Search

The Press Council considered a complaint from Senator Alexander Antic about two articles published in The Advertiser and the Sunday Mail headed “SA Senator Alex Antic appeals to ‘god-fearing conservatives’ for Covid crusade” online on 21 January 2022 and “Flint farewell just another salvo in the culture wars” in print on 20 February 2022. The first article, referring to the complainant, reported that “A government SA senator has told a disgraced Hillsong pastor’s live crowd that religious conservatives should resist Australian public health rules”. The second article, an opinion piece, referred to the complainant saying, "… when he's not clogging up senate estimates with complaints about the branding of ice creams, is talking down his country to blow-hard American broadcasters, is another who might struggle to convince me he's properly doing the job he was sent to Canberra to do." The complainant said in relation to the first article that it was incorrect to report he told a crowd “that religious conservatives should resist Australian public health rules”. The complainant said he made no such comment. The complainant said that while the article was subsequently amended following a complaint to the publication, an appropriate remedy would be to publish an apology for the inaccuracy. The complainant said in the circumstances, the publication’s offer of an editor’s note on the article saying that an earlier version had been corrected was inadequate. In relation to the second article, the complainant said it was factually incorrect to state he used time in the senate estimates committee to talk about the branding of ice creams. The complainant considered the publication’s offer of a letter to the editor and its further offer of a clarification to be inadequate in the circumstances. The complainant said the publication ought to publish an apology and an admission of a factual inaccuracy. The publication said that once it became aware of the inaccuracy in the first article, it was promptly corrected. The publication said that it is prepared to publish an editor’s note at the bottom of the article stating that an earlier version of the report was incorrect, and the complainant had made no such overtures about resisting Australian public health rules. In relation to the second article, the publication said it would be prepared to publish a clarification saying that the complainant did not clog up senate estimates with complaints about the branding of ice creams, rather that he made the comments on Facebook during a break in a senate estimates hearing. The publication said this offer was made after the complainant rejected its earlier offer of a letter to the editor. 

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 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). They also require publications 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). In relation to the first article, the Council notes the publication’s acceptance that the comments concerning the complainant telling a crowd that they should resist Australian public health rules were inaccurate. The Council also notes that on the material before it, the publication at the time did not take reasonable steps to confirm whether the complainant had in fact made such a comment. The Council considers that in stating that the complainant had told a crowd that they should resist Australian public health rules, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to be accurate and not misleading. Accordingly, the Council concludes the publication breached General Principle 1. The Council notes that once it became aware of the inaccuracy, the publication promptly amended the online article. Although the Council considers it is best practice to inform readers that an earlier version of an online article has been amended with an editor’s note, it considers that in the circumstances  the prompt amendment to the article was adequate. Accordingly, the Council concludes the publication did not breach General Principle 2 with respect to the first article. In relation to the second article, the Council notes the publication’s acceptance that the comments concerning the complainant “clogging up” senate estimates with complaints about the branding of an ice cream were inaccurate. The Council notes that under General Principle 3, the publication was obliged, even in an opinion article, to take reasonable steps to ensure a writer’s expression of opinion is not based on significantly inaccurate factual material or an omission of key facts. The Council notes that in making such a statement, the publication failed to take reasonable steps to ensure expressions of opinion were not based on significantly inaccurate factual material in breach of General Principle 3. The Council recognises the publication’s offer of a clarification was not accepted by the complainant. However, the Council emphasises the obligation under General Principle 2 to provide a correction or adequate remedial action is unqualified and should have been made when the inaccuracy was identified. Accordingly, the Council concludes the publication breached General Principle 2. The Council considers the publication’s offer of a letter to the editor in relation to senate estimates and ice cream branding 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 Dr Christian Rowan, Queensland State Member for Moggill, and Shadow Minister for Education and The Arts about two articles published in the Brisbane Times, The Age, and The Sydney Morning Herald. The articles were headed “’Fake unions’: New associations ride jab mandate fears to get members” on 1 October 2021 and “Queensland LNP health spokeswoman is a member of ‘anti-COVID vax union’” on 2 October 2021 online. The first article reported that a “set of ‘fake unions’ with links to current and former Liberal and National party figures are capitalising on anti-vaccination fears to recruit doctors, teachers and nurses and exploit dissent within the labour movement about mandatory vaccinations.” The article reported on the establishment of several professional associations, which were described as “fake unions”, including the Nurses Professional Association of Queensland (NPAQ). It reported that the secretary of the NPAQ, Aenghas Hopkinson- Pearson, was thanked by the “LNP education spokesman Christian Rowan in a speech last year for his work as the party’s state electorate council treasurer in Dr Rowan’s Queensland state seat of Moggill.” The second article also reported that the NPAQ “secretary, Aenghas Hopkinson-Pearson, was thanked by Liberal National Party education spokesman Christian Rowan for his work on the executive of Dr Rowan’s state electorate committee.” The article further reported comments by Queensland Health Minister Yvette D’Ath saying Dr Rowan was “associated with an organisation that had expressed ‘anti-vax views’”. The article went on to say that Dr Rowan, a “specialist physician before entering Parliament”, was “fully vaccinated against the coronavirus and encouraged Queenslanders to do the same.” The complainant said the reporting of a link between him and the NPAQ was unfair and misleading. The complainant said he had thanked Aenghas Hopkinson-Pearson in the past for being a campaign volunteer only and that this was completely unrelated to any other roles or responsibilities Aenghas Hopkinson-Pearson may have had in other organisations. The complainant added that he had also thanked many other people as well. The complainant said he has never been a member of or had any role with the so-called “fake unions” mentioned in the articles. The complainant said that social media responses to the articles reveal that the general public had formed the view that he holds anti-vaccination views, which could be damaging to his professional reputation as a registered Specialist Physician, and as an elected representative. He said that publicly available information, including his parliamentary speeches in the Queensland Parliament and public social media posts record him identifying the importance of all eligible Australians being vaccinated against COVID-19. He also said the publications’ unnecessary reference to him in the first article led to the comments by the Queensland Health Minister in the second article which criticised him for being associated with NPAQ. In relation to the first article, he said he ought to have been contacted for comment. The publications said it was accurate to report that the complainant had thanked Aenghas Hopkinson-Pearson for his work on a state electorate committee, part of the Liberal National Party (LNP) administrative machinery that selects candidates and aids their campaigns, in the complainant's seat. The publications said it was not in dispute that the complainant had thanked Aenghas Hopkinson-Pearson. They said there was no requirement to contact the complainant for comment before publication of the first article as it was reporting information from a speech the complainant made in Parliament and did not contain criticism of the complainant from anyone.  They said the purpose of the comment was to demonstrate that the NPAQ and other “fake unions” had links to the LNP because it showed that Mr Hopkinson-Pearson had previously occupied a party position. Mr Hopkinson-Pearson was then and remains the secretary of NPAQ. The publications also said comments by the complainant were included in the second article when he was subject to criticism from the Queensland Health Minister. The publications said it was appropriate to report the remarks of the health minister during the national pandemic. The publications also said the second article reports that the complainant is in favour of vaccination, that he encourages others to get vaccinated, that he himself is fully vaccinated and that he condemns anyone who undermines the vaccination efforts. The publications also said that being associated with an organisation does not mean that a person agrees with that organisation’s views. The publications said the articles do not imply that the complainant holds anti-vax views. They said the purpose of the comment was to demonstrate that the NPAQ and other “fake unions” had links to members of the LNP. 

Conclusion

 The Council’s Standards of Practice applicable in this matter require publications to take reasonable steps to ensure that 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 a correction or other 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 notes that the articles concern the reported links between current and former LNP members to organisations whose membership includes individuals who hold anti-vaccination views. In this context of exploring “fake union” links to the LNP, the Council considers that by including comments that the complainant had once thanked Mr Hopkinson-Pearson for his work on an LNP electoral committee, the articles misleadingly imply the complainant has an association with NPAQ. In relation to this, the Council notes the critical comments of the Queensland Health Minister in the second article saying that the complainant and one other Member of Parliament were associated with an organisation that held “anti-vax” views.  The Council accepts that both articles contained factual information but on the material before it, the complainant could not be said to have an association with NPAQ. Accordingly, General Principle 1 was breached. The Council also notes that in relation to the first article, the complainant was not provided with an opportunity to comment. The Council considered that the reference to the complainant was unnecessary and not reasonably fair in the context of articles exploring LNP links to “fake unions”. Accordingly, General Principle 3 was breached. As to corrective or remedial action, the Council considers the articles are significantly misleading. While the Council acknowledges the second article included comments from the complainant confirming his support for Covid-19 vaccinations and condemning organisations that undermine vaccination efforts, the Council does not consider that this constituted adequate remedial action for the implication that the complainant has an association with NPAQ. Accordingly, General Principle 2 was breached in this respect. The Council notes the complainant was offered an opportunity to comment in relation to the second article. Accordingly, the Council finds no breach of 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 Courier Mail on 24 May 2021, headed “Close loophole that costs innocent lives” in print and headed “Qld DV crisis: Courts powerless to restrain offenders due to loophole” online. The article is an opinion piece in which the columnist reported that the laws in Queensland are “providing little protection to victims.” The article said, “Queensland is in the grip of a domestic violence crisis, and a little-known judicial loophole is stopping police from keeping perpetrators behind bars” and that the “sobering reality is that Attorney-General Shannon Fentiman could change the law today and help save the lives of innocent women. Yet despite pleas from the Queensland Police Union and senior domestic violence lawyers, the loophole remains.” The print article reported “Here is how it works. Domestic violence offenders who strangle, assault or sexually assault partners are not being charged with the offence because they are not dealt with in the criminal court.” The online article reported: “The government claims that if a woman is strangled or assaulted that it does carry a criminal charge. However, if it’s committed in a domestic violence situation then it becomes an aggravating factor in sentencing.” The article further reported: “So if you strangle a stranger on the street you’re charged with a criminal offence but if you strangle your ex-wife, it’s not deemed as a crime.” Following a complaint, the Council asked the publication to comment on whether it took reasonable steps to ensure that the article is accurate and not misleading (General Principle 1) and that writer’s 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 an absence of police prosecutions was not the result of a legal impediment to prosecute perpetrators of domestic violence. The publication said the columnist relied on material published in a Queensland Law Society article when asserting that criminal acts are being included in domestic violence applications in the courts’ civil jurisdiction, and as a consequence, are not being separately prosecuted by Queensland police as criminal matters. The publication also said the article does not state the law precludes perpetrators from being charged by police, rather it states that certain alleged criminal acts are not being prosecuted by police. The publication said that if a person strangles his ex-wife and is not charged and prosecuted by the Queensland police, it can be reasonably inferred the authorities have not deemed the action a crime. The publication said the columnist is arguing that allowing serious criminal acts to be included in domestic violence applications (which are not being pursued separately as criminal matters) is a loophole in the law. The publication said the columnist’s argument is that domestic violence offences should always be dealt with under the Criminal Code, eliminating police discretion to bypass criminal prosecution. 

Conclusion

 The Council acknowledges the material provided to it by the publication in support of comments in the article concerning the prosecution of domestic violence perpetrators. The Council also acknowledges that the article is an opinion piece and such articles, by their nature, make an argument. In this context, the Council recognises that opinion writers who identify adverse outcomes or practices in law enforcement may not be across the detail of relevant underpinning legislation. Nonetheless, the Council does not consider there was anything in the material relied upon by the publication to substantiate the columnist’s assertion that a ‘judicial loophole’ is stopping police from prosecuting perpetrators of domestic violence for serious criminal acts. The Council notes the legislation establishing the civil framework to protect victims of domestic violence specifically allows for concurrent criminal proceedings to occur. The Council notes that it would have been preferable to identify the problems as arising from matters of practice rather than from a legal loophole. Although the Council accepts the columnist raises an important issue, on balance, it considers the publication breached General Principles 1 and 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 in news reports and elsewhere is accurate and not misleading, and is distinguishable from other material such as opinion.
4. 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.