Neil Breen

Editor
The Sunday Telegraph
2 Holt Street
Sydney NSW 2000

Dear Mr Breen,

I am writing in reference to the article “Solo Kate Ellis sports her mystery man”, in The
Sunday Telegraph of 10 January, 2010. It was accessed through the Daily/Sunday Telegraph
website at http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sunday-telegraph/solo-kate-ellis-
sports-her-mystery-man/story-e6frewt0-1225817662394

Individuals in the public eye lose a measure of privacy, but they do not forfeit it entirely, nor
do they deserve to do so.

Such incursions into the privacy of an individual in the public eye should be justified by a
“public interest” test, that I believe has not been met in this instance.

The features of the article that I find most objectionable relate to the following passages:

SPORTS Minister Kate Ellis spent an active weekend at Bondi Beach with a mystery
man, sharing a beachside apartment, cliff walks and breakfast together.

Ms Ellis, on her first day of holidays, helped her companion apply sunblock to hard-
to-reach places before enjoying a glass of wine over lunch at Ravesi's.

[...]

She and Mr Collins breakfasted at the Sahnia Cafe, in Campbell Parade, but it
appeared work wasn't far from Ms Ellis's mind as she checked her BlackBerry several
times.

From there, it was on to the Bondi-to-Bronte walk, and the two spent the afternoon
cruising Bondi's boutiques and cafes.

To pre-empt a possible justification, I appreciate that some of this chronology may well have
been established with the assistance of Ms Ellis, or other observers.

However, the article gives the overwhelming impression that Ms Ellis was observed from a
distance for the large part of the day, and, accordingly, that this is a legitimate method of
gathering and reporting “news” in this and similar instances.
I note that the Australian Press Council (APC) sets out a Statement of Principles to which
News Limited subscribes, and that these Principles, in turn, inform the APC’s Privacy
Standards.

In subscribing to the Statement of Principles, The Sunday Telegraph makes a commitment to

observe the following:

News and comment should be presented honestly and fairly, and with respect for the
privacy and sensibilities of individuals. However, the right to privacy is not to be
interpreted as preventing publication of matters of public record or obvious or
significant public interest.

It is not my place, nor is it my intent, to take umbrage on the part of Ms Ellis. I note,
however, that I believe that this principle has not been observed in the particular instances
that are the subject of this complaint.

The APC Statement of Principles goes on to state that:

Publications have a wide discretion in publishing material, but they should balance
the public interest with the sensibilities of their readers, particularly when the
material, such as photographs, could reasonably be expected to cause offence.

I refer to the definition of the “public interest” in the APC Statement of Principles:

"public interest" is defined as involving a matter capable of affecting the people at

large so they might be legitimately interested in, or concerned about, what is going
on, or what may happen to them or to others.

In regards to this instance, I do not believe there is any “public interest” whatsoever against
which to balance the sensibilities of your readers.

However, even if this were an open question, I would hope that readers would be minded to
afford elected representatives a measure of privacy with regards to legitimate time away
from public duties, such as holidays and the like.

In any case, the public interest is not, and should not be, a prurient one.

In discussing the option of making a formal complaint regarding this article – the first ever
occasion on which I have been so minded - I have already been alerted to the potential
futility.

However, I believe that unless readers make their objections to such material known, by
way of a formal process, they cannot then take exception to similar instances in the future.

I also note that this instance is akin to a continuing, and objectionable, trend of inviting
readers to submit instances of where celebrities and other public figures are observed in the
course of carrying out routine or otherwise unexceptionable activities: the “celebrity
spotted in the fruit and vegies aisle of Coles” items.

As I observed earlier, I do not believe public figures generally forfeit a right to privacy, and
the publication of these types of items as well as the matter that is the subject of this
complaint merely encourages continuing incursions into and erosion of their privacy
interests.

I do not regard the absence of objections from the subjects of this and other similar items to
be sufficient justification. I do believe that it is appropriate for readers, such as myself, to
make known their distaste for this type of reporting.

Accordingly, I would hope that this matter might prompt a rethink as to the appropriateness
of this report; an acknowledgement that it failed to meet the APC Statement of Principles
and the Privacy Standards to which News Limited, and The Sunday Telegraph, subscribe; and
an assurance that similar instances will be avoided in the future.

Yours sincerely,