Adjudication No. 1486 (adjudicated December 2010) [2010] APC 36

Adjudication No. 1486 (adjudicated December 2010)

A complaint to the Australian Press Council has arisen from reports in The Courier-Mail about a referral to the Crime and Misconduct Commission (CMC) in Queensland. The referral involved conduct by the senior media adviser to the Lord Mayor of Brisbane.

The adviser, Michael Corkill, complained about an article headed CMC probes Mayor's adviser on page 31 of newspaper on 26 March 2010. It said Mr Corkill had contacted Michael McKinnon of Channel 7 about his Right to Information (RTI) application for some of Mr Corkill's emails. It said Mr McKinnon complained to the internal ethics unit of the Brisbane City Council that the contact should have been made by the council's RTI officer and the complaint had then been referred to the CMC.

Mr Corkill complained that, as he is not a public figure, the referral should not have been reported, at least until resolved by the CMC. If reported, it should have been made clear that council rules required referral to the CMC of any complaint about a person in Mr Corkill's position.

He said the article should have mentioned that he and Mr McKinnon had been contemporaries on The Courier-Mail's staff and he also complained that the newspaper had a conflict of interest because Mr McKinnon still writes for it and is a friend of the editor-in-chief, David Fagan, and his wife.

The newspaper responded that CMC took the complaint "on the basis that Mr Corkill was a public officer". It said Mr McKinnon's past association with Mr Corkill was irrelevant, he was not a close friend of Mr Fagan and even if there had been a friendship with Mr Fagan's wife it was not a relevant factor.

Mr Corkill complained also about a second article, headed Mayor's adviser cleared, which appeared on page 12 on 24 August 2010. It quoted the CMC finding that there was "no evidence of any criminal offence, breach of [RTI legislation] or official or other misconduct" by him. Mr Corkill said the article should have quoted the more unequivocal finding that he "was not seeking to usurp or improperly influence the RTI process ... and was genuinely trying to assist with delivering information ...".

The article also said Mr Corkill had been reprimanded by the council for placing it in a situation where its integrity could be publicly questioned. He complained that it should have added the Lord Mayor's comment that Mr Corkill "clearly did not do what was alleged and ... his genuine attempts to do his job led to a situation where he inadvertently left Council exposed to unjustified criticism".

The newspaper responded that these additions were not necessary to achieve balance. It acknowledged that the second article, unlike the first, had not been posted on its website until requested by Mr Corkill. But it said this was due to a general policy change about putting material on the website.

The Press Council has concluded that Mr Corkill's position meant the newspaper could reasonably report the referral to the CMC as a matter of public interest. In the interest of fairness, however, it should have added that the referral of the complaint to the CMC was, given the merits of the particular complaint lodged, automatic. The alleged personal associations of Mr Corkill and Mr McKinnon, however, were not sufficiently clear or relevant to constitute a breach of the Council's principles on fairness or conflict of interest.

The Press Council has concluded that the second article (Mayor's adviser cleared) contravened its principles of fairness and balance. It should have included the more explicitly exculpatory quotation from the CMC report and, having mentioned the council's reprimand, should have added the Lord Mayor's comments. Accordingly, this aspect of the complaint is upheld. The newspaper should have posted the second article immediately on its website. It should now annotate the on-line version of the first article by mentioning that Mr Corkill was cleared of misconduct and providing a link to the second article.

Addendum to the adjudication:

Mr Corkill also complained that the first article was accompanied by a photograph which made him look "sinister" and used his surname without the honorific "Mr" in the same way as occurs for convicted criminals. The newspaper denied any discriminatory treatment in these respects. These complaints were not regarded by the Council as having sufficient substance to merit criticism.