investig… · web viewthe government moved in question time, with foreign minister julie bishop...

Investigation Report No. 3203File No. ACMA2014/313

Broadcaster Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Station RN – ABC Radio National

Type of Service National Broadcaster

Name of Program RN Breakfast

Date of Broadcast 27 February 2014

Relevant Code Standards 4.1 and 4.2 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011

Date Finalised 4 June 2014

Decision No breach of standard 4.1 [impartiality]No breach of standard 4.2 [diversity of perspective]

ACMA Investigation Report 3203—RN Breakfast—RN – ABC Radio National – 27 February 2014

Background In April 2014, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) opened an

investigation into a segment of RN Breakfast radio program, broadcast by RN – ABC Radio National on 27 February 2014.

RN Breakfast is broadcast from 6am to 9am on weekdays across Australia. It contains a mixture of news and current affairs, as well as interviews. Its focus is primarily on current political events. It is described on its website as follows:

RN Breakfast is the show the nation’s political class wakes up to. Start each day with comprehensive coverage and analysis of national and international events, and interviews with the leaders and thinkers that matter.1

On 27 February 2014, the presenter, Fran Kelly, discussed an accusation made in the Federal Parliament the day before by the Shadow Minister for Defence, Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy. He claimed that Lieutenant General Angus Campbell, the military commander of Operations Sovereign Borders, had engaged in a political cover-up. Ms Kelly stated that Senator Conroy had withdrawn the accusation but had not apologised.

The segment then replayed calls in the Parliament by the Foreign Minister, the Hon Julie Bishop MP, for Senator Conroy to be sacked and the speech in response by the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon Bill Shorten MP.

The segment continued with an interview by Ms Kelly of Paul Bongiorno, a political journalist. They discussed the incident and the broader issue of the role of the military in Operation Sovereign Borders.

Later in the segment Ms Kelly noted that the debate in the Parliament had been sparked by Mr Andrew Wilkie MP, independent member for Denison, who had moved a motion admonishing Senator Conroy for his attack on Lieutenant General Campbell.

This was followed by an interview with Mr Wilkie which covered the appointment of the Lieutenant General to command Operation Sovereign Borders, Senator Conroy’s accusations and the Opposition Leader’s speech. Mr Wilkie said Senator Conroy’s attack was unwarranted but that it was appropriate for the Opposition to be asking questions about Operation Sovereign Borders.

A transcript of the segment is at Attachment A.

The complainant is at Attachment B.

The ABC’s submissions are at Attachment C.

The investigation has considered the ABC’s compliance with standards 4.1 and 4.2 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 (the Code):

4 Impartiality and diversity of perspectives

4.1 Gather and present news and information with due impartiality.

4.2 Present a diversity of perspectives so that, over time, no significant strand of thought or belief within the community is knowingly excluded or disproportionately represented.

1 http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/


2

Assessment In assessing content for compliance with the Codes, the ACMA considers the meaning

conveyed by the relevant material. This is assessed according to the understanding of an ‘ordinary reasonable’ listener.

Australian courts have considered an ‘ordinary, reasonable’ listener 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 affairs2.

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 that material has breached the Codes.

Issue: Impartiality and diversity of perspectivesFinding

The ABC did not breach standards 4.1 or 4.2 of the Code.

Reasons

Standard 4.1 of the Code requires the ABC to ‘gather and present news and information with due impartiality’.

Standard 4.2 requires it to ‘present a diversity of perspectives so that, over time, no significant strand of thought or belief within the community is knowingly or disproportionately represented’.

As noted in the introduction to standard 4 of the Code (the principles):

Aiming to equip audiences to make up their own minds is consistent with the public service character of the ABC. A democratic society depends on diverse sources of reliable information and contending opinions. A broadcaster operating under statute with public funds is legitimately expected to contribute in ways that may differ from commercial media, which are free to be partial to private interests.

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.[...]

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


3

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 ACMA notes that a focus of RN Breakfast is current political events.

In this case, the subject of the report was a ‘furious’ parliamentary debate the day before and the segment included replays of speeches and an interview with the member of Parliament who led a motion admonishing Senator Conroy for his attack on the Lieutenant General.

There is no dispute that the events took place nor that they were reported accurately.

The complainant wrote, ‘Nothing was said in their discussion to damn Conroy’s attack,’ and ‘Nothing is said about Conroy’s (in)ability to function properly as Labor’s shadow defence minister’. However, there were a number of statements throughout the segment disapproving the attack including from the presenter, Mr Bongiorno and Mr Wilkie. The presenter also questioned both interviewees on whether Senator Conroy’s office remained tenable:

Mr Bongiono noted that ‘Stephen Conroy did go over the top’ and said his withdrawal of his statement ‘speaks for itself’

The presenter said to Mr Bongiorno, ‘I think it’s fair to say, there’s broad agreement even from the Labor ranks, that he [Senator Conroy] over-stepped the mark…He is the Shadow Minister for Defence. Is that position tenable? Can he remain in that portfolio?’ and to Mr Wilkie, ‘What should happen now. Can Senator Conroy maintain his position?

Mr Bongiorno said, ‘I believe that …that this over-stepping the mark, which he later withdrew has to be balanced up…and I think his leader and indeed Senator Conroy himself, in withdrawing the remarks, pointed out the great regard and honour and respect that is due to our military…’

In his interview Mr Wilkie stated, ‘that doesn’t give Senator Stephen Conroy any reason to be attacking the integrity of the three star general himself, ’ and later, ‘But what happened was that Senator Conroy accused General Campbell of being complicit in a cover-up, when there is no evidence that General Campbell is part of any cover up. It was a direct attack on his character, and it was entirely unwarranted, and it took away from the very important questioning that Senator Conroy should have been involved in… what I would have liked to have seen yesterday was the Opposition leader standing up and supporting the motion…to admonish Senator Conroy.’

The ACMA considers that while each of the interviewees stated that it was appropriate to ask questions over the role of the military in Operation Sovereign Borders, there was repeated criticism from different relevant perspectives of Senator Conroy’s attack.


4

In introducing Mr Bongiorno to analyse the incident, the presenter quoted the Opposition Leader’s speech and commented that he was sounding stronger than he had to date. It was clear from her use of words ‘probably’ and ‘I think’ that this was an expression of opinion concerning the comparative intensity of his Parliamentary performance. She then noted that ‘he did not criticise his Shadow Minister’ and asked, ‘did he get the balance right?’

The ACMA accepts the ABC’s submission that this was not an endorsement of the speech.

The comment by Mr Bongiorno that Senator Conroy’s speech sparked a ‘vaild, broad debate,’ the presenter’s comments about the secrecy, and politicisation, of the military and Mr Wilkie’s comments that he agreed the issue was ultimately a law and order matter were made in the context of the discussion of the role of the military in Operation Sovereign Borders.

This issue had been raised in Parliament as a contentious matter of public debate, and was explored in the segment.

The ACMA accepts the ABC’s submission that the presenter’s questioning was a common devil’s advocate style of interviewing whereby a particular position is put to the interviewee for response.

The ACMA notes that in a program reporting on political issues including matters raised in Parliament, the ordinary reasonable viewer would expect the presenter to at times adopt a strong contrarian stance without this necessarily amounting to a lack of impartiality.

Further, in the context of the matters being reported, the audience would expect a rigorous discussion with strong views being expressed by politicians and commentators.

The ACMA considers that, having heard the replays of the Parliamentary debate, Mr Wilkie’s recount of events and Mr Bongiorno’s commentary, the audience was put in a position to assess the relative merits of the contentious issues.

The also ACMA notes the ABC’s submission that:

The story was also covered the previous day on Radio National, including on The World Today (http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2014/s3952608.htm) and PM (http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2014/s3952882.htm), which included the views of Defence Force Chief David Hurley, General Campbell, Assistant Defence Minister Stuart Robert, Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Foreign Minister Julie Bishop.

The ACMA is satisfied that, in replaying Senator Conroy’s speech and Ms Bishop’s response, referring to criticisms within the Opposition and broadcasting the critical views of a political commentator and the Member of Parliament who introduced a motion admonishing Senator Conroy, as well as the views of key parties, the ABC met the hallmarks of impartiality.

It demonstrated a balance that follows the weight of evidence, fair treatment, open-mindedness and opportunities over time for relevant perspectives on matters of contention to be expressed.

The ACMA considers that the news and information concerning the issue debated in Parliament was gathered and presented with due impartiality and a diversity of perspectives was presented. Therefore, the ABC did not breach standard 4.1 or standard 4.2 of the Code.


5

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2014/s3952882.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2014/s3952608.htm

Attachment A Transcript of the segmentsInterview with Paul Bongiorno

Presenter – The question of patriotism and politicisation of the military exploded in the Federal Parliament yesterday. Stephen Conroy lit the spark when he accused the military commander of Operation Sovereign Borders, Lieutenant General Angus Campbell, of being guilty of a political cover-up. The Shadow Minister later withdrew the allegation, but didn’t apologise. The government moved in question time, with Foreign Minister Julie Bishop demanding that unless Stephen Conroy apologise, the Shadow Defence Minister should be sacked.

The Hon Julie Bishop, MP – Senator Conroy should apologise, and the Member for Hunter knows that. Senator Conroy should apologise, he should give an unqualified apology. And if he does not, the Leader of the Opposition should remove him from the role of Shadow Minister for Defence; he is unfit for that role!

Presenter – And it remained at that intensity for most of the time in question time. Opposition Leader Bill Shorten responding to this attack from the government, accusing it of ‘fake patriotism’ and misuse of the military.

The Hon Bill Shorten, MP – General Campbell deserves better than having you – having you use him as a political football to pursue your grubby culture of secrecy. Our military deserve better than having you hide behind uniforms, rather than the Minister actually do his day job and tell us what is going on.

Presenter – Bill Shorten. In a moment, Independent MP Andrew Wilkie will join us – he sparked that debate we were just hearing elements of then, when he moved a motion to admonish Stephen Conroy for those comments to Lieutenant General Angus Campbell. Paul Bongiorno joins us now though – Paul, good morning!

Paul Bongiorno – Good morning Fran.

Presenter – We just heard Bill Shorten there in the Parliament – probably sounding stronger than I think, any of his Parliamentary performances have sounded to date - he’s been criticised for being a bit lacklustre – in that answer, he condemned the quote ‘sanctimonious finger-wagging, lecture-given sermonising, false patriotism where those opposite would seek to use the military as a stick to beat Labor about the head with’. But he didn’t criticise his Shadow Minister. So did he get the balance right, or should he have—

Paul Bongiorno – Well, well, he said that the Shadow Minister has withdrawn his statement, and that speaks for itself. Then he went on to make the broader issue of the government cloaking itself in the flag, as he put it. Now, I think there’s no doubt that Stephen Conroy did go over the top; the barbs he directed at the General should have been directed at the Minister. But what I think it does underlie, and what I think Bill Shorten brought out today, was, in fact, that what we’ve got in Operation Sovereign Borders is a huge mis-application of our military. Even the Australian Defence Force Association says this should be a civilian matter. This is a police matter, not a military matter. We have not declared war with Indonesia, we are not facing an armed invasion from a military source. And from that point of view, there is no doubt that our military are being used, in broader political purposes. There’s also no doubt that the culture of secrecy that we’re seeing here fits into the political agenda of the


6

government rather than the military agenda. So I think that there is a valid, broad debate here that has been sparked by Stephen Conroy. He has withdrawn, but issues that have been raised by this hoo-ha, I think, are valid, and need to be stuck with.

Presenter – I think it’s fair to say though – there’s a culture of secrecy amongst our military too, and it’s often criticised. Our military, won’t tell us things that other militaries in the same field of war will disclose to their citizens, so, I think, both cultures, perhaps, have elements of that. And yesterday, I must correct something I said yesterday, I said the Coalition when in opposition announced the appointment of Angus Campbell to Head of Operation Sovereign Borders; they didn’t, because they can’t, of course, don’t have that power, they did say that a three-star General would be in control, and at that point, there was concern that that would mean the politicisation of the military. I think what you’re saying is that’s exactly what’s come to pass.

Paul Bongiorno – Yes.

Presenter – Nevertheless, Stephen Conroy, I think it’s fair to say, there’s broad agreement even from within Labor ranks, that he over-stepped the mark when he accused Angus Campbell of a political cover-up. He is the Shadow Minister for Defence. Is that position tenable? Can he remain in that portfolio?

Paul Bongiorno – Well look, I actually believe he can remain in that portfolio. Now, there’s a lot of criticism for how deft he is, why did he do this, some people think he was trying to run a distraction from the criticism of the NBN, all of those sorts of things. But err, but I believe that, if you like, that this over-stepping of the mark, which he later withdrew, you know, has to be balanced up about what – you know, what else he’s doing more broadly in the portfolio, and I think his leader, and indeed Senator Conroy himself, in withdrawing the remarks, pointed out the great regard and honour and respect that is due to our military.

Presenter – Mmm. Yes, but there’s a lot of people who think he could have said: ‘I regret the offence, if I caused offence’. He hasn’t done that.

Paul Bongiorno – No, he hasn’t, but that goes to the broader question that you asked me about whether he, you know, should forego the portfolio or not.

Presenter – Mmm. And talk about a distraction: was yesterday’s concerted Parliamentary assault on Stephen Conroy and Labor and its patriotism, was that a tactic from the government to try and shift attention from Labor’s attack on one of their own, the assistant Health Minister, Senator Fiona Nash?

Paul Bongiorno – Look, it may well have been, I remember Paul Keating saying that when the dogs are at your throat, you get a big hunk of red meat and you throw it 100 metres in the opposite direction and they all run off there. I don’t know, everyone’s claiming there are distractions being placed all over the place, as I just mentioned, one with Stephen Conroy. Maybe the government seized on Conroy to try and distract from Fiona Nash. Look, I actually believe that there is a lot more in the Fiona Nash issue than the government is letting on - I think Tony Abbott, and he’s quite experienced at this, he was, you know, he often had to carry the can for the Howard Government, in his position as Leader of the House, he knows the best ways to try and starve the whole issue of oxygen. Yesterday in question time when two contradictory statements were put to him, one by himself and one by the Minister, he bald-facedly claimed they weren’t contradictory. Look, he’s going to hope that they can tough this out, really.


7

Interview with the Hon. Andrew Wilkie, MP

Presenter – Continuing our discussion now, of the fairly furious debate in the Parliament yesterday, over patriotism and the military. It was sparked by independent MP Andrew Wilkie, who moved a motion admonishing Stephen Conroy for his attack on Lieutenant General Angus Campbell. Andrew Wilkie is in our Parliament House studios – Andrew Wilkie, good morning!

The Hon. Andrew Wilkie, MP – Good morning, Fran.

Presenter – Hasn’t the government helped bring this on itself by appointing a three-star general to lead Operation Sovereign Borders, asylum-seeker issues, we know politically are controversial. Always.

The Hon. Andrew Wilkie, MP – Well, I’d agree with Paul Bongiorno, I think that this is ultimately a law and order matter, not a military matter. We’re not at war, there’s no war on asylum-seekers, we’re not at war with Indonesia or anyone else. Umm, it was always going to be controversial to appoint a three star general and to make this such a military operation. But having – having done that, umm, that doesn’t give Senator Stephen Conroy any reason to be attacking the integrity of the three-star general himself.

Presenter – Some would say, and I’ve spoken to people who’ve said, well, Stephen Conroy has the right to ask questions. The General is in command of Operation Sovereign Borders, that was what was being questioned, he was just back from Manus Island, where he’s looked at the security situation on the ground there at the Detention Centre; he is fronting up to be questioned.

The Hon. Andrew Wilkie, MP – Fran, we need to be very careful to stay focused on exactly what has happened in the last couple of days. Of course it’s entirely appropriate for the opposition Defence spokesperson to be asking questions of General Campbell about the conduct of Operation Sovereign Borders. But what happened was that Senator Conroy accused General Campbell of being complicit in a cover-up, when there is no evidence of a cover-up, and certainly no evidence that General Campbell is part of any cover-up. It was a direct attack on his character, and it was entirely unwarranted, and it took away from the very important questioning that Senator Conroy should have been involved in.

Presenter – So in your view, what should happen now? Can Senator Conroy maintain his position as Shadow Defence Minister?

The Hon. Andrew Wilkie, MP – He can, but what I would’ve liked to have seen yesterday was the Opposition Leader standing up and supporting the motion. My motion was very, very narrow. It was simply to admonish Senator Conroy for calling into question the character of General Campbell. And I hasten to add, Fran, that I emphasised at the time that I find the government’s response to asylum-seekers cruel and frankly abhorrent. I don’t support it in any way. But I also don’t support an unwarranted attack on the character of a three-star General. Now, as far as what Senator Conroy’s future might be, I think it would be an appropriate thing for him to front the media today, and to publicly apologise for that unwarranted attack on General Campbell’s character, say he made a mistake, that he’ll learn from it, and he’ll get back to work. I think if he was to do that, his future would be ok for now.

Presenter – We heard a little bit of Bill Shorten earlier in the debate, that followed your motion, where he said that he condemned the ‘sanctimonious finger-wagging, lecture-given, false patriotism of those opposite, who would seek to use the military as a stick to beat Labor


8

about the head with’. Do you think the government is trying to do that – use the military to paint Labor as unpatriotic?

The Hon. Andrew Wilkie, MP – I thought Bill Shorten’s speech was very good. And I think his claim that the Liberal/National Coalition tends to wrap itself in the Australian flag, I think that that claim has some substance. The problem with the speech was: it was actually irrelevant to the motion before the House. The motion was to do with whether or not Senator Conroy should be admonished – whether or not he’d acted improperly by attacking the character of General Campbell. And it would’ve been a better speech if he could have addressed the substance of the motion.


9

Attachment BComplainant’s submissionsThe complainant submitted the following to the ABC:

If you were to have watched Question Time you may have identified the distinct difference between reality and what is portrayed by Mz Kelly. ABC RN Breakfast yesterday:

KELLY: We just heard Bill Shorten ... sounding stronger than I think any of his parliamentary performances have sounded to date ... he condemned the, quote, sanctimonious finger-wagging, lecture-giving, sermonising, false patriotism where those opposite would seek to use the military as a stick to beat Labor about their head with ...

I feel I have been specific in my complaint and respectfully that this person be at least admonished for her brazen bias and be required as outlined in the ABC Charter to not involve political bias in a broadcast in any future broadcast, should she be deemed as sufficiently mentally able to control herself.

[...]

ABC Radio National's Breakfast show this morning applies a big bucket of whitewash to Steve Conroy's disgraceful and damaging attack on Lieutenant General Angus Campbell.

Commentator Paul Bongiorno says Conroy raised a "valid point" and the issue should be pushed. Host [the presenter] says this army does indeed have a "culture of secrecy" and wonders if the Government "brought this on itself" by appointing a military man to handle Operation Sovereign Borders. She praises Bill Shorten's weak, irrelevant and deceptive speech as sounding strong.

Nothing is said in their discussion to damn Conroy's attack on a general who was merely following orders, and executing them well. Nothing is said about the damage done by Conroy's selfish refusal to apologise to the general. Nothing is said about Shorten's telling inability to make Conroy apologise. Nothing is said about Conroy's (in)ability to function properly as Labor's shadow defence minister after such a political attack on a general - and one that earned him the public rebuke of the head of army.

Where is the balance on the ABC? What are you going to do about it.

He then submitted the following to the ACMA:

It seems to me that ABC staff are very good at parroting the Parliamentary Rules and Regulations (as they outline in the sub paras of paragraph 3) of their response but not so good at complying with them.

Regardless of the wordy response; to me the bias is still there, constant and blatant.


10

Attachment CABC’s submissions

The ABC’s response to the complainant included the following:

The focus of the politics segment with Paul Bongiorno was explained at the outset by presenter Fran Kelly, who indicated that “the question of patriotism and politicisation of the military exploded in the Federal Parliament yesterday. Stephen Conroy lit the spark when he accused the military commander of Operation Sovereign Borders, Lieutenant General Angus Campbell, of being guilty of a political cover-up.”

Fran went on to explain that Senator Conroy “later withdrew the allegation but didn’t apologise”, and that the Government “moved in Question Time with Foreign Minister Julie Bishop demanding that unless Stephen Conroy apologise, the Shadow Defence Minister should be sacked.” Furthermore, Opposition Leader Bill Shorten responded by “accusing [the Government] of fake patriotism and misuse of the military”.

This introduction provided appropriate context for listeners and set the framework for the discussion that followed between [the presenter] and commentator Paul Bongiorno.

During the segment, Mr Bongiorno made the point that “I think there’s no doubt that Stephen Conroy did go over the top; the barbs he directed at the General should have been directed at the Minister,” and then went on to discuss what he considered to be the broader underlying issues concerning Operation Sovereign Borders, namely the “misapplication of our military” and concerns over the “culture of secrecy”. It was these broader issues that Mr Bongiorno indicated ought, in his view, be “stuck with” rather than Senator Conroy’s comments.

Fran also put to Mr Bongiorno, “I think it’s fair to say there is broad agreement, even from within Labor ranks, that [Conroy] overstepped the mark when he accused Angus Campbell of a political cover-up. He is the Shadow Minister for Defence. Is that position tenable? Can he remain in that portfolio?”

When the discussion moved on to Mr Shorten’s response, [the presenter] suggested that this was one of Mr Shorten’s stronger performances. This was a legitimate analysis of Mr Shorten’s parliamentary performance based on previous criticisms that he was “lacklustre” rather than an endorsement of the speech or its contents.

This discussion of the “debate over patriotism and the military” then continued with an interview with Independent MP Andrew Wilkie, who had moved a motion admonishing Stephen Conroy for his attack on General Campbell. During this interview, Mr Wilkie was provided with ample opportunity to put forward his perspective on the matter, reiterating his view that Senator Conroy’s attack was “unwarranted” and that he should publicly apologise. [The presenter’s] opening question about whether the Government “helped bring this on itself by appointing a three-star general to lead Operation Sovereign Borders” should not be mistaken as [the presenter] expressing her own opinion; this is a common devil’s advocate style of interviewing whereby a particular position is put to the interviewee for response.

The story was also covered the previous day on Radio National, including on The World Today (http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2014/s3952608.htm) and PM (http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2014/s3952882.htm), which included the views of Defence Force Chief David Hurley, General Campbell, Assistant Defence Minister Stuart Robert, Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Foreign Minister Julie Bishop.

We are satisfied the segments were presented with the impartiality due in the circumstances, and that a diverse range of views on this matter and the broader issue of the Government’s Operation Sovereign Borders have been broadcast in a relevant timeframe on Radio National Breakfast and the network, in keeping with standards 4.1 and 4.2.


11

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2014/s3952882.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2014/s3952608.htm

investig… · web viewthe government moved in question time, with foreign minister julie bishop...

Documents