Adjudication No. 331 (April 1987) [1987] APC 18

ADJUDICATION No. 331 (April 1987)

In its edition of 1 June 1986, the Sunday Press, Melbourne, published on page 1 a report under the heading "Gough in Cash Row". It opened with the following words:

A major row is brewing over former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam's new part time job - at $324 per day.

Mr Whitlam gets that on top of his pay package as Australia's ambassador to UNESCO ($73,000) and his Chairmanship of the Australian Nation Gallery ($9,396).

It stated that the payments were revealed in documents obtained by an opposition back-bencher under the Freedom of Information Act. The report stated that back-bencher, Mr Peter Reith, MHR for Flinders, had told the Sunday Press the previous night that the whole affair was "outrageous".

The report was not based on statements made in Parliament under privilege, but came from an interview by telephone- He was also reported as saying "Public servants caution Mr Bowen (Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney General) in a departmental minute about Whitlam and Byers "double-dipping" but this advice was not taken". The article was by-lined "by Sunday Press reporters". Initially, the Sunday Press advised the Council that because of the late hour of the conversation with Mr Reith, it did not attempt to phone Mr Whitlam in Paris for comment. However, one of the reporters has subsequently said Mr Whitlam was unavailable because he was in an aircraft on his way back to Australia at the time.

An examination of the relevant document, that is the letter from the Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General offering the position to Mr Whitlam, clearly indicates that the daily fee payable to Mr Whitlam for attended meetings of the Constitutional Commission would not apply until the expiration of his current ambassadorial appointment. On 6 June

Mr Whitlam telegrammed the Sunday Press indicating this error and also pointing out that his government income since mid-1983 had been the difference between the salary for his UNESCO post and the parliamentary pension for which he had subscribed from 1952 until 1978. He also pointed out that he did not take on the Chairmanship of the Gallery until 1987. He requested a correction be published on the front page on the next issue of the Sunday Press.

On June 15 1986, the Sunday Press published on page 2 an item under the headline "Gough Hits Back". It begins essentially with a report of the telegram, and it was followed by a further comment from Mr Reith.

Mr Whitlam has complained to the Press Council the newspaper failed to take all steps reasonably available to it to ensure the truth and exactness of its statements. Putting aside the question of the attempt to contact Mr Whitlam, reporters could have asked to have seen the original document held by Mr Reith or alternatively, could have sought some comment from the relevant Minister. The publication of the article clearly supports the suggestion that Mr Whitlam was "double-dipping" and, indeed, in the subsequent article, Mr Reith goes on to suggest that Mr Whitlam is in fact "triple-dipping".

The Sunday Press was, of course, correct in publishing Mr Whitlam's reply on the 15 June; however, Mr Whitlam says that the Sunday Press should have gone further and in support cites principle 11 of the Press Council's statements of principles:

Published information which is found to be harmfully inaccurate should be made the subject of such prompt and appropriate retraction, correction or explanation (and in proper cases apology) as will neutralise so far as possible the impression created by the inaccurate matter.

The original article was clearly inaccurate. That inaccuracy could have been corrected by perusing the documents in Mr Reith's possession, or by contacting the Deputy Prime Minister's office. Mr Whitlam is accordingly justified in expecting more than a publication of his views, as if the veracity of the items complained of were still in doubt.

The complaint is upheld.