Adjudication No. 250 (August 1985) [1985] APC 42

ADJUDICATION No. 250 (August 1985)

This complaint, made jointly by Mr Howe MHR, the Minister for Social Security, and Senator Gietzelt, the Minister for Veteran Affairs, revolves to a considerable extent about what was likely to be understood by the terms "visit" and "home visits" in relation to checks on the assets of pensioners. On 21 March 1985 the Daily Mirror published under the by-line of Peter Gibson a lead story on the front page under the heading "Assets: Home Checks" which was continued on page 2 under the heading "Inspectors to visit aged".

The story began: "Pensioners are about to be hit with home visits from assets test inspectors checking property valuations. The complaint by the Ministers said that the article was directly contrary to repeated assurances from Ministers "that no inspectors would enter pensioners' homes in connection with the assets test". From the material before the Press Council it does not appear that the Government's position has always been stated with clarity and consistency. However, in reply to the complaint, the paper and Mr Gibson did not dispute the Ministers' statement, but said that there is a crucial difference between the connotations of "enter" and "visit". If they had meant to convey that officials would enter pensioners' homes, they would have used the word "enter".

Pensioners are, as the Ministers point out, a particularly vulnerable section of the community. It is easy to imagine that many would be greatly distressed by the possibility of inspectors coming into their homes. No doubt, as the paper and Mr Gibson say, it might be disquieting to pensioners that even external inspections might be made, and this justified a story on the subject. They also say that they knew that this was the extent of what was proposed and that this was all they sought to convey. They agree that if it had been proposed to enter homes, the story would have been more newsworthy.

It was therefore important that the story should have been clear that there was no question of homes being entered. We do not think the use of the word "visit" was sufficiently clear to avoid arousing the fear that homes would be entered for the purpose of checking valuations. The word "visit" is very commonly used in relation to calls that involve entering a home, and particularly when used with the emotive statement that pensioners were about to be "hit" with visits, would be likely to invite the more alarming interpretation.

The complaint is upheld.