Complaints to the Australian Press Council may lead to the one of three broad types of outcome:
- Adjudicated: the Council issued an adjudication on the complaint;
- Resolved: the publisher took action (eg, provided an explanation, right of reply, correction or apology) which led the complainant not to proceed to an adjudication by the Council;
- Other: the complaint did not proceed to resolution or adjudication because, for example, it did not fall within the Council’s mandate, the Executive Secretary decided that there was clearly no breach of the Council’s standards, or the complainant did not pursue the matter to finalisation by the Council.
This section provides the following information about the outcomes of complaints:
Summaries of the latest adjudications are placed in the Compendium below (with a link to the full adjudication) within a few days of publication. The full adjudication is available from the News section on the APC home page on the day the adjudication is published.
Compendium of Adjudications
Summaries of latest adjudications
- Adjudication 1582 Michael Costa/The Sydney Morning Herald (December 2013)
A complaint from Michael Costa about three reports between December 2012 and February 2013. The reports mentioned Mr Costa’s involvement with Australian Water Holdings. As NSW Treasurer in 2008, after seeking advice from the Solicitor-General, he had ordered AWH and Sydney Water to attend mediation over a contractual dispute. After leaving Parliament, he served for a period as Chair of AWH. The Council decided that accuracy and fairness required the publication to report that before consulting the Solicitor-General, he had been given two conflicting sets of legal advice. Instead, it had mentioned only that he had received advice favouring Sydney Water and had then “sought another legal opinion”. The Council also decided that, having noted the benefits he received as Chair of AWH, it should have noted that they were no greater than his predecessor, Arthur Sinodinos, had received. Accordingly, these aspects of the complaint were upheld. Another aspect was not upheld and two more were withdrawn.
- Adjudication 1580 Luke Walladge/The Age (December 2013)
A complaint about an articleon 4 March 2013 headed “Union secretary asked to cover the tab”, above which was a smaller heading, “Debt case: Sex worker to get money owed under court’s ruling”. The report concerned a court order that Luke Walladge pay an amount to a Perth woman who was described as a sex worker. The court was said to have ordered that any debt owed to Mr Walladge by the secretary of the Health Services Union in Victoria be “appropriated” to pay the Perth woman. The Council found that the transcript of court proceedings did not show that a debt by the union secretary had been appropriated. As Mr Walladge had subsequently claimed there was no such debt, the publication should have made further inquiries before publication. In addition, while it was reasonable for the article to refer to the woman’s occupation as a sex worker, references in the headline and first sentence, and in an accompanying tweet, unfairly suggested the debt was for sexual services. Accordingly, these aspects of the complaint were upheld, but a complaint about breach of Mr Walladge’s privacy was not upheld.
- Adjudication 1581: Cr Ben Shields/The Daily Liberal (November 2013)
A complaint from Cr Ben Shields about a report headed “Naturalists’ object to Shields’ claims”. It was published on 28 August 2012, shortly before the local government elections, and reported objections by a local conservation group to claims made by Cr Shields in a campaign leaflet. Cr Shields complained that the article criticised him unfairly and he was not given an opportunity to comment. The newspaper acknowledged comment should have been sought before publication, but said it lacked the resources to do so. The Press Council decided Cr Shields should have been given an opportunity to comment prior to publication, or at least before the election. It acknowledged the paper’s lack of resources, but emphasised the need to ensure fairness. The Council stressed it is particularly important to avoid the unfairness that can arise when an electoral candidate is not given an opportunity to respond to criticisms before an election.
- Adjudication 1577: Gregory Bradley/The Age (November 2013)
Complaints about part of an opinion article published on 27 May 2013 headed “Don’t look now, the white elephants are multiplying”. The complaints concerned part of the article dealing with the National Broadband Network. The Council decided that while some statements of fact had less convincing support than others, there was at least some tenable basis for each of them. The journalist should have qualified or explained the basis for some of his comments, but the absence of such information was not of sufficient significance to constitute a breach of the Council’s Standards. Accordingly the complaints were not upheld.
- Adjudication 1576: Jonathan Marshall/The Sydney Morning Herald (November 2013)
The Australian Press Council has upheld a complaint from the journalist Jonathan Marshall about a report in The Sydney Morning Herald on 2 October 2012 which mostly described his early career in New Zealand.The Council decided the publication did not take reasonable steps to ensure accuracy and fairness in relation to claims about the methods Mr Marshall used to obtain stories, and that it should have given him a reasonable opportunity to comment before publication.
- Adjudication 1574: Fransyl Marmolejo and the Church of Scientology/Woman's Day (November 2013)
A complaint about a report on 25 March 2013 headed, “Scientology tore my family apart”. It presented the story of Adrian Kelsey, describing his separation from his wife and children and from the Church of Scientology. The Council upheld complaints from Mr Kelsey’s former wife, Fransyl Marmolejo and the Church of Scientology. It decided the publication did not take reasonable steps to ensure accuracy and fairness in describing the family situation, and that it should have published comments from Ms Marmolejo and the Church of Scientology in the original article or in some other way. The Council also decided that publication in full of a highly personal email from Mr Kelsey’s 13-year old daughter breached her privacy.
- Adjudication 1578: Cr Len Roberts/Myall Coast Nota (November 2013)
A complaint from Cr Len Roberts about a letter published on 6 September 2012, in the lead-up to the local council elections. The letter was from a constituent opposing a pro-development view for the area, including what he called the “bigger than Forster” vision of Cr Roberts, who was standing for re-election. The Council has previously urged publications to be wary of causing unfairness by publishing critical material about an election candidate when there will be no opportunity to publish the candidate’s response before the election. In this case, the newspaper should have avoided unfairness by either declining to publish the constituent’s letter in that edition or seeking agreement with Cr Roberts on an edited version of his response to be published at the same time as the letter.
- Adjudication 1575: Paul Russell/The Age (November 2013)
A complaint about a series of three articles on suicide published in April 2013. Two of the articles presented the story of a woman who had recently taken her life, and one was headed, “Rational Suicide: Why Beverley Broadbent chose to die”. The Council decided the articles handled the issues in a serious and restrained manner rather than sensationalising or trivialising the issue and included prominent publication of other views. On an issue of such importance and sensitivity, it might have been preferable to avoid the term “rational suicide”, and to avoid providing other information that could possibly assist with the process. On balance, however, these matters were not of sufficient significance to breach the Council’s Standards and the complaint was not upheld.
- Adjudication 1566: Slater & Gordon/The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Canberra Times (September 2013)
A complaint by law firm Slater & Gordon about two articles relating to the role of former Prime Minister Julia Gillard while a partner at the firm and the impact of publicity about the matter on the friendship of two of the firm’s former partners. Both articles were published on 13 October 2012.The Council found that the publications failed to take reasonable steps to ensure fairness in the articles because they included seriously adverse statements by several people about Slater & Gordon on which the firm was given no opportunity to comment prior to publication. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld.
- Adjudication 1570: Libby Burke/The Sunday Mail (September 2013)
A complaint about a report from 2 December 2012 of comments by Hillary Clinton regretting the announcement of new Israeli settlements. It was complained that the report was unfair and unbalanced by not mentioning that the comments were made in the middle of a speech in which she strongly re-iterated the US’s general support of Israel and its opposition to the recent UN admission of Palestine as a non-member observer state.
The Council does not necessarily require each news report on a particular topic to provide a fair and balanced overview of that topic. This applies especially where the report is principally describing a new development in a long-running topic. In this case, the new development was Mrs Clinton’s criticism of the settlements. US opposition to the UN vote had been reported promptly and the generally supportive position of the US towards Israel had been reported on many previous occasions. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld.
- Adjudication 1572: Complainant/news.com.au (September 2013)
A complaint about a report on the conviction of a man for the murder of his mother. The report was titled “Autistic man convicted of murdering WA mum” and the first sentence also referred to the man’s autism. The Council decided that the headline and first sentence were likely to have led many readers to conclude, incorrectly, that autism had been found to be the main cause of the murder, or at least one of the causes. Nothing in the remainder of the article would have corrected this misunderstanding and, accordingly, the complaint was upheld.
- Adjudication 1569: David Penington/The Age (September 2013)
A complaint about a report on the conflict between Israel and Palestine in November 2012. The complainant said the article provided no substantiation for the claim that “Israel also stepped up its attacks on journalists in Gaza for the third day in a row”. The Council decided that while some strikes may have been principally targeted at communications infrastructure, there were reasonable grounds for concluding that journalists had been the target of at least some of the attacks. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld.
- Adjudication 1568: Margaret Moir/The Advertiser (September 2013)
A complaint about a report on 18 January 2013 that was based on an estimate of the cost of welfare fraud in South Australia. The headline stated, “Welfare fraud costs us $78m”, a claim repeated in the first sentence of the article. Single-parent women were said to be the “most likely to cheat”.
The Council has decided the article was seriously inaccurate. The cost of welfare fraud was vastly overstated, with the real cost to the state being about $2.5 million. While recognising the publication’s efforts to address the error, the Council found that the “clarification” which it published on the following day did not sufficiently explain the issue for readers, should have been headed “correction” with a reference to the subject matter, and should have been published in a more prominent position.
- Adjudication 1563: Daniel van der Molen/The Examiner (July 2013)
A complaint about an article describing the rapidly deteriorating medical condition of the complainant's daughter, Lucy. The description was based on a statement to the newspaper by Lucy's step great-grandfather, who had not previously been a source for publication of such sensitive information about her. The Council considered that in such circumstances the newspaper should have sought confirmation from her parents or some other close relative who was clearly able to speak on their behalf and to authorise publication. It noted, however, the reasons which led the newspaper to rely on the step-grandfather and the assistance which it had provided earlier to the family’s fund-raising for Lucy's treatment.
- Adjudication 1567 Donald Cook/The Daily Telegraph (July 2013)
A complaint about a news report of 21 August 2012 concerning the death of a man while installing house insulation. The report referred to the Federal government’s home insulation program as “bungled”, “botched” and “much maligned”.
The Council requires publications to take reasonable steps to ensure that news reports are accurate, fair and balanced. It does not necessarily require, however, that each report on a particular topic must provide in itself a fair and balanced overview of that topic.
The Council decided that the publication had complied sufficiently with the requirement relating to accuracy, especially as serious failings in implementation of the scheme had been acknowledged by the government. It also decided that, in the circumstances of this particular article, the requirement concerning fairness and balance had not been breached. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld.
- Adjudication 1564: Andrew Nikolic/The Sydney Morning Herald (July 2013)
The Council upheld a complaint about a report in the Sydney Morning Herald of threats said to have been made on Facebook by Andrew Nikolic in response to comments about him by other Facebook users. Those comments were responses to a satirical article about him on the Facebook page of a local online-only publication, edited by a person using a pseudonym.
The Council concluded that the importance of the distinction between making a threat and intending to carry it out had not been adequately recognised in the report. It also concluded that the potential significance of the actual identity of editor of the satirical publication had not been adequately recognised and investigated, especially as the report included a strongly-worded quotation from him. Accordingly, the Council upheld the complaint on the grounds that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure accuracy and fairness.
- Adjudication 1565: Jan Winstanley/The Daily Telegraph (May 2013)
A complaint about a front-page photograph of Peter Slipper MP which was digitally altered to show him with distinctive features of a rat and was accompanied by the headline “KING RAT DESERTS THE SHIP”.
The material was published on the day after Mr Slipper resigned as Speaker of the House of Representatives and the photograph was taken of him delivering his resignation address from the Speaker’s Chair. A small caption indicated the image had been digitally altered.
The Council concluded that the term “King Rat” in this specific political context was not so highly unfair and offensive as to outweigh the importance of allowing robust expressions of opinion as a matter of freedom of expression. It considered that the highly pejorative nature of the digital alterations and their prominence on the front page created a substantive risk of excessive offence and unfairness. But it concluded, on balance, that these impacts were also outweighed by the public importance of freedom of expression.
Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld. The Council emphasised, however, that politicians should not be regarded as “fair game” for extreme levels of abuse and ridicule. Such behaviour can unreasonably inhibit their freedom of expression and thereby damage important processes of democracy and good governance. It warned also that digitally-altered photographs are not entirely analogous to cartoons and may be more at risk of breaching the Council’s principles.
- Adjudication 1559: Terry Hastings/The Australian (May 2013)
A complaint about a colour cartoon in pre-war Soviet-style published on the front page in May 2012. The page was headed "Smash the rich, save the base" over reports and commentary pieces on the previous night’s Federal Budget.
The Council recognised the cartoon’s association of the Prime Minister and Treasurer with the violence of the pre-war Soviet era may have caused deep offence to those who would see such comparisons as grossly inaccurate and unfair. On the other hand, many readers were likely to have interpreted the cartoon as being in the tradition of those cartoonists who use deliberate hyperbole to make a strong comment without necessarily intending to be taken literally.
The Council noted that it does not look favourably on unjustified and offensive imputations of violence, but it also believes robust freedom of expression on political issues is of fundamental importance in the public interest. Moreover, the government’s description of its budget was extensively reported in the newspaper and a reader’s letter criticising the cartoon was published.
On balance, the Council has decided in this particular instance the material did not constitute a clear breach of its principles. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld.
- Adjudication 1562: Nick Green/The Australian (April 2013)
The Australian Press Council has considered a complaint about a report in The Australian online headed "Europe won't be 'lectured' by Julia Gillard, EC chief Jose Manuel Barroso has said". The second sentence under the headline put the word “lectured” in double inverted commas.
The Council has concluded that the words “has said” and the single inverted commas around the word ‘lectured’ in the headline, along with the double inverted commas around the word “lectured” in the article itself, inaccurately indicated that Mr Barroso had actually used the word “lectured”. The relevant transcript shows that although he said the EU was “certainly not coming here to receive lessons from nobody” he did not use the word “lectured” and did not mention Ms Gillard or Australia.
The Council has frequently emphasised the importance of accuracy in the use of quotations. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld.
- Adjudication 1561: Nick Green/The Daily Telegraph (April 2013)
The Australian Press Council has upheld a complaint about part of a report in the online version of The Daily Telegraph of comments by the head of the European Commission at the G20 Summit in 2012.
The article was headed “PM Julia Gillard 'slapped down' at G20 summit by the President of the European Commission Jose Manuel Barroso” and the opening sentence said: "The PM has been publicly slapped down at the G20 summit by the President of the European Commission for lecturing Europe on how to solve its economic crisis.” The following sentence referred to “an embarrassing swipe at the PM”.
The Council considered part of Mr Barroso’s comments may have been a veiled reference to Ms Gillard amongst other leaders. But his words were too measured, and their target or targets were too vague, to be accurately reported as a public slap down of her. That description conveys a sense of public, vigorous and directed criticism which he did not make and which, if he had done so, would have been of much greater diplomatic significance.
- Adjudication 1560: Complainants/Milton-Ulladulla Times (April 2013)
The Australian Press Council has considered a complaint about a report of the launch of an autism support group.
The article named a child and described him as autistic. The child’s parents complained that the newspaper had not checked with them whether their child was autistic or sought their consent to name him. The Council recognised that the newspaper intended to support a community initiative and that it had relied on comments from a source who described herself as a "close friend" of the child's mother. But it considered the publication should have confirmed the child’s condition with the parents and obtained their consent to publish the information. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld.
- Adjudication 1555: Donaldson and others/The Australian (December 2012)
The Australian Press Council has considered a number of complaints about an article by James Delingpole concerning wind farms. The Council upheld a complaint that the Federal Government subsidy scheme for wind farms could not accurately be called “a kind of government-endorsed Ponzi scheme”. Even the weaknesses alleged in the article do not amount to criminal fraudulence, which is an essential element of a Ponzi-type scheme. It also upheld a complaint that a law firm was wrongly alleged to have sought court orders to gag opponents of wind farms and that a quote from an unnamed source that “the wind farm business is bloody well near a paedophile ring” should not have been included.
The complainants provided strong evidence against the article’s allegations of adverse medical impacts from wind farms. However, the evidence did not reach the very high threshold which is necessary for the Council to conclude that allegations are clearly untenable and therefore a breach of its principles. Other complaints, concerning the article’s allegations about the amount of power generated by wind farms and the size of subsidies for them, were also not of a kind on which the Council could make a decision. These are, however, issues on which the Council’s principles mean that publications should provide a reasonable degree of balance over time. In this instance, it considered the requirement was met because views contrary to those of Mr Delingpole were published shortly before and after his article appeared.
- Adjudication 1558: Ellett and others/Herald Sun (December 2012)
The Australian Press Council has considered several complaints about an article by Andrew Bolt on climate change. Mr Bolt said “the planet hasn’t warmed for a decade – or even 15 years according to new temperature data from Britain’s Met Office”. His attention had been drawn to the data by an article a few days earlier in the UK’s Daily Mail which drew a similar conclusion that was criticised immediately by the Met Office as “entirely misleading”.
The Council said Mr Bolt was clearly entitled to express his own opinion about the data but he did so in a way which was likely to be interpreted as implying that the Met Office had the same view. He should have mentioned the Met Office comment, especially as it had been drawn to his attention by a reader, even if he then rebutted it. Accordingly, this aspect of the complaints is upheld.
The complaints also focused on Mr Bolt’s descriptions of relatively short-term trends in sea and ice conditions which he argued did not suggest global warming. The Council considered that he should also have mentioned that they were consistent with the continuance of long-term trends in the opposite direction. On balance, however, it does not uphold this aspect of the complaints because he acknowledged that there might be only a pause in global warming and had emphasised the importance of keeping an open mind on the issue.
The Council emphasises that this adjudication neither endorses nor rejects any particular theories or predictions about global warming. On such major issues, the community is best served by frank disclosure and discussion rather than, for example, failure to acknowledge significant shorter- or longer-term trends in relevant data.
- Adjudication 1556: Debra Creevy and others/Herald Sun (November 2012)
The Australian Press Council has upheld a complaint concerning reports on 22 May 2012 about a speech by Craig Thomson MP to Federal Parliament. The material occupied most of the first seven pages of the newspaper. The Press Council considers that detailed and forthright description and analysis of the issues in this case was not only acceptable but a matter of considerable public importance. It was reasonable to include extensive reference to the views of the newspaper’s readership and other members of the public, as well as the kind of trenchant criticism of Mr Thomson’s claims which was provided in the articles on pages 4 and 5. The Council has concluded, however, that the overall impact of the material on the front page and page 7 was highly unfair to Mr Thomson by seeking to convey too close an analogy with a courtroom conviction on criminal charges, especially at a time when the laying of such charges was being widely demanded and anticipated. Accordingly, the complaints against the newspaper’s coverage are upheld on that ground.
- Adjudication 1554: City of Casey/Sunday Herald Sun (October 2012)
The Australian Press Council has considered a complaint about coverage of the City of Casey council by the Sunday Herald Sun over a substantial period. The Press Council concluded that the newspaper published a number of items of inaccurate and unfairly negative material about the city council during that period. Accordingly, it upheld that aspect of the complaint. It also concluded, however, that there was no evidence of a sufficiently clear and sustained imbalance in the reporting over the period to constitute a breach of Press Council principles. Accordingly, it did not uphold that aspect of the complaint.
- Adjudication 1553: Andrew Wilkie/Launceston Examiner (October 2012)
The Australian Press Council has considered a complaint from Andrew Wilkie MP about two editorials in The Examiner concerning the impact of his agreement with the federal government in 2010 to provide $340 million for rebuilding the Royal Hobart Hospital. The Council concluded that the newspaper misrepresented the impact of the agreement on the Tasmanian health budget. It also concluded that the newspaper failed to respond adequately to Mr Wilkie’s request for a correction. Accordingly, it upheld the complaint on both grounds.
- Adjudication 1552: Save Albert Park/The Age (October 2012)
The Australian Press Council has considered a complaint about the way in which The Age reported attendance figures for the 2012 Formula One Grand Prix. The Council concluded that the newspaper reported highly specific figures as if they were entirely reliable, without mentioning there were very strong grounds for disputing their accuracy. Accordingly, it regarded the reports as neither fair nor balanced, and upheld the complaint. The Council did not uphold a complaint that the newspaper had failed to disclose a conflict of interest.
- Adjudication 1551: Tom Lalor/smh.com.au (October 2012)
The Australian Press Council has considered a complaint about an online article on smh.com.au that included the heading "Bolt link to racist review of books". The Council concluded that the heading, and a picture caption on the same post, was likely to be interpreted by many readers as suggesting, falsely, that columnist Andrew Bolt was associated with or condoned racist views, an implication avoided in the print version of the same article, which carried a more neutral headline. Accordingly, it upheld the complaint.
- Adjudication 1550: Gold Coast City Council/Gold Coast Bulletin (September 2012)
A complaint about a front-page article that asserted that Gold Coast City Council loan costs would increase as a result of a change in its credit rating by the Queensland Treasury Corporation. When the city council disputed the assertion, the newspaper made no additional effort to check its accuracy with the QTC. The Press Council concluded that the central assertion was inaccurate and error was made worse by the front-page treatment of the matter. The Press Council also concluded that the redress given to the city council by the publication of its contrary view was inadequate. Accordingly, it upheld the complaint.
- Adjudication 1549: Andrew Williams/The Courier Mail (September 2012)
A complaint about the way in which the website of The Courier-Mail handled a story about the standing down of a police officer. The website posted for several hours an article that linked the standing down to the Surfers Paradise police station when it had occurred in a different police region. When it was alerted to the error it removed the story but did not publish any correction or inform readers of the inaccuracy. The Council concluded that the newspaper did not take sufficient care in publishing the original article and, having made the error, should have corrected it with due prominence, not merely removed the article. It therefore upheld both aspects of the complaint.
- Adjudication 1548: Paul Fletcher/The Sydney Morning Herald (September 2012)
A complaint about a "Special Report" on the National Broadband network which was published as a supplement to The Sydney Morning Herald on 23 April 2012. Mr Fletcher complained that the reports in the supplement were insufficiently balanced and the provenance of the supplement not made clear enough for the reader. The Council agreed that such supplements were not sufficiently balanced unless they were clearly identified as being promotional or as not purporting to provide a balanced coverage. It decided that in this case the identification had been sufficient. The name "special report" had not been sufficient for that purpose but other aspects of the presentation had provided adequate identification. The Council said it would be preferable to use a clear title such as "promotional supplement" and give a prominent description of the purpose of the supplement and any sources of financial support for it.
- Adjudication No.1547: Nigel Jackson/The Weekend Australian Magazine (August 2012)
The Australian Press Council has upheld a complaint about a reference to the late Eric Butler in a Philip Adams column in The Weekend Australian Magazine. Mr Adams described Mr Butler as a "traitor" to his country during World War II without mentioning that he had served in the armed forces for much of the war, including a hazardous overseas posting. The Council also upheld a complaint that a letter mentioning this service and rebutting other allegations had not been published by the magazine. A complaint about Mr Butler's attitude towards Jewish people was not upheld.
- Adjudication No.1545 Adam Burling/Huon Valley News (July 2012)
The Australian Press Council has considered a complaint about a particular photograph published amongst a series of other photographs of protestors at a local rally. The concern was that the photograph showed a sign held by a protestor which referred to a specific person and was highly offensive. The Council concluded that the photograph was not so offensive as to override the strong public interest in newspapers being able to report views expressed at public events. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld.
- Adjudication No.1544 Kay Johnston/Echonetdaily (July 2012)
The Press Council has considered a complaint about a front-page article alleging that a house controversially approved for development had subsequently been listed for sale. The Council concluded that the allegation was inaccurate and that echonetdaily had not taken reasonable steps to check its accuracy. It also concluded that after the error was pointed out to it, echonetdaily failed to correct it promptly and with due prominence. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld and a censure was issued to echonetdaily.
- Adjudication No.1546 Alison Couston/Shepparton News (July 2012)
The Australian Press Council has considered a complaint about an article and an editorial concerning the Victorian Ombudsman's report into governance and implementation of water savings projects in northern Victoria. The Council concluded that the article did not accurately represent aspects of the Ombudsman's findings. It also concluded that the editor-in-chief's membership of a relevant steering committee should have been disclosed with the editorial (not only with the article). Accordingly the complaint was upheld on these grounds. A general complaint about lack of fairness and balance in the coverage was not upheld.
- Adjudication No.1542 John Newton/The Daily Telegraph (July 2012)
The Press Council has considered a complaint about the alleged inaccuracy of assertions in a column by Piers Akerman concerning the influence of "environmental activists" within the International Panel on Climate Change and the extent to which major countries have "walked away" from the Panel. The scope for doubt about the meaning of the assertions and the relevant facts has led the Council to conclude that the complaints should not be upheld.
At the same time, the Council has re-emphasised an earlier adjudication that opinion writers do not have an "unfettered licence" and, for example, must not make an assertion which they could reasonably be expected to know is false. It has also emphasised that if extensive coverage is given to a particular view on a strongly controverted issue, reasonable opportunities must be given for publication of other views.
- Adjudication No.1543 Ben Keneally/The Australian Financial Review (June 2012)
The Press Council has considered a complaint about a comment in the Rear Window column concerning former Premier Kristina Keneally and the US celebrity Kim Kardashian. The Council has concluded that the comment was not so offensive as to outweigh the great importance in the public interest of allowing robust public discussion. It has also concluded that the columnist’s past political involvement was not of such a nature as needed to be disclosed in this instance. Accordingly, the Council did not uphold either aspect of the complaint.
- Adjudication No.1541 Glenelg Shire Council/The Portland Observer (June 2012)
The Press Council has considered a complaint from the Glenelg Shire Council about the Portland Observer's coverage of the council's lagoon infill project. The Press Council has concluded that, while a number of articles during the period in question focused on protests against the development, this was largely justifiable as the protests were the principal activities being undertaken at that time. However, it has upheld a particular aspect of the complaint relating to a report of the Portland Yacht Club president’s comments on the development.
- Adjudication No.1538 Dr Pankaj Banga/The Area News (June 2012)
The Press Council has considered a complaint from Dr Pankaj Banga that published material about a staffing crisis at the Griffith Base Hospital unfairly and inaccurately implied that he had some role in it. The Council has concluded that the material did not carry this implication. Accordingly, the complaint was not upheld.
- Adjudication No.1540 Cr Colin Hampton/Herald Sun (June 2012)
The Press Council has considered a complaint about a report of comments by Cr Colin Hampton concerning difficulties faced by women wanting to stand for local government. The Press Council has concluded that parts of the report misrepresented Cr Hampton’s comments. It also found that the newspaper should have corrected the misrepresentation. Accordingly, it has upheld both aspects of the complaint.
- Adjudication No.1539 Ken Perry/The Advertiser (June 2012)
The Press Council has considered complaints about an article concerning the life of the late Emily Perry, published on the day after her funeral. It has concluded that, given the extraordinary nature of Emily Perry’s legal battles, it was not inappropriate to focus on them in an article immediately following her death, despite the distress which might be caused to relatives and friends. However, it has concluded that the article lacked adequate balance by omission of relevant material at a time when balance was especially important. Accordingly the complaint has been upheld on that ground.
- Adjudication No.1534 Kerrie Byrne/The Melbourne Weekly (June 2012)
A complaint that an article about the complainant's disagreement with a tenants' group over an alleged conflict of interest was unbalanced. The Council concluded that the newspaper had failed to provide adequate explanation of the background of the disagreement and this had resulted in an unbalanced article. It had also made an inaccurate assertion on a key issue. The complaint was upheld.
- Adjudication No.1537 Stephan Pate/The Daily Telegraph (June 2012)
A complaint about a series of articles concerning Sydney Lord Mayor Clover Moore and her plans for cycle lanes. The Council concluded that some headlines expressed the newspaper's opinion rather than reflected facts in the news stories and that some of the descriptions failed to separate fact from opinion. Those aspects of the complaint were upheld. The overall coverage was held to be not so unfair or unbalanced as to constitute a breach of the Council’s principles.
- Adjudication No.1533 Peter Geelan-Small/The Sydney Morning Herald (June 2012)
A complaint that an image and caption on a story about oil price rises, including the possible impact of the Arab Spring, reinforced a stereotypical view of Arabs as violent. The Council concluded that the material did not convey a negative view of Arabs. The complaint was not upheld.
- Adjuduciation No.1536: Anna Krjatian/The Daily Telegraph (June 2012)
A complaint about three headlines relating to the release of asylum seekers into the community: "Open the Floodgates", "Thousands of boat people to invade NSW" and "Detainee deluge for Sydney". The Council concluded that the headline "Thousands of boat people to invade NSW" was gravely inaccurate, unfair and offensive. The complaint against that and the other headlines was upheld.
- Adjudication No.1535: Alan Corbett/The Courier Mail (June 2012)
A complaint about an article that included a description of the composition of panels that adjudicate complaints made to the media union, the MEAA. The Council concluded that the description was not entirely clear and accurate but the ambiguities were not sufficiently grave to uphold the complaint.
- Adjudication No. 1532: Adrian Smyth/smh.com.au (June 2012)
A complaint that a "Dear Sam" blog was inaccurate and unfair to men in its characterisation of their relationships with women. The Council concluded that the article did not convey such full and consistent support for that view as to constitute a breach of the Council’s principles. Balance was provided by publication of a lengthy response. Accordingly the complaint was not upheld.
- Adjudication No. 1531: Mark Latham/The Sunday Telegraph (May 2012)
A complaint by Mark Latham about articles in The Sunday Telegraph on 11 and 18 December 2011 describing his alleged altercation with the supervisor of a swimming lesson attended by his young children. The supervisor’s three-person team of teachers included the reporter’s mother. The Council upheld Mr Latham’s complaint that this relationship should have been disclosed in the articles. It also upheld his complaint that the articles were an unjustified intrusion on his children’s privacy.
- Adjudication No. 1530: Jim Culbertson/Herald Sun (April 2012)
Complaints that an opinion piece stating that sexuality is a choice was inaccurate and offensive. The Council concluded that, although the article was likely to cause widespread offence, the newspaper was entitled to publish it provided that, due to its likely impact, a competing view was published promptly. In some circumstances, immediate publication of a different view may be essential. The Council concluded that these requirements had been met to an acceptable degree in the print edition but the online version had not provided links to the article which expressed the competing view. Accordingly, the complaint was upheld in relation to the online version but not the print version.
- Adjudication No. 1529: Chris Dardis/Herald Sun (April 2012)
A complaint that the headline and first paragraph of an article were inaccurate, unfair and offensive by stating that a predicted influx of asylum seekers would “flood the suburbs”. The Council concluded that the words connoted an overwhelming and adverse impact on the community which was misleading and unfair. Accordingly, the Council upheld the complaint. A complaint that the accompanying photograph conveyed unfairly negative connotations was not upheld.
- Adjudication No. 1528: Fast Access Finance/The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age (April 2012)
A complaint that a report of a decision by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal could prejudice a subsequent appeal, contained a number of inaccuracies and had been published without seeking comment from the complainant. The Council concluded that reporting tribunal proceedings is normal practice and did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. The Council upheld one of the complaints of inaccuracy but dismissed the remainder of them. It concluded that in the particular circumstances the failure to seek comment was not a breach of its Standards of Practice.
- Adjudication No. 1527: Fast Access Finance/The Courier Mail (April 2012)
A complaint that a report of a decision by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal could prejudice a subsequent appeal and was also inaccurate and misleading. The Council concluded that reporting tribunal proceedings in these circumstances is normal practice and did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. The Council upheld the complaint in relation to two inaccuracies, which the newspaper had conceded, but dismissed the other allegations of misleading content.
- Adjudication No. 1526: Senator Bob Brown/The Examiner (April 2012)
A complaint about failure to publish Senator Brown’s response to a letter from a company criticised in an earlier advertisement authorised by him. The Council concluded that his letter did not substantially address the points in the company’s letter, focusing instead on other concerns about the company. Accordingly, the newspaper did not breach the Council’s Standards of Practice concerning publication of a response and the complaint was not upheld.
- Adjudication No. 1525: Adam Black/The Advertiser (April 2012)
A complaint that a prominent headline using the term “illegal immigrant” was inaccurate, pejorative and unfair. The newspaper said it was not its policy to use the term in this context and attributed it to an error, The Council concluded that the term was inaccurate and unfair in this context and accordingly upheld the complaint.
- Adjudication No. 1524: J.A. Rovensky/The Advertiser (March 2012)
A complaint that the newspaper’s coverage of the effects of wind farms, including possible damage to health, was unbalanced. The Council shared some of Ms Rovensky’s concerns about the limited attention given to a Senate report highlighting the need for further research and State Government’s changes to planning appeal rights. But it concluded that, overall, the complaint about lack of balance should not be upheld.
- Adjudication No. 1523: Michael Atkinson/The Advertiser (March 2012)
A complaint from a former Minister about an article describing him as having attempted to “censor” internet blog forums. He said this misrepresented his attempt to extend to the internet a law that during election periods letters to the editor must bear the author’s name. He also said the newspaper refused to publish his response to the article. The Council upheld the complaint, concluding there were strong grounds for regarding the term “censor” as inaccurate or unfair in this context, and in any event, having used such a strong and disputable term, the newspaper should have published his letter.
- Adjudication No. 1522: Linda Smith/The West Australian (March 2012)
A complaint that the newspaper’s coverage of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder was unbalanced. Ms Smith said it favoured people who argue medication is being over-prescribed and did not give enough attention to experts and people who, like her, have family experience of the benefits of the medication. The newspaper offered to consider publishing a letter from Ms Smith but she said they should approach experts. The Council said there might have been some imbalances but there are many circumstances that justify a greater emphasis being given to particular perspectives in the coverage of an issue. In this instance, it concluded that any differences were within justifiable limits and accordingly the complaint was not upheld.
- Adjudication No. 1521: Nicole Johnston/brisbanetimes.com.au (March 2012)
A complaint by a Brisbane City Councillor about a report of a Council meeting she attended. The Council concluded the website was inaccurate in stating that Cr Johnston accused the Chair of the meeting of being corrupt. In upholding that aspect of the complaint, it noted that great care must be taken before saying that a person has made a serious allegation of that kind. It said that a separate assertion in the article that she refused to apologise to another councillor was not so clearly inaccurate or unfair that this aspect of the complaint should be upheld.
- Adjudication No. 1520: Anthony Shaw/Moorabool News (March 2012)
A complaint by a school principal that an article about local schools being “ripped off” by “rorting” of the BER program was inaccurate and damaged his school’s reputation. Mr Shaw said the newspaper was aware his own views had changed since he made critical comments about the building work about 15 months earlier. The Council upheld the complaint, concluding there was not sufficient ground for the article’s implication that Mr Shaw had supported allegations of rorting and that the newspaper should have sought an up-to-date comment from Mr Shaw. It also should have printed his letter to the editor or sought agreement on an edited version.
- Adjudication No. 1519: Stephen Gageler/The Australian (March 2012)
A complaint by the Solicitor-General, Stephen Gageler, that a correction to an erroneous front-page report was not sufficiently prominent to remedy damage to his reputation. The correction was made the following day in a small box at the bottom corner of page 2, acknowledging that the High Court had not criticised Mr Gageler. The Council welcomed the prompt correction but upheld the complaint that it was not sufficiently prominent to be likely to be seen by people who saw the original article.
- Adjudication No. 1518: AWI Limited/The Weekly Times (December 2011)
A complaint by the wool industry's peak body, AWI, that an article about aspects of its governance was inaccurate and misleading. The Council concluded that the description of recent re-arrangements contained a number of errors which, although not seriously misleading, needed to be corrected. Only some of them had been corrected by the newspaper prior to the adjudication. The complaint was upheld on that ground and the Council called on the newspaper to correct the remaining errors. The Council concluded that AWI had not established that the article’s account of a conflict of interest amongst directors, and the Board’s response thereto, was inaccurate or misleading. Accordingly, that aspect of the complaint was dismissed.
- Adjudication No. 1517: Penny Campton/Northern Territory News (December 2011)
A complaint that a front-page pointer to a court report of an incident that involved a single asylum seeker making a threat to kill Australians had erroneously referred to "asylum seekers" making the threats. The newspaper did not correct the error when it was pointed out to it, but offered the reader an opportunity to have a letter to the editor published. The Council concluded that it was a serious inaccuracy requiring immediate correction. A letter to the editor would have been insufficient. Accordingly, it called on the newspaper to take the remedial action which should have been taken at the time.
- Adjudication No. 1516: Harshula/The Sydney Morning Herald (December 2011)
A complaint about an article concerning the war between the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE (Tamil Tigers). The description of an incident when Tamil leaders, allegedly under a white flag, were killed by government troops was said to be inaccurate. The Council concluded that the description was misleading and lacking in balance because, although saying a UN report rejected the government's version of some events during the period, it did not point out that the UN explicitly said it could not reach a conclusion about the white flag incident. The complainant also said the reporting of a named official was unfair by casting him as a likely war criminal yet not specifying any law he may have broken. The Council dismissed this aspect of the complaint because the official had been quoted extensively in his defence in a front-page article in the same edition.
- Adjudiciation No. 1515: Jamie Benaud/The Daily Telegraph (December 2011)
A complaint that three separate articles in June and July 2011 about aspects of the National Broadband Network were inaccurate. The complaint said that the first article understated the number of NBN customers taking up offers; the second misstated the costs of not taking up current NBN offers; and the third made misleading comparisons of the costs of connections. The Council upheld all three complaints on the basis that they were inaccurate and, in two cases, also misleading and unfair, and that the errors were not corrected promptly when brought to the newspaper's attention.
- Adjudication No. 1514: Fluer Blum/HRmonthly (November 2011)
A complaint that the words Executive Education: Can women be ‘taught’ to lead? on a magazine's front cover were offensive, largely by implying that women are inherently incapable of leadership. The words related to a later article in the magazine about how much emphasis should be placed on leadership courses as a way of increasing the number of women in executive positions.
The Council concluded that the words could reasonably be interpreted as having the meaning being complained of or as conveying the same unobjectionable message as the article itself. Accordingly, it did not uphold the complaint although it emphasised the need for care to avoid using words which might cause great offence even if not intended to do so.
- Adjudication No. 1513: Dale Mills and Vivienne Porszolt/The Australian (November 2011)
A complaint that print and online headlines on reports of a protest about the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign against the Israeli government were inaccurate and presented opinion as fact. The print headline was Anti-Jew protest condemned and the online headline was Prominent Australians fight anti-Semitism with hot chocolate. The complainant said that the BDS protests were against Israeli government policies, not "anti-Jew" or "anti-Semitic".
The Council upheld the complaint about the print headline because it presented opinion as fact and misrepresented the tenor of the article. The Council dismissed the complaint about the online headline because it could be reasonably read as describing the opinions of the prominent Australians, not as a statement of fact.
- Adjudication No. 1508: Matt Durrant/The Maitland Mercury (October 2011)
A complaint that an article named a deceased victim of a traffic accident before his identity had been confirmed. The Council upheld the complaint because it considered that the newspaper did not have sufficient basis for absolute certainty on the identity of the victim and because it did not use some qualifying words such as "believed to be" when naming the deceased man.
A complaint about a front-page headline and article on the incidence of youth crime. The Council upheld the complaint because the article seriously misstated the incidence and the newspaper then failed to correct the error when brought to its attention or to publish the letter to the editor which did so.
A complaint that an article comparing the Disability Support Pension and Newstart was inaccurate and unfairly misrepresented the views of the people mentioned in it. The Council upheld the complaint on these grounds.
A complaint that an article, by implying that climate scientists deserved abuse and death threats, was unfair and offensive. The Council did not uphold the complaint because it considered that the words in question were reasonably open to other interpretations.
A complaint about an online headline, “Court theatrics sees Islam rear its ugly head again” on an opinion article relating to a confrontation outside a court. The Council upheld the complaint because the headline was inaccurate and unfair and did not reflect the tenor of the article.
- A complaint that the newspaper misrepresented a previous complaint to the Council and the reason why it was upheld. The Council considered that the article incorrectly implied that the earlier complaint and the Council’s reason for upholding it had related solely to photograph. They had actually related to the cumulative effects of the photograph, its caption and some letters to the editor. Accordingly, the second complaint was upheld.
A complaint from the Greens about an article stating that their negotiations about the Federal Budget had reduced funding for flood relief. The Council upheld the complaint because there was no evidence to support the key assertion, which remains uncorrected.
- A complaint that an online comment was unfairly edited and an introductory line added, without consultation with the writer. The Council said it was unable to determine that the newspaper had deleted or added words but it would be developing specific Standards of Practice on the editing of readers’ comments.
- Adjudication No. 1504: Jarvis/The Courier-Mail (August 2011)
A complaint that a report about a possible new NRL team in Brisbane did not disclose News Limited's majority ownership of the current Brisbane-based team. The Council said, in general, a newspaper’s close financial relationship should be disclosed in articles which may affect that interest. In this case, however, the complaint was dismissed because the relationship was well-known amongst the vast majority of likely readers and the article was clearly not favourable to the newspaper’s interests.
- Adjudication No. 1503: Save Albert Park/Herald Sun & Sunday Herald Sun (August 2011)
A complaint by a lobby group, Save Albert Park, concerning four articles about the Australian Formula One Grand Prix. It related principally to quotes from the Grand Prix Chair stating specific figures for the financial benefits of the Grand Prix and for attendance at it. The Council upheld the complaint because although the papers had previously reported material contesting the claims, they should have stated that the claims were disputed.
Texts of all Council adjudications
For the full text of all Council adjudications from March 2005 onwards, search here >>
Council adjudications before 2005 are available through the AustLII (Australasian Legal Information Institute) website.
Statistics about complaints
Each year, the Australian Press Council publishes a statistical analysis of its receipt, processing and finalisation of complaints. These results are published in the Council's Annual Reports.