Search

The Press Council considered a complaint from Curtis Pitt, Speaker of the Queensland Parliament concerning an article published by the Courier Mail, headed “Activists in court is a terrible look” in print and online on 1 February 2023.   The article, an editorial, commented that “In May 1992, the Goss cabinet approved legislation to give Queenslanders the formal right to public protest. The accompanying announcement said the change was a critical part of the Fitzgerald process. Labor premier Wayne Goss declared: ‘Governments who try to restrict the right of the people to freedom of expressions are governments scared of scrutiny. This government is not.’” It went on to say that “In November 2022, Labor Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk reinterpreted that freedom, telling parliament: ‘People have the right to protest silently in public.’ She followed that extraordinary statement by encouraging her Speaker Curtis Pitt to criminally prosecute a group of Extinction Rebellion protesters – most aged over 50 and a number of them grandmothers – who had interrupted proceedings of parliament for three minutes.”   The editorial said that “Sending a clear message that this protest was the wrong thing to do is therefore appropriate. But the response should be proportionate. Nobody was hurt. There was no property damaged. And the entire disruption lasted for a total of three minutes. Charging the protesters with the criminal offence of disturbing the legislature is a punishment that clearly does not fit the crime. Considering our state’s political history, that this was done at the behest of a Labor Premier is troubling.”   The complainant said it is inaccurate to suggest he charged the protestors at the “behest” of Premier Palaszczuk or that she requested or urged that the protestors be charged. The complainant said the comment by the Premier made in parliament that “People have the right to protest silently in public, and I endorse that, but there are rules in this chamber. I will leave that for you to reflect on, Mr Speaker” suggests that there is an important role and function that the Speaker independently performs in maintaining order in the Parliamentary Precinct. He said that he exercises the role of Speaker independent of party politics and that he does not follow any instructions from parliamentarians. The complainant also said that he did not lay the criminal charges as the editorial suggests. He also said the police did so after a request from him and only after their independent assessment, did they consider such charges were warranted. The complainant said the general tenor of the editorial was that he acted as a mouthpiece of a government punishing protestors.   In response, the publication said the general tenor of the editorial was that Mr Pitt's actions had resulted in rarely used charges being laid against a group of protestors who were doing nothing more than exercising their right to freedom of speech in relation to government and politics. The editorial did not say the Premier directed the Speaker to take action or that she gave instructions to him. The publication said any reasonable reading of the Premier’s statement in parliament would suggest she encouraged Mr Pitt to criminally prosecute a group of protesters.   It said that while it agrees that the Speaker is independent, this does not mean he cannot be encouraged by members of parliament to make a decision. It also said that the editorial does not state that Mr Pitt charged the protestors. It said the story which the editorial is commenting on, and which is hyperlinked in the editorial, makes it clear the charges were laid by Queensland police. The publication said, however, that had Mr Pitt not made his complaint to the police, the charges against the protestors would not have been laid at all. That is the criminal prosecution to which the editorial refers.  

Conclusion

  The Council’s Standards of Practice require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material in news material is accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1), and is presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinions are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts (General Principle 3). They also require publications to take reasonable steps to provide a correction or other adequate remedial action if published material is significantly inaccurate or misleading (General Principle 2) and provide an opportunity for a response to be published by a person adversely referred to (General Principle 4).   The Council recognises the public interest in allowing editorials to express robust views on matters of significant public importance, as in this case. Nonetheless, the Council has consistently stated that even in opinion articles, such as an editorial, a publication remains obliged to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is not misleading and is presented with reasonable fairness and balance. Although the Council does not consider the editorial suggests the complainant charged the protestors, the comment that the referral of the protesters to police was done at the “behest” of the Premier was presented as a statement of fact and inaccurately and unfairly suggests the complainant acted on the Premier’s instructions. The Council notes that the Speaker is required to discharge his duties with impartiality. The Council considers that there is an absence of information to suggest that the Speaker did not act independently, and thus failed to act in accordance with his duty of impartiality, when referring the protesters to the police. Accordingly, the Council finds a breach of General Principles 1 and 3.   As to General Principles 2 and 4, the Council notes the absence of a request for correction or other remedial action by the complainant. Accordingly, the Council finds no beach of General Principles 2 and 4.  

Relevant Council Standards

  This Adjudication applies the following General Principles of the Council:   Publications must take reasonable steps to:

1. Ensure that factual material in news reports and elsewhere is accurate and not misleading, and is distinguishable from other material such as opinion.
2. Provide a correction or other adequate remedial action if published material is significantly inaccurate or misleading.
3. Ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts.
4. Ensure that where material refers adversely to a person, a fair opportunity is given for subsequent publication of a reply if that is reasonably necessary to address a possible breach of General Principle 3.

The Press Council considered a complaint from Senator Gerard Rennick concerning an article published by The Australian online on 11 August 2022, headed “Anti-vax Liberal senator Gerard Rennick refused briefings from Greg Hunt”.   The article reported that “Liberal senator Gerard Rennick, who has been criticised for spreading misinformation and Covid-19 conspiracy theories, turned down multiple invitations for individual briefings from former health minister Greg Hunt.” It said “Senator Rennick was offered several one-on-one sessions with Mr Hunt, as well as Health Department Deputy Secretary and Therapeutic Goods Administration boss Adjunct Professor John Skerritt, since the start of the pandemic. However, these standing invitations were never taken up.” The article went on to report that “It’s understood that the TGA has responded to a large number of questions about vaccine safety from Senator Rennick in budget estimates, Covid committee hearings and personal correspondence.”   The complainant said that it is false and misleading to say that he declined meetings with health officials. The complainant said that no meetings were ever offered to him, and that he never declined any meetings or briefings with the then Health Minister or health officials. The complainant said that he did meet with the then Minister of Health or his staff and had also had two telephone conversations with the head of the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). The complainant also said that prior to the article’s publication, he was not contacted for comment and, despite informing the publication after publication that he never declined meetings, no amendment was made to correct the article at the time.   In response, the publication said that it has evidence that offers of meetings were made to the complainant by the head of the TGA, who is also Deputy Secretary of The Department of Health. The publication said that the head of the TGA offered briefings to the complainant during Senate Estimates and Covid-19 committee hearings and through the former Health Minister’s office. It said that subsequent to the article’s publication, the complainant asked the Department of Health directly about the briefings mentioned in the article the subject of the complaint.   The publication said that the Department of Health’s answer to the complainant makes clear that a range of departmental officers offered the complainant briefings and that the reason for not taking up the meetings may lie with the former Health Minister’s office or with the complainant. The publication said that soon after publication it offered the complainant an opportunity to include in the article remarks refuting the claims, however he declined. It said that it subsequently amended the article to include the complainant’s denial that he declined meetings.  

Conclusion

  The Council’s Standards of Practice require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material in news material is accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1), and is presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinions are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts (General Principle 3). They also require publications to take reasonable steps to provide a correction or other adequate remedial action if published material is significantly inaccurate or misleading (General Principle 2) and provide an opportunity for a response to be published by a person adversely referred to (General Principle 4).   The Council accepts that based on the information before it, the complainant was offered briefings by a range of senior officers from the Department of Health, including the head of the TGA. The Council also notes the publication’s reference to Question on Notice, that was provided after publication of the article, which confirms that the complainant was offered briefings. However, while the Council accepts that such offers were made, there is no information before it to suggest that the complainant actively ‘refused’ or ‘turned down’ these offers. The Council notes that ‘refusing’ or ‘turning down’ an offer would require a specific response to an offer, which the Council notes is absent from the material before it. Accordingly, the Council considers that the publication failed to take reasonable steps to be accurate and not misleading in breach of General Principle 1.   The Council notes that soon after the article was published, the publication offered to amend the article to include the complainant’s denial that he refused offers of briefings.  The Council notes however, that the article was not amended until sometime after publication and only after a complaint was lodged with the Press Council. Given the reference to the complainant refusing health department briefings is significantly inaccurate and misleading and remained uncorrected for some time, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to provide a correction or other remedial action. Accordingly, the publication breached General Principle 2.   The Council recognises the publication’s offer to include his denial was not accepted by the complainant, and also that the publication subsequently amended the online article. However, the Council emphasises the obligation under General Principle 2 to provide a correction or other adequate remedial action is unqualified, and should have been made when the inaccuracy was identified.   The Council considers that given the article specifically concerned the complainant, it was incumbent on the publication to seek comment from the complainant prior to publication regarding the offers of meetings. The Council considers the publication failed to take reasonable steps to present the material with the fairness and balance in breach of General Principle 3.   The Council considers the publication’s prompt offer to amend the article and include his comments refuting the assertion that he was offered meetings, was an adequate response in the circumstances. Accordingly, the Council concludes the publication did not breach General Principle 4. This finding is not inconsistent with the finding of a breach of General Principle 2, as General Principle 4 imposes a different and separate obligation.  

Relevant Council Standards

  This Adjudication applies the following General Principles of the Council:   Publications must take reasonable steps to:

1. Ensure that factual material in news reports and elsewhere is accurate and not misleading, and is distinguishable from other material such as opinion.
2. Provide a correction or other adequate remedial action if published material is significantly inaccurate or misleading.
3. Ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts.
4. Ensure that where material refers adversely to a person, a fair opportunity is given for subsequent publication of a reply if that is reasonably necessary to address a possible breach of General Principle 3.

The Press Council considered a complaint from Louise Milligan concerning an article published in The Australian headed “Greatest enemy of truth is those who conspire to lie” in print and online on 8 June 2021.   The article, an editorial, commented that “Many at the ABC express their displeasure at being held to account by The Australian. Forget that their own Media Watch has a leery obsession with News Corporation, some less thoughtful ABC journalists, and their flacks, one-time reporters who seem to have forgotten where they came from, decry any form of scrutiny”.   It said “Whether they like it or not, the ABC is one of the most powerful institutions in Australia. Not only does the national broadcaster pocket $1bn a year from our pay packets to produce great local radio, at times intoxicating drama and clever, original television, but much of that federal money is spent on journalism. In fact, the ABC, a wholly taxpayer-funded institution, is the biggest media outlet in Australia. The No.1 player in digital text and broadcast news, and awash on the airwaves of radio and television. The ABC is a behemoth. It is both the game and the gamekeeper.”   The editorial also said that “Many senior people at The Australian know well the work, the habits and the hubris of Sally Neighbour and Louise Milligan”. It went on to say “To be good you often need to be brash, and brave. But to be really good, you need to be beyond reproach. Your loyalty to the truth must be without question. Fairness and balance is your currency. It has to be. Think of the opposite qualities to answer why. The subjects of good journalism, of important journalism, lie and dissemble. Good journalists do not. They rely on the truth. They yearn for it. But they understand the limits. In many respects the natural enemy of a journalist, aside from a public relations hack, or a political flack, is the defamation lawyer. The most dangerous enemy of the journalist is bad, lazy, deceitful journalism.”   The complainant said the article implies that she conspires to lie, is the greatest enemy of the truth, lies and dissembles, is bad, lazy and deceitful, and that she has work habits and hubris which were well known by senior editorial people at The Australian. She said the language and the tone of the editorial are unequivocally intended to be read as criticism of her and leave no room for a conclusion other than that she is of low integrity and deserving of severe criticism based on the experience of senior people at the publication. She said that anyone reading the editorial would have concluded that it was alleging that she was not an example of a good journalist, but a bad, lazy and deceitful one who conspires to lie. The complainant said that such imputations were not only inaccurate and unfair, but that they have caused her significant offence and distress.   The publication said the target of the newspaper’s criticism is not the complainant. It said the headline, text and thread of the editorial’s argument is aimed at the institutional obstruction of media freedom and the need for good journalism to hold those in power, including politicians, business leaders and those running big institutions such as churches and universities, to account.   The publication said the reference to the complainant is limited to naming her in the context of the responsibilities of the ABC and the case for good journalism. The publication said there are no specific references to her work and no specific references to her reporting or conduct. The publication said however, that any reference to Ms Milligan would not have been read in isolation, as it was written in the context of separate news reporting about the ABC’s journalism and the complainant’s personal expressions through social media on the day and in the days leading up to the editorial.   The publication said these separate news reports highlighted the missteps made by the complainant and one other ABC journalist in tweets on the case of former attorney-general Christian Porter, who had been suing the ABC for defamation. It said the editorial is about the principles of journalism and how they should be applied, particularly by the publicly funded ABC.   The publication said that the overriding aim of the editorial is to promote the public interest of strong journalism and it raises the difficult position of the ABC, an important institution, which has the dual role as ‘the game and the gamekeeper’ and one which needs to be held to account.  

Conclusion

  The Council’s Standards of Practice applicable to this matter require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1); and is presented with reasonable fairness and balance (General Principle 3). If material refers adversely to a person a fair opportunity is to be given for a subsequent reply if that is reasonably necessary to address a possible breach of General Principle 3 (General Principle 4). Publications must also take reasonable steps to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest (General Principle 6).   The Council recognises an editorial is the voice of a newspaper and for this reason, it is given significant latitude in expressing its views. Nonetheless, the Council notes that even in an editorial, a publication remains obliged to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is not misleading and is presented with reasonable fairness and balance. In relation to this, the Council notes the statement “Many senior people at The Australian know well the work, the habits and the hubris of … Louise Milligan” was presented as a statement of fact and not merely an expression of opinion.   Although the Council notes the publication’s comments that the editorial was not directed at the complainant, it considers that it is an unavoidable conclusion that she is associated with “bad, lazy, deceitful journalism” and that she ‘lies’ and ‘dissembles’ on the basis that she is specifically named in the article; that she is an ABC journalist; that she was once employed at The Australian and the critical comments concerning her alleged work, habits and hubris. For this reason, the Council considers the editorial, misleadingly and unfairly infers that such undesirable traits are associated with the complainant and her journalism. The Council notes that on the information before it, such an inference is not sustainable. Accordingly, the Council finds a breach of General Principles 1 and 3.   The Council notes that the complainant did not seek a right of reply. Accordingly, the Council finds no breach of General Principle 4.   The Council recognises the significant public interest in allowing an editorial to express robust views on matters of important public interest. However, the Council considers that naming the complainant, an ABC journalist in an editorial that commented on the ABC and what it considers are the attributes of poor journalism, was likely to cause substantial offence and distress without a sufficient public interest justification. Accordingly, the Council concludes that General Principle 6 was breached.  

Relevant Council Standards

  This Adjudication applies the following General Principles of the Council.   Publications must take reasonable steps to:

• 1. Ensure that factual material in news reports and elsewhere is accurate and not misleading, and is distinguishable from other material such as opinion.
• 3. Ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance,and that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts.

• 4. Ensure that where material refers adversely to a person, a fair opportunity is given for subsequent publication of a reply if that is reasonably necessary to address a possible breach of General Principle 3.

• 6. Avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest.

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published in the NT New and Cairns Post on 3 September 2022, headed “Woke world is wobbling” in print.   The article is an opinion piece in which the columnist stated that “In Britain, the gender fluidity clinic Tavistock was recently closed after an inquiry concluded allowing often confused and immature children to transition to another gender put them ‘at considerable risk’”.   The columnist said that “Over the past 10 years the Safe Schools program has told students Australian society is guilty of homophobia, transphobia and heteronormativity and the way to achieve sexual freedom is to embrace what Roz Ward describes as a world where ‘bodies can blossom in extraordinary, new and amazing ways that we can only try to imagine today’”. The article went on to comment that “Even worse, notwithstanding events surrounding Tavistock, in Victoria Chairman Dan has legislated to stop parents, priests and health professionals from counselling young people about the dangers and harmful consequences of taking puberty blockers.”   In response to complaints received, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether the article breached the applicable Standards of Practice requiring publications to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1), and to ensure factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance and writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts (General Principle 3).   The Council noted that the complaints had expressed concerns that the inquiry into the Tavistock clinic (The Cass Review), does not state the clinic was closed for the reasons expressed by the columnist and that the Safe Schools program does not say or imply that Australian society is guilty of homophobia, transphobia and heteronormativity or to embrace comments apparently made by Roz Ward. The complainants also noted they were unaware of any legislation that prevents parents, priests and health professionals from counselling young people about the dangers and harmful consequences of taking puberty blockers.   In response, the publication said the article is an opinion piece by a columnist who is a foremost authority on children’s education and social affairs affecting youth, who has chosen information from a variety of sources in support of his arguments. The publication referred the Council to a BBC article, headed “NHS to close Tavistock child gender identity clinic”, in relation to the comments concerning the Tavistock clinic, where Dr Cass, who undertook The Cass Review, mentioned risk as a reason the Tavistock clinic was closed.   The publication said that booklets associated with the Safe Schools program include glossaries of terms referred to by the columnist in the article where there is a clear implication society is characterised by heteronormativity that leads to homophobia. The publication said that one of the co-designers responsible for the Safe Schools program has also publicly made such comments. The publication said the relevant Victorian legislation that prevents counselling against gender transitioning is the Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Act 2021.  

Conclusion

  The Council recognises that the article is clearly identified as an opinion piece and given the significant public interest of allowing freedom of expression, the Council takes the view that such articles are entitled to express robust and, at times, provocative views. Nonetheless, even in an opinion piece, the obligation is to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is accurate and not misleading and expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts.   In regard to the comment that the Tavistock clinic was “closed after an inquiry concluded allowing often confused and immature children to transition to another gender put them ‘at considerable risk’”, the Council does not consider that there was anything in the material relied upon by the publication that substantiated this statement. The Council notes that the BBC article referred to by the publication states, referring to the independent review led by Dr Hilary Cass, “She said that the current model of care was leaving young people “at considerable risk” of poor mental health and distress, and having one clinic was “not a safe or viable long-term option”.”   The Cass Review, the subject of the BBC article, refers to the risk associated with the current model of care, “a single specialist provider model is not a safe or viable long-term option in view of concerns about lack of peer review and the ability to respond to the increasing demand”. The Cass Review, and the BBC article in turn, refer to the model of care at the Tavistock clinc as creating the risk, not the act of gender transition itself.   In regard to the columnist’s comments concerning Safe Schools, the Council also does not accept that there was anything in material relied upon by the publication, to assert that students are being told that Australian society is guilty of homophobia, transphobia and heteronormativity. The Council does not accept that explanatory words contained in a glossary of terms, nor the public comments of co-designer of Safe Schools referred to by the publication, support the columnist’s comments in relation to this statement.   In regard to the columnist’s comment that Victorian legislation prevents “parents, priests and health professionals from counselling young people about the dangers and harmful consequences of taking puberty blockers”, the Council notes that the publication did not refer to specific aspects of the legislation which contained such a prohibition and does not consider that there was anything in the material relied upon by the publication to substantiate this statement.   Accordingly, the Council concludes the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the factual material in the article is accurate and not misleading, and that the columnist’s expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts in breach of General Principles 1 and 3.  

Relevant Council Standards

  This Adjudication applies the following General Principles of the Council.   Publications must take reasonable steps to:   1. Ensure that factual material in news reports and elsewhere is accurate and not misleading,and is distinguishable from other material such as opinion. 3. Ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts.

The Press Council considered a complaint from Mayor Teresa Harding concerning an article published in the Ipswich Tribune headed “OIA won’t investigate Harding” in print and online on 10 August 2022.   The article reported “THE Office of the Independent Assessor will not investigate complaints of misconduct against Ipswich Mayor Teresa Harding despite public outrage over her involvement in altering an officer’s report before it went to council for a vote. Councillors Nicole Jonic and Jacob Madsen have publicly criticised Cr Harding over the altered report on the re-naming of assets named after the Pisasale family, referring to the actions as ‘political interference’ and ‘questionable conduct’”.   The article went on to report that “The Ipswich Tribune has since revealed a version of the report with tracked changes from Cr Harding, initialled ‘TH’, rewriting the officer’s recommendations to the council and deleting references to community feedback asking council to leave the names as they were.” It reported that “The manager resigned from her position at council after CEO Sonia Cooper directed her to hand the Mayor’s version of the report to council”.   The complainant said the Office of the Independent Assessor (OIA) cleared her of any wrongdoing three weeks prior to the publication of the article in relation to the claim she had altered an officer’s report prior to its presentation to council. The complainant said the Local Government Act 2009 (the Act) encourages written feedback to the council’s CEO and that tracking changes is a common form of feedback. The complainant said any changes to the report were directed by the CEO and this was made clear in public meetings that are recorded and that are open to media scrutiny. The complainant said that despite the publication knowing that the manager referred to in the article was promoted to a more senior position in a different organisation, the article reported that she had resigned.   In response, the publication said it is incorrect to say that the complainant was cleared of wrongdoing as the OIA did not investigate the complaint. The publication said that questions were raised by councillors in a June 2022 meeting as to how the Mayor had access to the officer’s draft report. It said the complainant was not the document owner and should not have had access to the report to be making tracked changes before it was handed down to the councillors. The publication said it has copies of the emails from the officer who clearly stated her opposition to the changes and that the timing of her resignation followed these actions. The publication said while it had published several stories on this issue, the reporting has sought balance, has been well researched and was clearly in the public interest. The publication said it had provided the complainant with an opportunity to submit a letter to the editor on the issue which was not accepted.  

Conclusion

  The Council’s Standards of Practice applicable in this matter require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1); and is presented with reasonable fairness and balance (General Principle 3). If the material is significantly inaccurate or misleading, or unfair or unbalanced, publications must take reasonable steps to provide adequate remedial action or an opportunity for a response to be published if that is reasonably necessary to address a possible breach (General Principles 2 and 4).   The Council accepts that on the information before it, the OIA investigated and then dismissed several complaints regarding the complainant’s conduct on the basis that the conduct did not raise a reasonable suspicion of inappropriate conduct or misconduct. The Council accepts the premise that the OIA’s decision to dismiss the complaints amounts to the complainant being cleared of wrongdoing.   The Council therefore considers that the article’s statement that the OIA “will not investigate complaints of misconduct against Ipswich Mayor Teresa Harding”, and the references to the ‘alteration of the report’ and the inclusion of quotes referring to the complainant’s conduct as “political interference” and “questionable conduct”, unfairly and misleadingly suggest the complainant was not investigated by the OIA and had acted inappropriately. The Council considers that on the information before it, such assertions are without factual basis. Accordingly, the Council finds the publication failed to take reasonable steps to comply with General Principles 1 and 3.   In the absence of independently verifiable information before it, the Council makes no finding concerning the article’s assertion that an officer resigned due to the complainant’s comments on the report.   Given the article’s unfair and misleading comments concerning the alteration of a report, and the complainant’s attempts to draw this to the publication’s attention, the Council considers the publication failed to take reasonable steps to provide a correction or other remedial action in breach of General Principle 2.   The Council notes the publication’s offer of a letter to the editor in relation to the complainant’s concerns. Accordingly, the Council concludes the publication did not breach General Principle 4. This finding is not inconsistent with the finding of a breach of General Principle 2, as General Principle 4 imposes a different and separate obligation.  

Relevant Council Standards

  This Adjudication applies the following General Principles of the Council.   Publications must take reasonable steps to:

1. Ensure that factual material in news reports and elsewhere is accurate and not misleading, and is distinguishable from other material such as opinion.

2. Provide a correction or other adequate remedial action if published material is significantly inaccurate or misleading.

3. Ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts.

4. Ensure that where material refers adversely to a person, a fair opportunity is given for subsequent publication of a reply if that is reasonably necessary to address a possible breach of General Principle 3.

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published by the Daily Telegraph online on 11 March 2020 headed “Rian Ross Toyer in court accused of killing Mhelody Polan Bruno”.   The article reported “A Wagga man accused of choking a transgender woman to death one week before she was reportedly set to fly home has fronted court.” The article went on to report that “Emergency services were called to a Tarcutta Street unit where they found the 25-year-old transgender woman from the Philippines unresponsive.” Mr Toyer was sentenced in 2021. In response to a complaint, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether the article complied with the Council’s Standards of Practice, which require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance (General Principle 3); and to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice without sufficient public interest justification (General Principle 6).  The Council noted that the complaint expressed concern that the prominent and repeated references to the victim’s transgender status were unfair and not justified by the public interest as the article established no relevance between the victim’s transgender status and the alleged crime.   The publication noted the fact that the victim identified as a transgender person was  referred to in a sentencing judgment delivered on 21 March 2021, where it was noted that the victim was born male but identified as female and would be referred to in the judgment as such. The publication said given the victim’s transgender status formed part of the judgment, it was in the public interest to report this fact.  

Conclusion

  The Council notes that the victim’s transgender status was only referred to in the sentencing judgment, which was published approximately 12 months after the article was published, for the purpose of recording the victim’s correct pronoun. The Council notes that there was no evidence provided that stated or implied that, during the hearing of the matter, the victim’s transgender status was raised as a contributing factor to her manslaughter. The Council has repeatedly stated over a long period that publications should exercise great care to not place unwarranted emphasis on characteristics of individuals such as gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, nationality, country of origin, marital status, disability, illness, or age.   The Council has also stated that, beyond the strict requirements of the law, publications have a further responsibility to ensure compliance with the Standards of Practice, which may extend to moderating or not reporting particular information that has been said in open court. Given the victim’s transgender status was not a contributing factor to her manslaughter, the Council considers the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness in the absence of a public interest justification. While the Council has previously noted that there is a public interest in reporting on the serious issue of violence against transgender people, it notes that the facts of this matter did not give rise to such a public interest.  Accordingly, the Council concludes General Principle 3 was breached.   Given the victim’s transgender status was not raised in Court proceedings at the time as being a contributing factor to her manslaughter, the Council considers the repeated references to that status could lead some readers to conclude that this characteristic motivated her accused to take her life and was therefore either a cause of, or a factor in, her death. This could contribute to substantial prejudice against transgender people. The Council considers that in prominently identifying the woman as transgender in the sub-headline the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid contributing to substantial prejudice and that there was no sufficient public interest justifying it doing so. Accordingly, the Council concludes that the publication breached General Principle 6.  

Relevant Council Standards

  This Adjudication applies the following General Principles of the Council:   Publications must take reasonable steps to:

3. Ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts.
4. Avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest.

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by the publication of a cartoon in The Daily Telegraph in print on 16 November 2022 captioned “NOT THE QUESTION YOU WANT TO HEAR FROM AN ISIS BRIDE…”. The cartoon depicts a Muslim woman dressed entirely in black wearing a full veil or niqab and only showing her eyes. The woman is depicted asking a man, who is standing behind a ticket box that has the words “ALP FUND RAISER TICKETS” on the front of it, “HOW MUCH PER HEAD?”.   In response to a complaint received, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether the material breached its Standards of Practice which require the publication to take reasonable steps to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest (General Principle 6). The Council noted that the complaint raised concerns that the cartoon was offensive to Muslims.   In response, the publication said the cartoon should be considered in context of the news of the day. It said that as reported on its front page and in its editorial, the Australian Labor Party (ALP) had proposed a fundraising dinner in Sydney’s western suburbs. The publication said the Mayors of Fairfield, Liverpool and Campbelltown announced they were attending the dinner to confront the Prime Minister over his handling of the repatriation of women colloquially known as “ISIS Brides” - widows of Australian ISIS terrorists who were being brought back to Australia from camps in Syria. It said the mayors were angry about what they viewed as secrecy and a lack of consultation from the federal government that these women would be repatriated within their communities. It said that this action had caused great distress to families living within Western Sydney who had been refugees fleeing ISIS.   In relation to the cartoon, the publication said it reminds us of the violent reality of terrorism and the Prime Minister’s tone-deaf attitude in holding an ALP fundraiser squarely in the heart of where these women were to be resettled. The publication said the cartoonist deliberately refrained from depicting the figure graphically, noting that the words in the speech bubble are chilling enough.   The publication said the cartoonist drew the figure based on factual information and photographs of widows of Australian ISIS terrorists available online. It said the cartoonist had considered the harmful potential that readers could associate the figure with women of Muslim faith, who may also wear niqabs, and for this reason captioned the cartoon to clearly explain that the figure depicted was an ‘ISIS bride’. The publication said there is absolutely no intention for the cartoon to cause offence to Muslims, noting many of those who suffered at the hands of ISIS are Muslims themselves.  

Conclusion

  The Council recognises that cartoons are expressions of opinion that often use exaggeration and absurdity to make a point on serious issues. For this reason, the Council has consistently given significant latitude to cartoons when considering whether a publication has taken reasonable steps to avoid substantial offence, distress or prejudice. However, the Council considers that the significant public interest in allowing freedom of expression must be weighed against the equally significant public interest in not promoting prejudice.   The Council also considers that a stated absence of intention by publication to cause offense, distress, or prejudice to a particular group or individual is not relevant to the consideration of whether a publication has taken reasonable steps to comply with its Standards of Practice. The Council notes that particularly in the context of race, ethnicity and religion, that publications should exercise great care to avoid going beyond exaggeration and absurdity by using graphical depictions that may instead reinforce offensive and prejudicial stereotypes.   In relation to this, the Council notes the cartoon’s depiction of the ‘ISIS bride’ dressed in black wearing a full veil or niqab has the potential to associate all Muslim women who wear such clothing with Islamic terrorism. However, the Council concludes that the cartoon’s specific reference to ISIS brides in the caption, along with the comments made in a front page news report and accompanying editorial in the same edition of the cartoon, that some western suburb mayors had expressed concern with the ALP’s decision to repatriate ISIS brides into their communities, was sufficient to demonstrate that the publication took reasonable steps to comply with General Principle 6.  

Relevant Council Standards

  This Adjudication applies the following General Principles of the Council.   “Publications must take reasonable steps to:

6. Avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest.”

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published by the Herald Sun online on 19 November 2022, headed "Daniel Andrews’ chief of staff met with election fixer".   The article reported that “Daniel Andrews’ chief of staff has had direct contact with the election fixer who was caught boasting about rorting Victoria’s elections”. It reported that "Glenn Druery was exposed in a bombshell video, revealed by the Herald Sun on Thursday, boasting how he would ‘control’ who wins several key upper house seats in next week’s election – with ‘his’ MPs likely to share the balance of power.” It reported that “Mr Druery was also caught on film saying the ALP was happy not to reform the system he is rorting because he delivers the party a ‘crossbench they can work with’ in government.” The article went on to state that “Amid furore over the damning revelations, Mr Andrews on Thursday said: ‘I don’t believe I have ever met him, spoken to him, I don’t know him’. But the Herald Sun can reveal Mr Druery has had direct contact with Mr Andrews’ chief of staff, Lissie Ratcliff, during this term of government, and met with his office.”   In response to a complaint received, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether the article complied with the Council’s Standards of Practice, which require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material is accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1); to ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance and to ensure that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts (General Principle 3). The Council noted that the complaint raised concerns that the headline and article misleadingly and unfairly imply that Daniel Andrew’s chief of staff met with the “election fixer” in the context of the then upcoming Victorian election.   In response, the publication said the article and headline are entirely factual and accurate. The publication said it rejects the proposition that the headline unfairly and misleadingly suggests that Daniel Andrews chief of staff met with an election fixer in the lead up to the November 2022 Victorian election. The publication said there is one “fleeting” reference to the State election in the article, however it is clear from the sixth paragraph of the 31-paragraph article that the meeting was held in 2019. The publication said that undermining of the democratic process is a matter of enormous public interest, and that the article was one of a series of 3 produced by the publication that questioned the preference distribution system under the Victorian Electoral Act and whether it was being manipulated by so-called “preference whispers in return for a commercial fee”.  

Conclusion

  The Council recognises that the ability of headlines to accurately reflect the tenor of an article may vary in the circumstances and that an article’s initial paragraphs often establishes a more accurate position. The Council also recognises that what constitutes reasonable steps to ensure factual material is not misleading may also vary in the circumstances. However, the Council considers that publications need to take great care in order to satisfy the reasonable steps standard in the context of reporting on an election, which is a subject of significant public interest. In this instance, the Council considers that the clear implication of the headline is that the “election fixer” met with Daniel Andrew’s chief of staff in the context of the then upcoming Victorian election.   The Council also considers that given the article’s repeated references to the “election fixer” in the initial paragraphs followed by the revelation of the meeting with Mr Druery, the subsequent inclusion of Daniel Andrew’s denial of having met Mr Druery and his spokesman’s statement regarding the nature of Mr Druery’s meeting with the chief of staff, were insufficient to remedy this misconception. The Council considers that by referring to the “election fixer” in the headline and that the “election fixer” met with the chief of staff in the article, which was published immediately before an upcoming election, the publication failed to take steps to ensure factual material is not misleading in breach of General Principle 1.   The Council also considers, that by making repeated and prominent references to the “election fixer”, the article unfairly implied that Daniel Andrew’s office was involved in election fixing in the context of the then upcoming election. Accordingly, the Council concludes the publication failed to take reasonable steps to present factual material with reasonable fairness in breach of General Principle 3.  

Relevant Council Standards

  This Adjudication applies the following General Principles of the Council:   Publications must take reasonable steps to: 1. Ensure that factual material in news reports and elsewhere is accurate and not misleading and is distinguishable from other material such as opinion. 3. Ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts

  The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by four articles published by Daily Mail Australia concerning gender affirming healthcare.   The articles were: “Young Woman Left Devastated after she transitioned to a man and had her breasts, uterus and ovaries removed sues psychiatrist for approving hormone therapy after meeting him ONCE ”, 24 August 2022; “Call for urgent inquiry into irreversible gender changes  as woman sues psychiatrist after he approved her hormone therapy to transition into a man after a single appointment  leaving her unable to get pregnant”, 25 August 2022; “Australians share their stories of regret after transitioning to a different gender amid calls for urgent inquiry into irreversible sex changes”, 26 August 2022 and “Australian TV host loses it at a doctor who's helping teenagers change their genders: 'Causing irreversible damage to children should be banned'”, 5 September 2022.   The first article reported on the content of a NSW Supreme Court Statement of Claim which said that “A woman who transitioned to a man is suing her psychiatrist for professional negligence after he approved her hormone therapy despite only seeing her for a single appointment”. The article reported that the woman “says her social phobia should have been treated before any hormone therapy and that she wasn’t given any information on how transition would affect her fertility” and that the “surgeries have left her suffering with ‘injuries and disabilities’.”   The second article, reporting on the same court documents concerning the same woman, included comments from former Liberal Party candidate Katherine Deves who said: “‘Those left harmed by these irreversible hormonal interventions and surgeries that cause a myriad of lifelong health problems were always likely to seek legal remedy and compensation. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of Australian children and young people being subjected to these interventions.’” The article went on to include a comment from a prominent Australian actress and LGBTI advocate who was critical of Ms Deves' views.   The third article reported the comments of an individual’s personal experience with gender transition who said he “… only identified as a transgender woman for a few months before he sat down with a psychiatrist, a requirement before commencing hormone therapy.” The article went on to say the individual: “… claims the professional failed to understand he was depressed, anxious and had a ‘f*****-up relationship with [his] sexuality’.” The article went on to quote the individual saying: “'I think there is a massive population of people who actually don't have gender dysphoria who are now either being pushed toward or themselves being drawn toward this gender affirmative care pathway.'” The article also reported on the same court documents repeating the same woman’s concerns as set out in the first and second articles.   The fourth article reported that “A social media post of a teenager happily showing off the scars of breast removal beside her smiling mother has sparked outrage from a conservative commentator”. It reported that the social media post “… is a picture of someone transitioning from female to male after a double mastectomy performed by Dr Gallagher, who is based in Miami, Florida and promotes herself as a ‘leader in the field of gender affirmation surgery’.” The article went onto report that the conservative commentator “…has previously criticised the practice of giving children trans surgery, including praising Florida Republican politician Randy Fine for moving to ban providing 'gender assignment' drugs or surgery to minors” and “'Good. Causing irreversible damage to children should be banned'”. The article also included comments from an individual who is quoted as saying “It's transphobic to say it but after I've been through the system, I 100 percent feel like I was part of some cruel medical and social experiment - except nobody checked in on me.” The article also included comments from those critical of the views expressed by the conservative commentator.   In response to complaints received, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether the articles complied with the Council’s Standards of Practice which require publications to take reasonable steps to present factual material with reasonable fairness and balance. The Council noted that the complaints raised concerns in regard to the absence of balancing comments in a series of news articles published over a period of time from individuals or organisations who are supportive gender affirming healthcare.   In response, the publication said in relation to the first article, that it is a report on a Statement of Claim provided to it by the law firm acting on behalf of the named woman. The publication said it had sought comment from the psychiatrist named in the Statement of Claim. The publication said as it had made reasonable attempts to contact the individuals involved, it saw no need to contact any other individual or organisation that was not named in the court proceedings. In relation to the second article, the publication said it included a comment from an individual criticising Ms Deves’ views. It also said that after receiving the Press Council complaint it amended the article to include a position statement from the Australian Professional Association for Trans Health (AusPATH). In relation to the third article, the publication said it had also subsequently amended the article to include the same position statement from AusPATH. In relation to the fourth article, the publication said it reported on the comments of a conservative commentator concerning a social media post. The publication said for balance, it included quotes, both positive and negative, in relation to the public reaction to the commentor’s tweet and also included a quote taken from the website of the doctor who performed the surgery, concerning the effects on a person’s mental health if they wait for an extended period of time before they start the transitioning process.  

Conclusion

  In relation to the article published on 24 August 2022, the Council acknowledges that the article is based on court documents and recognises the publication’s attempts to contact the individuals involved in the proceedings. In relation the article published on 5 September 2022, the Council notes that the article is based on social media commentary, and that it includes comments, both positive and negative, on the views expressed in a tweet by the conservative commentator. The Council also notes the inclusion of comments concerning gender affirming health taken from the doctor’s website who was the subject of the tweet. Accordingly, the Council concludes that the publication did not breach General Principle 3 in relation to these two articles.   In relation to the articles published on 25 and 26 August 2022, the Council notes an absence of comments from individuals or organisations that offer a different perspective than those put forward by Katherine Deves in particular on gender affirming healthcare and the experience of the individual referred to in the court documents. Although the Council recognises the subsequent amendment to the articles to include a position statement from AusPath, this in itself is not sufficient to address the absence of balance. Accordingly, in relation to these two articles, the Council finds the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that factual material was presented with reasonable fairness and balance in breach of General Principle 3.   The Council recognises that it has previously stated that reporting on a subject does not always require complete, or almost complete balance. In some instances, the requisite balance might be achieved through the previous or subsequent publication of articles that put forward alternative views on a subject. However, the Council considers that when reporting on matters of important social debate such as gender affirming healthcare, publications should be especially mindful of informing its readers that there are a range of perspectives on matters of strong public interest. In this instance, the Council notes that the four articles approached the issue of gender affirming healthcare from a particular perspective. The Council also notes that no additional articles were provided by the publication that offered an alternative perspective on the issue. Although the Council recognises that the subsequent amendment to two articles achieved some balance, it considers that some attempt should have been made at the time to publish a range of views on the issue either in the individual articles or through the prior or subsequent publication of additional articles.   In considering the series of articles, the Council finds the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure its reporting on the issue of gender affirming healthcare was presented with reasonable fairness and balance in breach of General Principle 3.  

Relevant Council Standards

  This Adjudication applies the following General Principles of the Council:   Publications must take reasonable steps to:

3. Ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts.

The Press Council considered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by an article published by the Courier Mail on 17 November 2021, headed “Only the parents can fix youth crime curse” in print and “Bill Leak’s controversial cartoon still sadly relevant today” online.   The article is an opinion piece in which the columnist stated that “It was revealed by Police Minister Mark Ryan in response to a parliamentary Question on Notice, figures provided by the Queensland Police Service showing that of the 3689 youths aged 10-17 years who spent between an hour to more than a week in the watch-house, 2635 or 71.42 per cent were Indigenous.”   The article went on to comment that the “inconvenient conclusion to be drawn is many Indigenous parents routinely abandon their responsibilities and do little to instil in their children respect for our laws and the property of others” and “People are quick to take to the streets and declare black lives matter while happily ignoring the cold, hard, irrefutable figures  show far too many Indigenous parents do not think the futures of their children matter.”   The columnist said: “They have a democratically guaranteed right to do these things, but while they march up and down the street waving flags, their children are stealing cars, robbing houses and being hauled off to the watch-house.” The online article republished a Bill Leak cartoon from 2016 which showed a police officer holding an Indigenous boy and saying to the boy’s father: “You’ll have to sit down and talk to your son about personal responsibility.” “Yeah. Righto,” replies the father. “What’s his name then?”.   In response to complaints received, the Press Council asked the publication to comment on whether the article complied with the Council’s Standards of Practice, which require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure factual material is accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1); to ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts (General Principle 3); and to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest (General Principle 6).   The Council noted complaints had expressed concern that the article unfairly omits to refer to the well documented societal factors such as unemployment, poverty and poor education that are contributing factors in the incarceration rates of Indigenous youths and adults. The complaints also expressed concern that the inclusion of the cartoon is used to further perpetuate a racist stereotype that Indigenous parents, and in particular Indigenous fathers, are potentially drunkards and poor parents.   The publication said the columnist wrote the opinion piece following a statement by the Queensland Police Minister to the Queensland Legislative Assembly which noted that the incarceration rates of Indigenous youths were significantly higher than those of non-Indigenous youth. The publication said the columnist is entitled to draw conclusions and express opinions based on the data referred to by the Police Minister and on his own observations.   The publication said opinion pieces can be controversial and provocative and the columnist was attempting to reignite debate concerning a matter of significant public importance. The publication said that the column takes up the cause of Indigenous children in the hope that in highlighting the issues, some progress will be made towards resolving them. The publication said that while it recognises the cartoon is controversial, the columnist was making the point that nothing has changed since the cartoon was first published. The publication said that given the debate surrounding such issues, it is willing to publish alternative views.  

Conclusion

  The Council is satisfied that reasonable steps were taken to present factual material concerning the incarceration rates of Indigenous youth accurately. Accordingly, there was no breach of General Principle 1.   The Council notes that opinion articles by their nature make an argument and recognises the columnist’s comments concerning the role Indigenous parents may have on the incarceration rate of Indigenous youths were clearly presented as expressions of opinion and not statements of fact.   Nonetheless, even in an opinion piece, the publication was obliged to ensure expressions of opinion are not based on an omission of key facts. In the absence of presenting a more balanced range of reasons behind the high incarceration rates of Indigenous youths, such as poverty, poor education and intergenerational trauma, and instead attributing the incarceration solely on an absence of parental guidance, the Council considers the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure expressions of opinion were not based on an omission of key facts.  Accordingly, General Principle 3 was breached.   In attributing the high incarceration rates on Indigenous youths solely on an absence of parental guidance and extrapolating from the data that the parents of indigenous youths are not concerned with instilling in their children a respect for the law, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to avoid substantial offence and prejudice. The Council also considers the level of offence and prejudice was compounded by the inclusion in the online article of the cartoon with no evidence of it representing the situation in any particular case let alone as a general portrayal of Indigenous fathers. Although the Council notes the very substantial public interest in reporting and commenting on the incarceration rates of Indigenous youths and the potential causes, the public interest did not justify the level of offence and prejudice, and General Principle 6 was breached in this respect.   The Council welcomes the publication’s offer to publish alternative views on the issues affecting the incarceration rates Indigenous youths.  

Relevant Council Standards

  This Adjudication applies the following General Principles of the Council:   Publications must take reasonable steps to:

1. Ensure that factual material in news reports and elsewhere is accurate and not misleading, and is distinguishable from other material such as opinion.
2. Ensure that factual material is presented with reasonable fairness and balance, and that writers’ expressions of opinion are not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts.
3. Avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest.