Adjudication No. 1346 (adjudicated February 2007) [2007] APC 3

Adjudication No. 1346 (adjudicated February 2007)

The Australian Press Council has dismissed a complaint about an article published in The Weekend Australian Magazine on 23 September 2006 headed The Untouchables. This was a long feature on Liz Mullinar, a high-profile campaigner on matters of childhood trauma, and Mayumarri, her centre for the healing of survivors of child abuse.

The complainant, Rod Phillips, a director of Mayumarri (and Ms Mullinar's husband), considered that the article breached two of the Press Council's principles: the right of readers to have news and comment presented to them honestly and fairly; and the obligation on the part of publications to ensure fairness and balance. Most of the points he raised concerned the issue of balance.

Mr Phillips asserted that the article was a 'malicious attack' on Mayumarri. He said the article erred in 'using only the words of disgruntled former staff and volunteers'. He said that the article misrepresented Mayumarri as being a health care facility and stated that the centre did not offer counselling but rather was a 'community in which childhood abuse survivors help and support each other, much like AA'.

Citing an entry and exit survey of the centre's visitors, Mr Phillips said that 90 per cent had very good experiences of their healing week. He also pointed out that the journalist did not contact or quote any of the 35 people who got in touch with the magazine, at Ms Mullinar's request, to give their positive views of the program.

In fact, the article not only mentions that there had been such contact but also quotes one of the callers, Barbara Biggs, author of the abuse memoir, In Moral Danger, who said the work done at Mayumarri was 'unique and invaluable.'

In response to the complaint the newspaper argued that the article was neither inaccurate nor distorted, and that it was in the public interest. At the time of its publication there was significant debate about whether unqualified counsellors and healers should be regulated. A central point of the article was that complaints made against Mayumarri, which had received substantial amounts of taxpayers' money, were not followed up because the centre 'operate[d] in a regulatory void' and that Mullinar was not a registered health practitioner.

Ms Mullinar's refutation of various allegations was recorded in the article, as was the support of prominent Australian individuals and companies. Indeed, publication was delayed in order to ensure that her point of view was properly incorporated into the article. The week after the article appeared, The Weekend Australian Magazine published a letter from Ms Mullinar, in which she rejected the picture of herself as enjoying a wealthy lifestyle, and defended the way the centre operated. Other letters, both supportive and critical, were published later. Thus, Ms Mullinar had ample opportunity to comment on criticism of her activities and to correct any perceived errors of fact.

The Press Council considers that the article The Untouchables, and the letters published subsequently, presented two sides of the story. In finding no breach of its principles, the Council's decision is not a comment on the legitimacy, or otherwise, of alternative healing centres.