Investig… · Web viewabout an interview broadcast by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) on television station ABT during the

Investigation Report No. 3082

File no. ACMA 2013/1178

Broadcaster Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Station ABT Tasmania

Type of service National broadcaster

Name of program 7:30

Date of broadcast 8 July 2013

Relevant code Standards 2.2, 4.1 and 7.7 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011

Date finalised 10 January 2014

Decision No breach of standard 2.2 [not materially mislead]

No breach of standard 4.1 [impartiality]

No breach of standard 7.7 [unjustified use of stereotypes or discriminatory content]

ACMA Investigation Report 3082 – 7:30 broadcast by ABT on 8 July 2013 1

Background On 15 July 2013, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) received a

complaint1 about an interview broadcast by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) on television station ABT during the 7:30 program on 8 July 2013.

The 7:30 program is broadcast on various ABC stations at 7:30pm on weekday nights. The website describes the program as:

ABC TV's national flagship current affairs program led by two of Australia's most respected journalists ... It is the best analysis of local, national and international events from an Australian perspective, weeknights on ABC1.2

The relevant broadcast was a twelve and a half minute interview with the Honourable Tony Abbott MP, who at the time was the Opposition Leader. A range of topics were discussed during the interview including the Coalition’s policy to ‘stop the boats’, Mr Abbott’s views on Kevin Rudd’s performance as Prime Minister, and the ‘burden of red tape’ on business. A transcript of the broadcast is included at Attachment A.

In her complaint to the ABC, the complainant submitted that the presenter asking Mr Abbott the question ‘What if they [asylum seekers] throw their children overboard’ was:

... referring to the xenophobic lies and propaganda spread by the Howard government in a way that infers such inveracities to be fact [and] significantly breaches the values of fair and balanced journalism.

The complainant also submitted that the broadcast ‘seemed more like an advertisement for the coalition than a genuine piece of journalism’.

The ABC responded to the complainant that the broadcast met the standards for accuracy and impartiality in ABC Code of Practice 2011 (the Code). The ABC also directed the complainant to the Senate Select Committee into A Certain Maritime Incident Report that concluded that there had been an incident of a child being thrown overboard by an asylum seeker from the boat termed SIEV 7.3

In her complaint to the ACMA, the complainant noted the ABC’s submission that the question ‘may have been posed with the intentional reference to this single, isolated incident’.4

However, the complainant maintained her complaint that the question:

... clearly cannot help but also recall the much more well known and false claim made by the Howard government. Such a question, without reference to the fact that the 'children overboard' claim was actually untrue, serves to encourage and perpetuate the coalition's xenophobic propaganda that demonises asylum seekers.

The complainant’s submissions to the ABC and the ACMA are at Attachment B, and the ABC’s responses to the complainant and the ACMA are at Attachment C.

1 Under section 150 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth).2 http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/about.htm, accessed 11 December 2013.3 Senate Select Committee on a Certain Maritime Incident Report, pages 542 and 543, accessed 11 December

2013 at http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Former_Committees/maritimeincident/report/~/media/wopapub/senate/committee/maritime_incident_ctte/report/report_pdf.ashx.

4 As the complainant did not maintain this aspect of her complaint to the ABC in her complaint to the ACMA, the material has not been assessed in terms of standard 2.1 [factual accuracy] of the Code. Standard 2.1 of the Code requires the ABC to ‘Make reasonable efforts to ensure that material facts are accurate and presented in context’.


http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Former_Committees/maritimeincident/report/~/media/wopapub/senate/committee/maritime_incident_ctte/report/report_pdf.ashx

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Former_Committees/maritimeincident/report/~/media/wopapub/senate/committee/maritime_incident_ctte/report/report_pdf.ashx

The ACMA has investigated the ABC’s compliance with standards 2.2, 4.1 and 7.7 of the Code.

Assessment This investigation is based on submissions from the complainant and the ABC,

correspondence between the complainant and the ABC, and a copy of the broadcast provided to the ACMA by the ABC. Other relevant sources have been identified where used.

In assessing content against the Code, the ACMA considers the meaning conveyed by the relevant material. This is assessed according to the understanding of an ‘ordinary, reasonable listener or viewer’.

Australian courts have considered an ‘ordinary, reasonable listener or viewer’ to be:

A person of fair average intelligence, who is neither perverse, nor morbid or suspicious of mind, nor avid for scandal. That person does not live in an ivory tower, but can and does read between the lines in the light of that person’s general knowledge and experience of worldly affairs.5

In considering compliance with the Codes, the ACMA considers the natural, ordinary meaning of the language, context, tenor, tone and any inferences that may be drawn.

Once the ACMA has applied this test to ascertain the meaning of the material that was broadcast, it then determines whether or not that material has breached the Codes.

Issue: accuracy

FindingThe ABC did not breach standard 2.2 of the Code.

Reasons Standard 2.2 of the Code provides:

Accuracy

2.2 Do not present factual content in a way that will materially mislead the audience. In some cases, this may require appropriate labels or other explanatory information.

The presenter asked Mr Abbott the question ‘What if they throw their children overboard?’ (emphasised in bold below) in the context of a discussion about the Coalition’s policy on asylum seekers arriving by boat:

Presenter: And if you turn a boat around at sea and people die because of your command, are you willing to take that on your conscience?

Mr Abbott: Well, obviously I will take responsibility for what happens on my watch, but the important thing is to stop the boats. That's what the Australian people expect. That's what happened under John Howard. That's what will happen again under an incoming Coalition government.

Presenter: What if they sink their boats? What if they throw their children into the ocean?

5 Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158 at 164–167.


Mr Abbott: Well, these are all a range of hypotheticals, but I believe that the professionalism of our Navy is up to the challenges that the people smugglers might pose. Let's not forget that the US Coast Guard has been turning boats around in the Caribbean for years ...

The complainant submitted to the ABC that the question, in the context in which it was broadcast, would materially mislead the audience because it referred to ‘the xenophobic lies and propaganda spread by the Howard Government [about asylum seekers throwing their children overboard] in a way that infers such inveracities to be fact’.

Having considered the broadcast as a whole, the ACMA concludes that the ordinary reasonable viewer would have understood that the presenter was putting a range of hypothetical questions to Mr Abbott about the Coalition’s ‘stop the boats’ policy.

The obligation in standard 2.2 only applies to factual content. The considerations the ACMA uses for determining whether content is factual are set out at Attachment D.

In the context of this broadcast, the ACMA considers that the question about asylum seekers ‘throw[ing] their children overboard’ was not factual content. It was one of a series of hypothetical questions about possible future events if the Coalition became able to implement its ‘stop the boats’ policy.

As a result, the ACMA concludes that the broadcast did not breach standard 2.2 of the Code.

Issue: impartiality

FindingThe ABC did not breach standard 4.1 of the Code.

Reasons Standard 4.1 of the Code provides:

Impartiality and diversity of perspectives

4.1 Gather and present news and information with due impartiality.

In applying standard 4.1 of the Code, the ACMA is guided by the approach set out in the Principles for impartiality and diversity of perspectives in the Code:

Assessing the impartiality due in given circumstances requires consideration in context of all relevant factors including:

the type, subject and nature of the content; the circumstances in which the content is made and presented; the likely audience expectations of the content; the degree to which the matter to which the content relates is contentious; the range of principal relevant perspectives on the matter of contention; and the timeframe within which it would be appropriate for the ABC to provide

opportunities for the principal relevant perspectives to be expressed, having regard to the public importance of the matter of contention and the extent to which it is the subject of current debate.


The Principles also address the fact that that audience perceptions of broadcast content can vary:

Judgements about whether impartiality was achieved in any given circumstances can vary among individuals according to their personal and subjective view of any given matter of contention. Acknowledging this fact of life does not change the ABC’s obligation to apply its impartiality standard as objectively as possible. In doing so, the ABC is guided by these hallmarks of impartiality:

a balance that follows the weight of evidence; fair treatment; open-mindedness; and opportunities over time for principal relevant perspectives on matters of contention to

be expressed.

In her complaint to the ABC, the complainant submitted:

the whole interview seemed more like an advertisement for the [C]oalition that [sic] a genuine piece of journalism

...

[the presenter] should be severely penalised and made to apologise publicly.

In its response to the complainant, the ABC submitted that the interview broadcast did not breach the Codes, was ‘robust’ and ‘did not enable the Opposition Leader to use the occasion as a political platform’. The ABC also explained that the choice of presenter was not deliberate and that Mr Abbott ‘had committed to do an interview with the program regardless of who was anchoring the program that night.’

In her complaint to the ACMA, the complainant submitted that the interview was not ‘robust’ and was like:

something one might see on the shopping channel, where one presenter asks the other all the right “challenging questions” so that the answers end up demonstrating the values and features of the product being sold.

The ACMA considers that a program that presents a perspective that is opposed by a particular person or group is not inherently partial. Whether a breach of the Code has occurred will depend on the themes of the program, any editorial comment, the overall presentation of the story and the circumstances in which the program was prepared and broadcast.

The full range of considerations the ACMA uses in assessing material under standard 4.1 are set out at Attachment E.

The ACMA acknowledges that presenters can and do play a key role in setting the tone of a program through their style and choice of language. In addition, the nature of current affairs reporting can require presenters to be questioning, and at times sceptical in their analysis of issues. However, the presenter’s open-mindedness and willingness to include alternative perspectives without prejudgment will be relevant to the question of impartiality.

In assessing whether content is presented with due impartiality, a key consideration is whether the content has been gathered or presented in such a way that it conveys a prejudgment or gives effect to the affections or enmities of the presenter.


Having reviewed the broadcast as a whole, the ACMA is satisfied that the interview was conducted with due impartiality, having regard to the type, subject and nature of the content, for the following reasons:

o The purpose of the interview was for Mr Abbott to discuss and be asked questions about the Coalition’s policies, his leadership, and his reaction to the reinstatement of the Honourable Kevin Rudd MP as Prime Minister.

o The presenter’s manner and tone was neutral, and the questions asked did not indicate that he had prejudged the subject matter or was offering his own views.

o Mr Abbott was asked challenging questions about the Coalition’s policies and his leadership. For example:

And if you turn a boat around at sea and people die because of your command, are you willing to take that on your conscience?

... your party seems to think that he's a fake and that he's a phoney and yet when you're measured against him in opinion polls, he does better. Why's that? ... Why is it the Australian people don't seem to warm to you?

It [Prime Minister Rudd’s request to Mr Abbott for a leaders’ debate] might be a stunt, but doesn't it look like you're on the run?

And if we look at last three elections, in 2007 you were selling the Howard Government ... Isn't it time we saw what an Abbott Government would look like rather than a reheated Howard Government? ... Aren't you selling the past though?

o The interview demonstrated fair treatment and open-mindedness - while Mr Abbott was asked a series of probing questions, he was given the opportunity to present his perspective, and to respond to questions without interruption.

For these reasons, the ACMA finds that the broadcast did not breach standard 4.1 of the Code.

Issue: unjustified use of stereotypes or discriminatory content Standard 7.7 of the Code provides:

Harm and Offence

7.7 Avoid the unjustified use of stereotypes or discriminatory content that could reasonably be interpreted as condoning or encouraging prejudice.

The complainant submitted to the ABC that the question, in the context in which it was broadcast, referred to ‘the xenophobic lies and propaganda spread by the Howard Government [regarding asylum seekers throwing their children overboard]’.

The ABC did not address the harm and offence standards in its response to the complainant.

In her complaint to the ACMA, the complainant maintained her complaint that the inclusion of the question in the broadcast ‘serves to encourage and perpetuate the [C]oalition's xenophobic propaganda that demonises asylum seekers’.


In response to the ACMA’s request for submissions on the subject, the ABC submitted that the questions [‘What if they sink their boats? What if they throw their children into the ocean?‘] ‘could not reasonably be interpreted as condoning or encouraging prejudice’ and were ‘not based on stereotypes but from accounts of two previous incidents’.

The ABC also submitted that the question was broadcast in the context of:

... an interview with the then Opposition Leader on a television current affairs program in the lead-up to the 2013 federal election. In this context ... a reasonable viewer would understand that the questions were being put to Mr Abbott to test how the Opposition’s policy would work in practice.

...

The Opposition’s policy in this area was a matter of considerable public interest and 7.30 was entirely justified in asking the then Opposition Leader how the policy would apply in difficult situations.

In applying standard 7.7 of the Code, the ACMA usually adopts the following approach:

o Did the particular material (the subject of the complaint) include stereotypes or discriminatory content that could reasonably be interpreted as condoning or encouraging prejudice?

o If so, was that content unjustified (i.e.in the context in which it was presented)?

The ACMA does not consider the question, in the context of the broadcast as a whole, used a stereotype or discriminatory content about asylum seekers in a way that could reasonably be interpreted as condoning or encouraging prejudice:

o The question was one of a series of questions put to Mr Abbott as hypothetical scenarios that he might face if he became Prime Minister, and alluded to an actual incident.

o Neither the presenter nor Mr Abbott made any comments (derogatory or otherwise) on the past actions of asylum seekers, or asylum seekers generally.

o Neither the presenter nor Mr Abbott communicated any stereotypes or discriminatory content about asylum seekers during the broadcast.

Accordingly, the ACMA finds that the ABC did not breach standard 7.7 of the Code.


Attachment ATranscript of 7:30 broadcast on 8 July 2013 PRESENTER: Tony Abbott's been a dominant figure in federal politics for the last three years. In an unrivalled record, the Opposition Leader has had a hand in bringing down two prime ministers. And love him or loathe him, there's a better than even chance that he will be elected to lead the nation later this year. But the game has changed in the last fortnight with the return of Kevin Rudd and that means the Opposition Leader has a much tougher fight on his hands. I spoke with him a short time ago. Tony Abbott, welcome.

TONY ABBOTT, OPPOSITION LEADER: Thanks, PRESENTER.

PRESENTER: Now you can't stop the boats without Indonesia's cooperation, can you?

TONY ABBOTT: But we can stop the boats. John Howard stopped the boats. We can do it again. You need a range of policy measures. You've gotta have temporary protection visas to deny the people smugglers a product to sell. You've gotta have rigorous offshore processing in places like Nauru. Very importantly, you've gotta have the option of turning boats around where it's safe to do so. The Howard Government did it. What's been done before can be done again.

PRESENTER: But the Indonesian President now couldn't be clearer that he doesn't agree with your boat turn-back policy, could he?

TONY ABBOTT: Well, the interesting thing, PRESENTER, is that Indonesia did not give explicit permission before, but that didn't stop it from happening and it didn't stop the Howard Government from having a very good and strengthening relationship with Indonesia.

PRESENTER: He seems to be explicitly denying the possibility this time though.

TONY ABBOTT: Well, I'm not sure that he has. A lot of people are trying to read a lot of different things into a communiqué. Let's look at the facts. The facts are that the Howard Government stopped the boats by amongst other things turning boats around. What's been done in the past can be done again in the future.

PRESENTER: Would you do it without Indonesia's cooperation? Would you do it if they explicitly said to you that they don't want you to do it?

PRESENTER: Well, again, PRESENTER, just look at the facts. The facts are that these are Indonesian crewed, Indonesian flagged, Indonesian home-ported vessels that have a right to access Indonesia.

PRESENTER: But would you turn boats round in the middle of the ocean in international waters and imagine that they're going to make their way back to Indonesian ports? Logistically, it's an extremely dangerous exercise.

TONY ABBOTT: I'm not saying that it's hazard-free, but it has been done in the past and


what's been done in the past can be done in the future. The other point I make is that the most dangerous thing of all is just to allow these boats to keep coming. Because as long as the boats keep coming, PRESENTER, the deaths will continue.

PRESENTER: And if you turn a boat around at sea and people die because of your command, are you willing to take that on your conscience?

TONY ABBOTT: Well, obviously I will take responsibility for what happens on my watch, but the important thing is to stop the boats. That's what the Australian people expect. That's what happened under John Howard. That's what will happen again under an incoming Coalition government.

PRESENTER: What if they sink their boats? What if they throw their children into the ocean?

TONY ABBOTT: Well, these are all a range of hypotheticals, but I believe that the professionalism of our Navy is up to the challenges that the people smugglers might pose. Let's not forget that the US Coast Guard has been turning boats around in the Caribbean for years. The Sri Lankan Navy is turning boats around in the Indian Ocean. The Australian Navy is more than capable of stopping, searching and acting with pirate boats in the Persian Gulf. I think we sometimes do our sailors a disservice by suggesting that what they could do before, they can't do now.

PRESENTER: One last question on this: when will the boats stop?

TONY ABBOTT: Well, we will make a difference from day one, PRESENTER.

PRESENTER: And when will it end? You said you'd stop the boats ...

TONY ABBOTT: We will stop the boats. I believe we can stop the boats in a term of government and certainly we will be judged, should we win an election, on our performance in that term.

PRESENTER: Can you stop Kevin Rudd? His appearance back on the scene seems to have changed the game for you.

TONY ABBOTT: Well, look, obviously things do change when the Government changes its leader, but a government which feels the need to sack its own Prime Minister is obviously a government in enormous probably trouble. And let's not forget that the last time Kevin Rudd was up against me, his performance was so poor that he was sacked by his own party.

PRESENTER: And how do you think you'll go this time around? It is a shorter period of time and people seem to be warming to him.

TONY ABBOTT: Well let's see if Kevin Rudd thinks that he's succeeding with the Australian people, let's put it to the test. Let's have an election.

PRESENTER: You seem to think, your party seems to think that he's a fake and that he's a


phoney and yet when you're measured against him in opinion polls, he does better. Why's that?

TONY ABBOTT: Well let's look at the people who know him well. The people who know him well are his own colleagues. The first time he was Prime Minister he was sacked by his own party, and then when he came back again, seven cabinet ministers refused to serve with him. Now, look, I accept by some measures he looks very popular. But in the end, people will be judged by the people who know them.

PRESENTER: And the Australian people will be judging both of you come the election. At this stage they seem to judge that he's a better bet than you are. Why is that after three years of you at the top job in the Opposition?

TONY ABBOTT: Well, as I said, PRESENTER, in the end the public will make their choice. I'm only too happy to submit myself to the judgment of the Australian public and my challenge to the Prime Minister is: name the date and let's get on with it.

PRESENTER: Isn't the challenge to you to make sure that the Australian people think that you're a fair bet as alternative Prime Minister? Do you have too much scar tissue from the years of fighting that you've been involved in to be elected by the Australian people?

PRESENTER: Well let's not forget that last time Mr Rudd was the Prime Minister, he was sacked by his own party.

PRESENTER: I think we're talking about you.

TONY ABBOTT: Yeah, but this is a comparison, this is a comparison, PRESENTER. Now the last time Mr Rudd was Prime Minister, he was sacked by his own party because of pink batts, because of school halls, because of the mining tax, because of the boats, because of in Julia Gillard's own words, "the chaotic and dysfunctional Government" that he ran, because of in Tony Burke's - no, sorry, I think it was Stephen Conroy's words, he had "contempt for the party, for the caucus, ultimately for the people themselves". Now, these are insider judgments, but I think they ring true.

PRESENTER: Why is it the Australian people don't seem to warm to you?

TONY ABBOTT: Well, I will leave that to the judgment of the people at an election.

PRESENTER: Isn't the best way to judge leaders is up against each other? Kevin Rudd has offered you the opportunity of a debate on debt and deficit, a weak point you think of this government. Why don't you take up that challenge?

PRESENTER: Well, PRESENTER, the Prime Minister needs to decide whether he's governing or whether he's campaigning. If he's governing, call back Parliament and we will be debating every day. If he's campaigning, name the date and we'll have election debates in the ordinary way. But as things stand, this is just another stunt from a guy who is a master of stunts and spin.


PRESENTER: Let's assume that he's campaigning. When was the last time that an opposition leader offered the opportunity of three debates with the Prime Minister, knocked it back?

TONY ABBOTT: Well, again, if he wants the debate, he knows how to get one. Call back Parliament, we'll have a debate. Call the election, we'll have a debate.

PRESENTER: It might be a stunt, but doesn't it look like you're on the run?

TONY ABBOTT: Well, look, I'm here. I'm only too happy to debate Kevin Rudd. But surely Kevin Rudd has a mess to fix, and if he's fair dinkum, rather than running around just talking, instead, just for once, he'd be acting and fixing things.

PRESENTER: Well he's acting at the moment, isn't he? He's acting on trying to fix the Labor Party. Today he's announced that the rank and file will have a say in who elects the leader of the party. Isn't that a good thing? Isn't that something that the Liberal Party could perhaps take a leaf out of their book from?

TONY ABBOTT: Well, it strikes me, PRESENTER, as more fake change from someone who's a master of that. It also strikes me that this is someone who is thinking about himself and his party on a day when the Coalition is releasing another policy. And the final point I should make is that surely it's the people who should be choosing and rather than speculating on what may or may not happen, let's give it back to the people to choose who the Prime Minister is

PRESENTER: Certainly. On July 22nd though we'll find out from caucus whether or not this is fake change or real change, won't we?

TONY ABBOTT: Well it's interesting. The first three years of this government were so bad they sacked the Prime Minister. The second three years of this government were so bad they sacked the Prime Minister. Now they want another three years, and what's more, the bloke who's there now wants to change the rules so that he can't be sacked, no matter how bad he is.

PRESENTER: And if we look at last three elections, in 2007 you were selling the Howard Government. In 2010 you were selling us a Howard Government cabinet and you're doing it again in 2013. Isn't it time we saw what an Abbott Government would look like rather than a reheated Howard Government?

TONY ABBOTT: And the great thing about the Coalition is you know exactly what you'll get from the Coalition ...

PRESENTER: The past?

TONY ABBOTT: ... and you've always known what you'll get from the Coalition. You'll get the same strong team and the same clear policies. There's been certainty and stability for the Coalition.


PRESENTER: Aren't you selling the past though?

TONY ABBOTT: Well, I am offering people a return to stable adult government. And I would ask people to compare the record of the last Coalition government with the current government. The last Coalition government gave us surpluses; this Government's given us deficits. The last Coalition government stopped the boats; this Government's started them again. This Government gave us the carbon tax; the Coalition will get rid of the carbon tax, whether it's called a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme.

PRESENTER: Now you've announced a plan today to lift the burden of regulation from business and industry. Can you tell us what's on offer?

TONY ABBOTT: Well, essentially, we will begin to reduce the suffocating burden of red tape which is making it so much harder for business, making it so much harder for businesses to employ people, making it so much harder for businesses to expand. A typical mine, for instance, that five years ago took under 12 months to get the approvals done, it now takes over three years. No wonder the investment pipeline is starting to dry up.

PRESENTER: Is that typical of all mines though or is that just one or two examples that most mines in fact get approval within 12 months?

TONY ABBOTT: Well, no, this is typical of what is happening in the mining industry.

PRESENTER: Now, you also said you're going to lift the burden of green tape and said today, "The states will administer things like the Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act on our behalf." It's your Act; why aren't you administering it?

TONY ABBOTT: Well, because, PRESENTER, - (coughs) excuse me - business should only have to run the gauntlet once. We should have high standards, very high environmental standards, but running the gauntlet once should be enough and I think that there is the level of professionalism, the level of care and concern, the same duty of care in the state bureaucracies; let them get on with it.

PRESENTER: Isn't there the problem though that you might face, which is that you'll get the lowest common denominator? The way that the Commonwealth might see the interpretation of this Act might be very different from a State government that absolutely desperately needs revenue.

TONY ABBOTT: Well, um, it might be and if the people don't like what happens under the Coalition, they can take appropriate action at an election. But what I think should happen is that we should allow investment and employment to go ahead, and at the moment, investment and employment is drying up because of the red and green tape that we're seeing from this government.

PRESENTER: Finally, briefly, what would an Abbott Australia look like?


TONY ABBOTT: Well, under a Coalition government, we'll build a stronger economy, we'll abolish unnecessary taxes, we'll get the budget back into the black and we'll stop the boats. We will be a consultative, collegial government. No surprises, no excuses. That's what you'll get under the Coalition.

PRESENTER: Tony Abbott, thank you.

TONY ABBOTT: Thank you, PRESENTER


Attachment BComplainant’s submissions The complainant submitted to the ABC that:

I was absolutely disgusted to hear [presenter] ask Tony Abbott "what if they [asylum seekers] throw their children overboard?". Clearly, referring to the xenophobic lies and propaganda spread by the Howard government in a way that infers such inveracities to be fact significantly breaches the values of fair and balanced journalism.

Also, the whole interview seemed more like an advertisement for the coalition that a genuine piece of journalism. Is it not the interviewer's job to scrutinise and ask tough questions of the interviewee, rather than to assist them to sell their agenda? This is the sort of broadcast I expected to see on trashy shows like A Current Affair and Today Tonight, not on the ABC.

It seems to me that Abbott insisted that he would only appear on the show if interviewed by [presenter] instead of [presenter 2]. The whole thing smells of corruption.

Having looked at the ABC Code of Practice 2011, I believe the broadcast of the interview in question breaches the principles outlined in the following sections: 2. Accuracy, 4. Impartiality, 5. Fair and Honest Dealing, and 7. Harm and Offence.

I do realise the unfortunate fact that it is unlikely that he will lose his position as a result of his revolting remarks, however, at the very least [presenter] should be severely penalised and made to apologise publicly.

In her subsequent complaints to the ACMA, the complainant submitted:

Although I acknowledge that [presenter] made attempts to pose questions that were masqueraded as being challenging, I disagree that the interview was robust. The interview reminded me of something one might see on the shopping channel, where one presenter asks the other all the right "challenging" questions so that the answers end up demonstrating the values and features of the product being sold. If ACMA compares the interview in question with [presenter 2] interview of Abbott last year (or any interview of Abbott conducted by [presenter 3]), I am sure my point will be made very clear.

The Senate Committee Report that the ABC has provided a link to states that the 'children overboard' claim made by ministers of the Howard government "was in fact untrue", "was made at the beginning of and sustained throughout a Federal election campaign" and "was used by the Government to demonise [asylum seekers]" (page xxi). The quotes in ABC's email refer to one child being dropped in the ocean, not children being thrown overboard. It also indicates that the child was rescued without difficulty. [Presenter’s] question was irresponsible because, although it may have been posed with the intentional reference to this single, isolated incident, it clearly cannot help but also recall the much more well known and false claim made by the Howard government. Such a question, without reference to the fact that the 'children overboard' claim was actually untrue, serves to encourage and perpetuate the coalition's xenophobic propaganda that demonises asylum seekers.


Attachment CABC’s submissionsThe ABC stated in its response to the complainant that:

On review, the interview was robust and [presenter] challenged Mr Abbott on the Coalition’s Border Protection policy to turn asylum seeker boats around when it is safe to do so. [Presenter] was putting scenarios to the Opposition Leader to see how the policy would work in practice:

[Presenter]: What if they sink their boats, what if they throw their children into the ocean?

Tony Abbott: Well, these are all a range of hypotheticals, but I believe that the professionalism of our Navy is up to the challenges that the people smugglers might pose.

The basis for this is was the example of a real situation where an asylum boat posed challenges to authorities after it was intercepted. During the Northern Territory’s Coronial Inquest into the SIEV 36 Boat accident, the Coroner found that after the boat was intercepted, a fire on the vessel caused an explosion after it had been intercepted. The Coroner found it had been deliberately lit by an asylum seeker on board, after they came to the view the boat was being turned back to Indonesia (see: http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/coroner-says-siev-36-fire-was-deliberate-20100317-qe2u.html )

Also, a 2002 Senate Committee Report "A Certain Maritime Incident" (full report here: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=maritime_incident_ctte/report/report.pdf ) discusses Siev-7, where a child was dropped overboard by an asylum seeker aboard the vessel.

On page 542, The report says in relation to Siev-7: "SIEV 7 was notable as a child was dropped overboard by a woman aboard"

And Page 543: " Two members of the boarding party have made sworn statements that a small child was held over the side by a woman passenger, then dropped into the water. The child was recovered by one of the male passengers already in the water, who bought the child back to the SIEV. All of those who entered the water were safely returned to the SIEV."

You have also asserted that Mr Abbott would not appear on the program unless interviewed by [presenter]. In fact, [presenter 2] was away that day on a long planned leave day. The program had been in negotiations with the Opposition Leader’s office for weeks to organise an interview and had committed to do an interview with the program regardless of who was anchoring the program that night.

The ABC is satisfied the interview was challenging and did not enable the Opposition Leader to use the occasion as a political platform. Furthermore, the ABC believes that there has been no breach of the Code of Practice.

The ABC stated in its submission to the ACMA that:

I refer to your request for comments in relation to 7.30’s compliance with clause 7.7 of the ABC Code of Practice – ‘Avoid the unjustified use of stereotypes or discriminatory content that could reasonably be interpreted as condoning or encouraging prejudice’.

[This] complaint relates to an interview with the then Opposition Leader on a television current affairs program in the lead-up to the 2013 federal election. In this context, [presenter’s] questions – ‘What if they sink their boats, what if they throw their children into the ocean?’ – could not reasonably be interpreted as condoning or


encouraging prejudice. Rather, a reasonable viewer would understand that the questions were being put to Mr Abbott to test how the Opposition’s policy would work in practice. This was explained to [the complainant] in the ABC’s 2 August correspondence.

The questions were not based on stereotypes but from accounts of two previous incidents. References were provided in the ABC’s reply to [the complainant].

The Opposition’s policy in this area was a matter of considerable public interest and 7.30 was entirely justified in asking the then Opposition Leader how the policy would apply in difficult situations.


Attachment DConsiderations which the ACMA has regard to in assessing whether or not broadcast material is factual in character

The primary consideration is whether, according to the natural and ordinary meaning of the language used and the substantive nature of the message conveyed, the relevant material is presented as a statement of fact or as an expression of opinion.

o In that regard, the relevant statement must be evaluated in its context , i.e. contextual indications from the rest of the broadcast (including tenor and tone) are relevant in assessing the meaning conveyed to the ordinary reasonable listener/viewer.

o The use of language such as ‘it seems to me’, ‘we consider/think/believe’ tends to indicate that a statement is presented as an opinion. However, a common sense judgment is required as to how the substantive nature of the statement would be understood by the ordinary reasonable listener/viewer, and the form of words introducing the relevant statement is not conclusive.

Factual material will usually be specific, unequivocal and capable of independent verification.

Inferences of a factual nature made from observed facts are usually still characterised as factual material (subject to context); to qualify as an opinion/viewpoint, an inference reasoned from observed facts would usually have to be presented as an inference of a judgmental or contestable kind.

The identity of the person making the statement would not in and of itself determine whether the statement is factual material or opinion, i.e. it is not possible to conclude that because a statement was made by an interviewee, it was necessarily a statement of opinion rather than factual material.

Statements in the nature of prediction as to future events would nearly always be characterised as statements of opinion.


Attachment EConsiderations which the ACMA has regard to in assessing whether or not broadcast material is impartial

In determining whether or not material complained of is compliant with the ABC’s obligations under standard 4.1 of the Code, the ACMA generally has regard to the following considerations:

The meaning conveyed by the relevant material is assessed according to what an ordinary reasonable viewer would have understood the program concerned to have conveyed.

Achieving impartiality requires a broadcaster to present content in a way which avoids conveying a prejudgement, or giving effect to the affections or enmities of the presenter or reporter in respect of what is broadcast. In this regard:

o The ACMA applies the ordinary English meaning of the word ‘impartial’ in interpreting the Code. The Macquarie Dictionary (Fifth Edition)6 defines ‘impartial’ as: ‘not partial; unbiased; just’. It defines ‘partial’ to include: ‘biased or prejudiced in favour of a person, group, side, etc., as in a controversy’. ‘Bias’ is defined as: ‘a particular tendency or inclination, especially one which prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question’.

o The ACMA considers that a helpful explanation of the ordinary English usage of the term ‘bias’ is set out by Hayne J in Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng7 as follows:

‘Bias’ is used to indicate some preponderating disposition or tendency, a ‘propensity; predisposition towards; predilection; prejudice’.8 It may be occasioned by interest in

the outcome, by affection or enmity, or, as was said to be the case here, by prejudgement. Whatever its cause, the result that is asserted or feared is a deviation from the true course of decision-making, for bias is ‘anything which turns a man to a particular course, or gives the direction to his measures’.

The relevant provision requires the ABC to ‘gather and present news and information with due impartiality’. Inclusion of the word ‘due’ indicates an element of flexibility depending on the particular context: for example, the gathering and presentation of factual information for a news bulletin may be materially different from an interview of a political figure, where challenging questions are ordinarily appropriate.

A program that presents a perspective that is opposed by a particular person or group is not inherently partial. Whether a breach of the Code has occurred will depend on the themes of the program, any editorial comment, the overall presentation of the story and the circumstances in which the program was prepared and broadcast.

Presenters and reporters can play a key role in setting the tone of a program through their style and choice of language. The manner in which a report is presented or reported can

6 Online edition at http://www.macquariedictionary.com.au7 (2001) 205 CLR 507 at 563 [183] Gleeson CJ and Gummow J at 538 [100] agreeing.8 Oxford English Dictionary (Second Edition), meaning 3(a).


influence the conclusions that an ordinary reasonable listener would draw from a broadcast.

The nature of current affairs reporting requires reporters and presenters to be questioning, and at times sceptical, in their analysis of important issues. However, while probing and challenging questions may be used to explore an issue, programs must demonstrate a willingness to include alternative perspectives without prejudgement.


Documents

Investig… · Web viewabout an interview broadcast by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) on television station ABT during the