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:
- Ensure that factual material in news reports and elsewhere is accurate and not misleading, and is distinguishable from other material such as opinion.
- 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.
- Avoid intruding on a person’s reasonable expectations of privacy, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest.
- 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.