Australian Press Council Adjudication

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE (Wright) (16:50): Michael Owen of The Australian newspaper wrote a series of nine articles, commencing on 3 February 2015, about my resignation from the South Australian ministry. The first article was headed, 'Weatherill minister quits amid inquiry into staff appointment', and so it went on. The clear imputation was that I had stood down because I was under investigation for some inappropriate behaviour. Well, I had not, and I was pleased that the ICAC Commissioner confirmed I had not.

Following the publication of these articles, I lodged my first and only complaint in my 18-year career as a politician to the Australian Press Council. My complaint was essentially that Michael Owen implied I resigned owing to investigations (plural). One investigation was under way, but I was unaware of it, as was confirmed by the ICAC Commissioner. Michael Owen claimed the Ombudsman had been investigating me since 2013—factually incorrect. Michael Owen wrote in one of his stories:

Opposition Deputy Leader Vickie Chapman yesterday said, '…when parliament resumes we'll continue to raise questions.'

Opposition frontbencher David Pisoni, who has pursued the matter since 2013, yesterday said the government would face questions about the matter when parliament resumed next week.

Of course, they did not and Owen failed to follow up these falsified predictions. On 5 May, Owen wrote:

In February, the Australian revealed that Ms Rankine had quit cabinet amid an ongoing, high-level probe an that this had 'absolutely no bearing' on her decision to move to the backbench.

The Australian did not reveal that a high-level probe had absolutely no bearing on my decision to move to the backbench. On the contrary, it imputed that I had resigned as a minister owing to at least two high-level probes. Then, after an eight-part series about my being investigated by ICAC, Michael Owen buries Commissioner Lander's clearance of me at paragraph 7 in his story. In the lead-up to paragraph 7, he reagitates the claims found to be false by Commissioner Lander, but not the reason that the commissioner took this very unusual step of making a public statement. The reason was, of course, because of Michael Owen's stories. Michael Owen writes the story this way because the outcome does not accord with his preconceived trajectory for the story.

I claimed this nine-part series failed to be fair and balanced. The process took many months negotiating many points. The council decided, for example, not to include the chest-beating claims made by the member for Unley and the member for Bragg that they would be asking questions when parliament resumed. However, my complaint was eventually accepted and listed for a hearing, which took place on 22 October. I received the final adjudication on 22 February. I will read directly from the Press Council's paper. I quote:

The Council concludes that the use of the word 'amid' to describe events at the time of the complainant's resignation was not technically incorrect and was not implying a causal link. However, the Council concludes there was no basis for reporting there were multiple investigations and that the OPI’s referral of the matter to ICAC was not a sufficient basis for reporting there were investigations by two bodies. The publication had apparently been aware of matters referred by the OPI to ICAC, but Council considers a referral by OPI did not amount to an 'investigation'.

The purported paraphrasing of the complainant's remarks in the article on 4 February as 'Ms Rankine has said ongoing investigations that first began in 2013…' was not an accurate paraphrase and repeated the inaccuracy. Accordingly, this aspect of the complaint is upheld.

The Council notes the final article on 5 May is headed 'Ex-minister cleared by ICAC', but the main section of article unfairly reprises the allegations that had been found to be unsubstantiated and not until late in the article is the clearance by the ICAC Commissioner mentioned. Accordingly, the Council concludes the article is not fair or balanced and this aspect of the complaint is upheld.

In considering whether the complainant was provided a fair opportunity to respond to what was reported, the Council takes account of the publication's attempts to solicit comments, the substance of the article published on 5 May, and that the letter to the editor submitted by the complainant in substance focuses on the principal issues addressed in that article. The Council concludes that no case had been made for any further correction and accordingly, this aspect of the complaint is not upheld.

Of course, if I had had an opportunity, and it is not possible to challenge a finding, that is one that I would, clearly, have done. However, what we have here is, of course, Michael Owen found guilty on two out of three charges. A hearing that was scheduled for 20 to 30 minutes went for an hour, hour and a half. Michael Owen was true to form, not only talking and shouting over me (that is normal; that is his normal interviewing technique), but shouting over the chair of the panel, to the point that the chair had to warn him to remain silent. Michael Owen could not even let the chair speak.

Michael Owen was not deterred, however; he continued. The chair became so frustrated with his behaviour that he warned The Australian representative to keep him quiet or he would be removed from the hearing hook-up. Did that deter him? No. In the end, the person representing The Australian told him that if he spoke out of turn again she would remove him.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Helen Trinca.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: I am so pleased that Mr Speaker can remember her name, and I note that he is speaking out of order. Nonetheless, this finding must have hurt and must have embarrassed Michael Owen. I am sure it hurts and embarrasses him amongst his colleagues, but not so much as they are embarrassed by him. Anyway, he goes on the ABC Spin Cycle with Matt and Dave on the Friday morning after the adjudication comes down and brushes aside their questions, saying, don't worry, there's nothing to see here. This was just a 'technicality'. It was a technicality that took many months (from May until February) to get a finding and that took a lot of work and a lot of effort by, certainly, the Press Council and, on my part, negotiating through these points.

What was really interesting, what was really beneficial, from my point of view, throughout this hearing and throughout the adjudication process, the negotiating process, was the fact that Michael Owen admitted that he was writing about an ICAC investigation. So, whilst he skirted around it in his articles and whilst the ICAC commissioner found that no other conclusion could be drawn, he finally had to admit that he was writing about OPI and the ICAC investigation. That clearly breaches the law. We now have evidence directly from him, now documented by the Australian Press Council, and these are matters that I will be putting to the South Australian police for prosecution. Let us see whether he considers that to be trivial.