Adjudication No. 201 (August 1984) [1984] APC 24

ADJUDICATION No. 201 (August 1984)

In October 1983, the Parliament of Western Australia was debating a bill, one of the objects of which was the prohibition of the advertising or promotion of tobacco. The issue generated a great deal of controversy. The Australian Council on Smoking and Health (Inc.) complained to the Press Council that The West Australian newspaper's reports on October 20 and 21, 1983, of debates in the Legislative Council on October 19 and 20 breached principles laid down by the Press Council.

On October 19 Mr John Williams MLC began the debate at 5.15 pm, leading the opposition to the legislation. He made allegations that his wife had received a threatening phone call from doctors supporting the legislation. He did not name the doctors. The West Australian reported the allegation on the front page of its metropolitan edition of October 20 under the banner headline "Doctors threatened my wife -- Lib". In relation to this item the complainant said in its written complaint that it was a reckless headline with no facts to support it. As to the body of the report, the complaint said that it gave no prominence to following speakers, or to rebuttals of Mr Williams's claim by members of the medical profession, or to Mr Williams's inability to substantiate his claim.

The Press Council can understand the resentment felt by members of the complainant that Mr Williams's allegations should have been made in a public forum and never substantiated. But that is a complaint more properly directed at Mr Williams than at the newspaper. It is not for the newspaper to censor its report of a Parliamentary debate because it disapproves of what is said. The headline was strictly accurate. As the occasion was one for the Opposition to reply to the Minister's speech on the Bill, and as Mr Williams was leading the debate for the Opposition, it is not surprising that his speech should have received prominent attention in the headline and in the body of the report.

The complainant has not pointed to any Particular matter in the speeches of later speakers which the newspaper had an opportunity and duty to report on that day, nor is it suggested that it refused to Publish a rebuttal of Mr Williams's allegations. The complaint was that it did not actively seek such a rebuttal. However, as Mr Williams did not identify any Particular doctor or organisation, it is difficult to see how an effective rebuttal could have been obtained on that night.

At the hearing before the Press Council the complainant's representatives conceded that the newspaper's treatment of the matter on October 20 may have been justified. They concentrated their criticism on the paper's failure to give adequate prominence on the following day to matters reflecting on the credibility or significance of the allegations which had been given such prominence. In Particular a report on statements by Mr Williams qualifying his previous allegations, and indicating that he would not pursue or substantiate them, was published as the twenty-fourth paragraph of a story on page 11.

The Press Council believes there is substance in this complaint. Even allowing for the pressure of space, the Press Council considers the follow-up report was not given sufficient prominence in view of the original treatment of the allegations.

The complaint is upheld only in this respect.