Adjudication No. 794 (June 1995) [1995] APC 24

ADJUDICATION No. 794 (June 1995)

The Australian Press Council has partly upeld complaints from two parties against The Courier-Mail, Brisbane, over a feature article about Aboriginal land claims and present and potential social outcomes.

The article was published on 8 February this year.

The complaints, by Lin Morrow of Brisbane and the Deaths in Custody Watch Committee (Queensland) Association Inc (DCWC), were that the article was inaccurate and offensive.

The article details claims in the Northern Territory and Queensland following the Mabo decision. It dwells on professed white Australian views on Aboriginals and how those views could develop, given Aboriginal land claim victories.

There is no doubt the language used in the article is vigorous and some statements would be offensive to many, but overall it is not beyond the vigour allowable in by-lined opinion pieces and the Council does not see that it would be grossly offensive to the community (as claimed by the DCWC) or that the paper was grossly negligent in publishing it (as claimed by Ms Morrow).

However, robust writing on such a sensitive subject as race relations must surely be coupled with rigorous discipline in accuracy and in use of emotive words.

In parts, the article fails this test and thus breaches the Council principle that newspaper readers are entitled to have news and comment presented honestly and fairly.

For example, the article relies substantially on a statement that 109 land claims have been lodged with the National Native Title Tribunal. In the absence of any newspaper rebuttal, the Council accepts as true the complainants' statement that almost half these claims are by non-indigenous Australians seeking a determination of the status of land. Yet the way the number of claims is used in the article strongly but wrongly implies all claims are made by indigenous people.

Again, where the article talks of business loans available to Aboriginals at interest rates far below those available to others, and travel allowances "denied the humble taxpayer", it is making or repeating allegations so serious they must surely need some authoritative backing. Yet it gives none.

Nor does the paper itself attempt to defend the complainants' criticism of these statements.

Turning to the complainants, both rely heavily on the view that the article is likely to incite and perpetuate racial hatred and that it therefore constitutes a lapse of taste so repugnant as to be extremely offensive to the public. This is a case of a conclusion that does not necessarily follow the premise.

As stated earlier, the article is not deemed to be one that would be so repugnant to the public as to put it in breach of a Council principle.

Ms Morrow states that the map accompanying the article "leads one to the conclusion that all of Cape York either is now or soon will be under land claim". Even casual perusal shows the map does no such thing.

Similarly, as evidence of lapse of taste she quotes a sentence that, given a certain land claim result, "there will be chaos ..." -- ignoring that this is a quotation from a senior Queensland Government adviser.

The newspaper may be commended for publishing a number of letters both in favour of, and critical of, the article and, some weeks later, a further article giving another view.

However,

• the paper has done its cause no good whatever by neglecting to defend itself against the claims made by the complainants; and

• the complainants have done their cause no good whatever by making no attempt to discuss the article with the newspaper or attempt to have it corrected immediately after publication.