JOSE AQUINO AGAINST STUFF
Case Number: 3566
Council Meeting: 21 October 2024
Decision: Not Upheld
Publication: Stuff
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Privacy
Comment and Fact
Ruling Categories:
Defamation/Damaging To Reputation
Taste Lack of
Overview
- On 14 September 2024, Stuff published the article Former National Party Minister accused of historical child sex abuse. It outlines that former National Party Minister and America’s Cup campaigner Anthony “Aussie” Malcolm was being investigated by Police for historical child sex abuse. Mr Malcolm had died from a short illness in the weeks preceding the publication. Jose Aquino complained under Media Council Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, Principle (2) Privacy and Principle (4) Comment and Fact. The complaint is not upheld.
The Article
- .Stuff understood at the time of the story’s publication that Mr Malcolm was subject to multiple complaints linked to the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Abuse in State Care. The article includes a quote from Mr Malcolm’s daughter outlining his legacy working with refugees and on immigration issues.
- It concludes with a statement from Police that they were considering how to manage investigations into new historical complaints of abuse in care but would not share details about individuals or cases.
- A subsequent article was published on 22 September 2024 Police review historical sexual abuse allegations against former National MP. Here it states that Police confirmed there were four complaints and two active investigations at the time of Mr Malcolm’s death. Police also state that they are conducting a review of historical sexual abuse complaints involving Mr Malcolm including liaising directly with complainants. This article also contains statements from Mr Malcolm’s alleged victims of sexual abuse.
The Complaint
- Jose Aquino complains that the first article is ‘a smear based on allegations that are not investigated’ and is ‘gutter smear tactics’ that Aussie Malcolm is not able to defend. Publishing the article so close to his death was ‘in bad taste, insensitive and offensive to his family’ and it was ‘almost as its Stuff was waiting for him to die’.
- Mr Aquino concludes that the article was a ‘character assassination and a vendetta by Stuff’ motivated by ‘dwindling numbers of readers’. He cites breaches of three media principles: Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance; Principle (2) Privacy and Principle (4) Comment and Fact.
- Following the publication of the second article, Mr Aquino maintains his position stating that ‘none of the allegations have been proven’ and ‘no consideration is given to the possibility the allegations are false, that the complainants are mistaken or malicious, the alleged offending took place a long time ago and human memory is fallible’. He iterates that the first story appeared within a week of his death and ‘is a crude and insensitive act that victimises and distresses his family’.
The Response
- Stuff responds that reporting on a former politician accused of the sexual abuse of children is in the public interest especially given concerns that the complaints against Aussie Malcolm were not investigated properly or were covered up because of his influential status.
- Stuff defends the rigour of its story by stating that the allegations and information were supplied by multiple sources linked to documents and statements made to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in State Care.
- They also note that the Prime Minister commented on the allegations and the Police announced a review of their handling of the historical complaints. Stuff also provided evidence that other media outlets had covered the story rebutting Mr Aquino’s claims of a Stuff vendetta.
- They outlined how they attempted to obtain comments from Mr Malcolm’s family, but they declined, and how they had based their articles on sources and documents from the Royal Commission.
The Discussion
- Principle (1) states that publications should always be bound by accuracy, fairness and balance. Stuff attempted balance by inviting comment from Aussie Malcolm’s family and the first article includes a quote from his daughter outlining her views of his legacy. The accuracy of the articles are also not in question and include clear Police statements about the accusations and investigations.
- The issue of fairness, however, deserves some discussion. Mr Aquino points out that the timing of the publication means Mr Malcolm cannot defend himself and being so close to his death is insensitive to his family. This must be weighed with the timing of the release of the Royal Commission as the source material and the wishes of Mr Malcolm’s alleged victims who want their experience acknowledged, as well as the public interest of allegations against a prominent politician and on-going investigation into historical Police behaviour. On balance, while acknowledging this is a distressing time for the family of Mr Malcolm, the NZ Media Council can see no breach of Principle (1).
- While Principle (2) Privacy provides for everyone to normally be entitled to privacy of person, space and personal information, it also states that the right of privacy should not interfere with the publication of significant matters of public record and public interest. The NZ Media Council agrees with Stuff that accusations of historical sexual child abuse against a prominent politician are in the public interest particularly considering the number of complaints and active Police investigations, as well as such complaints resulting in the Police initiating a review of their processes.
- Principle (4) Comment and Fact states that a clear discussion should be drawn between factual information and comment or opinion. The NZ Media Council can see no opinion included in the news articles.
- The complaint is not upheld.
Council members considering the complaint were the Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Hank Schouten, Guy MacGibbon, Scott Inglis, Katrina Bennett, Ben France-Hudson, Jo Cribb, Judi Jones, Marie Shroff, Alison Thom and Richard Pamatatau.