On 20 May 2026, Tasmania’s major newspaper published an article that raises serious concerns about fair and accurate reporting on one of the most contested public issues in the state.
Journalist David Killick opened his article in The Mercury with the following sentence:
“Tasmania will not be changing its discrimination laws despite lobbying from anti-transgender activists, Premier Jeremy Rockliff said.”
The problem is simple: that is not what the Premier said.
According to the official parliamentary Hansard from 19 May 2026, Premier Jeremy Rockliff’s actual response was:
“We stand with all Tasmanians, irrespective of circumstance or background. We have no plans to change the anti-discrimination laws.”
At no point did the Premier refer to Women Speak Tasmania, “anti-transgender activists”, or use any equivalent language.
Yet by introducing that description in the opening sentence and attributing it directly to the context of the Premier’s remarks, the article created the impression that the Premier was responding specifically to so-called “anti-transgender activists” and had framed campaigners for sex-based rights in those terms.
Readers can judge for themselves whether that is fair reporting.
When Reporting Becomes Framing
Words matter.
The label “anti-trans” is frequently applied to women raising concerns about sex-based rights, single-sex spaces, women’s sport, and safeguarding. Whether one agrees or disagrees with those concerns, attaching politically loaded labels to one side of a public debate risks shaping readers’ perceptions before they engage with the facts.
Media organisations have every right to report, analyse, and comment. But accuracy matters — particularly when reporting parliamentary statements.
Right of Reply Denied
After publication, we submitted a formal right-of-reply opinion piece to The Mercury editor, Craig Herbert, outlining our concerns and requesting an opportunity to respond.
We received no reply.
No correction has been published.
When major newspapers characterise one side of a public debate while declining to publish responses from those criticised, it raises legitimate questions about balance and editorial standards.
Tasmanian women who advocate for sex-based rights deserve the same opportunity to be heard as any other group participating in public debate.
We will continue documenting examples of reporting that we believe warrant closer public scrutiny as they arise.