Adjudication No. 96 (May 1981) [1981] APC 8

ADJUDICATION No 96 (May 1981)

Mr B. J. Evans, a member of the Victorian Parliament, has complained to the Australian Press Council of an article in The Sun newspaper of Melbourne which purported to give an account of a speech Mr Evans had made in the Parliament. The speech was long and involved and the article was very condensed.

Mr Evans complains that the article misrepresented what he had said in various respects.

At one point there was clearly a misreporting. Hansard shows that Mr Evans had described the Bill before the House as discriminating against Aboriginal people whereas the article in The Sun attributed to him the statement that the Bill discriminated in favour of Aboriginals.

The article also described Mr Evans as having said that the granting of freehold land to Aboriginals at Framlingham could be seen as apartheid, whereas he had said that when it comes to working out an alternative system for the management of the relevant areas "we run the risk of being accused of the principles of apartheid -- separate development". (The areas referred to seem to have been aboriginal reserves such as Framlingham.) In so far as this was a misreporting, it was understandable in view of the involved nature of the speech.

The article confused alternative methods of dealing with the problem before the House with the actual provisions of the Bill, but again the confusion was understandable.

Mr Evans first complained to the paper, but rejected a suggestion that he write a letter to the Editor for publication. He agreed to an article stating clearly his opinions, and the paper did publish such an article written from materials supplied by Mr Evans. He now complains that the new article was not prominently enough displayed, and should have been accompanied by an admission of the earlier misreporting.

The Press Council considers that the misstatement about discrimination should have been corrected immediately after it was pointed out to the paper, but the second article sufficiently made amends for the other misconstructions of Mr Evans' speech.

The only criticism the council would offer is that it would have been advisable for the paper to have preceded Mr Evans' article by an admission that the difficulties of reporting the debate account for any discrepancy between the report and Mr Evans' article.

The complaint is upheld as regards the first point but otherwise is dismissed.