Adjudication No. 295 (August 1986) [1986] APC 31

ADJUDICATION No. 295 (August 1986)

Mr Ali Kazak, Director of the Palestine Information Office in Melbourne, complains that an article by Michael Barnard entitled "Terror and the PLO factor" in The Age of November 5, 1985, makes untrue and damaging references to him and that he was denied an opportunity to set the record straight.

The article draws on statements attributed to Mr Kazak to make comments about the Federal Government's inability to take seriously "threats to the safety of Australian citizens (implied or otherwise) by representatives of overseas terrorist organisations operating from Australia or through Australian publicity outlets".

It is uncontested that the writer did not interview Mr Kazak and used quotes attributed to him in other publications to back up his comments or draw inferences. Mr Kazak claims he was misquoted in some of these publications. If it could be demonstrated that the writer had relied merely on unfair published reports to arrive at conclusions highly critical of Mr Kazak then the complaint would be justified, particularly as Mr Kazak is in Melbourne and readily available.

The material sighted by the Press Council does not enable it to determine whether the quotes attributed to Mr Kazak were accurate. However, the statements and the conclusions drawn from them were certainly of a kind which put the newspaper under an obligation to allow Mr Kazak a reasonable opportunity of reply.

The Press Council is not satisfied that Mr Kazak was given such reasonable opportunity. Soon after the article appeared he began discussions with the then Features Editor for a reply in the newspaper's "Open Space" section. When his first reply was rejected a week after the article appeared Mr Kazak, who was going overseas, arranged to have an agent rewrite it in accordance with the suggestions of the Features Editor.

On November 22 Mr Kazak's agent was apparently told the rewritten article was acceptable to the then Features Editor but that a final decision rested with others. On December 4, his agent was told the rewritten article was rejected because of lack of space. No other recourse was offered or suggested for Mr Kazak, the subject of a strong attack a month earlier.

Mr Kazak raised the matter with the editor on his return to Australia. He was informed that the editor was not prepared to reopen a four-months old debate with an article, but would consider publishing a letter provided it was kept under 300 words.

Having been denied an opportunity to reply on the ground of timeliness, Mr Kazak did not take up this offer immediately. He waited until a suitable current issue presented itself some three months later. He submitted a letter, within the 300-word limitation, which criticised the "groundless assertion of PLO involvement" in the Russell Street bombing and the racially-stereotyped claim that police were seeking an "Arab-looking" suspect. This letter was sent soon after the court appearance of five men charged over the bombing. It referred briefly to other examples of reporting he considered offensive, including the November article.

The editor replied saying he was not prepared to publish an unjustified attack on the credibility of a reporter "who merely reported information given him by senior police. Mr Kazak's letter raised legitimate issues and the reference to the reporter could have been removed without affecting the general thrust. That would have provided him some redress for the newspaper's initial failure to allow him an opportunity to put his viewpoint on the November article.

The Press Council upholds Mr Kazak's complaint relating to denial of a right of reply.