Adjudication No. 236 (June 1985) [1985] APC 28

ADJUDICATION No. 236 (June 1985)

Five officers of the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labor Party have complained about statements in Kenneth Davidson's column "Comment" in The Age of December 6, 1984. Complaint centres on the two opening paragraphs of the column, which read:

A major reason for the early election was the fear of the Right-wing machine in New South Wales that if the previous Parliament was allowed to take its course, the rank-and-file preselection of candidates would result in Left-wing candidates getting up. With the early election, the NSW machine retained the right to choose candidates which were, of course, part of the Right-wing faction.

In a column entitled "Comment" one would expect to find the opinions of the columnist, and it would be natural to treat a statement such as that in the first paragraph about reasons for an early election as of that character. In that case it would be more appropriate to see it as a matter for the exercise of a right of reply (which the complainants did not seek), than as a matter for adjudication. However, it leads into the second paragraph which is presented unmistakably as a statement of fact.

That statement of fact is that with the early election the "machine" retained the right to choose candidates and exercised it to choose right-wing candidates. The complainants say, on the contrary, the decision was that all sitting candidates who wished to stand again were to be automatically endorsed, irrespective of faction. In the remaining seats nominations were to be called and if there were more than one nomination a rank-and-file ballot was to be held. The only exception was to be the Riverina-Darling electorate, which had a special history. In St George the endorsed sitting member withdrew three weeks after the election was called and a special procedure (not involving a rank-and-file ballot) was adopted. Eleven pre-selection ballots were necessary, with two won by candidates of the left.

This statement of the facts was not challenged by The Age, and it is clear that Mr Davidson's second paragraph cannot stand with it.

The Age's reply to the complaint pointed out that all the complainants were members of the Right-wing faction, that Left-wing officers did not sign it, and that "the decision not to hold preselection ballots provoked considerable anger within those sections of the NSW branch not dominated by the Right-wing". The paper said that there was thus substantial evidence that the decision of the State Executive was strongly opposed by the Left-wing faction of the party and was made in the interests of the dominant Right-wing faction, rather than on behalf of the branch as a whole.

Whether this be right or wrong, and whatever the bearing it might have on the first paragraph, it is not what Mr Davidson wrote in the second paragraph. The complaint is upheld in relation to that paragraph.

However, the council believes that the complainants should have sought from The Age a right of reply. Such a course would have exposed the facts and issues to public debate, which is the preferable way of dealing with political issues.

The complainants also objected to the description of the Right-wing as the spiritual heirs of the New South Wales Corps. This is clearly only a colourful expression of a columnist's opinion, which the reader can take or leave.