Adjudication No. 630 (March 1993) [1993] APC 22

ADJUDICATION No. 630 (March 1993)

The Australian Press Council has upheld one point in a complaint by Mr Geoffrey Reading over references to the late NSW Premier, Sir Robert Askin, in a Sydney Morning Herald article on 14 January 1993.

It was the paper's failure to categorise one of the two allegations made in the article as an allegation and not a proven fact which led to the Press Council's criticism.

Mr Reading's central complaint relates to two paragraphs in a lengthy article headlined "Macquarie Street Babylon" which relates tales of alleged corruption and personally scandalous behaviour over much of the history of the NSW Parliament.

The two paragraphs read: "The National Times published details of NSW Liberal Premier Sir Robert Askin's corruption immediately after his death. Askin, apart from allowing organised crime to become entrenched in Sydney, was a card player and gambler who kept less than salubrious company.

"He let a large amount of money to his widow said to have been the proceeds of gambling wins and was alleged to have sold knighthoods for either $60,000 or $20,000 according to the book, 'The Prince and the Premier'.

Mr Reading, at one time press officer to Sir Robert Askin, offered a letter to the editor which challenged the allegations and, referring to his own book, "High Climbers", made serious allegations about the accuracy of the quoted book, "The Prince and Premier" and its author, David Hickie, who is now editor-in-chief of the Sydney Morning Herald.

The paper did not print Mr Reading's letter, arguing that it contained nothing new, that it frequently printed his letters and his views on the Askin issue were well known, through letters and his own book.

The Press Council notes that the paper is fully entitled to delve into the history of the state's most powerful elected body and the character of powerful individuals in the Parliament.

Debate about Sir Robert Askin's alleged corruption, or that of any other powerful politician, is justified in the public interest, but newspapers have a responsibility to distinguish allegation from proved fact. The Press Council recognises that the debate about Sir Robert, in particular, has remained vigorous over many years; and that claims of wrong-doing, while unproved, have not abated.

In the first part of its reference to Sir Robert Askin in the disputed article, the paper flatly stated "... Sir Robert Askin's corruption ...". While the statement was sourced to another newspaper, readers unfamiliar with the debate on the issue could be excused for taking the allegation as proved fact. It is for this failure to distinguish between fact and allegation that the Press Council upholds part of the complaint.

The second allegation in the article, relating to the money he left his widow and accusations that he sold knighthoods, were correctly labelled as allegations, sourced in part to a book.

The Press Council accepts that the letter offered by Mr Reading was unacceptable for publication in its original form.

Perhaps a modified version of the letter could have been negotiated with the paper, satisfying the twin requirements of public interest and the distinction between fact and allegation.