Adjudication No. 1247 (adjudicated July 2004; reheard and reissued October 2004) [2004] APC 22

Adjudication No. 1247 (adjudicated July 2004; reheard and reissued October 2004)

The Press Council has upheld a complaint against The West Australian over an article headlined The true cost of bludgers.

The report dealt with a family of 10 said to have received from government agencies more than $32,000 in cash payments, motel costs and taxi fares after being evicted from their home for damaging the house, anti-social behaviour and not paying rent. It compared the family's treatment with the sacking of 10 disabled people made redundant due to work changes in a mailroom.

The point was made in an overline to the main headline, This family consumed $32,000 - enough to pay sacked disabled workers for a year. A picture of the family was published below the main headline, showing the parents and six of their eight children; the caption noting that they were about to move into another government-owned house. Another picture, below this one, showed two of the sacked mailroom workers.

The complainant, Henry Wallwork, is not involved with any of the people mentioned in the article. He describes the article as "cowardly in the extreme as it attacks a relatively defenceless family, including innocent children".

The paper defends its position with the dictionary definition of bludger as "a person who lives off others". The paper goes on to say that the word is distinctly Australian, applied to those who do not pull their weight, saying nothing beyond that.

"If some people were offended by the initial story," says the paper, "many others welcomed its frankness."

The contrast in the treatment provided by the government agencies was fairly covered in the body of the paper's report.

The paper, also, printed later stories with the co-operation of the family in which the parents were quoted as calling for "another chance" and saying they hoped to pay the money back. Further, it is to be commended for printing letters not only strongly supporting its position, but also strongly criticising it.

The Press Council accepts that on some dictionary definitions of a "bludger" the word may not be misused in the headline, but the word has emotive overtones, as shown by at least one of the letters published by the paper. The letter read in part: "Do you understand the consequences for the 'bludger' family and the consequences for the Aboriginal community?" Other published letters criticised the article, headline and/or pictures on other grounds, while a number rejected any suggestion of racial overtones.

The Press Council holds that the headline, read in conjunction with the photograph of the family, including six of the children, was offensive. The Council's Statement of Principles says not only that news should be presented honestly and fairly but also "with respect for the privacy and sensibility of individuals". The combination of headline and picture failed to show such respect and breached the Principles.

Note: The Council first heard the matter in July and, after an appeal from the newspaper, reheard the matter in October. As a result it kept the same finding but slightly amended the final paragraph to clarify its reasons.