Search

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published in The Australian on 17 June 2025 headed “Alleged abuse by young boy sparks tensions in regional town”.   The article reported that an “alleged incident of sexual abuse by a six-year-old Indigenous ward of the state against another child has sparked anger and division in a regional Western Australian town.” The article reported that the “mother of the boy allegedly abused by the other child has spoken out over her frustrations with the way her complaint has been handled and her fear that other children could be at risk, amid suggestions the same boy may have been involved in an ­earlier incident. The article went on to report that the “same mother has now been hit with two violence restraining orders, while the boy allegedly behind the abuse is understood to have left the town amid concerns for his safety” and quoted the operator of the day care centre as saying privacy restrictions have left it open to “unfounded, unproven or unreasonable criticism”. The article said further that the “case underscores the challenges of managing young children caught up in the inter­generational trauma of child sexual abuse, particularly in regional Australia …”. The article noted that to “protect those parties, The Australian is using pseudonyms for the children and the mother.”   The complainant, the boy’s foster carers, said the article’s description of their foster son as “alleged perpetrator” is unfair given he is a 6-year-old boy and that the article’s reference to the “intergenerational trauma of child sexual abuse” is based on the incorrect assumption that this is the reason why their foster son is in their care. The complainant also said it is unclear why the publication referred to their foster son as an “Indigenous ward of the state” when neither his race nor foster status, are relevant to the allegations made against him.   The complainant said further that their foster son is the only 6-year-old Indigenous child, and one of the very few Indigenous children, at the day care centre. They said the combination of the boy’s description as an Indigenous child in state care together with the small size of the community in which they live, had resulted in their foster son and themselves being identified within their community. The complainant said this has caused significant distress to the family. The complainant said the article published one person’s allegations that have not been fact checked noting that the publication was aware that given matters of confidentiality concerning children in care, neither they nor the Department of Communities is allowed to comment publicly on children in care matters.   In response, the publication said that the article was carefully prepared to avoid identifying any child or carer, and that no name, photograph, address or other distinctive identifying detail was published. It said the description “Indigenous ward of the state” was a generic descriptor drawn from official agency language and was not capable of identifying a particular child to an ordinary reader. It said the reference to intergenerational sexual abuse was a broad observation about factors contributing to social tensions in regional communities, and was not intended, and could not reasonably be read, as an assertion that the boy had been a victim of abuse or that this was the reason for his placement in care. The publication said the reporting journalist had made extensive inquiries over several weeks, and that after publication of the article the journalist was independently contacted by another family with an account of similar conduct involving the same child, which the publication said supported the seriousness and legitimacy of the concerns reported. The publication said the article concerned a matter of substantial public interest, including the handling of serious allegations by child protection authorities and the tensions that can arise in small communities where those authorities are unable to comment publicly, and that it did not consider any correction or amendment was warranted. It had however reminded relevant staff of the sensitivities involved in reporting on children in care.   Conclusion   The Council acknowledges the publication’s position that the description “Indigenous ward of the state” was a generic descriptor and that the reference to intergenerational sexual abuse was intended as a broad observation about regional communities. However, the Council considers that in the absence of a clear link between allegations made against the 6-year-old boy and either his racial identity or his status as a ward of the state, these references were unfair. In noting that a six-year-old child, is significantly below the age of criminal responsibility, the Council considers it was unfair to refer to the child as an “alleged perpetrator”.   The Council also considers that, in the context in which the reference to intergenerational sexual abuse appeared, including the words “the case”, the article could reasonably be read as linking intergenerational sexual abuse to the allegations concerning the complainants’ foster child. In these circumstances, a reader could reasonably infer that this was connected to the reason the boy was in care. Accordingly, the Council finds the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is accurate and not misleading and presented with reasonable fairness and balance in breach of General Principles 1 and 3 and Privacy Principle 6.   The Council recognises that the article did not publish the boy’s name, image, residential address or name the day care centre. However, the Council notes that taking reasonable steps to prevent identification is not confined to the disclosure of a name or photograph, when a combination of details can identify a person to those within their own community even where the same details would not identify the person more broadly. In relation to this, the Council notes that the article described the boy as being six years old, as an Indigenous child, who was in state care and who attended a day care centre in a regional West Australian town. The article also included information that the town was located on or close to the coast and the mother making the allegations works in mining. The Council notes that the combination of these details could enable the boy to be identified by people who knew him or his circumstances, particularly as an Indigenous child in state care in a regional town. Accordingly, the Council finds that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid intruding on the boy's and the complainant's reasonable expectations of privacy, in breach of General Principle 5 and Privacy Principle 7.   The Council’s long-standing position is that publications should exercise great care to not place unwarranted emphasis on characteristics of individuals such as race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, country of origin, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, illness or age.  The Council considers that in the absence of a clear link between the allegations and the boy’s Indigenous identity or his status as a ward of the state, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid contributing to substantial prejudice and that there was insufficient public interest justifying it doing so in breach of General Principle 6 and Privacy Principle 7.   The Council notes that apart from finding that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to comply with its Standards of Practice, this matter highlights for all publications the need to exercise great care and respect when reporting on matters concerning children in articles concerning criminal matters. In this context, the Council notes the comments of the complainant concerning the distress this article has caused.   Relevant Council Standards   Publications must take reasonable steps to:

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. 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.
3. Avoid intruding on a person’s reasonable expectations of privacy, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest.
4. 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.

Privacy Principle 6: Correction, fairness and balance   A media organisation should take reasonable steps to provide a correction or other adequate remedial action for publishing any personal information that is significantly inaccurate or misleading.   Privacy Principle 7: Sensitive personal information   Members of the public caught up in newsworthy events should not be exploited. Unless otherwise restricted by law or court order, open court hearings are matters of public record and can be reported by the press. Such reports need to be fair and balanced. They should not identify relatives or friends of people accused or convicted of crime unless the reference to them is necessary for the full, fair and accurate reporting of the crime or subsequent legal proceedings.

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published by Daily Mail Australia online on 31 October 2025, headed “Fiery moment Gus Lamont's trans grandmother waves a pump-action shotgun and ERUPTS in explosive tirade at Daily Mail reporter - as police prepare to drain the dam at property where boy vanished”.   The article reported that the grandmother of missing four-year-old Gus Lamont waved a pump-action shotgun at a Daily Mail Australia reporter who attended the family’s property seeking comment about a police search. The article described the interaction between the reporter and members of the family and reported on developments in the police search for the child. The reference to the grandmother as “trans” appeared in the headline.   In response to complaints, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether the article complied with the Council’s Standards of Practice, which require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance (General Principle 3); and 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 (General Principle 6). The complaints expressed concern that the reference in the headline to the grandmother’s transgender status was irrelevant to the incident described and was not justified by the public interest.   In response, the publication said the inclusion of the word “trans” in the headline was inadvertent. It said the headline had been amended to remove the reference and that the editor responsible had acknowledged the error. The publication said it had reiterated internally the importance of fairness and balance in headlines and indicated it was prepared to undertake further training regarding reporting on persons with diverse sexual orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics.   Conclusion   The Council acknowledges the publication’s submission that the inclusion of the word “trans” in the headline was inadvertent and notes its prompt amendment of the headline. The Council also welcomes the publication’s acknowledgement of the error and its indication that it will undertake further training regarding reporting on persons with diverse sexual orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics. However, the Council has repeatedly stated that publications should exercise great care not to place unwarranted emphasis on characteristics of individuals such as race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, country of origin, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, illness or age.   The Council notes that the grandmother’s transgender status was not reported to be a contributing factor in the interaction involving the firearm or in the search for the missing child. In the absence of a clear link between the reported events and the woman’s transgender status, the Council considers that the prominent reference to “trans” in the headline was not relevant to the substance of the story and was unfair. Accordingly, the Council finds that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material was presented with reasonable fairness and balance, in breach of General Principle 3.   The Council recognises that reporting on developments in the search for a missing child, and on an interaction involving a firearm, are matters of legitimate public interest. However, the Council considers that the prominence given to the woman’s transgender status in the headline could lead some readers to conclude that this characteristic was a contributing factor in, the disappearance of the child or the interaction with the journalist, and could contribute to substantial prejudice against transgender people. In the absence of a clear link between the woman’s transgender status and the reported events, the Council considers that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid contributing materially to substantial prejudice and that there was insufficient public interest justification for including the reference. Accordingly, the Council finds a breach of General Principle 6.

Click the PDF below to access the full list of Australian Press Council mastheads by publisher member.

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by the publication of a cartoon in The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald on 7 January 2026 captioned “Grass roots”. The cartoon depicts a crowd of figures above a strip of grass, holding placards and calling for a Royal Commission. The figures above represent various groups including lawyers, business people, sports identities, and Labor figures, with signs reading  ”Business People for RC”, "Lawyers for a Royal Com", "Sports Greats for a RC", "Labor Has Beens for RC" and "Dogs for a RC". One figure has a thought bubble reading "Don't mention the war." In the background there is a figure carrying a megaphone agitating for a Royal Commission. In the foreground, are a number of identifiable political figures - David Littleproud, Sussan Ley, Jacinta Price, John Howard, Jillian Segal and Rupert Murdoch - who are carrying the grass above their heads as they march along. Separate from this group and to the far right, is a figure resembling the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, beating a drum accompanied by the words “Boom Boom”.   In response to complaints received, the Council asked the publications to comment on whether the material breached its Standards of Practice which requires the publications to take reasonable steps 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 (General Principle 6). The Council noted that the complaint raised concerns that the cartoon relies on imagery and themes that closely resemble well-established antisemitic tropes, portraying Jewish figures as manipulative actors exerting hidden influence beneath a supposed “grassroots” movement. The complaint also raised concerns the cartoon diminishes the legitimate concerns expressed by those who have been directly affected by the shooting as well as those from the broader community who have called for a Royal Commission into the shooting. In relation to this, the cartoon implies that their reasoning is not predicated on their concerns with the murders, but a willingness to be manipulated by 'Zionists,' marching to Netanyahu's drum.   In response, the publications said the cartoon should be considered in the context of the significant public debate following the terrorist attack at Bondi on 14 December 2025 and the subsequent widespread calls for a Royal Commission. The publications said the cartoon's intention was to scrutinise the almost immediate politicisation of the genuine calls for a Royal Commission, which became a political attack against Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and to illustrate the phenomenon of "astroturfing" where privately funded or politically motivated campaigns are designed to resemble organic grassroots movements. It said the title "Grass roots" was used ironically for this purpose. The publications said the depiction of Benjamin Netanyahu was premised on his public comments in the hours after the attack, in which he condemned Prime Minister Albanese's recognition of Palestine as having "poured fuel on the antisemitic fire." They said the cartoon was not intended to invoke antisemitic tropes but rather to comment on the role of external and internal political actors in shaping the domestic debate. The publications acknowledged that while some readers found the cartoon thought provoking, many readers, particularly members of the Jewish community, were hurt and offended by the cartoon. They said that upon hearing the gravity of the community's distress it took prompt action, publishing prominent apologies and a range of reader letters on the matter. It said senior editorial leaders had also scheduled a meeting with members of the Jewish community. Notwithstanding its apology, the publications said the cartoon was published in good faith on a matter of clear and significant public interest and at a time of significant public debate about a Royal Commission, and that the public interest in freedom of expression, including the freedom of cartoonists to comment on major news events, was sufficient to justify any offence caused.   Conclusion   The Council recognises that cartoons are expressions of opinion that often use exaggeration and absurdity to make a point on serious issues. For this reason, the Council has given significant latitude to cartoons when considering whether a publication has taken reasonable steps to avoid substantial offence, distress, or prejudice. However, that latitude is not unlimited, particularly where a cartoon can reinforce racial, ethnic or religious stereotypes. The Council acknowledges the publications’ comments that the cartoon’s intention was to comment on the politicisation of the calls for a Royal Commission. The Council also acknowledges the publications’ comments that there was no intention to cause offence or prejudice. The Council notes that the intention of the cartoon or the message it is attempting to convey may be interpreted in different ways. In this context, the Council notes the depiction of political figures carrying the purported grassroots movement above their heads, while Netanyahu, who is both Jewish and the Israeli Prime Minister, stands apart, beating the drum to which the political figures march. The Council considers this imagery encodes the antisemitic trope that Jewish people secretly control or manipulate global events, governments, financial systems, or the media. The Council considers this imagery was likely to cause or contribute to substantial offence, distress and prejudice particularly to those who are Jewish.   While the Council recognises the public interest in commenting on the political motivation of some calling for the Royal Commission into the terrorist attack, the Council does not consider it was sufficient to justify the substantial offence, distress or prejudice caused or contributed to, in depicting those calling for a Royal Commission as being manipulated by the Israeli Prime Minister. Accordingly, the Council concludes that the publications failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice in breach of General Principle 6.   The Council welcomes the publications’ published apologies and their stated intention to meet with Jewish community leaders.   The Council notes that, apart from finding that the publications failed to take reasonable steps to comply with its Standards of Practice, this matter underscores the importance for all publications of ensuring their editorial processes are sufficiently robust to minimise the unintended risk of causing offence, distress or prejudice. The Council also notes that, in the context of heightened community sensitivities concerning antisemitism and social cohesion, the adequacy of editorial processes should be assessed by reference to the sensitivity of the subject matter and the potential impact on affected communities.