Adjudication No. 198 (June 1984) [1984] APC 21

ADJUDICATION No. 198 (June 1984)

By letter of February 3, the West Australian branch of the National Aboriginal Conference complains about an article in The Australian on December 29, 1983, and an editorial in the newspaper the next day.

The article, headed "Aborigines lay claim to all of Western Australia", related to the NAC submission to the Aboriginal Land Inquiry in Western Australia.

The complaints are that the reporting appears deliberately designed to misinform the public; that the articles are erroneous and deliberately mischievous; that the paper failed to correct the mistake after receiving contrary advice; and that it declined to print corrections submitted by the Aboriginal Land inquiry and the NAC.

The NAC agrees that the preamble to its submission asserts that WA Aboriginal people have sovereign rights to the land through prior ownership and occupation and that these rights have never and never will be ceded.

It says the submission asks the Inquiry to note these and related points as supporting information for the actual recommendations. One of these recommendations says: "Recognition must also be given to the moral right of Aborigines to reparation and compensation for their dispossession, exploitation and other injustices suffered by them ..."

The newspaper replies that the first paragraph of the submission's preamble did claim sovereign rights to the land in Western Australia.

The newspaper says the NAC was therefore making a statement of principle, setting out a philosophical "legal" basis for all that it claimed for the Aboriginal people. It says it was not irresponsible to report the pre-eminent feature of the submission.

The Press Council has studied the submission which includes 21 recommendations relating to the Inquiry's terms of reference and detailed explanations for these recommendations.

The council believes the newspaper failed to recognise the important distinction between the actual claims in the various recommendations and the justifications advanced for these recommendations.

In this regard, the December 29 article was erroneous, resulting in the public being misinformed. The council does not believe this was done deliberately or mischievously, but it did result from a misinterpretation of a complex and lengthy submission.

The council also notes that the Aboriginal Land Inquiry did not, in fact, regard the submission as a claim for all of Western Australia.

Officers of the Aboriginal Land Inquiry issued correcting statements on the issue to the media on the day of publication.

The Australian reported this denial the following day towards the end of a 20-paragraph story on another submission to the Land Inquiry.

The Press Council believes the denial was given insufficient prominence when compared with the treatment of the original article.

Even if the newspaper still regarded its interpretation as correct, it was under an obligation to print prominently the views of the Land Inquiry and the NAC.

The Press Council does not adjudicate on comments or opinions in editorials, but will adjudicate on facts contained in them.

The newspaper editorial continued to assert that the Aboriginal community was claiming all of Western Australia without mentioning the important fact that the Land inquiry did not regard the submission as making such a claim and that the NAC denied any such claim. This was a serious omission of fact.

The complaints relating to the original article being erroneous; insufficient prominence being given to denials; and the omission of important facts in the editorial are upheld. The newspaper is censured.

By letter of February 15, the WA Minister for Youth and Community Services, Mr Keith Wilson, complains about a number of matters arising from the reports in The Australian.

Mr Wilson, whose portfolios include Aboriginal matters, says that as a response to the December 29 report in The Australian he was quoted in the rival newspaper The West Australian on January 2 as saying that "extremist and impracticable claims by certain Aboriginal groups regarding land rights in WA would cause a great deal of harm to the cause of Aboriginal people in general".

Mr Wilson was led into an embarrassing error in responding to a story in The Australian. His comments were published three days after that story and after denials were broadcast on Perth radio and carried in Australian Associated Press reports to major media outlets.

Mr Wilson could have been expected to check the facts before making a public statement on such a sensitive issue. It is shifting the onus of responsibility to complain against The Australian on this basis.

That complaint is dismissed.

The small cartoon, accompanying the original article, was a comment on what, at that stage, was apparently an accurate report of a submission to a land inquiry.

The Press Council has ruled previously that cartoonists have a wide latitude to make their points while cautioning about the need for restraint on sensitive racial issues.

In this particular case, the complaint is dismissed.

Mr Wilson's generalised complaint against the editorial is not regarded as a specific complaint against the facts. In this regard it is distinguished from the previous complaint and is dismissed.