Handling of complaints

Print

Introduction

The main roles of the Australian Press Council in handling complaints are to investigate and consider them, seek to facilitate an outcome acceptable to the complainant and the publication, and, where appropriate, issue an adjudication that the publication has breached the Council’s Standards of Practice. Adjudications must be published by the publication in accordance with the Council’s specific requirements.

The Council has no power to order compensation, fines or other financial sanctions. But it can issue a reprimand or censure, and can explicitly call for (but not require) apologies, retractions, corrections or other specified remedial action by the publisher. It may also suggest or call for specific measures to prevent recurrence of the type of breach in question.

This page outlines the Council’s procedures for responding to complaints. The procedures can be divided into the following three stages:

>   Reception of complaints
>   Level 1: Informal consideration
>   Level 2: Adjudication

 

Reception of complaints

Initial assessment

• After receiving the complaint, a member of the Council’s complaints-handing staff obtains any further details of it which he or she considers necessary at this stage.

• The Executive Director then decides whether the complaint should not be considered further because
  
  • it does not meet the requirements about what can be complained  about, who can make a complaint, and when and how a complaint should be made (see Making a complaint); or
  • it is more appropriate for consideration by some other process (such as the Council considering whether to issue or amend a relevant Standard of Practice; or referring the complaint for consideration by another organisation);
  • even if the alleged facts are correct, they clearly would not establish a breach of the  Council’s standards;
  • for some other reason, the complaint is clearly not appropriate for further consideration by the Council.

Referral for further consideration

• Unless the Executive Director decides on one of these grounds not to do so, the complaint is usually referred for further consideration under Level 1 (see below).
• However, in some circumstances he or she may ask the complainant to raise the matter directly with the publication in question. If the complainant does so but is not satisfied with the outcome within a reasonable time, the complaint will then proceed to Level 1.
• A complainant can seek re-assessment of any decision by the Executive Director not to refer a matter to Level 1. Re-assessment is then conducted in accordance with processes specified by the Council.

Multiple complainants

• Where there are several separate complainants about the same material, the Executive Director may decide to involve only one or some of them in further consideration of the material. But all complainants will be notified of that decision and of the final outcome.

Level 1: Informal consideration

Investigation and discussion

• The Executive Director or another member of the Council complaints-handling staff will undertake informal consideration, investigation and discussion with the complainant and the publication in order to facilitate an outcome which both of them are willing to accept. With the agreement of the complainant and the publication, the Executive Director may conduct or organise a formal mediation between them.
• All evidence and other material provided by the Council to the complainant or the publication must remain strictly confidential until the complaint is finally dealt with, unless it has already been made public or has been obtained from another source.

Possible outcomes

• Possible outcomes from discussions with publications include
  
  • an explanation to the complainant of why the material was published;
  • an informal expression of regret by the publication to the complainant;
  • publication of a response by or on behalf of the complainant; 
  • publication of a correction, clarification or apology in an agreed form:
  • amendment or removal of material on a website;
  • commitments about future coverage of particular people or issues.

• If a publication agrees to publish an apology, correction or clarification, it will be reminded that the Council’s Standards of Practice require the relevant wording and positioning to neutralise, as far as reasonably possible, any damage arising from the original material.

Discontinuance

• Consideration of a complaint is discontinued at Level 1 if the Executive Director decides
  
  • the complainant has withdrawn the complaint or has not responded to communication from the Council within a reasonable period; or
  • it is more appropriate for consideration by some other process (such as the Council considering whether to issue or amend a relevant Standard of Practice; or referring the complaint for consideration by another organisation);
  • even if the alleged facts are correct, they clearly would not establish a breach of the Council’s standards;
  • for some other reason, the complaint is clearly not appropriate for further consideration by the Council.

• A complainant can seek review of a decision to discontinue consideration of a complaint at this stage. A review is then conducted in accordance with processes specified by the Council.

Referral to Level 2

• If the complainant requests referral to Level 2 of a complaint which has not been discontinued at Level 1, the referral will occur if the Executive Director decides that an appropriate outcome has not been reached within a reasonable time at Level 1.
• Where a complaint proceeds to Level 2, the complainant’s name and some details of their complaint are liable to be disclosed publicly if the Council issues an adjudication. A request for confidentiality (eg, that the complainant not be identified in the adjudication) must be made when referral is requested, unless very exceptional circumstances apply.

Level 2: Adjudication

Summary of Issues

• The Executive Director prepares a Summary of Issues for referral to the Council’s Adjudication Panel. The Summary includes what he or she considers to be relevant matters which should be considered by the Panel, such as
  
  • the wording or other aspects of the published material in question;
  • parts of the Council’s Standards of Practice;
  • facts and arguments.

• Both the complainant and the publication will be given an opportunity to suggest amendments to this Summary by a specified date. No suggestions can be submitted after that date unless the Executive Director decides there are exceptional circumstances.
• Any factual evidence which the Adjudication Panel proposes to take into account when considering a complaint will be disclosed to both the publication and the complainant. If highly exceptional circumstances make disclosure inappropriate, the Panel will explain its reasons.

Discussion with Adjudication Panel

• A date will be set for the complainant and publication to participate in a discussion with the Council's Adjudication Panel. The Panel is chaired by the Council’s Chair or Vice-Chair and includes 3-5 other Council members. The majority of members are not affiliated with the media industry.
• The complainant and the publication must participate in the discussion in person or by a teleconference call arranged by the Council. The complainant may be accompanied by a friend or relative for support. The publication’s editorial staff member may be accompanied by a relevant journalist or other contributor to the material in question. Lawyers or other professional representatives are not permitted.
• These rules about participation in a discussion may be waived in exceptional circumstances, provided that written approval has been obtained from the Executive Director by a specified date.

The Adjudication

• The Adjudication Panel has the power to find that a breach of its Standards of Practice has occurred. As mentioned earlier, it has no power to impose any other financial sanction such as a fine but it can issue a reprimand or censure and can explicitly call for (but not require) apologies, retractions, corrections or other specified remedial action by the publisher. It may also suggest or call for specific measures to prevent recurrence of the type of breach in question.
• The Panel’s provisional adjudication is sent to the complainant and publication on a strictly and permanently confidential basis. In some cases this may not occur until the provisional adjudication has been considered at a meeting of the Council itself.
• The complainant and the publication may request a review of the provisional adjudication on the ground that it contains a material error of fact and/or there was a demonstrable procedural unfairness in the Panel’s process. No other ground for review is permissible and no new facts or arguments can be asserted at this stage unless there is a compelling reason why they could not have been asserted earlier.
• The review will be undertaken in accordance with processes specified by the Council.

Publication of the Adjudication

• The final adjudication must be published by the publication in accordance with requirements specified by the Executive Director, including the required date and positioning. Failure to comply with the specified detail will lead to a requirement for compliance by re-publication.
• The final adjudication and requirements for publication are sent to the complainant and the publication on the basis that they are strictly confidential until the date on which the adjudication is to be published. 
• Each adjudication is published on the Council’s website and in its Annual Report, as well as being distributed widely through its electronic APC Update.