When the army tries to come to town, it expects to be welcomed if not as hero then certainly as friend. However, when the Army wanted to establish a combined infantry and artillery base in the central west of NSW 25 years ago, its plans deeply divided the community. This is the story of a newspaper editor who initially sprang to attention, virtually saluted and welcomed the Army but who later came out fighting as he realised how the Defence bureaucrats were trying to hoodwink his community. On May 10, 1985, the ‘Central Western Daily’ welcomed the decision by the Department of Defence to select a 70,000 ha site in Bathurst-Orange as the preferred site for an infantry and artillery base. Previously three much larger sites (about 360,000 ha) in different regions had been under consideration. The Orange editor naively believed the preferred-site decision, requiring an environmental impact statement, would help resolve many of the issues being tossed around by opponents and supporters of the base. That morning a farmer from the area affected by the so-called ‘land grab’ knocked on the editor’s door, entered, held up a copy of the army-base editorial and asked who had written it. “I did,” said the editor. The farmer painstakingly tore up the editorial into tiny pieces and threw them, and 35c for the newspaper, onto the floor. Exit farmer stage left, without a word. His performance was more powerful than a vitriolic letter to the editor. In August the editor visited Canberra to question senior defence department bureaucrats about the army base issue, which was splitting Orange and Bathurst between town and farm. One Sunday he also went on a public bus tour of the farms affected by the proposed base. A six-part series of articles resulted. Winds of change were starting to blow. In December, the editor wrote, “The more we find out about the army base issue the less we know about why it has proceeded as far as it has.” The Defence Department itself was split over the need to occupy 70,000 ha of superfine wool growing farmland to replace the Singleton infantry camp and the School of Artillery, North Head. The Central Tablelands No Base Association, with the help of the Democrats, won a Senate inquiry into the army training facilities project. It was the turning point. The battle against the base was won with words – words at the inquiry and words in the newspaper. The inquiry called for written submissions, which were made publicly available as the different groups appeared before the committee. The depth of research conducted by the No Basers was impressive and provided a springboard for interviews and preparation of in-depth articles on the issue. The Orange editor wrote half a dozen series of major features over several months and before he had written half of those articles, he was editorialising strongly against the base. (Mysteriously, the Bathurst editor sat on his hands.) His editorial, ‘Time to end the hoodwinking’ (February 8, 1986), raised nine major questions about the plan to site the base in Bathurst-Orange. The editorial concluded: “The community must not be hoodwinked any longer.” In March 1986, the editor wrote a series of six major feature articles on the social impact that the base would have on the Orange and Bathurst farming communities. His most vivid memory is of meeting the Ostini family. Nine branches of the Ostinis farmed land within the boundaries of the proposed army base. They gathered at one farm to be photographed for the story and the Daily’s photographer, Peter Sawa, climbed a ladder on a slight rise and snapped a shot of the 46 members of the nine families, from toddlers to grandparents. The heading above the photo declared: ‘This land is our land’. In all, 40 of the families affected by the base proposal had been farming in the area for from four to six generations. Another interview was with two couples – two brothers had married two sisters – who owned adjoining farms. One farm was within the proposed base; the other was outside the base. The couples were emotionally torn. The editor visited Sydney and Canberra to attend hearings of the Senate inquiry and reported on March 22, 1986: “If the army’s proposed training schools complex has to be located in ‘a cold hole’ like Orange because of politics and other circumstances, then that will happen.” Through the inquiry, it had become clear that the chosen site for the army base was highly unsuitable climatically, environmentally, geographically, strategically and even from an aviation viewpoint. The choice of site had been politically motivated. By late March, the defence department’s hopes of locating the army base in Bathurst-Orange were looking decidedly sick. The mayor of Orange, Tim Sullivan, was strongly in favour of gaining the base, as were local business people. The general manager of the ‘Daily’ was coming under pressure from the pro-basers and the editor was told two days before Easter that he should severely reduce his coverage of the issue. The editor successfully argued that the visit that week of the director-general of the army’s training facilities project should be covered adequately. The editor interviewed the officer on the day before Easter. The general manager went away for Easter and when he returned three articles had already appeared from the extensive interview. The editor placed the fourth article on Page 1 for Thursday, April 3. It was headlined: “Army schools pose ‘big aviation problem’. The general manager ordered the editor to withdraw the article on the Wednesday evening. The editor regarded this as censorship of news that was important for the local community and was ready to resign, but the next day the general manager agreed to allow the story to run on Page four on the Saturday. Sixteen days later, the federal government ditched its plans to build an army base in Bathurst-Orange. Within weeks, a familiar farmer visited the ‘Central Western Daily’ and knocked on the door of the editor’s office. Enter farmer stage right. He congratulated the editor on the depth of his reportage of the issue and on his editorials. Yes, I was that editor.