Investigations... · Web viewOn 4 July 2011, the Australian Communications and Media Authority...

Investigation Report No. 2622File no. ACMA2011/1256

Broadcaster Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Station ABQ (Queensland)

Type of service ABC Television

Name of program 7.30

Date of broadcast 28 June 2011

Relevant Code ABC Code of Practice 2011 clauses:2.2 (not present factual content in misleading way)4.1 (present information with due impartiality)

Date Finalised 8 December 2011

Decision No breach of clause 2.2 (factual accuracy)No breach of clause 4.1 (impartiality)

ACMA Investigation Report – 7.30 broadcast on 28 June 2011

The complaintOn 4 July 2011, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) received a complaint alleging ‘obvious bias’ and ‘erroneous interpretations in an interview of politician about a Malaysian trip’.

The complainant referred the matter to the ACMA for consideration.1

The complaint has been investigated in accordance with clauses 2.2 (not present factual content in misleading way) and 4.1 (present information with due impartiality) of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 (the Code).

The programAccording to the ABC website 7.30 is:

‘ABC TV's national flagship current affairs program’. It ‘is led by two of Australia's most respected journalists ...’

‘With a network of dedicated and specialist correspondents in every state and territory as well as the ABC's foreign correspondents, 7.30 brings the best of domestic and international news and analysis’.

[...]

‘Every week-night viewers can expect a contemporary current affairs program that reflects the ABC's reputation for quality, trust and independence’.

[...]

‘7.30 is impartial and accurate and fearless. It covers the drama of daily news but also provides the context. It reaches beyond the CBDs and inner suburbs and explores the concerns of suburban, regional and rural Australia. It boasts some of the finest television journalism in the country’. 2

A transcript of 7.30 from 28 June 2011 is set out at Attachment A.

AssessmentThe assessment is based on written submissions from the complainant and the ABC, and a copy of the broadcast which was provided by the ABC to the ACMA. Other sources consulted have been identified where relevant.

‘Ordinary reasonable’ viewer testIn assessing content against the Codes, the ACMA considers the meaning conveyed by the relevant material. This is assessed according to the understanding of an ‘ordinary reasonable’ viewer. Australian courts have considered an ‘ordinary reasonable 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

1 Section 151 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 sets out the ACMA’s role in investigating complaints about ABC’s compliance with the ABC Code of Practice.

2 http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/about.htm accessed on 24 October 2011.

ACMA Investigation Report – 7.30 broadcast on 28 June 2011 2

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/about.htm

between the lines in the light of that person’s general knowledge and experience of worldly affairs.3

The ACMA considers the natural, ordinary meaning of the language, context, tenor, tone, inferences that may be drawn, and in the case of factual material, relevant omissions (if any).

Once this test has been applied to ascertain the meaning of the broadcast material, it is for the ACMA to determine whether the material has breached the Code.

The complainant’s submissionsOn 28 June 2011, the complainant submitted to the ABC:

Subject: Interview with Scott Morison (sic)

Comments: (The) interview with the Shadow Minister for Immigration was a very poor excuse of journalism. (The) attack and attempt to "put words into the Shadow Ministers mouth" was appaling (sic) and in my view she should apologise for the baltant (sic) display showing her bias. That was not a professional display and if such obvious bias is to be shown in future interviews I am afraid I will have to avoid watching the 7.30 report.

On 30 June 2011 the complainant made the following further4 submission to the ABC and the ACMA:

I find it very disturbing that “the Devil’s Advocate” defence is used to imply (the interviewer) ... was doing this to invoke response. The body language and continuous attempt to get Mr Morrison to denigrate Malaysia in a public forum by repeating on at least two occasions erroneous interpretations of his previous answers implying derogatory things about Malaysia would in my view be at odds with the following extract from your standards:

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.

It would also be a way of “making news” and from the tone and intent creating a diplomatic incident.

I am amazed that though your committee and thus by default the ABC feel that a Senior Politician can be treated rudely with quote “what is acceptable with an experienced politician like Mr Morrison discussing a matter of important public debate”. I contend that it is highly unusual when the interviewee responds (and I cannot quote as I do not have a recording) that he was offended.

Principles: The ABC has a statutory duty to ensure that the gathering and presentation of news and information is impartial according to the recognised standards of objective journalism.

The above principle, in my view, has also been breached. This interview was not impartial unless impartiality and objective journalism is different from what I (and my wife who watched the interview) would consider impartial and objective in normal life.

3 Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158 at 164–167.4 In response to the ABC’s correspondence of 30 June 2011, set out at page 4 below.


Unfortunately I do not have the luxury a recording to remind myself of the exact details. I do not believe your reply really satisfies my concerns as you conveniently claim that toughness is acceptable and (the interviewer) ... was not rude. I guess we differ on interpretation.

The ABC’s submissions On 30 June 2011, in its response to the complainant’s correspondence of 28 June 2011, the ABC submitted:

The refugee issue generally and the Government’s negotiations with Malaysia, in particular, are highly contentious issues. It is appropriate that both Government and Opposition spokesmen are vigorously challenged. That often involves playing “Devil’s advocate” - presenting strong arguments and positions for the interviewee to respond to. It does not imply that such positions are those of the presenter or the ABC.

We are sorry if you thought (the interviewer) ... was disrespectful or rude to Mr Morrison. In our view her questioning, while tough, was well within the bounds of what is acceptable with an experienced politician like Mr Morrison discussing a matter of important public debate.

All the questions asked by (the interviewer) ... related to matters which had been raised publicly in other forums and were all matters of legitimate public interest.

Accordingly, while noting your concerns, Audience and Consumer Affairs are satisfied the broadcast was in keeping with the ABC’s editorial standards. Nonetheless, please be assured that your comments have been noted and conveyed to ABC News management.

The ABC also submitted the following to the ACMA, on 29 July 2011:

The ACMA has requested comments about the ABC’s compliance with clause 2.2 of the Code of Practice:

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.

(In the complaint’s submission) ... he complains that the interviewer, “repeat[ed] on at least two occasions erroneous interpretations of [Mr Morrison’s] previous answers implying derogatory things about Malaysia”. (The complainant) ... does not specify the comments which are the subject of his complaint. The ABC has assumed that the relevant remarks are those highlighted in bold in this excerpt from the interview:

INTERVIEWER: So then are you satisfied from what you've seen there that the human rights of asylum seekers Australia sends to Malaysia would be protected?

SCOTT MORRISON: No, and I'm not for two reasons. One is if there is no preferential treatment then I know what the current arrangements are and that's not acceptable. But secondly, even with the best will in the world, even with all the sign offs that people may want to give, the practical difficulties of ensuring that people aren't harassed on a daily basis, the practical difficulties of someone who has to work to survive. They confirmed to us in the meeting they'd have to find their own accommodation when they got out of that initial place for processing. They've got to pay for that.

INTERVIEWER: So in effect what you are saying is that basically you don't trust the


Malaysian Government to protect the human rights of people that Australia would send there?

SCOTT MORRISON: I'm saying I don't trust the Australian Government to come to an agreement here that lives up to the agreements they say are in place.

INTERVIEWER: No, you're saying when these people arrive in Malaysia their rights aren't protected and that's the responsibility of the Malaysian Government.

SCOTT MORRISON: I'd argue this, it's the Australian Government who want to send 800 people there, it's the Australian Government who need to ensure these things are in place. They understand, they should know what the arrangements are in Malaysia and if they don't believe that can be done, and I don't think it can be done, then they shouldn't be sending people there.

INTERVIEWER: You have just been in Malaysia and sat here and given me your assessment of the conditions there, in effect you are saying the Malaysian Government cannot guarantee the human rights of these people?

SCOTT MORRISON: Well this is the practical reality ... and the Australian Government should know that and the Australian Government should not be going down this path when they know that that is the case. Now if they don't know that is the case then they should do what I've just done and I'm happy to share my experiences with them but they should know that the practical realities of trying to live up to the guarantee s they say are in place are delusional from their part.

INTERVIEWER: Is it appropriate for a member of the Opposition to visit a foreign country, an ally of Australia and criticise that country's practices?

SCOTT MORRISON: I haven't criticised their practice.

INTERVIEWER: You have.

SCOTT MORRISON: I've criticised the Australian Government. I'm criticising the Australian Government for entering into an arrangement that will send 800 people who are in our care into those conditions in a country that is not a signatory to the refugee convention.

INTERVIEWER: You said the practical reality is that the Malaysian Government cannot protect the human right of these people, that's criticising the Malaysian Government. Aren't you breaking with a long standing tradition in Australian politics that members of the Opposition don't travel abroad and get involved in these type of things?

As the principles in section 2 of the ABC Code of Practice make clear, the ABC takes into account the following elements in considering accuracy:


the type, subject and nature of the content,

the likely audience expectations of the content,

the likely impact of reliance by the audience on the accuracy of the content; and

the circumstances in which the content was made and presented.

In this case, the context was an interview with an experienced politician on one of the ABC’s flagship current affairs programs. Viewers expect these to be testing exchanges, as do interviewees. In this case, the interview dealt with a matter of significant political controversy and public interest: the Government’s plan to make a deal with Malaysia in relation to asylum seekers. All of these factors are important in considering the way that the interview was conducted.

During the interview, (the interviewer) ... asserted that Scott Morrison, through his remarks in the interview, had publicly criticised the Malaysian Government and not just criticised the Australian Government. The evidence on which (the interviewer) ... based this was provided by Mr Morrison himself. For example, in response to a direct question from (the interviewer) ... as to whether he was satisfied from what he had seen in Malaysia that the human rights of asylum seekers Australia sent there would be protected, Mr Morrison unequivocally answered “No”, and cited two reason (sic): the lack of preferential treatment and the practical difficulties asylums (sic) seekers would face living in Malaysia.

Following on from this answer (the interviewer) ... put a series of questions to Mr Morrison suggesting that he was “in effect” saying that Malaysia could not guarantee the human rights of asylum seekers sent there by Australia. While Mr Morrison emphasised that his criticism was directed at the Australian government, not Malaysia, he continued to make the point that the conditions in Malaysia are alarming. He said of the Australian Government: “They understand, they should know what the arrangements are in Malaysia and if they don’t believe that can be done [ie. protecting asylum seekers’ rights], and I don’t think it can be done, then they shouldn’t be sending people there.”

In the end, Mr Morrison explicitly agreed with (the interviewer) ... that Malaysia couldn’t guarantee refugees’ human rights:


SCOTT MORRISON: Well this is the practical reality ...

This comment clearly referred to the Malaysian government not the Australian Government. Mr Morrison’s subsequent denial that he had criticised the Malaysian government (“I haven’t criticised their practice”) does not render (the interviewer’s) ... remarks inaccurate.

The ABC is confident that viewers watching this exchange would not have been mislead ...

Further comments by the complainantThe ACMA put to the complainant the ABC’s interpretation of the comments which were the subject of the complaint (being the passages marked in bold above). On 14 November 2011 the complainant responded as follows:


The interview occurred some considerable time ago and as I do not have a digital copy of the interview I cannot comment as if the extract you have provided is sufficient however it does highlight to some degree the tone of the interview.

My complaint is reproduced below following a shallow self serving response from the ABC. It was not about ABC bias but about the Interviewers approach and non adherence to stated ABC policy.

[The complainant cites his correspondence of 30 June 2011 as set out at pages 3-4 above]

I do not agree that your assumptions are correct that I am “complaining about the accuracy of the statements by the reporter.” As clearly noted in my previous email I do not think the reporter adhered to their own guidelines.

For example [the reporter] in the extract you have sent, uses emotive language with words such “basically you do not trust the Malaysian Government etc”. She then contradicts his reply!

My complaint is not about ABC bias but about the interviewer’s aggressive approach. The interpretation she put on the Shadow Ministers response was erroneous and with a deliberate attempt to antagonise the Shadow Minister. In my view she has belittled the standard that I would expect from a serious program such as the 7.30 Report.

I trust this helps.

In response to the ACMA’s request that the Complainant ‘elaborate and advise which of the interviewer's statements caused you concern’, the complainant wrote:

As noted I do not have the full transcript but numbering the interviewers question in the transcripts sent that is 1 to 7 I would suggest the following:

Q1 - I cannot recall the previous statement from Morrison but [the reporter] obviously misinterprets his answer

Q2 - She attempts to be emotive

Q3 - She actually tells Morrison "No"

Q4, Q5, Q6, Q7 - she is doggedly trying to get Morrison to "criticise" a foreign country on national television when all he is doing is stating the facts that about refugee status in Malaysia. She is imposing her interpretation in a hostile manner.

The transcript form of the interview does not explain or show the full picture - I recall a very hostile display by the interviewer that in my view was not professional.

I do not like to make comparisons but I would suggest that professional like [insert name] would have gained more information with a far easier that does not breach the ABC's own code of journalism.

Issue 1: Accuracy of factual content

Relevant Code clauseThe Code contains the following standards:

2. 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 considerations which the ACMA generally applies in determining whether a statement complained of was compliant with the ABC’s obligations concerning factual content are set out at Attachment B.

Finding

The ABC did not breach clause 2.2 of the 2011 code.

ReasonsThe complainant claims that various statements made by the interviewer ‘on at least two occasions’ were ‘erroneous interpretations of his previous answers implying derogatory things about Malaysia’. The complainant doesn’t elaborate on these statements in his complaint. However, having reviewed the broadcast and the transcript, the ACMA is satisfied that the following statements made by the interviewer, and identified in by the ABC in its submission to the ACMA, are relevant to the complaint:

‘No, you're saying when these people arrive in Malaysia their rights aren't protected and that's the responsibility of the Malaysian Government’.

[…]

‘You have just been in Malaysia and sat here and given me your assessment of the conditions there, in effect you are saying the Malaysian Government cannot guarantee the human rights of these people?’

[…]

‘You said the practical reality is that the Malaysian Government cannot protect the human right of these people, that's criticising the Malaysian Government’.

The first issue to consider is whether the identified statements are ‘factual content’ or expressions of opinion. As indicated above, the matter is assessed according to what an ‘ordinary reasonable viewer’ would have understood.

It is considered that an ordinary reasonable listener would have regarded the material as opinion rather than factual content. The statements were not made in an unqualified and unequivocal manner based on observable facts but were presented as judgemental or contestable matters. Indeed, the comments were made by the interviewer for the purposes of eliciting a response from Mr Morrison, and Mr Morrison did respond to these comments during the course of the interview.

As the material was not factual content it does not breach clause 2.2 of the 2011 code, and there is no requirement to further consider whether the material will materially mislead the audience.

Issue 2: Impartiality and diversity of perspectives

Relevant Code clauseThe Code contains the following standards:


4. Impartiality and diversity of perspectives

4.1 Gather and present news and information with due impartiality.

The considerations which the ACMA generally applies in determining whether a statement complained of was compliant with the ABC’s obligations concerning impartiality are set out at Attachment C.

Finding

The ABC did not breach clause 4.1 of the 2011 Code.

ReasonsWhile the Complainant, in his submission of 14 November 2011 writes ‘(my complaint) was not about ABC bias’, it is clear that the substance of his complaint, set out in his correspondence of 28 and 30 June 2011, raises issues related to bias and clause 4.1 of the 2011 Code.

The program contained an interview with the Shadow Minister for Immigration, and concerned his recent visit to Malaysia and the treatment of would-be Australian asylum seekers in Malaysia, amongst other matters. It is considered that an ordinary reasonable listener would not regard this interview as lacking impartiality. While the interviewer’s questions are hard hitting, and they are presented in a forthright manner, there is insufficient evidence to indicate that the interviewer’s questions demonstrated partiality or represented her own view in relation to the asylum-seeker issue. The interviewer did not use sustained emotive or colourful language in asking the questions nor provided any comments which indicated that what was being reported was her own view.

While the complainant’s concerns that the interviewer adopted an overly aggressive approach are noted, the ACMA also notes that the interviewer provides the interviewee with a great many of opportunities to respond to all of the questions asked.

Further, on numerous occasions throughout the 8 and a half minute interview, the Minister is allowed to speak on an uninterrupted basis. For example the Minister speaks from 3.58 to 4.22 (24 seconds), 4.26 to 5.11 (45 seconds), and 6.22 to 7.22 (1 minute). The Minister also speaks from 5.26 to 6.10 (44 seconds), and on the two occasions that the interviewer attempted to ask the next question (at 5.31 and 5.42), the Minister spoke over the interviewer.

For these reasons, the delegate considers that the interruptions made by the presenter did not convey a prejudgement or partiality. Accordingly, the delegate finds that the ABC did not breach clause 4.1 of the Code in relation to the broadcast on 28 June 2011.


Attachment AThe following is a transcript of the program:

INTERVIEWER: Well earlier today, the shadow immigration minister Scott Morrison arrived home from a four-day visit to Malaysia.

He says it was to assess conditions for asylum-seekers there firsthand, but the Government has labelled his trip a destructive stunt.

Scott Morrison joined me a short time ago in the Sydney studio.

INTERVIEWER: Scott Morrison, you had meetings with senior officials from the Home Affairs Office in Malaysia, what did they tell you?

SCOTT MORRISON, SHADOW MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP: They answered questions that the Government here refused to answer over the last eight weeks. They made it very clear that there would be no preferential treatment for those sent to Malaysia. Now that means, and we went through this, they won't be allowed to go to public schools, they won't have access to public hospitals unless they pay. They won't have work rights which leaves them very exposed in that community as well not only just to employers who take advantage of them but if you're arrested for illegal work then you're off to prison or a detention centre.

INTERVIEWER: Did the Malaysian officials tell you from their perspective what's the hold up with the deal?

SCOTT MORRISON: There are still a few sticking points. One is what will be done with those who aren't refugees and who will return them and how will that happen or can they stay in Malaysia. The other is where those who are sent from Australia will actually be accommodated when they first go there. They confirmed that it wouldn't be the detention centre where there are rumours it would have been that centre and so they haven't worked out that detail. They've said early July they told us that they hope to have an agreement finalised.

INTERVIEWER: So they still think from their end there will be a deal?

SCOTT MORRISON: They do, they do. And that's the basis they're proceeding on.

INTERVIEWER: So then are you satisfied from what you've seen there that the human rights of asylum seekers Australia sends to Malaysia would be protected?

SCOTT MORRISON: No, and I'm not for two reasons. One is if there is no preferential treatment then I know what the current arrangements are and that's not acceptable. But secondly, even with the best will in the world, even with all the sign offs that people may want to give, the practical difficulties of ensuring that people aren't harassed on a daily basis, the practical difficulties of someone who has to work to survive. They confirmed to us in the meeting they'd have to find their own accommodation when they got out of that initial place for processing. They've got to pay for that.

INTERVIEWER: So in effect what you are saying is that basically you don't trust the Malaysian


Government to protect the human rights of people that Australia would send there?

SCOTT MORRISON: I'm saying I don't trust the Australian Government to come to an agreement here that lives up to the agreements they say are in place.

INTERVIEWER: No, you're saying when these people arrive in Malaysia their rights aren't protected and that's the responsibility of the Malaysian Government.

SCOTT MORRISON: I'd argue this, it's the Australian Government who want to send 800 people there, it's the Australian Government who need to ensure these things are in place. They understand, they should know what the arrangements are in Malaysia and if they don't believe that can be done, and I don't think it can be done, then they shouldn't be sending people there.


SCOTT MORRISON: Well this is the practical reality ... and the Australian Government should know that and the Australian Government should not be going down this path when they know that that is the case. Now if they don't know that is the case then they should do what I've just done and I'm happy to share my experiences with them but they should know that the practical realities of trying to live up to the guarantee s they say are in place are delusional from their part.

INTERVIEWER: Is it appropriate for a member of the Opposition to visit a foreign country, an ally of Australia and criticise that country's practices?

SCOTT MORRISON: I haven't criticised their practice.

INTERVIEWER: You have.

SCOTT MORRISON: I've criticised the Australian Government. I'm criticising the Australian Government for entering into an arrangement that will send 800 people who are in our care into those conditions in a country that is not a signatory to the refugee convention.

INTERVIEWER: You said the practical reality is that the Malaysian Government cannot protect the human right of these people, that's criticising the Malaysian Government. Aren't you breaking with a long standing tradition in Australian politics that members of the Opposition don't travel abroad and get involved in these type of things?

SCOTT MORRISON: I did not engage in any debate on these matters in Malaysia.

INTERVIEWER: They'd be paying attention to your comments now.

SCOTT MORRISON: I went to Malaysia, I saw on the ground what I would hope all Australians would want an Australian politician to do, to do his homework on what the practical realities are of this arrangement. I've been to Nauru and Malaysia and I know which is the more humane, cost effective and I know which is proven. As an Australian MP, as an Australian, I cannot support an arrangement that


would send 800 people to what I saw in Malaysia.

INTERVIEWER: Presumably you're not so moved by their plight that you think these people should be processed in Australia?

SCOTT MORRISON: I think they should be processed humanely and on Nauru that will occur. Every child on Nauru will go to school. Every person will have access to public health care. Every person who goes there will have programs sand actives, meals, accommodation, they will have all of their needs meet for the entire time they are processed and those who ultimately get a resettlement will get a resettlement and those who don't will return home as it happened last time. Forty-three per cent of the those who went through the Pacific Solution last time went through Australia. The balance went to other countries or went home. I know how people will be treated in Nauru and I think the Government is going to enter into an arrangement such as this should inform themselves of the practical realities. I've done that for both my policy and the Government's policy and I know which one is better.

INTERVIEWER: The reason you took this trip is because you see political mileage in going there and coming back and embarrassing the Gillard Government?

SCOTT MORRISON: I think that's offensive and I'm offended by the question. I went there to understand the realities.

INTERVIEWER: You didn't have an eye to the political mileage you would make out of it.

SCOTT MORRISON: I think it's cynical to think I'd have another approach. You know me well and you know I have a keen interest in these matters and a keen interest in understanding what the human dimension are of the decisions that we take as politicians. This is very difficult space ... it's incredibly difficult space and both Chris Bowen and I have to be responsible for the decisions we take. They have human consequences. Now I informed myself of those consequences, I go and see what they mean on the ground. Now I've done that, others will criticise me for it, the Government will because the Government will say you shouldn't have gone because we want to live in the delusion that this arrangement won't have these personal impacts. Well it does and the Government needs to own up to it and be honest about it.

INTERVIEWER: How much did your trip cost taxpayers?

SCOTT MORRISON: Well it was done under Tony Abbott's entitlement which is available to him and that's what the entitlement is for.

INTERVIEWER: How much was it?

SCOTT MORRISON: The final tallies will be there once the bills come in and I don't have an issue with that. I think it's important. Australian MPs travel all the time. Kevin Rudd's always on a plane. I don't have a problem with MPs informing themselves of important policy issues. This is a significant agreement and no one has been out there in the Australian Parliament other than the Opposition trying to highlight the humanitarian consequences of this decision. Now Australians should know, and as I speak to Australians about this the more they know about it the more they understand the consequences, the more they don't like it. Now, for 10 years the Labor Party demonised John Howard.


They said our policies were too harsh. Now we have a Prime Minister who says that they were too soft. She wants to be more harsh. She wants to punish people. That's her policy and I say to those on the Labor backbench the challenge the Howard Government for years to stand up because at the moment they're glued to their seats and if they don't stand up on this issue well, frankly, I think they've betrayed their own principles.

INTERVIEWER: A question on another matter. There's been a messy brawl over the Liberal Party presidency, there's been some bad people management there by Tony Abbott, hasn't there?

SCOTT MORRISON: No, I don't think so. I was in Kuala Lumpur on the weekend as you know so I wasn't here for those events.

INTERVIEWER: You must have caught up with them though?

SCOTT MORRISON: Not really. We have a robust party and an open party process and I think the real challenges and things going on in this area are in the Labor Party. They're the part party of the long knives.

INTERVIEWER: Let's stick with your party for now. When a long time senior Liberal like Peter Reith is publicly humiliated surely that raises some questions about Tony Abbott's judgment and people skills?

SCOTT MORRISON: There was a ballot and two good candidates and one won. That's what happens

INTERVIEWER: Tony Abbott handled it well?

SCOTT MORRISON: I have no troubles with the way Tony handled this matter. This was a party organisational matter. I'm a former director of the party here in NSW and there is a division in responsibilities between the party organisation and the parliamentary party. This was an organisational ballot. The rank and file have had their say through that process and the party moves forward.

INTERVIEWER: Scott Morrison, thanks very much.

SCOTT MORRISON: Thanks a lot ...


Attachment BCONSIDERATIONS WHICH THE ACMA HAS REGARD TO IN ASSESSING THE ABC’S COMPLIANCE WITH FACTUAL ACCURACY REQUIREMENTS OF ABC CODES OF PRACTICE

The ACMA must assess whether the relevant statement would have been understood by the ordinary reasonable viewer as a statement of fact or an expression of opinion.

The primary consideration would be whether, according to the natural and ordinary meaning of the language used and the substantive nature of the message conveyed, the relevant material presents as a statement of fact or 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 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 viewer, and the form of words introducing the relevant statement is not conclusive.

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

While licensees are not required to present all factual material available to them, if the omission of some factual material means that the factual material actually broadcast is not presented accurately, that would amount to a breach of the clause.

In situations where witnesses give contradictory accounts and there is no objective way of verifying the material facts, the obligation to present factual material accurately will ordinarily require that the competing assertions of fact be presented accurately as competing assertions.

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 CCONSIDERATIONS WHICH THE ACMA HAS REGARD TO IN ASSESSING THE ABC’S COMPLIANCE WITH CLAUSE 4.1 OF THE CODE

In determining whether or not material complained of is compliant with the ABC’s obligations under clause 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. The Court’s interpretation of the ordinary reasonable viewer has been detailed above in the considerations under accuracy.

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)5 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 Legeng6 as follows:

‘Bias’ is used to indicate some preponderating disposition or tendency, a ‘propensity; predisposition towards; predilection; prejudice’.7 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 ‘any thing which turns a man to a particular course, or gives the direction to his measures’.

A perspective may be quite reasonably favoured if all the evidence supports it; it is only where the favouring is undue in some way that the Code is breached.

A program that presents a perspective that is opposed by a particular person or group is not inherently partial. Whether a breach of clause 4.1 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 influence the conclusions that an ordinary reasonable listener would draw from a broadcast.

5 Online edition at http://www.macquariedictionary.com.au6 (2001) 205 CLR 507 at 563 [183] Gleeson CJ and Gummow J at 538 [100] agreeing.7 Oxford English Dictionary (Second Edition), meaning 3(a).


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.


Investigations... · Web viewOn 4 July 2011, the Australian Communications and Media Authority...

Documents

Transcript of Investigations... · Web viewOn 4 July 2011, the Australian Communications and Media Authority...