Adjudication No. 1260  (adjudicated October 2004; re-issued December 2004)

The Australian Press Council has considered a complaint brought by Ross Copeland of Western Australia and others against The Advertiser, Adelaide, concerning the use of the term "illegal boat immigrants" in a report about a child living in a mainland detention centre with his parents who arrived in Australia by boat.

Mr Copeland referred to a previous Australian Press Council adjudication (1242) which upheld a complaint against The Sydney Morning Herald, and to the Council Guideline No 262 which relates to the status of unauthorized arrivals and which issued a caution to the press to be careful in the use of unqualified terms in reports and headlines.

The editor Mel Mansell said it was not the intention of The Advertiser to cause offence and the paper apologised to those people who had objected to this phrase. He said the Guideline had again been circulated to senior staff urging them to be aware of the possible offence certain terms may cause.

He said there was still no satisfactory, generic term which could be easily understood and safely used by newspapers. He said the term of "unlawful non-citizens" used in Commonwealth immigration legislation was a "clumsy, non-specific description containing two negative terms."

He said that clearly, from the similarities in the complaints and letters of support to complainants being received by The Advertiser, an orchestrated campaign had been mounted by a group of individuals on this issue.

Mr Copeland said the term "illegal boat immigrants" was not accurate, showed bias and was harmful and derogatory. He said a suitable generic term which can be easily understood and safely used by newspapers is "asylum seekers". The Council does not see that any one term fits all circumstances.

He asked that the Council issue further guidelines specifically setting out appropriate terms to be used when referring to "asylum seekers and refugees". The Council has issued a guideline on the question of appropriate language and sees no need for additional direction.

NOTE: Following an appeal from the newspaper, the Council reconsidered the complaint at its December meeting, and decided to change the adjudication by noting that the complaint had been "considered" rather than "upheld", but it left the body of the finding untouched.

return to
Adjudication index

[ return to top ]

Documents with the icon require the Acrobat Reader, a Free Utility from Adobe. Click here for more information.