Media reporting on this case raises a couple of key issues.
1) The finding that whilst there had been a breach of the Ministerial Code, although it was ‘unintentional’ is an interesting comment. Whether intended or not is irrelevant. The key issue is that the behaviour has, based on the investigation findings, on the balance of probability, occurred. ‘Unintended’ does not excuse or mitigate behaviour.
2) Is trial by media ever appropriate? When investigations and any further actions are concluded, isn’t that the time to report? Accepting outcomes may be in the public interest, it should be at a point where there is a conclusion based on facts and actualities, not selective reporting when all processes are incomplete. Parties to an investigation process should be able to rely on confidentiality and what is reported may not reflect what has happened. Premature reporting can damage reputations unfairly and irrevocably.
3) Behaviour standards need to be applicable to everyone. They cannot be ‘opted out of’. There needs to be appropriate consequences where behaviour standards fall short.