Adjudication No. 1114 (March 2001) [2001] APC 15

Adjudication No. 1114 (March 2001)

The Australian Press Council has dismissed a complaint against The Courier-Mail, Brisbane, over its editorial Time limit needed on witchhunt, published on 6 January, dealing with the Criminal Justice Commission's Shepherdson inquiry into Labor Party electoral rorts.

The complaint was brought by William Ryan and Dennis Lonergan on behalf of the private media monitoring organisation, Freedombell Pipeline. Mr Ryan and Mr Lonergan complained that the editorial was biased in favour of the now former Member for Woodridge Mike Kaiser, who was called to the Commission to answer allegations that he signed a false electoral enrolment form when he was an ALP student activist in 1986.

As it has in earlier judgments, the Press Council reaffirms that a newspaper has the right to express forthright opinions in its editorials. The editorial raised the question, and argued the point, as to whether the Shepherdson inquiry had the jurisdiction to conduct an inquiry into what happened in a pre-selection for the Labor Party that occurred in 1986. Further, it suggested that if the Commission believed that a Member of Parliament who had a student record of criminal behaviour could be accused of official misconduct, it should broaden the inquiry to investigate every MP who had ever smoked dope. The editorial commented, "Let's make this a proper witchhunt. Why limit it just to the ALP?"

The complainants described the editorial as "illogical, emotive and politicised propaganda" and claimed it presented the Shepherdson inquiry as "a kangaroo court with no regard to due process".

However, the Press Council believes that Mr Ryan and Mr Lonergan, in their over-arching complaint, failed to explain exactly how and where they believed the editorial went wrong.

Indeed, by presenting a complaint of such a generalised nature, the complainants were themselves expressing an opinion, rather than a cogent argument, about a newspaper opinion piece on a matter of public interest.

Mr Ryan and Mr Lonergan also complained that the newspaper failed to publish a letter that Mr Ryan sent to the editor in response to the editorial. The Press Council notes that Mr Ryan's letter, entitled Editorialising or Propagandising, was dated 7 January, the day after the editorial was published, and received by the Courier Mail on 8 January.

Mr Ryan made his first complaint to the Press Council on 9 January, in which he claims, "we have exhausted all the usual appeals to the Editor, both as a group and as individuals". The Press Council does not believe that the failure of the Courier-Mail to publish Mr Ryan's letter of 7 January, within 24 hours justifies such a claim.