Adjudication No. 626 (February 1993) [1993] APC 18

ADJUDICATION NO. 626 (February 1993)

Three editorials in the South Coast Register were critical of legal action in the Land and Environment Court to restrain the Australian Pulp and Paper Mill from discharging effluent in the Shoalhaven River. This, said the paper, could result in the loss of about 600 jobs and have a flow-on effect for contractors.

The editorial of 22 July 1992 relied on a Shire Council Notice of Motion which attributed the legal action to the Total Environment Centre (TEC). An editorial of 29 July 1992 said that the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) was one of the prime movers in this action. In an editorial of 5 August 1992 the paper said that the plaintiff, Mr Brown, was relying on a flawed survey discredited by the CSIRO.

In the "Inside Council" columns of 29 July 1992 and 5 August 1992, the newspaper was critical of the Mayor and various council activities. Contrary views were submitted to the paper, according to the complainant, Ms May Leatch, who said that it was only on 19 August 1992 that the South Coast Register printed a denial by the ACF Shoalhaven Branch that neither it nor the TEC had initiated the action. That article also challenged the view that the action would result in mill closure.

Ms May Leatch complained of political bias, inaccuracies and failure to present balance in articles in the South Coast Register.

There was no evidence before the Council of bias or imbalance.

While the newspaper was entitled to present its own opinion, statements of fact in an editorial should, where demonstrated to be erroneous, have been corrected.

Opportunities for prompt and appropriately prominent reply at reasonable length should have been given to the TEC and ACF.

While the South Coast Register did finally publish the denial by the ACF of both its and the TEC's role in initiating the action, the impact of this was lessened considerably by the delay.

The South Coast Register is entitled to present its views vigorously but, in doing so, the public interest demands that it be prompt in according opportunity for reply for opposing views. To this extent, the complaint is upheld.