Latest Adjudications

The Press Council has considered a complaint by Osher Günsberg about an article published by Daily Mail Australia on 5 September 2016 headed “The Bachelor host Osher Gunsberg shows off his 'Bali belly’ as he goes shirtless while filming finale of reality TV show on Indonesian island”. The article referred to the complainant as “never [having] a hair out of place”, but who “revealed his portly frame and unkempt hair”. The article featured three photographs of the complainant shirtless, in at least one of which he appeared to be dressing or undressing.

The Council accepted the complainant has not exploited shirtless images of himself. The photographs were taken at a beach far away from the complainant’s filming activities on a day off and he did not see a camera taking photographs. The Council considered that while the complainant is a public figure, he has not forfeited his right to privacy altogether.

The Council considered the subject matter of the article did not relate to the complainant’s public activities. Given the fairly remote location, the care exercised by the complainant in the past to not be photographed shirtless, his lack of alternatives in the circumstances and the covert nature of the photographs, he retained a reasonable expectation of privacy which was intruded upon by the photographs and the references to “Bali belly”. There was no public interest to justify such an intrusion. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 5 and Privacy Principle 1.

The Council considered the complainant’s history of mental illness and weight gain are in the public domain as a result of the complainant’s own doing. But by referring to “Bali belly”, and using the photographs in the manner it did, the article ridiculed the consequences of his mental illness medication and was likely to cause substantial offence or distress. The publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid this, and accordingly, breached General Principle 6.

The publication did not commission the photographs, which were provided unsolicited by an agency. While the complainant did not see the photographer taking the photographs, the Council was not satisfied that the photographs were gathered by deceptive or unfair means. Accordingly, the Council considered the publication did not breach General Principle 7.

The Press Council has considered a complaint by Cr Colin Hampton about a front page article in the Frankston Standard Leader on 4 July 2016 headed “Councillor stoush”, which followed the release of the Councillor Conduct Panel Determination on the behaviour of the complainant and another councillor at the launch of an apartment complex in 2015.

The Council noted that the Panel dismissed all allegations against the complainant, except that his conduct in relation to two Council employees was found to be objectively threatening behaviour in breach of the Code of Conduct. It found his conduct in questioning how the other councillor came to speak was inappropriate but not in breach of the Code. The Panel found the other councillor deliberately exaggerated his evidence, and advanced nine additional allegations to assist his case without a sound factual basis, including one that the complainant was ejected from the event.

The Council accepted that the Determination was lengthy and not all aspects could be covered in the article. However, the fact the Panel disbelieved the other councillor’s evidence of his observations while speaking onstage and found he made nine additional allegations without factual basis, simply to advance his case, were very significant to presenting the report in a fair and balanced way, particularly given earlier coverage of the Panel’s formation and preparation of its report. The fact that the developer’s allegations that the complainant had made comments disparaging of the development and had tapped the developer “vigorously on the back” were not upheld was also significant, given an earlier article raised these allegationsAccordingly, the Council considered that reasonable steps to ensure fairness and balance required the article to include these matters. It concluded that in failing to do so, the publication breached General Principle 3, and in not providing a fair opportunity for a reply after publication, it also breached General Principle 4.

The Council did not consider the reporting went so far as to be misleading, and accordingly, did not consider that it breached General Principle 1 or 2.

The Press Council has considered a complaint from Industry Super Australia about an article in The Australian on 3 December 2015, headed “Industry Super must be taken to task”. The article said industry super funds’ “supply chains are tightly held by union-related entities — in relation to funds management, investment, financial advice and custodial services”, and that “[t]he market is never tested because doing business with union mates is so much easier, it would seem”.

The Council considered that although the article was headed “COMMENT” in print and “OPINION” online, the statement in the article that industry super funds’ “supply chains are tightly held by union-related entities — in relation to funds management, investment, financial advice and custodial services, was expressed as a statement of fact and not merely an expression of the author’s opinion. The Council considered it meant that union-related entities dominated each of the named supply areas. The Council was satisfied on the material available that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure this statement was accurate and not misleading.

The Council considered the statement that “[t]he market is never tested because doing business with union mates is so much easier” was also presented as a statement of fact, notwithstanding the addition of the words “it would seem”. The Council considered that the publication did not take reasonable steps to ensure this statement was accurate and not misleading, having regard to its definite terms. Accordingly, the publication also breached General Principle 1 in this respect.

As the publication offered a balancing opinion piece in response, given the nature and context of the material, the Council considered that the publication took reasonable steps to provide adequate remedial action. Accordingly, it did not consider that General Principles 2 and 4 were breached.

The Press Council has considered a complaint about a front page article in The Daily Telegraph on 26 April 2016 headed “BLUDGERS’ DISGRACE: BOOZE DRUGS DOLE RORT”, with a secondary headline, “EXCLUSIVE: Crooked doctors helping layabouts get out of finding a job”, and the full report on page four headed "Cynical bludge makes us sick: Dole grubs shirking work”. It was also published online under a different headline.

The article reported on “[a]n investigation by the Department of Human Services”. The front page began: “TENS of thousands of bludgers are using a medical scam – claiming “illnesses” including drug and alcohol abuse – to get the dole without having to find a job.” It added:  “More than 70,000 people – almost 8 per cent of all recipients of Newstart, single parent and youth allowance payments – have been using medical certificates to avoid mandatory job-seeking requirements.”

The Council considered that merely because 70,000 Newstart Allowance,  Parenting Payment and Youth Allowance recipients provided medical certificates, it did not rationally follow that all 70,000 were “dole bludgers” or were “exploiting a loophole”; medical certificates may be used to demonstrate legitimate inability to work due to illness. Nor did statements attributed to the Minister for Human Services give any support to this suggestion. The Council also considered that the online headline “Crooked doctors helping layabouts get out of finding a job” implied doctors were dishonestly assisting recipients to receive benefits, and with no reasonable basis in the material to support such a definitive statement. Accordingly, the Council considered that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure these statements were accurate and not misleading, in breach of General Principle 1.

The Council also considered that the print sub-headline “Cynical bludge makes us sick: Dole grubs shirking work”, read with the above statements referred to was also inaccurate and misleading, and could not be regarded as reasonably fair or balanced in its portrayal of welfare recipients, in breach of General Principles 1 and 3.

As to remedial action, the Council considered that the online amendment and print clarification could have been published more promptly. In any event, the Council was not satisfied based on the information provided that there was a sufficient basis for maintaining that “tens of thousands” of recipients are exploiting the exemption. The Council concluded that the amendments did not provide sufficient remedial action, in breach of General Principle 2.

The Press Council has considered a complaint from the Australian Council for Education Research (ACER) about an article in the Gold Coast Bulletin on 28 July 2016, headed “Teachers found lacking”.

The brief article (four paragraphs in length) reported that a review conducted by academic consultants on behalf of ACER urged that teachers’ training be subject to a regime similar to that applying to doctors, pilots and lawyers, under which new entrants proceeded in stages under a formal system of supervision and control. The authors of the review argued this would help develop teachers’ personal and motivational skills, build confidence and inspire students’ learning in the classroom.

The accuracy, fairness and balance of the text in the article were not called into question by the complainant. The only issue under consideration by the Council was whether the publication took reasonable steps to ensure the headline met these Standards. The Council considered that the headline implied the review was critical of teachers generally, however it was critical not of teachers generally but of their accreditation process and training. The Council considered that the publication could have sought better detail about the review and expressed the headline in a manner that better reflected its findings. The Council concluded that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the headline was accurate and not misleading, in breach of General Principle 1. Accordingly, this aspect of the complaint was upheld.

The Council noted that the publication did offer to publish a letter from ACER explaining why the headline did not satisfactorily summarise the review, but ACER chose not avail itself of this opportunity. The Council considered that in doing so, the publication took reasonable steps to offer an adequate remedy in this instance. Accordingly, the Council did not uphold the complaint in relation to General Principle 2.

The Press Council has considered a complaint by Liam Pickering, an accredited agent for AFL players, about an article in the Herald Sun on 8 June 2016 headed “STRATEGIC ERROR WILL COST AGENT” in print and by another headline online. The article referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court of Victoria arising out of Mr Pickering’s departure from Strategic Management Australia.

The Council considered that the Court’s judgment made clear its order was for the complainant to compensate Strategic Management, and for his former business partner to purchase the complainant’s 40 per cent shareholding. By reporting the outcome as a dispute between partners, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the article was accurate and not misleading in breach of General Principle 1.

The article implied the complainant suffered a significant defeat, and did not refer to the Court’s serious adverse findings made against his former partner or its conclusion that “both parties have won and lost”. The article also implied the complainant took a $90,000 cut of a player’s earnings, had returned it, and that this was dealt with in the judgment, none of which was established. These aspects also breached General Principle 1.

Further, the inaccuracies were sufficiently apparent that the publication should have taken steps to correct them, and in failing to do so it also breached General Principle 2.

The publication also presented the material without reasonable fairness and balance in breach of General Principle 3, and so was also obliged under General Principle 4 to take reasonable steps to give the complainant a fair opportunity for a reply. In this case, the publication eventually offered to publish a “succinct letter” from the complainant though given the circumstances, the Council concluded this offer did not amount to a fair and timely opportunity for a response.

However, referring to the complainant’s departure from Strategic Management as “messy” does not necessarily imply wrongdoing and may simply suggest contractual restraints on behaviour, so there was not a failure to take reasonable steps to ensure accuracy or fairness in this respect.

The Council also recognised that a high number of people involved in the AFL would be known to each other. In this case, there was insufficient evidence available to the Council to suggest the publication failed to avoid or disclose a conflict of interest, so General Principle 8 was not breached.

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an online article published in The Courier-Mail on 31 March 2016, headed “Mother, son found dead beneath cliff at Maroubra". The article reported on an apparent murder-suicide concerning a 25-year-old mother and her two-year-old son in Maroubra NSW. It was accompanied by several photographs identifying the scene, and referred to the method and location of the incident and extracts from an apparent suicide note. It said the mother “described killing herself and [her son] as the ‘bravest thing’ she had ever done” and quoted a “family member [who] also paid tribute” as having said: ‘People say what a coward, but I say how brave was that …’”

The Council considered that the details of the method, the precise location, the suicide note and the tribute to the mother being “brave” were likely to cause or contribute materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety. While there was a public interest in reporting the apparent murder-suicide, it could have been reported without such details. The Council concluded that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid breaching General Principle 6.

The Council also concluded that these same features gave rise to a risk of further suicides in breach of Coverage of Suicide Standard 5; the public interest in reporting these details did not outweigh the risk of causing further suicides.

The Council noted that the publisher of syndicated material—the article in this matter was automatically syndicated from a related publication—is responsible for the content of that material in the same way as the material that publisher originates. The Council also noted that the publication took prompt action to arrange for alteration of the article following contact from the Council.

Note: If you or someone close to you requires personal assistance, please contact Lifeline Australia on 13 11 14.

The Press Council has considered a complaint by the Australian Defence Force (ADF) about material published in The Australian:  an editorial headed “Military no place for tokenism” published on 8 April 2016, and the editing of a letter to the editor from the ADF, headed “The defence force is taking steps to ensure needed cultural change” published on 13 April along with an editorial headed “ADF Mission must be restored” and a report headed “Brass fightback on ‘diversity’ in defence”. All the material was published in print and online, with the editorial and report on 13 April having different headlines online.

The Council considered that the first editorial was an expression of opinion about the ADF’s diversity programs and the risk of compromising the capacity of the ADF in the future. The Council was satisfied the publication took reasonable steps to ensure it was not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or an omission of key facts concerning what the complainant referred to as evidence of its successful operations and ongoing investment in military and submarine capability. The Council considered the editing of the letter to the editor preserved the essence of the points made by the ADF, omitting only details of the points made in support. Publications have a broad discretion to edit letters, provided it does not change their meaning or tenor, which the Council considers did not occur in this instance. The Council considered that in editing the letter as it did the publication took reasonable steps to ensure that it was an accurate and not misleading reflection of the complainant’s submitted letter.

As to the second editorial, the Council noted that while the letter as submitted provided details of successful operations and ongoing investment in capability, it did not refer to the Islamic affairs strategic adviser and whether that role and the actions of the adviser reflected a cultural change strategy which institutionalised identity politics. Also, while the second editorial referred to a portion of the submitted letter which had not been published, it referred accurately to the omitted portions. In the circumstances, the Council considered the publication took reasonable steps to ensure that factual material in the second editorial was accurate and fair and balanced, and that the opinion was not based on inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts. The Council also considered that the letter as published amounted to a fair opportunity for the complainant to reply.

Accordingly, the Council did not uphold the complaint.

The Press Council has considered a complaint by Judith Kenny about an article concerning the killing of her son, Reuben Stack, published in the Fremantle Herald on 30 May 2015, headed "Brutal killing shocks leafy East Fremantle".

The Council considered that the article was inaccurate in implying details of the killing and that a “dog-fight for control of the local drug scene” was involved. While there may have been some justification in reporting speculation in the first hours after the crime, the intervening eight days gave the publication sufficient time to check whether it was accurate, and the Council concluded that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure accuracy in repeating the speculation. Accordingly, this aspect of the complaint was upheld. Given Mr Stack’s drug activities, the Council did not uphold the complaint in relation to Mr Stack being described as “troubled”.

The Council also considered that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid contributing materially to substantial distress for the family. Given the article appeared soon after the violent death of a young man from a prominent family in the local community, there was a public interest justifying a report on the events, however that public interest did not justify the manner of reporting in this case and the distress caused to the family. As such, the Council concluded that the article breached General Principle 6, and this aspect of the complaint was also upheld.

Given the nature of the material published and that the complainant did not seek a correction or other remedial action, the Council did not reach any conclusion about whether General Principles 2 and 4 were breached.

The Council considered it legitimate for the article to report on a homicide in the community and the coverage was sufficiently in the public interest to outweigh any reasonable expectation of privacy that may have existed under General Principle 5. Accordingly, this aspect of the complaint was not upheld.

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article headed “ABC HERO A VILLAIN: Q&A sob story star exposed as a thug as public donate $60,000” published on the front page of the Herald Sun on 13 May 2016 and with a similar heading online the day before.

The Council considered that reporting the man’s background resulted from the entirety of the circumstances in which he had: become part of the public debate about taxation fairness during an election campaign, been described a national hero, made multiple media statements himself and, especially, become the subject of a significant public fundraising campaign. While the man did not necessarily seek this level of attention or financial rewards, it was not a breach of the General Principle 3 for the publication to report frankly about his background and to use epithets that reflect his criminal record.

Publication of some aspects of the man’s criminal record and family background may have been an intrusion on the man’s privacy and may have caused some level of offence, distress, prejudice, and risk to health and safety. The Council might have been concerned if such exposure was the consequence for anyone daring to ask a challenging question, so producing a chilling effect on free speech. However, given the man’s previous convictions, his appearance on Q&A, his subsequent interviews, the GoFundMe Campaign and the reporting leading up to the article, the Council is not satisfied the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid intruding on his reasonable expectation of privacy or causing substantial offence, distress, prejudice or risk to health or safety.

In any event, the Council concluded that it was justified in the public interest to report his background, especially given the GoFundMe campaign. There is a public interest in all Australians—including those who have committed offences in the past or otherwise behaved in ways which might rightly be criticised—having a fair opportunity to participate in public debate, especially in the context of an election campaign. However, in this situation there was a greater public interest in informing the public about the man’s background. Accordingly, the Council concluded that General Principles 5 and 6 were not breached. 

The Press Council has considered a complaint about an article in The Age on 19 May 2016 headed "Election 2016: Greens leader Richard Di Natale fails to declare home, pays au pairs low wage" online and in print the next day by another headline. The article reported that “Senator Di Natale has paid three au pairs to help with his family as little as $150 a week after tax, or $3.75 an hour - based on a standard 40-hour week…”.

The Council concluded that before the article appeared, the Senator told the publication the au pairs worked 25 hours per week, he had made the employment arrangements in accordance with advice he received, and offered to provide documents relating to that advice. Although it took five days for the publication’s requests for documents to be met and then only partially, at the time the article was published the publication had no evidence to contradict the initial information provided by the Senator’s office. There was no reasonable basis for the publication to imply the au pairs may have worked a 40-hour week and on this basis, may have been paid “as little as $150 a week after tax”. The publication could also have contacted the au pairs to establish the nature of the employment arrangement but did not attempt to do so.

The Council concluded that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the article was accurate and not misleading, and fair and balanced. Accordingly, General Principles 1 and 3 were breached in these respects. Given the absence of a complaint by the Senator himself, the Council did not make any finding about breaches of General Principles 2 and 4.

The Press Council has considered a complaint by a candidate for Bendigo in the Victorian local government elections, about publication of her letter to the editor in the Bendigo Weekly on 10 June 2016. The letter was headed “THE POWER OF VOTING” and argued the benefits of compulsory voting. Although it did not refer to any election or any matter that could influence the way a vote might be cast by a voter, it was published with her name, residential address and the ward for which she was a candidate.

The Council considered it likely on the information available to it that an editorial policy put in place by the publication from 10 June – to publish the full names and addresses of contributors’ letters to the editor making election-related comment – or its implementation in this case, was not required by law. However, the Council is unable to conclude whether the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid intruding on reasonable expectations of privacy or contributing to substantial distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety in these respects.

However, the Council considered that the publication could have contacted the complainant prior to publishing the letter and advised her of the new policy in relation to the publication of letters. It also could have advised that it proposed to publish the letter with her address and given her an opportunity to withdraw the letter or seek a different outcome. The Council concluded that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid intruding on a person’s reasonable expectations of privacy or contributing to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety in this respect. Any public interest in the complainant’s address was not sufficient to justify the intrusion and the risk and General Principles 5 and 6 were breached. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld.

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article headed “The Secret Life of Gary Low” in The Sun-Herald (in print) and online on 24 January 2016. The article reported on the life and death of a man apparently living under the assumed name of Gary Low who it said lived in extreme privacy and scrupulously avoided his most basic details being recorded by governments or businesses. It reported Mr Low’s health declined very rapidly in 2014 due to HIV, “which had gone untreated for as long as a decade and had advanced to AIDS”, that Mr Low died three weeks after admission to hospital in June 2014, a coronial inquest was conducted and his body remained unclaimed at the morgue.

The Council considered there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in this instance, particularly because (a) Mr Low is deceased; (b) the facts were stated in open court and recorded in official and accessible court reports; and (c) no suppression or redaction order was sought by the relevant hospital and health authorities or made by the Court. Further, had the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid intruding on privacy, the reporting was sufficiently in the public interest to outweigh such an intrusion, given the significance and public policy implications of the story. Accordingly, the Council concluded that General Principle 5 was not breached.

Similarly, the Council considered that the publication took reasonable steps to ensure the article did not cause or contribute materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or to a substantial risk to health or safety. The article was sensitively written and sympathetic to Mr Low, did not use any stigmatising or discriminatory language, and is considered unlikely to dissuade anyone from seeking medical advice in appropriate circumstances. Accordingly, General Principle 6 was not breached.

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by the publication of a blog by The Daily Telegraph online on 10 April 2016 headed “TAX-FUNDED SPOUSAL ASSAULT COMMUNITY”. The blog commented on a claim by the ABC staff union for “Family Violence Leave” and said it was made because “the ABC employs so many victims of domestic violence that they require their own special leave allowance category” and “Home is the last place [ABC staff] need to be. That’s where the violence happens.”
The Council considered that a reasonable reader would have recognised the blog was satirical and using exaggeration, and that it offered a reasonable summary of the claim.

The Council concluded that in the overall context of the blog, its style and its readership, the publication took reasonable steps to ensure factual material was accurate, fair and balanced and opinions were not based on significantly inaccurate material or omission of key facts. Accordingly, General Principles 1 and 3 were not breached.

Although the publication may not have intended to diminish the seriousness of domestic violence, there was a significant risk some readers might draw this conclusion. On balance however, the Council concluded that the level of offence must be considered in the overall context of the blog. The Council concluded that the publication took reasonable steps to avoid substantial offence, distress or prejudice, and General Principle 6 was not breached.

The Press Council has considered a complaint by the Lost Dogs’ Home about an article in The Age on 28 November 2015 headed “It’s concrete pens and barking dogs”.

The Council concluded that, as the article inferred that a dog “Dino” was euthanised for no valid reason, it was inaccurate and unfair not to include reference to Dino’s aggression and pancreatitis. As to the six other dogs referred to, the article covered their general treatment and it would have been reasonable for the publication to seek their medical histories and include material from them to provide a fair and balanced report. The voice-over in the embedded video unfairly implied hundreds of dogs were fed sedatives and antidepressants and it would have been reasonable for the publication to seek a response to these claims from the Home for inclusion in the article. Consequently, the Council considered the article breached General Principles 1 and 3, and the complaint was upheld in these respects.

The Council doubted whether allowing the Home only two days to respond before publication provided a reasonable time, but reached no conclusion in this respect.

The Council also considered it may have been unfair to make and use a recording of one of the Home’s staff without consent, but there was a sufficient public interest to justify doing so. As to a potential conflict of interest of one of the sources for the article, the Council considered the publication took sufficient steps to draw readers' attention to this issue. Accordingly, the Council did not uphold these aspects of the complaint.

Finally, the Council considered Home’s letter to the Editor as published included the major elements to which the complainant sought to respond and was published within a reasonable time, and this aspect was not upheld.