Adjudication No. 586 (August 1992) [1992] APC 56

ADJUDICATION No. 586 (August 1992)

The Australian Press Council has upheld two complaints by the Child Support Agency (CSA) against the Melbourne Herald-Sun.

COMPLAINT ONE. An article entitled "ARRIVAL ROCKS 'DAD'" in the Herald-Sun on 15 February 1992 said that the CSA had sent a letter to a 74-year-old man asserting he had fathered a child to a 22-year-old Filipina, and threatening court action if he did not sign a document admitting paternity.

A letter of apology, admitting that a mistake had been made, later arrived; this came, not from the CSA, but from the Geelong Community Legal Service (GCLS) and the GCLS staff have confirmed this.

In its reply, the Herald-Sun said it still believed there was CSA involvement, but it could offer no evidence of this.

On the facts presented, it appears that a serious error was made in the original article, which has so far gone uncorrected. The complaint is therefore upheld.

COMPLAINT TWO. The CSA complains about five columns by the same by-lined columnist criticising the Agency, published in the Herald-Sun on 14, 17 and 20 February, and 5 and 18 March.

The five columns are clearly marked OPINION and, as the Herald-Sun points out in its reply, represent the views of the individual columnist, and are not necessarily those of the paper.

The Press Council has always upheld the rights of columnists to express strong and/or idiosyncratic views, whether or not these are palatable to alls sections of the readership.

However, the CSA makes its complaint under the Press Council's principle 5, which allows opinions to be strongly advocated in newspapers on controversial topics provided readers are fairly treated by having fact and opinion clearly distinguishable, and not having relevant facts misrepresented or suppressed.

The Agency says that, in the column of 14 February, the CSA is accused of "usurping the jurisdiction of the Family Court". However, the Agency points out that it replaced the system of court-ordered maintenance in cases of people who separated after 1 October 1989. The impression created by the use of "usurp" was misleading, as it implied that the Agency had acquired its powers wrongfully.

Similarly, the Agency says that the present formula for calculating maintenance was reached by an advisory committee which included members of the Family Court and community groups (including non-custodial parents). The formula was thus arrived at by general agreement, rather than by arbitrary administrative decision.

In the column of 17 February, the columnist asserted the CSA favoured women at the expense of men, and that a man who had lost his job and had thrown himself on the mercy of the CSA was sent "an enormous form which he says you need to be a chartered accountant with a Bachelor of Law degree behind you to follow it".

The CSA in reply says it collects (on behalf of the children) for any custodial parent, male or female. It says that the form now sent to clients is in plain English, and that the columnist is probably referring to the old Family Court system which applies to pre-1989 cases from long before the CSA existed.

In the column of 20 February, a case referred to was probably again under an old court-ordered maintenance scheme, pre-dating the CSA.

In the column of 5 March, a case is cited where a man was left with a debit of $2.63 after child support was added to other costs taken from his salary. The CSA denies that this could happen under the existing formula. However, the Press Council notes that mistakes can occur.

In the column of 18 March, the writer criticises the CSA for making non-custodial parents on higher income pay more for their children's support than those on low income. The CSA suggests this is an unreasonable criticism as, if parents have high salaries, their children should benefit. However, the Press Council believes the columnist was entitled to express his opinion.

In its reply, the Herald-Sun says it has material backing up the allegations made in the columns but cannot make it available as it is confidential. It also says it has had hundreds of letters and calls about the columns, most of them antagonistic to the CSA.

The Press Council does not doubt the authenticity of this material. However, recognising that Family Law is a highly emotive and sensitive area in which individual circumstances and facts may be subject to different interpretations, the Council does not believe the CSA was fairly treated by a series of articles which relied largely on one-sided assertions from non-custodial parents. In addition, the Agency may be correct in suggesting that at least some of the parents' stories pre-date its establishment.

The Press Council therefore upholds its complaint.