Adjudication No. 998 (October 1998) [1998] APC 46

ADJUDICATION No. 998 (October 1998)

The Press Council has dismissed a complaint brought by Bruce Whittle against The Sydney Morning Herald regarding an article "Senate report lashes Williams" published in its 7 July 1998 edition.

The thrust of the complaint was that the article was inaccurate and a "grossly unfair representation" of a report of the Senate Committee of Privileges. The article had reported that the Senate Committee had "strongly criticised" the Federal Attorney-General, Daryl Williams QC, and his department "over their attempts to stop a Senate Committee receiving damning legal advice on the Wik bill from the Australian Law Reform Commission".

Mr Whittle took objection to the heading and the first four paragraphs of the article. The article was a truncated version of the report of the Senate Committee; and the first part of the article was perhaps more definite than justified by the Committee report. However, it was reasonable to infer from several sections of the report, including the last four paragraphs, that it contained criticism of the Attorney-General and his department. The Senate Committee found it "particularly disturbing" that the issue pertaining to the rights and responsibilities of, and protection afforded to, witnesses before parliamentary committees should have arisen yet again. The Senate Committee said:

It appears, from the evidence, that the highest levels of the Attorney-General's Department itself, as well as yet another statutory body under its jurisdiction, have failed to take into account this most basic requirement.

Whether such a criticism is "strong" or amounts to a "lashing" is a matter of opinion.

The Council believes that the article should have given greater emphasis to the report's exoneration of the Attorney-General and his officers.

However, the publication of the article led to communications between the office of the Attorney-General and the newspaper which resulted in an agreed letter being published on 11 July 1998. The newspaper acted promptly in accordance with Press Council rulings regarding the provision of an opportunity for reply to an aggrieved party. The Press Council believes, in this case, that should have been the end of the matter.