Adjudication No. 382 (October 1988) [1988] APC 29

ADJUDICATION No. 382 (October 1988)

The Australian Bureau of Statistics complains to the Australian Press Council that on 16 May, 1988 the Sydney Morning Herald published in its first edition an article by Tracey Aubin under the headline "Govt to survey sexual behaviour". The report stated that a "confidential" paper prepared by the Australian Bureau of Statistics "details the monthly information to be sought from ... 14,000 families" in a proposed health survey. The information sought would include "details of their condom usage, attitudes to sexually transmitted diseases and concerns about the spread of AIDS"

The Bureau says the paper referred to was not confidential. It was nothing more than an ABS summary of what a wide variety of people in the health community had requested be included in the proposed survey.

It says it had already made clear that no decisions On the content of the survey had been made, and that questions on sexual activity and condom use clearly would be rejected by the ABS on privacy grounds.

It says the Herald's report did not mention that the allegation had been denied by ABS officials during the preceding day, Sunday 15 May; that in another statement issued by the ABS on 15 May, headed "Needless alarm on health survey", the ABS had reaffirmed its concern for the privacy of all Australians and had stated that fears were being needlessly aroused by some elements of the media; and that a further statement issued by the ABS on May 15, headed "Health survey claims mischievous - ABS", had categorically denied the allegation subsequently reported as fact in the article.

The Bureau complained that during the succeeding days, the Herald did not correct the false statements in its news item, or report statements which might have led Herald readers to doubt the veracity of the allegation made.

In reply, the Herald has provided a copy of an article published on 16 May 1988 "Sex survey claims mischievous". This summarises the position of the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The Herald says: obviously Mr Castles saw a first edition only of the Herald on 16 May which carried the original story. Our reporters were unable to reach the spokesman for the Bureau despite efforts in Sydney and Canberra before the copy deadline for the first edition. About half an hour after the deadline we were successful in reaching Mr Tim Skinner who rejected the NSW Civil Liberties Council claims and the report was rewritten for the second edition under the headline "Sex survey claims 'mischievous"'.

The Bureau does not believe that the Herald has satisfactorily answered the complaint.

On the availability of spokesmen or written comments from the Bureau, there is no reason to doubt that the Herald had difficulties in terms of its first edition deadline. As a result, it published a story which turned out to be misleading and unbalanced.

Once it made contact with the Bureau, the Herald acted promptly to rectify the situation for its second edition. Nevertheless, the first edition story remains the only version of this matter presented by the Herald to the substantial number of its readers who see only that edition.

For this reason, the Bureau's concern for the effect on its community standing is justified, and its complaint is upheld. Revisions or correction made to stories already published by a newspaper are of limited value if they do not reach readers who were influenced by the unrevised or uncorrected version. This is an issue that multi-edition papers must address.