It depends on the facts. In Australia, the Australian Press Council runs a free, four-stage complaint process (lodgement, publisher response, mediation, adjudication) against its Standards of Practice. Where a complaint is upheld, the Council can require corrections, apologies, or removal of articles from member publishers. It cannot award damages or compel non-members, and outcomes are not guaranteed.
When a published article causes damage and you're not ready to engage lawyers, the Australian Press Council (APC) is often the next pathway worth considering. It's free, doesn't require legal representation, and can result in corrections, apologies, or removals.
It's also misunderstood. The APC isn't a regulator with statutory powers. It's a self-regulatory body whose membership covers most (but not all) major Australian print and online news. Knowing what it can and can't do shapes whether it's the right path for your matter.
What is the Australian Press Council?
The Australian Press Council is the self-regulatory complaints body for print and online news in Australia. Membership covers most major Australian print and online news publishers, including metropolitan dailies, online news magazines, and regional press. Broadcasters (television and radio) are NOT members. Those are handled by separate bodies (ACMA, the broadcasters' own codes).
The Council operates against a set of Standards of Practice covering accuracy, fairness, balance, privacy, distinguishing fact from opinion, and other core editorial standards. Complaints are assessed against these standards.
The Council's enforcement is moral rather than legal. It can't fine publishers, order damages, or compel removal through court process. What it can do is publish findings against members, require corrections and apologies, and apply reputational pressure. Most member publishers comply with adjudications because their reputation as responsible journalism outlets depends on visible adherence to the standards.
When is the Australian Press Council the right pathway?
The APC fits well when:
- The article is published by a Council member (check the member list before lodging)
- The complaint sits within the Standards of Practice (accuracy, fairness, balance, privacy, distinguishing fact from opinion)
- You want a faster, no-cost alternative to court proceedings
- You don't need damages, only correction or removal
- You want the matter addressed publicly, not just privately settled
It fits less well when:
- The matter is genuinely defamatory and damages are part of the goal (court is the better path)
- The publisher isn't a Council member (the Council has no jurisdiction)
- You want a binding remedy with enforceable consequences (the Council's findings are advisory)
- The article is broadcast journalism (try ACMA instead)
- The matter is urgent and a 6-month timeline doesn't work
Pathway by content type and goal
| Pathway | Best for | Can require / pursue | Cannot do | Typical timeframe |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australian Press Council | Print or online articles from member publishers, breaching the Standards of Practice | Corrections, apologies, editor's notes, removal of articles in serious cases | Award damages, compel non-members, issue binding orders | 4 to 6 months (mediation often 2 to 3) |
| Defamation (Defamation Act 2005) | Genuinely defamatory content where damages are part of the goal | Concerns notice, court proceedings, compensation, court-ordered remedies | Deliver a fast or low-cost resolution in most cases | Months to years |
| ACMA / broadcaster code | Broadcast journalism (TV, radio) | Findings against licensees, code-based remedies | Handle print or online articles | Varies |
| Search suppression | Ongoing visibility of articles, including from non-members | Build suppression to push results off page one | Remove the articles at the source | Ongoing, runs in parallel |
How does the Australian Press Council complaint process work?
The process is structured and largely transparent.
Stage 1: Lodgement. You submit a complaint online via the APC's complaint form. The form asks for the article URL, the date, the publisher, the principles you believe were breached, and the specifics of the breach (which statements, why they're inaccurate or unfair, what evidence supports your position). Strong complaints reference specific Standards of Practice and link to supporting documentation.
Stage 2: Publisher response. The Council notifies the publisher of the complaint. The publisher is given an opportunity to respond. Response time varies but typically runs 4 to 8 weeks. The publisher's response goes to the complainant, who has the opportunity to reply.
Stage 3: Mediation. If the matter can be resolved between the parties, the Council facilitates. Outcomes at this stage often include a correction, an updated article, an editor's note, or a private acknowledgement. Most complaints that reach a satisfactory outcome resolve at mediation.
Stage 4: Adjudication. If mediation doesn't resolve the matter and the complaint has substance, an adjudication panel reviews the complaint, the publisher's response, and the supporting evidence. The panel issues a written finding, which is published on the APC website and on the publisher's site if the complaint is upheld. Adjudications can require corrections, apologies, or removal of the article.
The full process from lodgement to adjudication typically takes 4 to 6 months. Mediation outcomes resolve faster (often 2 to 3 months). Unsuccessful complaints (where the article is found to meet the standards) are dismissed.
What can the Australian Press Council require a publisher to do?
When a complaint is upheld at adjudication, the Council can require:
- Publication of the adjudication finding on the publisher's website, typically in a prominent place for a defined period
- A correction identifying and correcting the specific inaccuracy
- An apology where the breach involved unfair treatment of the complainant
- Removal of the article in cases of serious breach (less common but available)
- Editorial action to prevent recurrence
Compliance among member publishers is high. The reputational cost of being publicly found to have breached standards is generally treated seriously by responsible newsrooms.
How do you prepare a strong Press Council complaint?
Complaints that succeed share common features.
Reference specific Standards. Cite the relevant General Principles by number (General Principle 1: accuracy; General Principle 4: fairness and balance). Don't just describe the wrong. Identify which standard was breached.
Identify specific statements. "The article said X. X is inaccurate because [evidence]." Don't generalise. The Council assesses claims against the standards, not feelings against the article.
Provide supporting documentation. Court documents (where the matter was reported and the outcome differs from coverage), official records, correspondence with the publisher, third-party corroboration. Documentation strengthens complaints materially.
Request specific remedies. Be clear about what you want: correction, removal, apology, editor's note. Vague requests get vague outcomes.
Stay structured. The complaint form is a document the panel reads carefully. Long emotional complaints get triaged below short structured ones. Lead with the specific breach, supporting evidence, and requested remedy.
When is the Press Council not the right pathway?
For some matters, other pathways work better.
Defamation matters where damages are part of the goal need court proceedings or the concerns-notice process. The APC has no power to award compensation.
Broadcast complaints (TV, radio) go to ACMA or the broadcaster's own complaints process, not the APC.
Non-member publishers sit outside the APC's jurisdiction. The pathway is direct contact with the publisher, legal action if grounds exist, or search suppression for ongoing visibility management.
Urgent matters where the article is causing immediate harm and 4 to 6 months is too slow. The court pathway can be faster in some circumstances, though typically not.
How does ORMA work alongside a Press Council complaint?
ORMA doesn't act as your representative in APC complaints. The complaint should come from you (or counsel) as the affected party. What we do is run search suppression in parallel with whatever pathway you're pursuing, so visible damage decreases while the formal process resolves. For coverage of defamatory content, we coordinate with counsel on the legal pathway and run suppression alongside.
Start the assessment if you want a structured read on which pathway makes sense for your specific matter.