting recipients are “milking the taxpayer”, and the term “milking” clearly had a pejorative sense. No basis for that factual statement was identified elsewhere in the article. Accordingly, the Council concludes that the article breached General Principle 1. The Council notes that a claim that all 70 percent of such recipients were “milking the taxpayer” was not attributed to any government minister. To the extent the reference may have been an opinion of the journalist, the Council notes no facts were presented to support that opinion nor did the article include any balancing explanatory comment. Moreover, the article did not purport to be an opinion piece but rather was presented as news. Accordingly, the article was also a breach of General Principle 3.

Jennifer Rankine/The Australian Adjudication 1663 (March 2016) The Press Council considered a complaint by Jennifer Rankine MP about nine articles published in the print and online editions of The Australian between 3 February and 5 May 2015. They were prompted by her resignation as the South Australian Minister for Education on 2 February 2015 and made repeated allegations concerning Ms Rankine and the appointment of a public servant. The series of articles ended on 5 May following a public statement by the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption stating his investigation concluded that none of the allegations were substantiated. The complainant said the report on 3 February that she had resigned “amid an investigation by authorities into an appointment of a public servant” (and repeated in substance in five subsequent articles) was inaccurate in that it unfairly implied that she had resigned as a result of such an investigation. The complainant also said the report that her resignation came while “at the centre of ongoing investigations by at least two bodies” was inaccurate given there was only one ongoing investigation. The report of more than one investigation was repeated in five subsequent articles. The complainant also said reporting in the article on 4 February, “Calls to explain Rankine shuffle”, that “Ms Rankine has said ongoing investigations that first began in 2013…” was an inaccurate paraphrase of a response she made in a radio interview to questions about her reasons for resigning. She said this paraphrase had compounded the implication there was a causal relationship between the reported investigation and her resignation. The complainant said the articles referred to a matter which had been investigated by the Ombudsman some years earlier and found to have no merit. She said after her resignation as Minister, it became apparent the matter had been referred by that office to the ICAC and, as was stated subsequently, none

123 of the allegations relating to her conduct were substantiated, nor had she known of the referral to ICAC at the time of her resignation. The complainant also said the article on 5 May, “Ex-minister cleared by ICAC”, which reported on the extraordinary statement by Commissioner Lander, was unfair and unbalanced. She said despite the Commissioner’s finding that “[n]one of the allegations… were substantiated”, the majority of the article repeated the same allegations made in the previous articles and not until the seventh paragraph did the article mention that none of the allegations about her were substantiated. She said she had written a letter to the editor in an attempt to respond to the matters raised, but it had not been published. The publication said the reporting that the complainant had resigned “amid” the ICAC investigation had been shown to be true. It said the two investigations referred to two bodies involved – the Office of Public Integrity (OPI) and the ICAC – and that at the time it was prevented by South Australian law from reporting the names of the two bodies involved. The publication also said it accurately paraphrased the complainant’s response during a radio interview when asked about any inquiries that were "ongoing" and notes the complainant had responded: "that may well be the case". It pointed out that the articles included a quote by her that these had “‘absolutely no bearing’ on her decision to move to the back bench”. The publication said the reporter had endeavoured to contact the complainant for comment and it sent an email to the complainant’s media adviser the day before publication of the first article and another email was sent on 11 February. The publication said the responses it received had been “dismissive” and had referred it to a Hansard report from 2013, but had not directly addressed any of its questions. It said the article on 5 May had provided an adequate assessment of the facts and outcome of the investigation. It also said the complainant’s letter did not address any new or additional aspects and the publication had not seen it necessary to publish the letter. Conclusion The Council concludes that the use of the word “amid” to describe events at the time of the complainant’s resignation was not technically incorrect and was not implying a causal link. However, the Council concludes there was no basis for reporting there were multiple investigations and that the OPI’s referral of the matter to ICAC was not a sufficient basis for reporting there were investigations by two bodies. The publication had apparently been aware of matters referred by the OPI to ICAC, but Council considers a referral by OPI did not amount to an “investigation” The purported paraphrasing of the complainant’s remarks in the article on 4 February as “Ms Rankine has said ongoing investigations that first began in 2013…” was not an accurate paraphrase and repeated the inaccuracy. Accordingly, this aspect of the complaint is upheld. The Council notes the final article on 5 May is headed “Ex-minister cleared by ICAC”, but the main section of article unfairly reprises the allegations that had been found to be unsubstantiated and not until late in the article is the clearance by the ICAC Commissioner mentioned. Accordingly, the Council concludes the article is not fair or balanced and this aspect of the complaint is upheld. In considering whether the complainant was provided a fair opportunity to respond to what was reported, the Council takes account of the publication’s attempts to solicit comments, the substance of the article published on 5 May, and that the letter to the editor submitted by the complainant in substance focuses on the principal issues addressed in that article. The Council concludes that no case had been made for any further correction and accordingly, this aspect of the complaint is not upheld.

124 Complainant/The Queensland Times Adjudication 1662 (March 2016) The Press Council considered a complaint about an article published in The Queensland Times on 1 July 2015 (in print and online), which contained an image of an accused person. While the image in print was only of the accused person, the image on the mobile platform and the Facebook version, headed “Goodna dad accused of drug, weapons and robbery offences”, included an image of two children. The children were not the subject of the article and consent had not been obtained to publish their image. The publication acknowledged to the Council that the image had been published in error. It said that an error in the digital publishing process had resulted in the article appearing on a mobile platform with the image of the children. The publication said the reporter noticed the error early on the day of publication and the material was removed within a short time. It said unfortunately this was not sufficient to prevent the image being shared on social media. In addition to offering the complainant sincere apologies for the error, it also removed the online article and offered the complainant assistance in having references on Facebook removed. The publication said it had taken steps to prevent similar incidents from occurring and implemented a policy of blurring or cropping images of children in court-related images stored on the publication’s library system. Conclusion The Council accepts the publication’s explanation that a technical error was responsible for the publishing of an image of the children. However, the error was a serious breach of the children’s privacy and accordingly, the complaint is upheld. The Council welcomes the publication’s apology to the complainant and the added measures and internal processes the publication says it has implemented to avoid similar mistakes in future. The Council notes, however, that the publication still cannot preview what it publishes to mobile. As news organisations publish through new technologies and in new formats, it is important they maintain adequate checks and balances given the propensity for mobile content to be shared widely through social media. This vigilance particularly applies when publishing images of children, in order to avoid the gravity of such mistakes and their consequences.

Michael Sutherland/The Sunday Times and PerthNow Adjudication 1664 (March 2016) The Press Council has considered a complaint by Michael Sutherland MLA about an article published online in PerthNow on 14 June 2014 and in print in The Sunday Times on 15 June 2014. The online article was headed “WA Parliament Speaker Michael Sutherland racks up $26,000 entertainment bill”. The print article was headed “HEY BIG SPENDER: Speaker happy to charge taxpayers $500 a week for his dining bill – on top of his base salary of $246,000”. The complainant said that the headlines unfairly implied he was using “taxpayers’” funds for “his” personal dining expenses, and by linking the reference to his “salary”, suggested to readers he was “topping up” his salary with public monies. The complainant claimed that references within the article to “dining costs” and his “dining other politicians, parliamentary staff and community groups” added to the suggestion that expenses were attributable to his personal dining expenses rather than official events connected with the office of the Speaker. He also complained the articles inaccurately report that he entertained “former colleagues from the City of Perth” and that the articles also omitted how many people attended the reported functions and other context to the amounts charged.

125

The complainant said the full details of the expenditure by the Speaker’s office were provided to the publication but not included in the article. He also said comparisons to spending by previous Speakers were unfair due to a disparity in spending timeframes and also the number and size of official functions from year to year. The complainant said the reference in the article that “Mr Sutherland is spending more than former Nationals Speaker Grant Woodhams…” was inaccurate given Mr Woodhams’ costs of $19,553.95 were for a six month period. The complainant said when he endeavoured to address the matter directly with the publication, he was offered the opportunity to write a letter of about 200 words for the paper on the functions of the Speaker’s office. He said this was unsatisfactory because the articles had unfairly implied he had appropriated funds on his personal expenditure, and that this went beyond what could be corrected by an article explaining the general role of the Speaker. The publication said the article legitimately scrutinised the spending of the office of Speaker during a time when severe budgetary measures had been implemented in the State. It said the term “dining” was a reasonable description for the “afternoon teas”, “working lunches” and “receptions” that were mentioned in the article. The publication said Mr Sutherland had been a City of Perth councillor for 14 years and Deputy Mayor for five years. It said this long service as a councillor meant it was not unreasonable to describe representatives of the City of Perth as “former colleagues”. It said the article clearly listed events in detail and this demonstrated the spending was not for personal gain. The publication said it twice offered the complainant the opportunity to submit a piece for publication about the role of the Speaker’s office, but he had declined. The publication also said it would have been inaccurate to include expenditure for the former Nationals Speaker Mr Woodhams as this was on a six month basis and that year on year figures were a simpler way for the reader to compare expenditure of past Speakers and the complainant’s expenditure. Conclusion The Council’s Standards of Practice require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure accuracy, fairness and balance. In the Council’s view, the publication’s scrutiny of the Speaker’s expenses, salary and entitlements was a legitimate pursuit for the media and the contents of the article were reasonably fair and balanced. However, the Council considers that the headline in the print article did not fairly reflect the article’s examination of the spending within the office of the Speaker during Mr Sutherland’s tenure in office and that of his predecessors. In particular, the use of the terms “Hey Big Spender” and “his” when juxtaposed to the references to “dining bill” and “salary” implied the spending was of a personal nature and that the complainant’s office expenses and parliamentary allowances are of personal benefit in the same way as his salary when they are not. Accordingly, the complaint about the print headline is upheld. The Council considers the description “former colleagues from the City of Perth” was not unreasonable given the complainant’s role and history with that particular organisation. The Council accepts the publication’s offer to publish a 200 word letter from the complainant provided an adequate opportunity for him to respond to the matters raised in the article. Accordingly, these aspects of the complaint are not upheld.

126 CFMEU/Herald Sun Adjudication 1669 (April 2016) The Press Council considered a complaint by Clancy Dobbyn on behalf of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) about an article published in the Herald Sun online on 27 August 2015. The article, headed “Taskforce Heracles police raid CFMEU offices”, reported that the “CFMEU offices in Swanston Street have been raided…before 9am” by police from Taskforce Heracles, established to examine allegations referred to it by the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption. The complainant said the report that a police raid had been conducted was inaccurate, misleading and unfair as no such raid had taken place. He said upon being contacted by the publication at approximately 10:20am that morning, he stated he had no knowledge of any raid, but would get back to the journalist if there was any further comment to be made. Shortly afterward, the complainant said John Setka, Secretary of the CFMEU’s Victorian branch, tweeted that “Herald Sun's Steven Drill has tipped us Vic office about to be raided by #turc police!”. The complainant said the article unfairly included comments that “[i]t was unclear whether the police officers removed any documents from the union headquarters” and that “Victoria police declined to comment on the raid this afternoon”, which implied there was substance to the assertion there had been a raid and that police were simply declining to provide further information. He said had the publication sought to confirm any document removal with the CFMEU, it would have provided the union with a further opportunity to deny that a police raid had occurred. The complainant said based on his response and Mr Setka’s tweet, the publication ought to have been aware the CFMEU – the occupants of the premises – denied any raid had taken place. He said when the article was published that afternoon, including a homepage item headed “CFMEU offices raided”, he emailed the publication stating “there was no raid of the CFMEU offices this morning”. He said it was only after this email that the publication took steps to correct the report, at approximately 5pm, with an article headed “Police confirm no raid on CFMEU headquarters”. The complainant said the publication’s remedial actions were inadequate given the seriousness of the allegations and that the second article did not address the details reported initially, that “[r]ank and file CFMEU members at the office said there were several police there” and that “[i]t was unclear whether police officers had removed any documents from the union headquarters”. The complainant also said no apology had been provided to the union and it was also unclear whether the subsequent article was given similar prominence to the first article. The publication responded that the article was based on information from three well-placed and credible sources, although it did not know whether the sources were at the premises. It said a check was made with the union and police prior to publication, but that no information was provided to contradict information supplied by those sources. It said the tweet by Mr Setka was also unclear, and at the time of publishing it remained confident the information was correct. The publication said that when the journalist spoke to the complainant in the morning, the complainant did not deny a raid had occurred. The publication said confirmation from the complainant that “there was no raid of the CFMEU offices this morning” did not come until 4:39pm, two hours after the article had been published. The publication said upon being alerted to the fact the raid had not occurred, it had immediately taken steps to remove the article from relevant websites, delete it from the Google search index and publish a correction. It noted the correction was very prominently identified as a “Correction” and first appeared on the publication’s homepage at 5:11pm, where it remained for approximately 12 hours. It was also published on other publications that carried the first article, including the websites of The Daily Telegraph and The Australian in the 'National News' section. The publication said early the following morning it made further changes to the article’s wording to alter the timeframe from “this morning” to “yesterday morning”. In addition, the journalist tweeted the correction with a link to the article.

127

The publication said these measures clearly and effectively corrected the substantive inaccuracy. It said more people had read the correction than the original article, the journalist’s correction tweet had trended on Twitter on the evening published, and the erroneous story and correction were also broadcast on the national television program Media Watch, which further ensured the correction received maximum exposure. Conclusion The Council’s Standards of Practice require reasonable steps to be taken to ensure that: factual material is accurate, not misleading (General Principle 1), reasonably fair and balanced (General Principle 3), a correction or other adequate remedial action is provided if published material is significantly inaccurate or misleading (General Principle 2), and where an article is not reasonably fair and balanced, a fair opportunity is given for subsequent publication of a reply (General Principle 4). The statement that police had conducted the raid was clearly inaccurate. Despite the publication’s claims that the report was supported by information from three credible sources, it acknowledged that it was not known whether those sources were “at the office” as reported. As such, the information may have been hearsay, requiring greater caution in its use. In addition, the Council does not regard Mr Setka’s tweet as ambiguous: it made clear the raid had not occurred. Given these factors, and in the absence of any confirmation from the CFMEU and police, this ought to have caused the publication to take further steps before publishing the article. Accordingly, the Council concludes that reasonable steps to ensure accuracy were not taken in accordance with General Principle 1, and upheld this aspect of the complaint. The Council considers that once the publication realised its error, it published a swift, clear and prominent correction. This did amount to adequate remedial action. Accordingly, there was no breach of General Principle 2, and this aspect of the complaint is not upheld. In view of these Conclusion, the Council does not consider it necessary to reach Conclusion about similar issues which may have arisen in relation to General Principles 3 and 4.

Complainant/news.com.au Adjudication 1670 (April 2016) The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published on news.com.au on 1 November 2015. The article was headed “Brutal torture of four women captured on camera" and contained an embedded video. A homepage item headed “Sickening torture caught on camera” linked to the article. The embedded video was positioned near a map of Papua New Guinea (PNG) and captioned “WARNING: The following video contains extremely disturbing images”. The article stated: “The footage shows at least four naked women tied up, burned and beaten while being prodded with hot wire and interrogated by a group of machete-wielding men". The video was reportedly “uploaded to YouTube by the Commission for Social Concerns, Catholic Bishops' Conference of Papua New Guinea”. The Council asked the publication to comment on whether the material 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 video highlighted an issue of strong public interest in the affairs of a neighbouring country. It said the video had been uploaded to YouTube by a local group concerned by the number of incidents of sorcery-related violence, in order to get international attention. It said the video was freely available and had received worldwide media attention and public debate. The publication said it took a number of steps to avoid causing distress. The stand-first on the homepage item linking to the article included the text: “Warning: extremely disturbing footage”. The main article carried a similar warning at the top of the article in bold lettering. The headline in the

128 article accompanying the video and the first two paragraphs also gave a description of its contents which it said afforded readers who did not wish to view the video ample warning. The publication also said it elected to publish the embedded video in the article because, as explained in the story, the PNG Government had been disregarding sorcery-related violence and this issue was of significant public interest. The publication said the article highlighted issues with the internal security of PNG, which is of interest in it being a close neighbour and recipient of substantial aid from the Australian Government. It said news.com.au is a national news website which provides strong and detailed coverage of the Asia-Pacific region for its readership and as such, regularly reports on issues of social and civic concern in the region. The publication said it was important for its readers to clearly understand these issues from an uncensored viewpoint. Conclusion General Principle 6 of the Council’s Standards requires that a publication take reasonable steps not to contribute to offence and distress unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest. The Council accepts the matter reported was of significant public interest to readers in promulgating awareness of this form of violence in a neighbouring country. It noted the article was prompted by the YouTube post apparently by the Commission for Social Concerns, Catholic Bishops' Conference of Papua New Guinea, and its attempts to highlight this serious matter. The Council considers some readers would find the contents of the video to be distressing, however it acknowledges the publication’s steps to alert readers to this in providing sufficient warnings on both the homepage item and the linked article. The Council is of the view that the steps taken to avoid causing distress were reasonable and that any distress caused was sufficiently outweighed by the public interest. Accordingly, the article did not breach the Council’s Standards in relation to General Principle 6.

Complainant/The Age Adjudication 1675 (May 2016) The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by the publication of an online article in The Age on 6 January 2016, headed “Man drowns himself using murdered wife’s head: police". The article reported on an account by authorities of an apparent murder-suicide that had taken place in Austria. The Council asked the publication to comment on whether the material breached its Standards of Practice in regard to General Principal 6, which requires that reasonable steps be taken to “[a]void 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”. The publication was also asked to comment on the Coverage of Suicide Standards 3 and 5, which require that reasonable steps be taken to ensure that reporting the death as suicide is in the public interest, or clear and informed consent has been provided by appropriate relatives or close friends; and the method and location of the suicide is not described in detail, unless the public interest in doing so clearly outweighs the risk, if any, of causing further suicides. The publication said the article was a standard newswire report of a murder-suicide in Austria. It said the report had been compiled from information supplied by local police in Austria and it was reasonable to assume that the authorities would have obtained any necessary consent. It said the unusual manner of the murder-suicide had made the incident newsworthy, and the level of detail was necessary to explain what had taken place. The publication said the elements of murder and suicide, together with the European location meant the issues of method and location were not directly relevant to an Australian audience, and so did not

129 breach the Coverage of Suicide Standards. The publication also noted that the article did provide the contact numbers for relevant sources of assistance. Conclusion The Press Council notes that while publications must comply with Council Standards, including Standards on the Coverage of Suicide, the nature and circumstances of the material and the relevance to local audiences is a matter to be taken into account in the application of these Standards. In the Council’s view, the unusual nature of the crime gave weight to the public interest in the article’s contents. A warning to readers may have warranted consideration, however the Council recognises this is not necessary in all cases. In the circumstances, the Council concludes that the article was not so substantially offensive as to breach General Principle 6 of the Council’s Standards. The Council accepts there was no breach of the Council’s Coverage of Suicide Standards 3 or 5 as the article focused on the unusual nature of this particular apparent murder-suicide, the information had been provided by the authorities and the events described and location were outside Australia.

Anthony Wilson/The Moorabool News Adjudication 1671 (May 2016) The Press Council considered a complaint by Anthony Wilson about an article published in the Moorabool News on 24 March 2015, headed “Report to reveal if dog attack court costs were paid”. The article reported on a meeting of the Moorabool Shire Council at which councillors discussed legal action taken by the Shire Council against the complainant following a dog attack. The complainant said the claim in the article that “Council was forced by State Government legislation to spend $100,000 to take the case to court to have the dog destroyed” was unfair and misleading in that it suggested the Council had no alternative course of action. He also said the claim that the “Wilson family did not in fact pay council’s court costs as ordered” implied they had breached a court order, whereas the order required him to pay those costs as agreed with the Shire Council, or if not agreed as assessed by a Court, neither of which could realistically occur until the 2014/15 financial year. Therefore, the publication was wrong to rely on the Council’s 2013/14 annual report. He also said that an agreement about costs had been reached a month before the article and the fact that there was an agreement was not reported in the article. The publication said it was simply reporting questions and comments made at the Shire Council meeting and that it had not been advised by Council officers on the night of the meeting of any agreement in relation to costs. It said the comments relating to the costs of legal action following the dog attack were an accurate reflection of the questions asked by a Councillor at the Council meeting about the Council’s financial position. It said the “unexpected legal costs” published in the Council’s annual report for 2013/14 listed the legal costs as an expenditure, which indicated they had not been reimbursed. The publication acknowledged its reporter could have checked details with the Wilson family, but said the complainant’s comment that an agreement would not have been reached until the next financial year meant the matter was ongoing beyond that financial year, and therefore the report was accurate. The publication said it was not responsible for what options were open to the Shire Council in dealing with the dog attack. It said in reporting that the Council had been “forced” to take the legal action, it had accurately reflected what was said at the Shire Council meeting. The publication acknowledged that the Shire Council may have had other options, but said the report reflected the position the Shire Council had been “forced” into by decisions taken by its compliance officers. The publication also said many of the earlier discussions about the Shire Council’s action following the dog attack had been heard in confidential Council meetings it was not permitted to report. It said it had requested details of the matter under FOI processes, but this request had been denied. The publication said the Councillor’s questions at the Council meeting about a financial matter relating to the action

130 taken following the dog attack were outside of the confidential Council meetings, so it had been able to include them in the article. The publication noted that if the complainant has paid the court costs or come to an arrangement with Council to do so it would be amenable to publishing those details, and that the complainant had a right of reply but chose not to exercise it. Conclusion The Press Council’s Standards of Practice require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material is accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1), reasonably fair and balanced (General Principle 3), that a correction or other adequate remedial action is taken if published material is significantly inaccurate or misleading (General Principle 2), and where an article is not fair and balanced, a fair opportunity is given for a subsequent reply (General Principle 4). The Press Council concludes that the article was both misleading and unfair in stating that the Shire Council was “forced by State Government legislation to spend $100,000” to deal with the matter. Readers were not informed that the legislation offered a number of alternative means for the Council to resolve the matter in a less expensive manner, but the Shire Council had instead chosen to pursue an approach that resulted in greater costs. Accordingly, the reporting was misleading and unfair in breach of General Principles 1 and 3 and the complaint is upheld in this respect. The statements in the article that the costs had not been paid as ordered were reported as statements of fact rather than being attributed as a report of discussion during the Shire Council meeting. The Press Council considers that as there was no time frame in the court order for the Wilson family to pay costs, it was not reasonable to base the statement that the Wilson family did not pay costs as ordered on Shire Council’s 2013/14 report. The Press Council considers that the publication should have made additional enquiries prior to publication to confirm whether costs had been agreed and paid in the next financial year, especially given the serious nature of the allegations. Accordingly, the Council upholds this aspect of the complaint. On the information available, the Press Council is not able to determine whether adequate remedial action or an adequate opportunity for a reply was made available in accordance with General Principles 2 and 4. Accordingly, no finding is made in relation to this aspect of the complaint.

Complainant/The Australian Adjudication 1679 (June 2016) The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by the publication of two articles in The Australian. The first article was published on 20 October 2015, headed “Rape refugee seeks new abortion location” in print and online. A second article was published the following day, headed “Refugee declines to report rape to police” in print and “Somali refugee declines to report rape to police” online. The subject of the articles was a Somalian refugee referred to as “‘Abyan’ (not her real name)”, detained in Nauru as part of the Australian Government’s offshore detention policy, who claimed she had been raped and unsuccessfully sought to procure an abortion when taken to Australia under custody. The Council received complaints from a number of people not the subject of the article, expressing concern about the headline of the first article and the characterisation of Abyan, a victim of rape, as a “rape refugee”. The complaints also raised issues of privacy and fairness regarding her participation in the interview. The Council asked the publication to comment on whether the material breached the applicable Standards of Practice requiring publications to take reasonable steps to avoid intruding on a person’s reasonable expectations of privacy (General Principle 5) or contributing to substantial offence or

131 distress (General Principle 6) – unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest. The Council’s Standards also require that publications take reasonable steps to avoid gathering material by deceptive or unfair means, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest (General Principle 7). The publication said the article reported on a matter of significant public interest, given that whether Abyan was being treated appropriately and with the proper duty of care by the Australian Government was the subject of public and parliamentary debate, with advocates and politicians speaking of Abyan’s condition for a number of weeks before publication of the article. The publication said the reporter’s visit to Nauru was a rare and coincidental opportunity to interview the person at the centre of the debate and thus to let her tell her story directly. The publication said it was sensitive to Abyan’s situation and accordingly did not divulge her real name, reveal her face or provide her residential address on Nauru. It said in gathering the material for the report, the journalist had visited Abyan’s home and identified himself by name and as a journalist, and explained how the information would be used. The publication said Abyan had clearly consented to the interview and invited the journalist into her home to have the discussion. The publication noted that Abyan has a reasonable command of English, but asked to be accompanied by her roommate to assist in translation and ensure her answers were understood. The publication said Abyan consented to be photographed at that time, provided her face was not shown. The publication said the use of the term “rape refugee” in the print and online headline was not intended to label but simply to summarise the content of the accompanying story, in which a refugee in detention had been raped. The publication acknowledged that the resulting headline was ‘inelegant’ and ‘too blunt’ in the circumstances, but emphasised there was no intention to cause offence or distress. Conclusion The Council notes that secondary matters such as this – which proceed without the participation of the person named in the article – have to be resolved utilising less information than might otherwise be the case. The Council accepts there was no breach of General Principles 5 or 7 as this matter was of significant public interest, and the information regarding Abyan’s fraught situation was on the public record, having been discussed in parliament and by the media for some weeks prior to publication. Although determining consent in the context of a person held in offshore detention is difficult, the material put to the Council suggests Abyan’s interview with the reporter, assisted by her roommate, was agreed to, as was the photo session. The report was also consistent in its use of the pseudonym applied throughout previous weeks’ coverage and the publication took steps not to include other identifying features. The Council notes that publications ought to take care to express crimes of sexual violence with a great degree of sensitivity for the victims. It agrees with the publication that the headline was ‘inelegant’ and ‘blunt’, but on balance considers that the single use of the phrase “rape refugee”, not repeated in the following day’s headlines, does not amount to causing substantial offence, distress or prejudice in breach of General Principle 6.

West Coast Eagles/Herald Sun Adjudication 1673 (June 2016) The Press Council considered a complaint from the West Coast Eagles Football Club (“the Club”) relating to an article published by the Herald Sun on 1 October 2015 in print, headed “EAGLES DRUG HELL". The article was also published online on 30 September, headed “Daniel Chick breaks silence about drug culture at West Coast Eagles”.

132 The article appeared just before the Club’s appearance in the 2015 AFL Grand Final on 3 October 2015. It offered an account by a former player, Daniel Chick, of his opinions of the Club’s management and claims about substance abuse while he was playing for the Club. The Council’s Standards of Practice applicable in this matter require that publications take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material is accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1) and presented with reasonable fairness and balance (General Principle 3). If the material is significantly inaccurate or misleading or not reasonably fair and balanced, publications must take reasonable steps to provide adequate remedial action or an opportunity for a response to be published (General Principles 2 and 4). The Club said the article was inaccurate and lacked fairness and balance in its claims about: (a) a “toxic culture of abuse of prescription and illicit drugs and cover-ups” in which officials were involved and (b) an alleged incident in which a staffer hid a player from a drug tester. It also said that the publication made no attempt to contact the club or its medical staff for comment prior to publication. When approached after publication, the Club was unable to respond adequately because it was in the midst of its preparations for the Grand Final. The publication said the articles were based on a number of conversations with Daniel Chick over the space of a year. It said the comments in relation to drug testing were attributed as Mr Chick’s “claims”. The publication said the Club had a well-documented drug culture at that time; a number of players had experienced public battles with drugs and the Club had been the subject of an investigation for the AFL Commission conducted by former Supreme Court Justice Gillard. It said the article reported on matters of which Mr Chick had personal knowledge and it had no reason to doubt his credibility in these matters. The publication said it did not approach the Club with Mr Chick’s allegations prior to publication as it was concerned that the Club might intimidate Mr Chick or seek to prevent the article from being published. However, it said the Club’s denials had been published that same day online and in articles published in the newspaper the following day. The publication said it had telephoned a Club doctor on the day after publication and given him an opportunity to respond. However, when asked about the claims, the doctor had hung up on the reporter. Conclusion The Council considers the article raised new and serious allegations – described by the publication as a ‘bombshell’ – in relation to ongoing public coverage of the possible drugs culture within AFL. The report was published prominently on the front page two days before the West Coast Eagles’ appearance in the 2015 AFL Grand Final, an understandably critical time for the Club. The Council considers that, as the publication had been speaking with Daniel Chick for some time prior to publication, it should have sought comment from the Club before publication given the seriousness of the allegations, their timing and prominence. The Council considers the publication failed to take reasonable steps to present the material with the fairness and balance required by General Principle 3. Accordingly, this aspect of the complaint is upheld. The Council doubts whether an opportunity to reply after publication of the article, and before or just after the Grand Final, would have allowed a fair opportunity to reply, but as this was not the subject of complaint the Council makes no finding about this aspect. In relation to General Principle 1, the Council considers that the available information does not enable it to determine the asserted facts or the accuracy of the various claims made in the article. Accordingly, no finding is made in respect of this aspect.

133

NBN Co/Tully Times Adjudication 1677 (June 2016) The Press Council considered a complaint by the NBN Co about a front page article in the Tully Times on 29 October 2015, headed “No Brains Network”, and an article in the subsequent edition on 5 November, headed “NBN and country newspapers”. The articles concerned the rollout of the NBN in the Tully region of the Cassowary Coast in Queensland, and contained criticism of the suggested likely costs and limited services of the NBN’s satellite services. The Council’s Standards of Practice applicable in this matter require that publications take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material is accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1) and presented with reasonable fairness and balance (General Principle 3). If the material is significantly inaccurate or misleading or not reasonably fair and balanced, publications must take reasonable steps to provide adequate remedial action or an opportunity for a response to be published (General Principles 2 and 4). The complainant said the articles were misleading and not fair or balanced because they relied entirely on the opinion of one local businessman and cable technician, and contained no input from NBN Co. The complainant also said the publication did not give it a chance to respond to the adverse claims in the articles before they were published. The complainant said its Corporate Affairs Manager (Queensland), whose role includes addressing media enquiries, sent an email response addressing the claims in the first article to the publication as soon as she learned of it. Although some of the responses did not specifically address the claims made in the first article, none of her comments were published. The complainant also said it was unfair and misleading to state in the second article that "at the time of going to press, there had been no response … from the NBN", when the publication had not sought a response from NBN Co. The publication said that it did not seek a response from NBN Co’s media representative before the first article was published because it was seeking a response from a qualified technician on behalf of NBN Co, and had tried to do so using the normal public access phone numbers. It questioned whether a Corporate Affairs Manager, rather than a qualified technician, would be qualified to act as a spokesperson for NBN Co about the issues raised. It also said the publication had sourced additional information from NBN Co’s website and included it in the first article. The publication said the correction sought by the complainant was not appropriate as it lacked attribution to any person within NBN Co whose role was to deal with issues of a technical nature. The publication also added that since no specific person from NBN Co was mentioned in the story, no one had been referred to adversely. Conclusion The Council considers that the publication should have sought comment from NBN Co’s media representative before the articles were published. Although the factual inaccuracies in the articles were not major ones, the lack of any alternate analysis being presented to readers rendered them misleading. The publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the articles were not misleading. Further, the statement in the second article that there had been no comment from NBN Co, when one had not in fact been sought, was also misleading and lacking in balance. The Council considers that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the articles were presented in a manner that was not misleading and was fair and balanced as required by General Principles 1 and 3. Accordingly, this aspect of the complaint is upheld. A publication is required to take reasonable steps to provide a correction or other adequate remedial action if published material is significantly inaccurate or misleading. The Council considers that, given NBN Co’s Corporate Affairs Manager is its spokesperson, the publication should have given her a fair and reasonable opportunity to reply, and failure to do so breached General Principles 2 and 4. Accordingly, this aspect of the complaint is also upheld.

134