Latest Adjudications

The Press Council has considered a complaint from the Queensland Government on behalf of Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk about an article published in the Sunshine Coast Daily on 20 May 2019, headed “ANNA, YOU’RE NEXT: Labor rout puts Premier in crosshairs. Full election coverage from page 2" in print and “Anna, you're next: State LNP buoyed by Labor rout” online.

The front page included prominent target ‘crosshairs’ superimposed on an image of the Queensland Premier’s face next to the headline “ANNA, YOU’RE NEXT” and the sub-headline “Labor rout puts Premier in crosshairs”. A page 3 article was headed “LNP eyeing off state after federal romp” and the online article reported “SCOTT Morrison's demolition of the Labor Party in Queensland has sent spirits soaring in State LNP MPs, with a target now firmly fixed on Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk.” The article went on to report a State Shadow minister as saying that the election win “sent a message to Ms Palaszczuk that ‘doing nothing isn’t going to cut it for six years’”.

The Council acknowledged the publication’s comments that it did not intend to incite violence against Premier Palaszczuk and was instead suggesting that the State Labor Party was a political target. However, by superimposing an image of crosshairs on a photograph of the Premier’s face next to the headlines “ANNA YOU’RE NEXT” and “Labor rout puts Premier in crosshairs”, the article went beyond political comment and showed the premier being the subject of potential significant violence. This could have been taken by some readers as condoning violence against the Premier or had the potential to trigger violence against the Premier. In this respect, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to the health and safety without a justifiable public interest. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 6.

The Press Council considered a complaint from Gary Ebeyan about an article published in The Age online via the Domain section on 6 December 2018, headed “Toorak mansion to sell for $52 million, in Victoria’s second-most expensive sale”.

The article reported that the property at 53-55 Irving Road was “set to change hands” for a record $52 million, the second-highest price ever paid for a property in Victoria. It stated that multiple industry sources confirmed the deal. The article referenced the names of the owners, provided details regarding the past transfer of the property and included a photo of the property above the headline.

The complainant, one of the owners of the property, said the article inaccurately reported that the property was being sold for $52 million. The complainant said there was no sale or transfer, they had not been in any negotiations for its sale, and that they do not intend to sell the property. The complainant also said it took the publication around six days to remove the article, despite repeatedly informing it that the article was wrong. The complainant also noted that information about the property has remained accessible because other articles based on the Domain story have been published online.

The Press Council has considered a complaint from the Threatened Species Recovery Hub (“Hub”) about an article published by The Courier-Mail on 21 January 2019 headed in print "Mega-mine's future in hands of greenies" on page 2, “Birds of a feather in review of mega-mine” on page 4 and “QLD POLITICS: Anti-coal group could have final say on Adani mine" online.

The article reported that “the Threatened Species Recovery Hub has been hand-picked by the Palaszczuk Government to review one of the [Adani] mine’s environmental management plans” and reported them as “an environmental group whose members champion radical action on climate change, oppose coal and have appeared as expert witnesses against Adani”. It said the “Hub’s leaders have also used social media to advocate for radical action to tackle climate change, oppose coal-fired power and condemn mining.” The article quoted an Adani spokesperson who criticised the Hub for being “compromised” and “incapable of providing an independent review”.

The Council accepted that the Queensland Government incorrectly informed the publication that the Hub itself was conducting the review and accordingly, the publication took reasonable steps to ensure accuracy and fair and balanced presentation of factual material. Given the nature and purpose of the Hub, the Council considered the publication also took reasonable steps to be accurate, fair and balanced in using the terms “greenies” and “environmental group”.

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published by The Daily Telegraph on 13 September 2017 headed in print “An identity crisis” and online “WHAT MADNESS CAN JUSTIFY MUTILATING OUR CHILDREN” and a Podcast on 16 April 2018 titled “Ryan T. Anderson joins Miranda Devine live on gender identity”.

The article referred to a “pernicious social fad for transgenderism in children which has been embraced by an activist subset of the medical profession” and stated that “new laws in Victoria can punish therapists who oppose transitioning children”.

The Council noted that the article and the podcast contained expressions of the author’s opinion. However, the Council considered they also contained material presented as facts, including the statement in the article that there was “No evidence that changing sex will reduce the incidence of self-harm or suicide or lessen the impact of other associated mental states such as depression or autism” and in the podcast that there was “no evidence that these hormones are safe to be used on kids, no evidence of any reduction in self-harm or suicide”.

The Press Council has considered a complaint from Dr Fiona Martin about three articles published in The Daily Telegraph on 8 August 2018. The first article was headed “The Nutty Professor” on the front page, with the full report continued on pages four and five with articles headed “Degrees of Hilarity” and “Bizarre rants of a class clown”. The third article was published online under the headline “Sydney University lecturer shocks students with internet search advice on ‘committing suicide’”.

The front page article reported that students in universities in Sydney were being subjected to “absurdly dark humour” and “excessive political correctness”. It reported that “…the most shocking example was modern media lecturer Fiona Martin…, who described the late legendary artist Bill Leak as ‘vile’ and added ‘may he not rest in peace’” and “…flippantly taught [students] how to cover their digital tracks if contemplating suicide or murder”. The article also referred to Dr Martin as “a former ABC reporter”, and included a photo of her with the headline, “The Nutty Professor” capitalised in large letters below it, and the caption “University Life 2018: Class clowns, vile rants, fluffy dogs & cotton wool” on top.

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by three articles published by The Sunday Mail headed “Stadiums Showdown” (front page in print), “We’ve been hit high” (print), “NRL, AFL and Super Rugby unite to fight soaring rents and levies from Stadiums Queensland” (online), “Ball dropped on footy” (print editorial) and “Stadiums Queensland gouging footy franchises into oblivion” (online), all of which were published on 15 April 2018.

The articles reported on the rents and levies that sporting teams incur for the use of stadiums operated by Stadiums Queensland and discussed the impact of this on various sporting codes, including the NRL. The articles said “Price gouging by Stadiums Queensland is threatening the fiscal viability of the state’s top footy clubs”, “A Sunday Mail investigation reveals the Broncos … are all facing massive financial challenges on the back of soaring rental costs”, “Even the … Broncos, who have by far the best arrangement with the Government, get slugged with well over $1 million in levies” and “Even the Broncos … struggle to survive under the current economic structure being imposed by Stadiums Queensland”.

The Press Council considered a complaint from Emma Little, on behalf of King Island Council, about an article published in the King Island Courier on 26 September 2018, headed “Directive denied by Auditor General”, about the use made by the publication of an email from the complainant to the publication printed on the same page.

The article reported that, in increasing the airport charges of the only airport on King Island, the King Island Council had publicly claimed it was following a directive from the Auditor General to get “the facility to break even and beyond”. However, the Auditor General had denied issuing such a directive. The article concluded: “the King Island Council did not respond to a request for comment.”

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by the publication of a front page article in The Daily Telegraph on 6 August 2018, headed "Army drops the ‘H’ bomb: Soldiers told words like ‘him’ or ‘her’ can be gender bullying". The article continued on page 8 headed “Identity goes MIA in gender wars”. The article was also published online, headed “Australian Defence Force guide bans soldiers from saying ‘him’ or ‘her’ to avoid LGBTI offence”.

Considering the Guide as a whole, and the article, the Council considered that the factual material in the article was not misleading and was presented with reasonable fairness and balance.

However the Council considered that the headline of the online article was likely to lead readers to believe that the ADFA had banned the use of “him”, “her” or “they” entirely rather than stating that the deliberate use of inappropriate pronouns will amount to unacceptable behaviour. The Council noted the Guide stated “All ADFA personnel need to appreciate that the deliberate use of non-inclusive language, exclusion and bullying due to gender diversity are some of the behaviours which can affect LGBTI members,” but did not ban the use of such pronouns.

The Council did not consider that it was accurate to say the ADF “banned” the use of such pronouns and concluded that the publication breached General Principle 1. The Council also considered that the publication failed to sufficiently remedy the misleading headline, and accordingly breached General Principle 2.

The Press Council has considered a complaint from ClubsNSW about an article published in The Sydney Morning Herald on 12 March 2018 headed “Pokie numbers are set to rise under new laws” in print and “Law changes could see pokie machine numbers rise in vulnerable areas” online.

The article said that changes proposed by the NSW government to poker machine laws “could increase the number of machines in high-risk areas and increase pokie profits by an estimated $80 million a year.” It referred to an announcement by the NSW Racing Minister of the proposed changes including “a cap on machines in “higher risk areas” such as Fairfield”. It noted however that there would be a “provision to allow clubs and pubs to lease licences on machines to other venues” and noted that “Under present laws machines can only be transferred by sale, and for every three machines sold, one must be forfeited. Under new laws venues would be able to avoid forfeiting machines by leasing them instead. Also, smaller regional clubs and pubs could lease poorly performing machines to larger venues in high-revenue areas like Fairfield.” It reported the Mayor of Fairfield as saying “under the changes not only could low-turnover machines be moved to high-turnover areas, but clubs could activate dormant licences, increasing the overall number of machines”.

The Council noted that before the proposed changes, the ‘sinking lid’ provisions of gaming laws required clubs to forfeit one machine for every three machines sold by a club to another club which would most likely lead to an eventual reduction of machine numbers. The Council considered that, as the proposed changes allow clubs the option of leasing machines to other clubs without the previous forfeiture requirements, it is less likely that a reduction in machine numbers will take place by forfeiture of machines upon sale. The Council considered it is possible there will be more machines as a result of the proposed changes than would otherwise have been the case. The Council concluded the article was not inaccurate or misleading or unfair and unbalanced in this respect.

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by the publication of a Cartoon by Mark Knight in the Herald Sun on 10 September 2018. The cartoon depicted Ms Serena Williams on a tennis court, jumping in the air with her arms out to her sides and her hands in fists above a broken tennis racquet. A baby’s pacifier was depicted on the ground in front of the broken tennis racquet. In the background, an umpire was shown saying “Can you just let her win?” to a woman standing on the other side of the net. The cartoon referred to an incident during a tennis match between Ms Williams and Ms Naomi Osaka.

The Council noted that cartoons are commonly expressions of opinion examining serious issues and which use exaggeration and absurdity to make their point. For this reason significant latitude will usually be given in considering whether a publication has taken reasonable steps to avoid substantial offence, distress or prejudice in breach of General Principle 6. However a publication can, in publishing a particular cartoon, still fail to take reasonable steps to avoid contributing to substantial offence, distress or prejudice without sufficient justification in the public interest and breach the General Principle.

The Council accepted that the cartoon was illustrated in response to the events that occurred at the US Open final on 9 September 2018 that attracted global attention. The Council considered that the cartoon uses exaggeration and absurdity to make its point but accepts the publisher’s claim that it does not depict Ms Williams as an ape, rather showing her as ‘spitting the dummy’, a non-racist caricature familiar to most Australian readers. Nonetheless, the Council acknowledged that some readers found the cartoon offensive. However, the Council also accepted that there was a sufficient public interest in commenting on behaviour and sportsmanship during a significant dispute between a tennis player with a globally high profile and an umpire at the US Open final. As such, the Council did not consider that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing substantial offence, distress or prejudice, without sufficient justification in the public interest. Accordingly the Council concluded that its Standards of Practice were not breached.

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by the publication of an article in The Herald Sun on 21 May 2018, headed "BAN THE BOOKS Councils’ gender war to hit kinders, libraries” on the front page, continuing on page 2, headed “Favourite children’s tales face gender ban”. The article was also published online, headed “Councils could ban children’s books, toys and characters for not meeting gender test”.

The opening paragraph read “Victorian councils are auditing libraries, schools and kindergartens and urging a ban on the terms ‘boy’ and ‘girl’ in a bid to teach kids as young as three to have ‘gender equitable relationships’.” The article referred to Melbourne City Council being “among a number of local authorities responding to radical new research” by the Australian National University (ANU) which suggests that educators “AVOID classifying kids by gender, and boys and girls-only activities; AVOID comments defining what females or males do, or should do; and AVOID using the terms ‘boys’ and ‘girls’, and ‘minimise the extent to which gender is labelled’”. The article proceeded to discuss the research and said that under “the new guidelines, children’s favourites including Thomas the Tank Engine, Noddy and Winnie the Pooh could be banned for not meeting gender tests”.

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published online by the Daily Mail Australia titled “EXCLUSIVE: Transgender sister, 31, of football star is charged with manslaughter over the death of her boyfriend, 51, after ‘domestic violence’ incident at a house in Sydney’s south” on 21 May 2018 and updated on 22 May 2018.

The article reported that a named woman, the sister of a named rugby league player, had been charged with manslaughter following the death of a named man with whom she had been in a relationship. The article said that the publication understood the named woman “a transgender woman, had been involved in an “on and off” relationship” with the named man. It also said the woman described herself on social media accounts as transgender and the article included her post “#transgender #transisbeautiful”, although it was not suggested her transgender status was of particular relevance to any of the events described. The article included several photographs of the woman and a photograph of her with her brother. The article named the suburb where the man had died and said a neighbour heard “a woman yelling” followed by “a ‘loud bang’”. The charges were later withdrawn.

The Council noted that it has for a long period considered that publications should exercise great care to not place unwarranted emphasis on characteristics of individuals such as race, religion, nationality, country of origin, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, illness or age.

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published online by Nine.com.au titled “Brighton Le Sands death: Dylan Walker’s sister in court over boyfriend’s death” on 21 May 2018.

The article began “The transgender sister of” a named football player “allegedly killed her boyfriend”. The article identified the woman by name and the Sydney suburb involved. It reported that the man allegedly died from injuries to his head and face. It said the woman appeared in court with swelling to her face and bruising under one of her eyes and had been charged with manslaughter and “aggravated enter dwelling with intent”. The article included a photograph of the woman and her brother. The charges were later withdrawn.

The Council noted that it has for a long period considered that publications should exercise great care to not place unwarranted emphasis on characteristics of individuals such as race, religion, nationality, country of origin, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, illness or age.

The Council accepted that the woman had publicly stated on social media accounts that she was transgender. However, the Council noted the woman was already identified in the article by name and photograph, as was her brother. The man who had died, and the suburb involved were also identified by name. The Council considered that it was not relevant to the alleged criminal acts reported to identify the woman as being transgender. Although it provided some further identification of the woman, it was not necessary to do so. The Council considered that as being transgender was not relevant to the alleged criminality, prominently identifying the woman as transgender in the first sentence of the article could have had the effect of generating substantial prejudice towards transgender people.

The Press Council has considered a complaint from Cr Angela Owen, Chairman of the Brisbane City Council, about an article published in Brisbane Times on 26 March 2018 headed "Council chairman accused of being abusive and being biased”, later amended to "Council chairman accused of bullying and bias” and then to "Council chairman accused of allowing bullying and being biased”.

The article said in its first paragraph that the complainant “had been accused of allowing bullying and being partisan during full council meetings”. It said that the complainant had chaired seven meetings of the City Council, councillors were warned seven times and a councillor was once ordered to leave. It said these incidents involved Labor or independent councillors and that no LNP councillors were warned. It referred to a letter written by the Opposition Leader to formally complain to the City Council’s Chief Executive, describing the complainant’s actions at a recent meeting as “ruthlessly biased”.

The Press Council considered that the initial headline stated that the complainant had personally been accused of being abusive and being a bully. Neither the article nor any material put forward by the publication during the Press Council’s complaints process supported this statement. The Press Council noted the publication did seek comment from the media unit before publication. However, given the seriousness of the allegation, the Press Council considered the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure it was accurate, not misleading and fair and balanced. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principles 1 and 3.

The Press Council has considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by a front page article published in The Daily Telegraph on 1 April 2017, headed “SECRET LIVES OF BRUTAL KILLERS - Mental health justice system puts monsters on the streets". The full report was on pages six and seven, headed “KILLERS AND RAPIST ARE BEING FREED IN SECRECY”. The article was also published online on 31 March 2017, headed “Mental Act review demand: Telegraph calls for changes to law that allows details suppression”.

The article began: “HUNDREDS of the state’s most vile and vicious criminals are being secretly protected by the state with their fate and whereabouts unknown. Under secretive laws designed to protect criminals deemed to be mentally ill—many of them killers and rapists—all details about their treatment and incarceration are suppressed, including the identity of their victims”. It commented on decisions made by the Mental Health Review Tribunal to release into the community some of the 460 forensic patients for which it is responsible. It provided what was described as “sickening examples” of the acts committed by those deemed to be mentally ill.

The article reported on concerns about the treatment of people whose actions would have constituted a criminal offence if not for the defence of mental illness, and who were released into the community. The Council noted such persons were found to have committed the act alleged but were found not guilty. While the Mental Health Review Tribunal would have been aware of a range of information about such persons, the Council noted that they were released into the community and their release was not made public by the Tribunal at the time. Accordingly, the Council considered that the publication took reasonable steps to ensure the material published was accurate and not misleading, and reasonably fair and balanced, in describing them as criminals whose whereabouts were unknown.