Adjudication No. 1217 (October 2003) [2003] APC 33

Adjudication No. 1217 (October 2003)

The Press Council has upheld a complaint against The Advertiser, Adelaide, by Robin Krieg, about its reporting of an unfair dismissal case brought by a Pastor against the Lutheran Church in South Australia.

The page 3 report provided details of the case submitted to the Industrial Commission by the Pastor. Essentially, he claimed that the Church had provided no reason for removing him from his former Gawler parish. He suspected, however, that his dismissal was because he had made allegations to the Police of child physical abuse perpetrated by a member of the Lutheran community.

The report, accompanied by a large photograph of the Pastor in front of the parish church, included a quote from a letter from the Pastor's congregation to the Lutheran Church Council, apparently supporting his ministry.

Mr Krieg complained that the report was based on half-truths and misleading information, citing as examples the paper's failure to disclose that:

• The pastor's allegations of child abuse had been made at least nine months before his dismissal, and, after investigation, had been closed by the Police without further action;
• During almost a year of proceedings in the Industrial Commission, the Pastor had not raised the allegations as a key factor in his dismissal until only a few days before the latest hearing;
• The Pastor's former parish had itself initiated a request to the Church Council to "investigate and solve a crisis stalemate that existed at the time". While lending moral support to the Pastor, the letter quoted in the report had also endorsed the Church Council's intention to remove him from the parish.

Mr Krieg complained further that the report was entirely one-sided, providing only the Pastor's version of the matter, without any comment from the Church Council.

The Advertiser strongly rejected these complaints. It stated, however, that the only sources for the report had been the Pastor, his solicitor, and documents (including copies of Church correspondence) provided by them.

The Advertiser said that it had tried unsuccessfully to speak to a Church representative before publication of the article, but it was unable to supply details.

The Press Council regards this as unsatisfactory in a story involving sensitive relations between the Pastor, his former congregation, and the Church Council. The paper should have provided opportunity for their different perspectives to be summarised in the report. If indeed the Church Council or representatives of the congregation were unwilling or unable to be contacted for comment, the report should have stated as much.

Instead, the imbalance in the report ensured that a number of key questions surrounding the Pastor's dismissal were left unexplored.