Adjudication No. 605 (November 1992) [1992] APC 75

ADJUDICATION NO. 605 (November 1992)

The Press Council has upheld a complaint from Bob Ansett against the Sunday Age over a report headed "Mrs Ansett beats Bob's bankruptcy".

The report said that Mrs Ansett might make almost $500,000 from the sale of a Carlton house, 53 Wilson Street. The reasoning was that Mrs Ansett had brought the house and the 'guest house' next door from Mr Ansett's trustee in bankruptcy for "only $150,000" whereas at auction the day before the report 53 Wilson Street had attracted a bid of $620,000 and a later offer of $625,000, against a reserve of $675,000.

The following Sunday the paper carried an apology to the trustee, Paul A Pattison. Mrs Ansett had not bought the properties from the trustee for $150,000; she had bought Mr Ansett's half share, while holding the other half share herself. In addition, there was a mortgage of more than $500,000 on the properties.

The apology was specific to Mr Pattison; there was no apology to Mr and Mrs Ansett. This was the basis of Mr Ansett's complaint.

However, Mr Pattison's letter of complaint to the Sunday Age made no mention of such an extended apology. Mr Ansett himself made a complaint to the Australian Journalists' Association against the main author of the report, who later turned out not to be a member of the association. However, Mr Ansett made the paper aware of his views the day after the original publication.

The apology appeared on 24 May, and about two days later Mr Ansett correctly forwarded his direct complaint to the Sunday Age, and later to the Press Council.

The paper's reply was that its reporters were unaware of the mortgage at the time of the original publication and the omission was not deliberate. However, the vendor's statement, available to the paper and its reporters, stated that a mortgage existed.

As to an extended apology, the paper believed that the one published corrected the matter of fact, and the apology sought had been for Mr Pattison.

The Press Council believes that transactions involving Mr Ansett and his bankrupt estate are legitimate matters of public interest, but reports of them must, of course, be accurate. The apology published by the Sunday Age did give the facts; it should have known the details of the mortgage in the first place.

The apology covered only the previously unnamed Mr Pattison. In the Council's view, the Sunday Age fell far short of its obligation to redress the harm done to mr and Mrs Ansett.