Adjudication No. 1000 (October 1998) [1998] APC 44

ADJUDICATION No. 1000 (October 1998)

The Australian Press Council has dismissed a complaint by Trish Draper, the Federal Member for Makin, against the Leader Messenger over an article in the paper of 22 July 1998 headed "When two press releases on health funds just don't add up". The Council considers that the article was a fair report of inconsistencies between two press releases bearing the same date issued by Mrs Draper's office, and rightly pointed out that claims made in the first release were misleading.

The first press release received by the Leader Messenger indicated that "an additional grant of $287,826" would be made available by the Federal Government for one Aged Care Assessment Team in Mrs Draper's electorate and another team "will benefit from the $489,825 boost". These figures were published by the paper on 8 July 1998.

Following queries on the claimed increases raised by the ALP candidate for Makin, the paper contacted Mrs Draper's office. A fresh news release dated the same day as the earlier one was sent to the paper. In the second press release, the amount that had previously been described as an additional grant was changed to funding "extended to" the amount stated. The amount previously described as a "boost" was now referred to as an overall budget.

The Council understands that the increase in funding amounted to $4,000. Mrs Draper sought to explain the inconsistency between the press releases on the basis that the first was a draft. However, it had been sent through the normal channels and the paper had relied upon it in writing the first article.

The Council considers that the paper was entitled to draw its readers' attention to the differences between the press releases, particularly as it had reported the misleading contents of the first.

Mrs Draper also complained that the article unnecessarily referred to a mistake in a press release that she had issued in March 1998. As it was not disputed that the mistake had occurred, it does not seem to the Council that it was unreasonable for the paper to allude to this previous inaccuracy.