Austin v Mirror Newspapers Limited

indirect meaning. The ordinary and natural meaning may therefore include any implication or inference which a reasonable reader guided not by any special but only by general knowledge and not fettered by any strict legal rules of

construction would draw from the words: ibid. at p.1371.

As Lord Devlin pointed out in Lewis (supra at p. 277)

the natural and ordinary meaning of words ought in theory to be the same for the lawyer as for the layman because the lawyer's approach to construction is that words are to be given their natural and ordinary meaning as popularly understood. However, as his Lordship pointed out, it is very difficult to draw the line between pure construction and implication, and the layman's capacity for implication is much greater than the lawyer's. His Lordship further observed that the layman reads in an implication much more freely than the lawyer, and 1s especially prone to do so when it is derogatory. The propensity of the Australian layman in this respect is, we

think, at least as strong as that of his English counterpart.

In deciding what an ordinary reasonable reader would

take to be the meaning of the words complained of, Miles C.J. _

thought that the reader should be taken to have a smattering of knowledge of legal principle and the workings of the law, but no more. He considered that such a reader in Canberra would know that the respondent was the Official Secretary to the Governor-General at the time in question and that he had responsibility for communication between ministerial and

parliamentary officers on the one hand and the Governor-General

on the other. However, he thought that the reader would not have known the precise limits of the Official Secretary's discretions and powers and, in particular, would not have known that there was no capacity in the Official Secretary to delay the presentation of a bill to the Governor-General for Royal Assent. He also considered that the reader would not have had positive knowledge that, although an official of government in the broad sense, the respondent was immune from control or direction of the Government of the day and of its ministers. He therefore considered that the reader was susceptible to an implication that there were at the disposal of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General certain powers or discretions and, in addition, susceptible to an implication that those powers or discretions had been exercised in a certain way. He was of the view that although the reader would have been aware of some vague distinction between the Vice-Regal function and the function of the elected government, his knowledge of that distinction would have been insufficiently precise to resist the implication that it lay within the power of the Official Secretary to do something which would have the effect of

We think his Honour was justified in reaching these conclusions. Counsel for the appellant submitted that without proof of extrinsic facts it was not reasonably open to the reader of the article to conclude that the respondent had a discretion to delay, or to agree to a request to delay, the Royal Assent to a bill. We do not agree with this

submission. Some statements in the article to which we shall

presently refer could only have had the effect of leading the reader to conclude that the respondent did indeed have such a

The question then is whether the ordinary reader of the article would read it as containing the imputations alleged. The reference in the headline on p.1 to "Govt bungle" is immediately followed in para. 2 by the reference to "Vice-regal protocol and bureaucratic bungling". It is stated in para. 6 that "Senator Chaney wanted the signing delayed ... But Government House officials refused." The identity of the bureaucrat or bureaucrats alleged to be responsible for the bungling referred to in para. 2 is not precisely stated on p.1 of the article, but the only persons referred to on that page who might be identified by the ordinary reader as bureaucrats are the "Government House officials" referred to in para. 6. The reader's understanding that a Government House official was responsible for the bungle would be reinforced by the words "over 16 hours - and some bureaucratic bungling" in para. 9. The reference in that paragraph to 16 hours immediately followed by the reference to bureaucratic bungling would lead the reader to infer that the bungling occurred in that time frame. The reader would infer, correctly, that the only bureaucrat involved at that time was the official at Government House whose responsibility it was to organize the giving of the Royal Assent. The statements in para. 21 that "Government House had objected, saying that the legislation would have to

be treated 'in the normal way'" and in para, 28 that Government

House officials had overruled Senator Chaney on protocol

grounds would further reinforce this understanding.

The only statements in the article that the ordinary reader might interpret as referring to bureaucrats other than Government House officials appear in paras. 34 and 35 and in the caption which appears underneath the photograph on p.3. We think the ordinary reader, whose attention was initially attracted by the banner headline referring to the Government bungle and who thereafter read the account of Senator Chaney's unsuccessful efforts to delay the giving of the Royal Assent would assume that it was the Government House officials who were responsible for the bureaucratic bungling. The ordinary reader would not expect that he would have to read almost to the end of the second page of the article to find a reference

to the person responsible for the bungle referred to in the

Counsel for the appellant submitted that the reader would make a clear distinction between Vice-Regal protocol and bureaucratic bungling and exclude the respondent from the latter. It may be conceded that in other contexts the ordinary reader might draw such a distinction. But the layout of the article, the repeated references to Senator Chaney's intervention with Government House, the references' to Government House officials, and the minimal references to any other persons who might be described as bureaucrats would lead the reader to understand that officials at Government House

were part of the bureaucracy. Many readers would understand

that they were also involved in Vice-Regal protocol. However, that understanding would not lead the reader to exclude them

from the bureaucracy responsible for the alleged bungle.

Moreover, the statement that Senator Chaney wanted the signing delayed (para. 6), the reference to his intervention (para. 13), the statements that he wanted the signing of the Royal Assent postponed (para. 27) and that Government House officials had overruled him on protocol grounds (para. 28) could only lead the ordinary reader to understand that it was possible for the signing of the Royal Assent to be postponed and that a Government House official had the requisite power to delay such signing. The reader would be unlikely to think that a senior minister of the Crown would make a request of a Government House official to delay the signing if the official

had no power to act in accordance with the request.

We should add that there was no issue at the trial that it was the respondent who was the Government House official referred to in the publication. That is to say, it was conceded that the material complained of was published of and concerning the respondent. We agree with the trial judge that although the opening words of the article may appear to distinguish between the Vice-Regal function on the one hand and the bureaucratic function on the other, the repeated references to Government House and to Government House officials blur this distinction. The tenor of the publication, taken as a whole, would not lead the reader to understand that all that was being

said of the respondent was that he was insisting on proper

Vice-Regal protocol. On the contrary, the reader is led to believe that the respondent was guilty of unreasonable and

We turn now to consider each of the imputations alleged. In essence the first imputation suggests conduct by the respondent "in callous disregard for the welfare of young couples". We agree with Miles C.J. that the article leaves the reader with the impression that it lay within the power of the respondent to delay the Royal Assent for sufficient time to enable a number of home buyers, including the couple referred to in the article, to apply for and obtain a home savings grant. We further agree with his Honour that the ordinary reader would take the article to convey that the respondent was insisting upon a compliance with formalities which could have been waived in the interests of home buyers. The reader would gather this understanding from the references to _ the respondent's refusal of Senator Chaney's request, from his attitude that the legislation had to be treated "in the normal way" and from the statement that his refusal was based on "protocol grounds". Reading the article in this way we think that the ordinary reader would be led to the conclusion that the respondent acted without regard for the interests of young

couples who would otherwise have been eligible for home savings grants. But the question remains whether such conduct could be said to be "callous". Counsel for the appellant submitted that the reader could only reach a conclusion that this amounted to a "callous disregard for the welfare of young

couples" by the impermissible process of drawing inference upon

inference. We reject this argument. It assumes that callousness implies more than insensitivity. We do not think this is so. The ordinary meanings in conventional usage of

"callous" include "harden" "unfeeling" or "insensible"; see

Shorter Oxford English Dictionary and Macquarie Dictionary.

We think the article was capable of conveying the first

The second imputation pleaded was that the respondent was guilty of bureaucratic bungling. It follows from what we have already written that the ordinary reader would understand from the article that this was one of the imputations it contained. We consider that many ordinary readers would regard Government House officials, including the respondent, as public servants, although public servants in a distinctive area of public service and with particular duties. This being so, we think that the reader of the article would identify the respondent as a bureaucrat and as one of the bureaucrats whose

bungling had led to the injustices inflicted upon home buyers.

The third imputation pleaded was that the respondent was grossly incompetent and inefficient in the execution of his duties. We agree with the trial judge that if the matter complained of gave rise to the imputation that the respondent was guilty of bureaucratic bungling it must, of necessity, give rise to the further imputation that he was grossly incompetent

The final imputation pleaded was that the respondent was unco-operative and obstructive in the implementation of government policy. The trial judge correctly treated this as being tantamount to an imputation that the respondent was obstructive to government policy in relation to housing and government financing of housing. The learned judge thought that the reader of the article would take it as conveying that the respondent used his powers to stand in the way of a government policy that the change in the legislation should be delayed as long as possible or, conversely, that the respondent was concerned to use his powers to ensure that the new

legislation was brought in as soon as possible contrary to the

It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the ordinary reader would not find such an imputation in the article. It was said that he could not find it from what is said in the article since what is said is indicative of insensitivity, bungling and incompetence rather than antipathy to and obstruction of government policy. It was argued that the reader's conclusion (if he reached it) that the respondent was obstructive of government policy would have to be based on some additional inference which he might draw from the words complained of. Reliance was placed upon the following

observations by Mason J. in Mirror Newspapers Limited v

"A distinction needs to be drawn between the reader's understanding of what the newspaper is saying and judgments or conclusions which he may reach as a result of his own beliefs and

prejudices. It 1s one thing to say that a statement is capable of bearing an imputation defamatory of the plaintiff because the ordinary reasonable reader would understand it in that sense, drawing on his own knowledge and experience of human affairs 1n order to reach that result. It is quite another thing to say that a statement is

capable of bearing such an imputation merely because it excites in some readers a belief or prejudice from which they proceed to arrive at a conclusion unfavourable to the plaintiff. The defamatory quality of the published material is to be determined by the first, not by the second, proposition." It was said that the reader's conclusion that the respondent was obstructive of government policy could only be

reached because of some belief or prejudice not justified by

We accept, of course, the distinction made by Mason J. But we see no room for its application here. A reader would understand the newspaper to be saying: (1) it was the wish of Senator Chaney that assent to the bill be deferred; (2) the Senator was the Minister responsible for the legislation; (3) thus it was Government policy that the coming into force of the

legislation be postponed; (4) the respondent, acting as a

Vice-Regal official, rejected the Senator's plea for deferment.

In short, the article leads the reader to understand that the respondent was an official who stubbornly stood in the path of the Senator's proposal. This impression is gained from

a reading of the article 1tself. It is not a case, as was

Harrison, where a preconception can lead a reader to form a

conclusion about a person mentioned in a newspaper report.

We do not think the article conveys the imputation that the respondent was opposed to the Government's general housing policy, but that is beside the point. That was not the imputation alleged. It follows that in our opinion the

imputation pleaded in para. (g) was also established.

The appellant raised a defence under s.22(1) of the

Defamation Act 1974 (N.S.W.) which provides as follows:

"22 (1) Where- in respect of matter published to any person -

(a) the recipient has an interest or apparent interest in having information on some subject;

(b) the matter is published to _ the recipient in the course of giving to him information on that subject; and

publishing that matter is reasonable in the circumstances,

there is a defence of qualified privilege for that publication."

Miles C.J. found that the appellant had established the matters required to be proved under sub-ss.22(1)(a) and (b), but he was not persuaded that the appellant's conduct in

publishing the material complained of was reasonable.

reasonableness of its conduct in publishing matter defamatory

of the respondent: Morosi v Mirror Newspapers Ltd. (1977) 2 NSWLR 749 at p.796; Wright v Australian Broadcasting

Commission (1977) 1 NSWLR 697 at p.700. In considering whether the conduct of the publisher is reasonable, the court must consider all the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the publication: Austin v Mirror Newspapers Ltd.

"Section 22(1)(c) calls for the consideration of a wide range of matters. Some are to be found in the published material itself and the manner and extent of its publication, and others from the whole of the surrounding circumstances. The connection between the subject and the defamatory imputation remains relevant. It may be tenuous, or it may be real and substantial. If what was said includes comment, it is relevant to consider whether it was fair and whether it followed logically from facts known or stated. Questions of the exercise of care before the defamatory utterance are also relevant, and questions as to whether the maker of the statement knew whether he was likely to convey a misleading impression."

The publication of the article complained of on 6 June 1982 was preceded by some events which it is necessary to

mention briefly. In 1976 there was established by the Home

Savings Grant Act 1976 a scheme of financial assistance to first home buyers who satisfied certain eligibility conditions relating to savings. In May 1982 legislation was introduced to abolish this scheme and replace it with a new scheme. Applicants under the new scheme were to be subject to a means test which had not applied under the old scheme. The

Sun-Herald of 23 May 1982 carried an article written by Mr Neil

O'Reilly, the author of the article which appeared on p.3 of

the Sun-Herald of 6 June 1982. The article of 23 May read, in

"Couples who want a Federal Government home-savings grant will need to have signed a contract for purchase of a home within two weeks.

"This is when the current home~savings grant scheme ends to make way for the Government's new home deposit assistance scheme.

"Those eligible for the old home-savings grants will not necessarily qualify for the new scheme - thus the urgency for last-minute applications.

"The new home deposit assistance scheme legislation will receive Royal Assent in about two weeks.

"Those eligible for the old home-savings grant will have to sign a contract for the purchase of their dwelling by the day the legislation receives Royal Assent.

"They will have another month after this to lodge their application.

"The Federal Government is anticipating a late rush of applications."

"The new scheme is means-tested, whereas the old home-savings grant scheme was not."

It appears that in March or April 1982 Mr Gregory Sheather applied to the Department of Housing and Construction for a grant of money to assist him in the purchase of a home. Some time prior to 23 May, he contacted the Department and was told that he was not eligible for a home savings grant, because the scheme which was then current was subject to a means test. This information was erroneous. Believing that he was ineligible for a grant, he apparently did not immediately pursue his application. On 23 May 1982 he read the article

which appeared in the Sun-Herald of that date. At that time,

he and his future wife, Miss Todd, were in the process of buying a house. Reading in the article that there was a two week deadline they thought they should expedite the signing of the contract to purchase their house and the contract was in fact signed on 3 June 1982. On the following day they ascertained that the old scheme had been abolished and that

they would have to comply with a means test under the new

Sheather had a conversation with O'Reilly on the night of 4 June and told him of his misfortune in failing to qualify for a home savings grant. Before writing the article of 6 June, O'Reilly had a conversation with Mr Ian Fletcher who was Senator Chaney's senior private secretary. According to Fletcher, whose evidence was accepted by the trial judge, he told O'Reilly that the decision that the legislation should take effect from the date of the Royal Assent was one deliberately made by the Legislative Committee of Cabinet. He said he told O'Reilly that the Government had taken advice from the Attorney-General's Department and also from Pirst Parliamentary Counsel on.the question of possible deferral of the Royal Assent and had been advised that it was only in exceptional circumstances, which did not apply in the instant case, that such a deferral could be recommended. Fletcher said he also told O'Reilly that there was a constitutional convention that Government House had no power to "change the process". Fletcher denied that he used the word "protocol" during his conversation with O'Reilly. It seems clear that

O'Reilly knew at the time he wrote the article that it did not

lie within the respondent's power to delay the giving of the Royal Assent to the bill and that Government House officials had no alternative but to follow normal constitutional requirements which made it necessary for bills to be submitted to the Governor-General for his signature in the order in which

O'Reilly said in evidence that the bureaucratic bungling intended to be referred to in para. 11 of his article was the wrong information given to Miss Todd and Mr Sheather prior to 23 May by an officer of the Department of Housing and Construction. The front page of the Sun-Herald of 6 June was what is called in newspaper jargon a "write-off". It was a re-writing by the editor of the article prepared by O'Reilly and which appeared on p.3. The editor, Mr Allen, said that he had dealt with O'Reilly's article in such a way as to emphasize the main points of it. It is clear that in para. 2 Allen was

referring to the same bureaucratic bungling as is referred to

Miles C.J. was not persuaded that the appellant's conduct in publishing the material complained of was reasonable, and we agree with hin. If the bureaucratic bungling referred to in paras. 2 and 11 was the wrong advice given by an officer of the Department to Miss Todd and Mr Sheather, it is astonishing that the article took the form that it did. That bungling had nothing to do with Vice-Regal protocol or with any official at Government House. Yet the

article is replete with references to the Governor-General and

Government House officials and to action taken by them. In stark contrast, only minimal reference 1s made to the incorrect advice. Having taken the trouble to ascertain that nobody at Government House was responsible for any unreasonable or improper conduct, let alone bungling, he wrote an article containing the imputations to which we have referred. As we have already observed, the bungle for which the departmental officer was responsible is not brought to the reader's attention until he reaches para. 35 where the statement is first made that Sheather was given wrong information by an officer in the Department of Housing and Construction. The only indication elsewhere in the article that the giving of this wrong information was the bureaucratic bungling earlier referred to is in the caption underneath the photograph on p.3. As the bureaucratic bungling intended to be referred to in para. 11 had occurred in March or April 1982 it was

extraordinarily inept to link 1t with a reference to the period

Whilst O'Reilly did take steps to ascertain the procedures which were involved in the giving of the Royal Assent to a bill and was fully informed on that subject, he did not take any steps to speak to the respondent before writing the article. We are prepared to accept that if he had spoken to the respondent he would not have been better informed as to matters of Vice~Regal protocol and constitutional practice, since the information he had already obtained on those matters from other sources was accurate. Nevertheless, we find it

difficult to believe that the article would have taken the form

that it did if he had spoken to the respondent and told him what he was proposing to write. We think it is certain that the respondent would have protested that the reader of the article would identify him as being involved in the alleged bungling. The respondent was well-known and accessible to Mr O'Reilly. The article was by no means of insubstantial journalistic importance, if regard is had to the appellant's action in placing it under a banner headline on the first page of its newspaper which is said to have the biggest sale of any newspaper in New South Wales. O'Reilly had no obligation to discuss the terms of his article with the respondent. However, under the circumstances, it was imprudent of him not

to have done so, and it is surprising that he did not.

Of course, the fact that published material contains imputations defamatory of a person does not deprive the publisher of a defence under s. 22(1) of the Defamation Act, else the section would have no application in any case. The question is whether the conduct of the publisher is reasonable in the circumstances of the particular case. We think that taking into account all the circumstances leading up to the publication of the article and the manner in which it was written given the tenuous connection between the respondent and the bureaucratic bungling referred to in it, the defence under

Loss of reputation: Australian Capital Territory $ 5,000

New South Wales 25,000 Victoria 3,000 Queensland 2,900 South Australia and the Northern Territory 500 Tasmania 500 Western Australia 250 Total: $36,250 Injury to feelings: 10,000

We should say at the outset that the damages awarded appear to us to be very moderate. No doubt the moderation was occasioned, in large part, by the publication of an article which appeared in the Sun-Herald on 13 June 1982, the terms of which are set out in the judgment under appeal. Por our part,

we do not think that article achieved very much in diminishing

the damage caused to the respondent. It appeared on page 9 of

the newspaper. It did not occupy an especially prominent position on that page. It does not purport to be, and was not, an apology. It makes only passing reference to the part

played by Government House officials in the obtaining of the

Royal Assent to the bill. It was not calculated to disabuse

the minds of many readers of the impressions they would have

The appellant's only real criticism of the award is that the damages awarded for loss of reputation in New South Wales were too high. No submission was put that the amount

The amount awarded for loss of reputation in New South Wales was said to be too high for a number of reasons. First, it was submitted that if the court should find that the words complained of did not give rise to all the imputations found by the trial judge, the damages should be reduced accordingly. Secondly, it was submitted that the trial judge was wrong to include in his award any allowance for aggravated damages. Thirdly, it was put that relatively few people in New South Wales would have identified the respondent as the person

against whom the imputations in the article were made.

It was conceded by counsel for the appellant, and correctly so, that if we came to the view that the trial judge erred in any respect in assessing damages it would be incumbent upon us to ourselves determine the damages without necessarily

adopting the several components which go to make up the overall

We can deal with the question of damages quite briefly. Our finding that the words complained of convey all

the imputations pleaded disposes of the first submission.

As to the second submission, the amount allowed by the trial judge by way of aggravated damages must have been very small indeed having regard to the modesty of the various components of the total award. In these circumstances, and having regard to the view we have formed as to the reasonableness of the overall sum awarded, we do not find it necessary to reach a concluded view on the question whether the appellant was guilty of such high handed conduct and lack of

good faith as justified an award of aggravated damages.

As to the third submission, we agree that residents of New South Wales would not have as readily identified the respondent as would residents of the Australian Capital Territory as the person against whom the imputations in the article of 6 June were made. Nevertheless, having regard to the very large circulation of the Sun-Herald in New South Wales (in excess of 640,000 copies), we think it is inevitable that a large number of people in that State would have identified the

respondent as the subject of the imputations in the article.

In our opinion, even if the assumption be made that the respondent was not entitled to aggravated damages, it is impossible to say that the overall award of damages was too high. We are of the view that the amount of $5,000 awarded for loss of reputation in the Australian Capital Territory was very modest. We ourselves would have allowed a much larger sum for that component of the award. The respondent lives and works in Canberra. He must be widely known in government and

diplomatic circles in that city and in the community generally.

Any alteration to the damages awarded by the trial judge as a consequence of acceding to the appellant's submissions would be at least set-off by the escalation which we would make for loss of reputation in the Australian Capital Territory. In the result, no case has been made out that the total damages of

preceding pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Court.

Date: 18 January 1988 Counsel for appticant: W.H. Nicholas Q.C. with 3.S. Wheelhouse instructed by: Mallesons Stephen Jaques Counsel for respondent: T.K. Tobin Q.C. with

I.A. Curlewis instructed by: MacPhillamy Cummins and Gibson Dates of Hearing: Date of Judgment: 18 January 1988

Vice-regal pretocol end bureaucratic bungl- ing have densed hundreds, and possibly thous- ands, of young couples the right to Federal Government home-savings grants. ,

The tult extent of the amazing mix-up was discovered onlv on Fitday when a young Sydney couple. Michelle Todd and Greg Sheather

Tney ovelteved they were well withmn the deadhine when the Governor-General, Sur Zelbman Cowen, was to have given Royal

Assent to cnanges in the Government's housing scheme, incluaing a new means test.

But Sir Zelman signed the document: last Wednesday - days earlier than expected

• despite intervention oy the Minister for

Social Secuntv, Senator Fred Chaney Seaator Chanev want-

ed the signwg delayed untl June 9 so more couples eligble uniter sull appl But Govera-

because-they didnt «ion their hause contract unui Thursday - 16 hours afer Sir Zelmans Rosal Assent changed the rujes

It meant the young up to 100,000 could su couple whod been saving be elignble provided ther s fue years and had been house contracis were i rushing to meet the dead- completed tefcre far - hine, failed to qualiis Wednesday

BAILEY'S WEATHER (Sydney): Early showers, sunny periods; max 17. Map, details P1447. TV: P63, ince Norman Ross nore tencvalans emaogue.

Young Sydney couple Greg Sheother and hi hoencee Michelle Tadd, wera still dat- mayed yesterday over 16 hours

• and some bureaucratic bungling - which cost them @ $2000 Federal home savings grant

They fad to qualify by ee 15 hours Peeause he Govern Gen eral out Lerman Cauen cwe Ral Astut earuer thar etpected to the Commnensweslih Governments new savings erant scheme which in- cludes 3 means test

Sir Zelman siened the document, despite intersennon by the Sfimster for Social Sacunty Senator Fred Chaney "ho now fears that many other young couples will miss out for the same reasons

Couples elierble for & $2000 grant under the old scheme (which had no cieans test) were warned & few weeks aco that time was run tung out for them to qualify

But many the Greg and Michelle, believed they still had 1 me to meet the deadiae becauso Sir Zelman wasnt expected to give Roval Av sent thereby changing the rules, uotil somenme seat week,

After some hectic organusing

• _and years of saving - - Greg aod Michelle finally signed a con- tract for their new hore last Thurs dav

Beleving they sui had time to qvalfy they appled for the grumt oa Friday only to be told It was too Iste because So Zeleran kad given Roval Asseat te tbe kegslavoa oa Wednesday,

Had they ssened their house contract on Wedaesday instead of Thursday thev would bare qualified.

Senatcr Chasey had ted to delay the Ell re~ cestng Royal Asseat vault lume 9 tO give ycung couples more ume 10 apply

But Government House had obected saying the Jegislauon sould have to be treated "in the normal way" and be signed as s00n as possible

The predicament of Greg Sheather and Machelle Todd bexat soon after the Treasure Mr John Howard, ennouoced detais of ths Govern- rests new hounog pack. agen March

Michelle Todd and Greg Sheather ot Lurnea yesterday .

surucvon Departnent and 'Sere told that under tbe new legslauon we would pot be entitled to a gract decaLss our combined in come exceeded the S417

More than 30 police guorded Sanks- town Court yesterday when @ 33-year-old labourer faced two murder cherget.

Tem policemen cure founded = stichily = built Grerery treocis Mew Contry oo his 60 metre alk frem © padiocked ae 19 the counmem beck, The others cmb ode of the Conertie pak,

Abost 16@ pauerpby trewded about, a few sbeuring abase,

Polke fisaked Mee Canhy durtng bu bref Appeal note, ood arousd ibe coariroam sad com fred reportert to the pubiie gallery

Baakstowa om Parser The prosecmor, Set fall fold the meewireic Me Michael fewer JP ont MeCare NT ne paroled Ie (cts omer, 1979 ater serniag em year of e 12 sean uence far belog a:

told two weess ago that the Government could not put a precue tums on ibe spung of the bell because it depended on when the Goversor-Geaeral wou available.

vealed = that = Seantor Chaney, realsite the prob lem, bad wanted the tign- ing of Royal Assezt to be posrponad atl] June 9%

Goverarect Hoose oMciuls bad ovetruled hice oa protocol grounds.

Senator Brian Harradine sought to bave the lense lauca amended to allow moore time for the old Dome cavings grant scheme to operate

But the malortry of the Australlag Democrats would not tupport ibe Fropesuoa acd the amendment failed.

A woman of 41 ead her mar- ned daughter were shot dead at Ellolong, near Cessnock, yester-

The younger womans husband, Cess ove Rucby League claser Stean "a4 alto shot and um in a Sf "1a A Koyal Nencastie Hotpital A second man was found tale wo & house at Multhe'd, scout eight kilometzes fom Ci'along wuh s bullet wousd 19 re head 4 rete was found oa ibe ded 13

He ia under polce guard ard io € tical conditiom i Royal Nencartle

Tre dead women are Auiees Carseroa and her daughter Acatite SlaJe 20

Police have rot disclosed ite came of tke man under polwe guard uw hospital

but it 1 bebeved 4e us @ retetive of ibe tvo dead womes

The sBooungs occurred at the house 'Made - owned by Stephen and Annette Slade condi Mey Stade ocly tares weeks aco gave dirih to ber first chug a soa The wat at the bome of Scephes Sladea parents whea the whootngs O.curred Stepben Slade was cue to play for Cemmock frat grade trea in ibe <:

Kurrt at the Cesrsock Spora G-ound The two dead women and Slase were

wes sect to Government House 1 the normal way despute Semator Chaney's meprop. | fy or * Per that the Bull would have bad to fo back & the House of RB tRLYeS: before nt could bave be come Law 'Tee House kad adjeers- ed (or the wieter cecem and the Coreramest did Dot bellera Mt teportast eooegh te recall the Heese ti

deal wich only oe amendment, FOR SHOWER. Government sources sald FOR BATH teen aeeried tad the & SHOWER. Paslamentary draftsman] OR KITCHEN SINK.

of Royal Agent hot wateryou need? Greg Sheaiber eald yet Anyone can pick up

the old Department 3 Ci + water you want where & Houy Band Coasteuc you want it, for good The Government Pr en about to clouat b P wot Publcny | campaign 194 OSsMiadersceCrtcsemien | entui ! p ehigiola for the ad homes Nave. __ - Poe - savinks grants apply before | f Address soe - ot the culof date of July 2j5 - o Pocoe I The Government eu tp 0 ' maics ibat more than), Zip Heaters (AusL) Py Li { 100.000 eligible couples 22 bby St, Masrcnee NSW 2204 Prone S$ S252 bave not yet applied tL gas e mate met mes 8s oe wet ae ces oe { or ryery

3 THE SUN HERALC JUNE o tyé2 a ay Cc ARS