Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, , 6:27:30 to 7:48:56
Senators question the ABC regarding the acquisition of the 'Silenced' documentary and the potential for defamatory content. The committee also discusses age-appropriate educational programming and the protection of confidential journalistic sources.
Topics: Integrity, Legal profession
Speakers: Hon Sarah Henderson, Hugh Marks, Gavin Fang, Speaker 43, Sarah Hanson-Young, Nita Green, Tyron Whitten, Varun Ghosh
the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Uh welcome Mr. Hugh Marks, managing director. Um would you like to make an opening statement?
>> Yeah, thanks Senator. Um it's great to be able to to make a brief statement. Um, I'm pleased to report the ABC continues to post strong audience figures across all of our platforms. We reach more Australians than any other media organization across digital news, free toear television, free on demand television and audio streaming. I'm also pleased to report the ABC is the most trusted media brand according to the Roy Morgan risk monitor and the most trusted news brand according to the digital news report Australia 2025 by Camber Uni's news and media research center with both trust in the ABC and value to the Australian committee strengthened since FY25 and that accords with our own internal uh numbers that we've been tracking but we know that audience figures and trust are only two measures of performance National institutions such as the ABC have important wide our civic responsibilities. Bringing Australians together is a responsibility that's the core of our role as the national public broadcaster and what one we must continue to invest in and deliver to. Strengthening community engagement, creating shared experiences and encouraging respectful dialogue is vital to our democracy. For the ABC that must mean being open to a diversity of ideas, listening to community feedback, and playing important role in fostering harmony and social cohesion in our great country. This particularly so when there's a growing tren tendency towards polarization in the media and society generally. So the ABC must play a leadership role. That means providing a public space for a greater exchange of ideas, being pre prepared to listen and better understand each other and to hear different perspectives. That's why I was particularly pleased that we're able to announce the launch of a new uh discussion program national forum with the first program to be in March. It'll be a program that brings together ordinary citizens, community leaders, experts and policy makers to discuss issues of national significance. It'll be a public square healthfully pluralistic which aims to elevate discussion on important issues affecting Australia. is because some conversations can be difficult that as a nation we can't shy away from discussing them. Importantly, drawing on factually accurate information and being impartial in the focus of exploration, which are both core tenants of our charter. The first forum will focus on the lives of Jewish Australians, including issues arising from the Bondi terrorist attack. And I hope if it's a success, there will be more to follow soon. and that also this is not the only new addition to our slate that enables these sorts of discussions. We must also remember that while the ABC must play a leadership role in facilitating discussions of issues of importance to the nation, we also have an equally important role to play in serving and connecting Australians and communities. Delivering content that is a source of entertainment, comfort, familiarity to Australians, and that provides timely information especially in times of need. There was no greater example of this recently than the ABC's coverage of the numerous emergency events across the country. I myself spent the day listening to and watching the ABC's coverage of the Victorian bushfire emergency and I was tuned in to ABC Central Victoria and by all measures it was excellent. We have a really excellent slate of television content to share with audiences this year which I'm increasingly proud of which will be helped by the additional investment the ABC received this year which I hope to make some exciting announcements about soon. Um thank you and obviously happy to take questions.
>> Uh thank you Mr. Marks. Uh before I go there I'll just take this opportunity to formally release officers from the National Archives. So thank you um for those in attendance and um you are excused with the committee's thanks. I'll now go to Senator Henderson.
>> Thanks very much, Chair, Mr. Marks and all. Um, good afternoon. Thank you very much for your attendance today. I wanted to start by asking you about the Australian documentary Silenced. Uh, the ABC appears to be a funer of this documentary. Are you aware of it, which premiered at the Sundance Film
>> Um, I'm aware of the documentary, Senate. I have not seen it. It was uh I guess a co-op operation across multiple broadcasters and we were not a commission. We were not the originating broadcaster but a participant in the
>> So what arrangements have you made in relation to the broadcast of the documentary here in Australia?
>> I'm not sure when it's due to be um scheduled, Senator, and it will go through, of course, our normal editorial policy review processes before it's
Um, so the synopsis of the film is and I quote, "From Amber Herd's public scrutiny to Catalina Ruer's Navaro's fight for pressed freedom in Colombia to Britney Higgins struggle within Australia's political establishment." Silenced reveals a global pattern. When women speak out, powerful systems move to discredit and punish them. And in one of the Instagram posts, uh, it talks about international human rights lawyer Jennifer Robinson fighting against the weaponization of defamation laws to silence surviv survivors. Uh, so you understand that the about the premise of the documentary?
>> Again, Senator, I haven't seen the detail of it. Um, I've seen it on the slate of program that's been acquired. I'm not sure whether we've received the screening copy or whether it's been subject to editorial policy review. I don't know if you're aware, Mr. Fang.
>> Um I understand that the documentary's gone through the normal processes as as it would do with the ABC um through its editorial policies. Um not aware of when it's to be screened or what else will happen with it before then.
And so uh what was the internal ABC screen Australia process to approve funding for the documentary and how much was provided uh towards the production of the documentary?
>> I'm sorry Senator I don't have that information with me. I'm happy to take it away and see what we can reasonably provide about that.
>> If there's anyone who could bring that to the table um I would be grateful. Do you know what the total budget of the
an acquiring party. So, the budget, I don't know if that was a Screen Australia funded production.
>> Yes, Screen Australia is one of the funders.
>> Right. Okay. Um, we can certainly see what we can reasonably provide.
>> Um, did the ABC make any contribution to the Sundance Film Festival premiere at all? Did any of your staff attend?
>> Um, not that I'm aware of, Senator.
so did did the ABC or if you know Screen Australia fund for Britney Higgins or David Shiraz to attend the premiier?
>> I'm not aware, Senator. Again, um, we're not in charge of that particular production. That's been produced externally, the ABC. We are a participant, but not the main participant. Um, I'm not aware of the information that you're seeking.
So, is there anyone here today who can provide information about the basis on which the ABC decided to acquire the
>> Sure, Senator. I know it's part of our acquisition budget, so it would have been handled by our acquisitions team, but um Mr. Henman's here. I'll see if there's any extra information that we can g to share with you today. So when
you're approving the funding or acquisition of a program such as this, do you review the script and the premise for the film and the editorial or story basis for the do the documentary?
>> So I can provide general comments if you like Senator without being aware of exactly the process for silence um and al without being aware of exactly the arrangements around this particular documentary. Um, like everything that we do at the ABC, it needs to go through editorial review. Um, and there needs to be an editorial owner within the ABC who's across the um, the documentary. Uh, I'm not aware of the level of engagement on this particular documentary, but we've got a pretty comprehensive process uh, when it comes to ensuring uh, our independence uh, and that what we're involved in meets our
editorial standards. So the the particular concern I have and the premise of the program being that uh women are fighting against the weaponization of def defamation laws to silence survivors. Uh you would no doubt be aware that two Australian courts have found that Miss Higgins uh was not silenced and in fact made dishonest claims in asserting that the former West Australian Senator Linda Reynolds and Fiona Brown improperly covered up a rape in Parliament House. Two courts have now found that that was completely untrue and of course there were defamation proceedings which followed and in one case found obviously very much in favor of Miss Reynolds. So the concern I have that >> found rape her >> that I'm not disputing that to be absolutely disputing not disputing that at all.
>> Going after a rape victim is pretty low.
>> No, excuse me. I am I am not doing that senator and I would ask if I could just finish my questions. So my concern is um the former senator Lindel Reynolds absolutely >> and Fiona Brown who was was within minutes of committing suicide after being subjected to these horrendous false allegations that they had both covered up a rape in Parliament House found to be completely untrue. This appears to be the premise for the documentary in so far as Miss Higgins is concerned. Have you sought to verify what's in this document documentary? Have you have you sought to establish what's in the script, what is claimed, and in fact whether it is defamatory of either Miss Reynolds or Ms. Brown?
I haven't seen the script, Senator, but um I would assure you that all of the commissioning and the work that goes on with these documentaries will ensure that it meets our editorial standards. Um a documentary like that, I imagine, will explore some of the issues that
>> So, how can you be sure if you haven't looked at the script, Mr. Fang? You can't just make a blanket statement like that without checking the facts. Well,
Senator, uh I know that we have the processes in place to make sure that these um documentaries meet our standards.
>> Well, you failed in relation to this matter and and in a very egregious way previously in relation to the broadcast of certain matters before the courts in the National Press Club. So what I'm asking is whether your acquisition of this documentary um meets those standards, whether you have considered what's being claimed because it appears based on what has been published is that there are erroneous claims in relation to the former Senator Linda Reynolds and her former chief of staff Fiona Brown. Now, Linda Reynolds has told me that the producers of the movie have declined to provide her lawyers with the transcript or the link to the documentary which is available for streaming in the USA, but it's geoblocked here in Australia. uh do you have anything further to add in that regard, Mr. Fang?
>> No, Senator, I don't.
>> So, who commissioned this program?
I don't have that information. Senator,
>> is it a particular department in the in your factual department or whatever whatever you call the department?
>> It's not in my area, Senator. We'd have to go away and find out what we can provide an answer to here.
given the topic of this documentary concerned what is a very high-profile political scandal which is subject to ongoing legal proceedings. Uh I am raising very big alarm bells about this acquisition and about the ABC's due diligence and Mr. Marks I guess
>> yes and I I can assure you that we will perform all reasonable uh reviews of the program before it to ensure that it meets all standards and does not fall foul of the um areas that you're suggesting it has the potential to fall foul of. and um and we we will of course
>> So the irony is that there is a court um that confirms um the contrary to what has been claimed in this documentary. Now I don't have access to the script. I haven't seen we we can't access this documentary. Uh, I do know, and it could be completely unrelated, that I think Sarah Ferguson and her husband were in Sundance. Was that for another
>> That was for um a project that her husband was releasing,
>> right? Yeah, I assume so, but I I I just wanted to to double check. Uh is it anyway is it possible to find out how much has been contributed to this to this documentary at all in the time while we're so could someone send a
>> Uh yes I think Mr. Henry are you working
>> So Mr. Marks I think this might have been before your time but you're aware that I think the ABC has already made payment and I don't know the details. Um in relation to the broadcast of matters uh before in relation to this matter what guarantees can you provide this committee that you're not proposing to broadcast something which is defamatory
in this country? Oh, Senator would we would obviously have a very um strong review of any program to ensure it does not it should not be defamatory. Um so again I can just assure you that I will ensure that the program that I make sure that the program has gone through all appropriate editorial reviews before it's broadcast. Again I haven't seen the script. Um I've only heard of the treatment. It is the the program is about a number of women around the world of which Britney Higgins is one. Um, again, I understand it deals with important issues. Um, and so it's an it's an appropriate program for us to be acquiring and broadcasting. Um, and we will make sure that uh we we ensure that all appropriate editorial reviews have been conducted.
>> And what about legal reviews? And and
>> well, that would include a legal review
of the program. Well, and I hope I hope that the uh the lawyers involved in reviewing some of your other programs are not involved in reviewing this program given some of the previous wrong determinations that have been made in relation to matters of defamation.
>> Uh Senator, we have a a great legal team operating at the moment under the direction of a new general council um car officer who came from nine. Um I think the team are working very effectively at the moment.
Senator Henderson, may I share the call?
>> Uh, well, I may have further questions about this, but I'm happy to come back
>> Okay. Thank you, Senator Whitten.
I've got some uh questions about the behind the news program that's played in schools. Um, can I ask what age group the behind the news classroom program is aimed at? I know there's a behind the news high, presumably aimed at high school students.
Yeah, obviously there's a couple of different programs. Um, one is uh obviously um targeted at um I guess what I would call the tween age group. Um and behind the news high is obviously targeted at at older children.
>> So the the younger age group you would say were teenagers,
>> 10 to 13. Yeah,
>> 10 to 13. Okay. the program seems to be designed to assist teach teachers in a classroom setting. Um presumably it's designed to be suitable for the youngest children in the age group which um my understanding is potentially as low as
>> Yeah, I'm not sure about nine-year-olds and um I'm I can't give you specifics about how teachers are using the the program in aid of their education, but it was important that we have a focus on ensuring that there is news content available for younger Australians so that we increase news literacy at an earlier age um in this country um to ensure that those children come through with an awareness of things happening in
>> Okay. Um, I'd like to refer to the episode, episode one of 2026, um, that featured a lengthy piece on the unrest between, uh, US citizens and ICE agents in the US. I've had numerous complaints from constituents, uh, that their children have been shown this in class and found it distressing, uh, with some even asking um, if they or their families are going to be taken away by ICE agents. Um, do you believe that this content is suitable for 9 or 10 year olds?
>> Um, Senator, I'll have to have a look at the program in question that you're asking about and and um and come back to the committee on our views.
>> But do you believe it would be suitable? I mean,
>> well, it it could be um I guess it would be looking at the story in question. I mean certainly making um uh school students aware of things that are happening in global affairs and its impact on families could be something appropriate um for children of that age. Um it would have to be dealt with delicately. Um we would have to I'd have to look at the detail of the program and to be able to give you a proper
>> Okay. Um, see I I believe that young children couldn't possibly understand the nuances around those sort of uh interactions. Um, and it's it's beyond their their years to be able to understand what's actually going on. One of the messages I received was from recent um a recent immigrant family that their child was at home having nightmares about are they going to be taken away by ICE agents. I I would suggest it's um pretty confronting for young children. I remember behind the news when I was in high school a long time ago and it was much more topical and uh I don't know >> I don't remember fully but I would suggest there was a lot of Australian content and it was it was a good way um for ex to have exposure to grownup topics that you you wouldn't normally have. But I I don't see that children being shown that. And
>> have you seen it?
>> Yeah, it was it was pretty confronting. Um,
>> it is pretty confronting. >> I mean, that's that's that's that's what's going on. There's a lot of
going to come in. Senators, >> Senator H. Senator H. >> You want to sit over there? Senator, Senators, Senators, as I've said numerous times today and across these estimates in the last 6 months, this process works best if there are questions asked from senators to the officials or relevant agencies. Um,
>> So, given that you're not familiar with the content, you wouldn't be able to tell me how it um fits with your directive of impartiality.
Um I think Senator look unfortunately with the way the world is at the moment and communication services availability of content to to all children of all ages um many of these issues are in in the face of children already um I guess btn at its best should be a program that's able to take that content and put it in context in a way that does enable kids to sort of get a better and a broader understanding of how it might affect them or what the relevancy might be in this country or or itself. I would hope that would be the ambition of the program. Um but again the detail of it we'll have to we'll have to look at. I don't know if you've got anything to add to
>> I'm sorry Senator I haven't seen the program either. Um but you know echo the comments of the managing director. We'd have to have a look at it to have a look and see. The point of the of BTN um is obviously to provide kids with education about things that are happening that are relevant to them and around the world and that's the intent and also to work with teachers about what's appropriate for whatever the age group that it's shown to but um uh you know we would be concerned if if children were upset by the program. So we'd have to take that away and have a look and see what has
gone on there. Would you agree that there are some topics that we should uh shield young impressionable minds from?
>> Of course, Senator, there would be topics that um that it would be difficult to give the appropriate context um uh for children in a program like that. But um again, as I said, unfortunately, we live in an age where um children are exposed to this content whether they like it or not. Um, so having a program that's able to give that some context should be our ambition.
>> I don't accept that. Um, that children are exposed to that no >> look, some of the children involved are my grandchildren and they are not exposed to this sort of stuff.
>> Yeah. I mean,
>> they're not shielded from, you know, they're not wrapped in cotton wool, but there are certain topics that um that just aren't appropriate for that age group. And and I think it's up to the parents when to maybe introduce some of these things so that they can do it in a a balanced way perhaps. Yeah. I you know the I I believe in the idea of having the program but I think it should be scrutinized much more heavily for the content that is delivered to young children um that I don't agree are exposed to all these things.
>> We we will have a look at the program in question.
>> I'd appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you,
>> Thank you very much, Senator Whitten. Um, I'm going to go back to Senator
>> thank you very much, Chair. Just to pick up on the issue of the Sundance documentary, Mr. Marks, is any further Have you been able to obtain any further
>> Um, our contribution, Senator, looks like it's $340,000, which is 14% of the total budget of 2.5 million. The program is just being released at Sundance. It may have a year-long theatrical window. Um, and I guess it'll be released in America first before it's released in Australia. So, I don't know what the implications of that are uh for its broadcast here, but as I said before, we will ensure that it goes through all
appropriate um reviews uh both from a legal and editorial policy perspective.
>> Mr. Marks, my concern is that if the premise of of the film is that Britney Higgins and other women were silenced by the weaponization of defamation laws, in the case of Miss Higgins, that is a false claim. So, how and also potentially very defamatory. So, how did this program get through the green light process given the premise of the film?
Um I think Senator there are very like there again you haven't seen the script I haven't seen the script my understanding of the project is it deals with matters that are more general in nature around the world um and it's not specific um to um the particular facts that you're talking about but again um we will ensure that it goes through all appropriate reviews to ensure that the matters that you are concerned about um don't are not matters that should be addressed Well, should be a problem in the broadcast of the film.
>> So, could I ask on notice if I could have all documentation in relation to the commissioning of this program, including the the funding agreement, the preliminary discussions, the any preliminary synopsis or scripts, if I could have if we could have on notice all relevant documentation, please. We
we will see what what is there to provide. I guess the one thing I would also give you some assurance on is often with these bigger international productions. Um we are not necessarily the script is not available at the time. It's a it's a you know a process that some parties go through to get funding from different countries around the world for some of these bigger projects. So um it would be in those documents I would imagine reserving our rights to editorial review and compliance with all relevant laws and policies. Well, you
wouldn't ordinarily acquire a program like this unless it was of interest to your viewers, I assume. And the involvement and of of Ms. Higgins and this notorious case uh would no doubt be central to the commissioner's thinking. Uh do you know how much was contributed by Screen Australia and I think Screen New South Wales were also funders? Um I
don't know unfortunately Senator but I'm sure you would agree that the the film's topic in general is a matter of some interest to the audience obviously.
>> No no I don't agree because if if this film is making false claims about uh defamation being used to silence a woman under circumstances where in fact >> Senator H >> under circumstances Brittney Higgins have been raped >> excuse me. Sorry,
>> defamation was used against her and others.
>> So, I'll come to you. >> I just want to make it clear. I am not in any way reflecting on the terrible incident that happened in this place. I have great empathy for Miss Higgins in relation to the findings of the court uh in relation to the sexual assault. But I do not I am disgusted that two innocent women being the former WA Senator Linda Reynolds and her former chief of staff were improperly implicated in covering up this uh crime. I I say or alleged crime because it is there is further a further appeal underway in relation to Justice Lee's finding which is before the high court. But putting that to one side, I I am disgusted by the false allegations which have destroyed the lives of these two women for the last four years. So I look forward to
>> I hear your concern, Senator. We will make sure that the project um obviously goes through all appropriate reviews, legal reviews and editorial reviews before broadcast. Obviously defamation is something that we cannot contemplate. I would imagine that it deals with general topics of women's experiences around the world. Again, I haven't seen the program, so it's not safe to make assumptions, but as I said, we will make sure that the project goes through all appropriate
>> and I would appreciate if we could get a copy of the production agreement or the funding agreement because that would ordinarily provide the contributions
also hopefully provide again I'm assuming um the rights of broadcasters such as ourselves to ensure uh that all appropriate steps are taken to for compliance with law and and appropriate editorial policies.
>> Thank you very much Mr. Marks. I want to move to the issue of uh the improper use of the character Bluey being used by teachers in New South Wales where and I I can table this article I can which was in the Daily Telegraph or the Sunday Telegraph last Sunday uh where the character Bluey is holding up a saying from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free. This is an article entitled play lunch then into Father, students being taught to hate Israel in secret lessons. Now, clearly Blueie is a much loved Uh have you taken any action in relation to the misuse, the appalling misuse uh of the intellectual property in this
character? Yeah, I only became aware of this briefly uh earlier today. Um uh the matter is in discussion with the um person who's got the the rights to Bluey, which I think is the BBC in terms of actions as to what we will do in relation to this matter. Obviously, it has no uh involvement or endorsement by the ABC and we're as horrified as you are with the use of the characters image
or costume. And so you've sought further clarification or
>> where we're obviously ensuring what action can be taken in relation to this misuse of the property
>> because doesn't it also breach your your rights here in Australia?
>> It doesn't breach our broadcast license.
No,
>> it breaches the uh intellectual property of those that the intellectual property rights holders in the character Bluey um which is obviously uh both the original producers that creating that are based in Queensland and the funders and IP owners of Blueie which as we've spoken about before unfortunately we are not
So you don't have any rights in relation to the reproduction of the image of Blueie in this country?
>> To the extent that it may have um created a false impression of endorsement by or or or by the ABC um there may be some rights, but the the most appropriate and immediate action is a breach of intellectual property.
>> Yes. Okay. Um, just more broadly, the the the loss of the rights of the Bluey program uh is a devastating blow to the ABC given that this is a probably a billion dollar juggernaut. Uh, can you briefly explain why the ABC didn't protect those rights given it was one of the original I think it was one of the original co-producers
Um sure Senator look um as you would appreciate um all program funding arrangements there is nuance that goes to each particular program and there are various funding windows or responsibilities that happen. In the case of children's programming there's often what would be called a gap which you might find as well in a feature film or a television series. Um and that gap is an advance effectively against an estimation of worldwide licensing or television sales income that might be achieved from any particular property. I wasn't there at the time. I can only assume the decision was made that it wasn't appropriate that the ABC take the risk on that future income. The BBC stepped in and took the risk on that future income and they've as a result um received the benefit. Um obviously as we've spoken about I think we spoke about this in the last estimates um and with the additional money um recently that was secured for investment in um high highprofile premium projects. Um as we go forward under some of those things we are looking at where it might be appropriate for the ABC to take additional risk to protect uh the intellectual property that you referred to in the future.
>> All right. Look, I just want to move now to the issue involving
>> Senator Henson, you got another minute in this block. Do you want to
>> Oh, look, I might come back to that.
>> Come back to it.
>> I'll come back to that issue then.
>> Um, Senator Hanson, yeah,
>> thank you. Uh, thanks for being here today. I've got a a bunch of questions on different topics, but I firstly wanted to ask about um the order from the National Archives um so a a disposal freeze uh on anything relating to anti-semitism and then the consequence of the message sent from ABC management um to your journalists uh that they can't use apps with disappearing messages like Signal or Delete emails. I'm I'm interested to understand is that using those apps at all and uh removing any emails or how do you determine I'm just you know as um somebody who believes in um you know free and fearless journalism don't want to see journalists being um stopped from being able to access important information from sources.
>> Yeah, I'll ask Mr. Fang to start obviously because Mr. Fang's been involved in detail um in the roll out of that particular messaging. So,
>> uh thanks Senator. Um so, a couple of um principles I suppose firstly uh we would always seek to protect our confidential sources and to meet our journalistic ethics. But of course, um you know, as we should do, we'll cooperate with the Royal Commission. um in relation to the um particulars of the order. Um my understanding is that relates to uh you know matters which might come up or be part of the Royal Commission. Um and so um for the moment that that's that's the advice we're giving to staff. I mean we will have to um engage with the Royal Commission in the appropriate way to see how far that extends and and what that actually means going forward. But at this stage um we haven't received
anything further. So um just to be clear, so journalists have not been directed to not use um messaging apps like Signal for other stories or for other conversations uh simply for anything that is captured by the Royal Commission terms of reference.
Um I suppose what well my response to that would be that we uh engage in a number of different ways to protect confidential sources >> and we will continue to do that. >> Mhm. um how we do that, what we do behind the scenes are there are a variety of different ways and we want our journalists to continue to do that to protect whistleblowers and people that come forward um and so that we can continue to do that kind of
have advice specifically on what types of what sources of information are able to be kept confidential so that journalists can guarantee protection for for those that
um come forward. Uh so my understanding and you know having had conversations um uh internally and with with our legal team uh is that it's a pretty broad order. >> Um but understandably you know we would need to have a discussion with the Royal Commission when and if these issues arise about whatever the particular cases might be that they are seeking to um uh have our have our communications.
H. So I guess I'm still a little bit confused as to whether news staff, for example, are still permitted to utilize encrypted communications or does this order and your interpretation as a as the ABC mean that it journalists can't use those applications at all?
>> No. My understanding is that we will continue to protect our sources as we would do using the variety of different means that we would and that would obviously extend beyond that type of messaging app. Uh and and uh and my view at the moment is there's nothing to change that. Um as it relates to the Royal Commission, we'll have to deal with that on a case-by case basis.
>> I think Mr. Fang, it's also a reminder to journalists of the fact that relying on services like Signal often um is a mistake or folly in terms of the protection of of um confidential sources and that there are appropriate steps that journalists should take that are you know well documented um to do that and and sort of relying on services like Signal aren't really the answer to that question. So, um it's a reminder of how important it is to take all of the appropriate steps when you're dealing with um sources such as that to make sure that they are subject to appropriate protections
>> and maybe some some consistent national shield laws might help us as well,
in the event that a production order is uh requested, what steps will you take to protect your journalists and their sources? I mean, what what is what what what powers do
>> Um, well, again, I mean, we would need to approach that case on a case-by case basis. Um you know I I I think the reality is that uh we would you know use the same steps that we take in any kind of legal proceeding. It's not the first time my in my that I understand that this type of application has been made before. I think there was one in 2020 in relation to another matter.
>> Well I was going to ask about the Afghan inquiry.
our experience with with these matters is that we we need to work with um the Royal Commission um to ensure that, you know, we're meeting the the requirements that we need to, but the bottom line again is, you know, we're doing everything that we can to protect our sources and to protect our journalists and the confidentiality of those conversations.
>> Um, was there any consultation with the ABC before this order was made?
>> Uh, not that I'm aware of. There may have been, but not that I'm aware of.
I mean, you can imagine I I've had journalists contact me and um uh worried um ABC raid type incident that we saw um uh a few years back. Um which did really create a chilling effect. Um what types of things will you do to make sure that doesn't happen? I I guess you there's yes complying with the order of the Royal Commission that's obviously important but seeing our public broadcaster rated and the chilling effect that that puts into puts for both journalists but also sources um you know it's it's it's damaging it's damaging to the the role
you know, notwithstanding that that that type of action, the we've demonstrated through our journalism that we've continued to do highquality accountability journalism. Uh we've continued to protect our sources. We've continued to our staff have continued to be defended and protected. Uh we face a variety of different um legal, you know, challenges through courts and other types of matters where we're expected to obviously, which we do comply with the law. Um but you know that hasn't stopped us from doing that kind of journalism and you know our commitment is that we'd
>> Um obviously the uh AIO has already taken issue with one of your reports in relation um uh to the four corners um episode that um aired last night. Has there been any orders in relation to uh the information that related to that
No, Senator. Um, again, there's been no orders about that. Um, you know, obviously AIA released a very strong statement about that um particular program. Um, they wrote to to me. They didn't seek to call me or contact me. They did get my email address wrong. Um,
>> the AIO got your email address wrong.
Um but I think the the program stood up for itself. It was transparent. Um it raised matters simply in a way that I think warranted further discussion particularly at the Royal Commission. Um we can all assess the program on its own merits. Um I think the program was transparent about where we were one source or or not. Um it was transparent about the various points of contact and what were reasonable decisions at the time. I thought the program stood up very well on a transparent basis.
>> Yeah. And you haven't had any further complaints?
>> Not that I'm aware of, Senator. I've had no further contact from AIO.
>> Well, I think it says says more about Azio if they can't even get the email address of the managing director of the ABC right. Um how uh closely they're looking at detail. Um okay, chair.
>> Um Okay. Thank you very much. I'm going to turn to Senator H. We've got a break at 4:15, which is four minutes from now. Did you want us to go early and come back early or did you want to start the line of questioning and then do five and five?
>> I have an answer to your earlier
questions at the end of Well, that might
>> um there I'm assured there is no mention of Fiona Brown or Linda Reynolds in the documentary.
>> Well, that doesn't mean that there's not a defamatory imputation.
>> Um I can only assume that that's the detail that I have in front of me. I can only assume that therefore those matters aren't covered in the documentary.
>> Okay. So what do you know of the documentary then?
>> Well, I was just getting a response in relation to that specific question. As I mentioned earlier, it'll still be subject to and has been through obviously editorial review, but I will ensure that all editorial reviews um have been done appropriately into my assurance.
>> And and so how did you get that assurance about the content?
>> Oh, it just came through obviously. Um
>> who provided that information to you?
>> Uh Mr. Tapley, who is our uh what's what's Mark Tapley's new title? Head of corporate partnerships and um development I think um who's watching Senate Estimates in CRA that
information. >> Could Mr. Tap provide further details about what's in the program?
>> So you're asking questions about this when you haven't even seen it. You don't
Hanson Young. Um, Senator Hanson Young,
>> I think Senator, I I will make sure all
your >> accusations and assertions. I assume that you
>> Senator Hanson Young, I am asking questions based on the material that's been published about this documentary. And my concern is that there was a very prominent defamation case by Linda Reynolds against both Miss Higgins and Mr. Sharp, which found in favor of um Linda Reynolds. And stop interrupting
>> Senator Hanson Young. Senator, Young. Senator Hanson Young.
>> So in fact, uh Senator Hanson Young, I really ask you to tread carefully here that matter that those defamation proceedings are actually under appeal in the high court. So you need to know your
>> Senators, Senators, >> come to order, please.
>> So, as I
>> final question and then we'll go to a
break, please. >> So, Mr. Mark, as I went through earlier, I'm very concerned.
>> I hear your concerns. I think I think the information sort of indicates that um the matters that you're concerned about maybe you shouldn't be concerned about but as I said I will ensure that I
>> well I'm very concerned about the premise of the documentary and as you would well know under defamation law just because Miss Reynolds or Miss Brown is not named. It does not mean that there are serious defamatory invitations that may or may not have have arisen. So I'm asking in relation to the content of the documentary Mr. Tap obviously knows what's in it. Can you obtain a sc a copy of the script?
>> I think Mr. Tapley was just getting that information about that particular thing. But as I said, Senator, I will ensure that unfortunately I'm an ex- lawyer and um and I'm aware of the defamation.
>> Thank you. Yes, you're well aware of Yes. how defamation works. >> Maybe you could pop pop up to the legal department and give them a bit of a helping hand. Particular
>> Senator, we have an outstanding new general counsel. So much better than I
didn't in the case of H Russell and there have been a various other defamation cases where the ABC has been disgraceful in its behavior uh in relation to the management of defamation matters.
>> On that happy note, um let's go to a 15-minute break and then we will come back at 4:30. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you broadcasting. Uh we will now recommence and uh with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Senator Henderson.
>> Chair, before we do that, can I just put on the record um I think we're in a pretty untenable position with the program. I know that you know that we are not going to get to the end of this program go getting through all these witnesses. The situation that I would like to avoid is having an enormous amount of witnesses here late at night who don't get called. Perhaps at the dinner break, we could have a the committee could have a conversation about that. I'd appreciate it. Thank you.
>> No, I understand that, Minister. Well, I can assure you that I am constantly having these conversations about our opportunities to um permit witnesses to be released um and will continue to do so. Thank you, Senator Henderson. Chair,
can I just add to that and I will to defend your honor as we discussed a minister, the chair has been very diligent in endeavoring to release witnesses who we may not get to. So, uh, he has done a very good job in that respect and we're continuing to work very closely together because we don't want to see witnesses held back late at night particularly when there is obviously
an undertaking from you, Senator Henderson.
>> Well, I that's how that's how I've heard
>> We can move on, but I just wanted to
>> You can take it as an undertaking because I am working very hard with my colleagues in that regard.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you, Senator Henderson.
>> Thank you very much, Chair. Uh, Mr. Marks, I just wanted to pick up on the earlier questions of Senator Hanson Young in relation to the concerns raised by Azio of the four corners story. and AIO has made a very strong statement. Now I'm not suggesting necessarily that AIO is correct. I just want to put this to you. Uh franken fearless journalism must be a hallmark of the ABC. And just because AIO has concerns about a program, it doesn't make those concerns right. So I want to just be very clear about that. Um but AIO has stated that the individual the person with whom you spoke or the program spoke is disgruntled and his claims were investigated but found to be baseless and four corners has itself said the claims could not be independently verified. So what's the basis for airing those claims?
Well, I think sometimes, Senator, you will get a sole source um witness and that's just the nature of how some of these things happen. Um obviously, we're not able to verify many of the things that he says or or or um the conversations that he describes or or events that he was part of. Um but nevertheless I think in broadcasting a documentary we made those things clear to the audience so that the audience is able to see the claims made in the context of those facts. Um and and ultimately I imagine these are things that will be subject to further investigation um by royal commissions or other um instances where um where there might be more opportunities for uh to examine some of those particular matters. So um sometimes our job in media is just to raise things of concern um to point to areas that people should look at um to point to things that we think warrant further investigation not necessarily to draw a final conclusion. And I thought thought the show did that
>> So, Four Corners said last night that the alleged former human source, Marcus, received threats and is in danger after he previously appeared on Four Corners. Does Four Corners take responsibility for this given it chose to show his face on camera? And it also reported that he penetrated terrorist groups. So I guess the concern is did you consider or did the program consider whether there was a high risk of identifying someone who says that they spied on terrorists?
Yeah, I think in this particular case that was an area of real focus um before the original four corners show um the risks that were present to the witness um to the to the informant or the the um
>> former former um former
>> whistleblower I guess might be a good term. So those risks were discussed um with um Marcus um with people uh who are responsible for Marcus and and talked about exhaustively. So those were real considerations >> and yet he still wanted to speak.
>> Right. So I guess the concern is in identifying him um that you have potentially or the program has potentially exposed him to very high risk including perhaps risk to his life. Were those matters considered and did you seek any advice from police or aio
about that risk? Um, no, not from police orio, but we certainly had a detailed discussion with the witness in hand and I think he felt that his appearance and uh was important to the impact of the information that he wanted to share. But
given that you have a separate responsibility, there is a very significant responsibility that you carry. Did you consider disguising his voice or face just to mitigate the risk of reprisals because
>> all of those matters?
>> Because of what? Sorry. Because of what uh activities he had been involved in.
>> Yeah. All of those matters were considered Senator and in conjunction with the whistleblower in question um the decision was made to go with the way that the program went.
>> The program said that this person faced assault charges. What was the nature of those charges and why was that not disclosed?
>> U Mr. Fang, are you aware of the particular details of the charges?
>> Um I I'm not aware of the specific details. Um there have been uh the four corners team is aware of what has um of the allegations in relation to that source. Um I don't have that information in front of me. Senator,
>> so the other main person interviewed was Neil Fergus. Four corners said that he'd previously complained about Azio on a separate matter. I understand it's on the public record that Azio raided Neil Fergus as part of a security investigation. The ABC's previously reported on this. So, you know, it could well stand a reason, primacy, that Mr. Fergus is disgruntled with AIO. Why was that matter not disclosed?
Uh, Senator, the program disclosed that there was um the program disclosed in the script that there had been an issue for Mr. Fergus. Um, we felt that we uh reasonably disclosed that information that the audience needed. it did not um prevent his um his statements and his comments and his view being not credible and not worth putting into the program. And we've also provided the opportunity for AIO, for example, to respond to the variety of different allegations that
>> Well, when you say you said that there was an issue, you didn't disclose all of the details, though. And I have to say I haven't seen the program so I'm relying on information secondhand. I didn't see it myself.
>> Uh it's a great program. I urge you to watch it. Uh so do we always make decisions about um in a 40 minute, 45 minute or hour long documentary or any piece of content that we make? What are the relevant disclosures? What are the relevant pieces of information that the audience needs to understand the story? Sometimes um it's uh not necessary or not relevant to go into a full disclosure about a particular matter as you know it can be distracting. It can take away from the audience in this case
it goes to motive doesn't it? So if your audience understands the details that he actually was raided >> and that maybe he's got a grudge to bear against Azio. Uh now it may not den it may not it may not denigrate or may not um diminish the allegations he's making but it it allows the audience to make a judgment about whether he has got um motivations to get back at Azio. So by not including all that all of that information I would put to you that that was not
appropriate. Well, Senator, um we thought it was relevant to include that uh uh the issues between Mr. Fergus and AIO in the way that we did in terms of the pro this particular program in terms of the comments that he was making and that that was sufficient um to allow the audience to make up their own minds in particularly given that Mr. Fergus and his conduct was not the focus of this
>> Was either man Marcus or Mr. Fergus were they paid for their commentary? >> I didn't think so, but I'm just checking. I'm not suggesting that you would ordinarily do that. ABC News has repeatedly reported that Azio has investigated Naveen, but could not substantiate the allocations he was radicalized. Uh, can I ask you to respond to those
>> Apologies, Senator. What's the specific
>> Well, I guess there is some concern that this misquot what a AIO said in its >> um that the allegations were not substantiated. So, I'm just asking you to drill down.
>> You ended up being a terrorist. So, they clearly got it wrong.
>> Senator Hanson Young.
>> Um Senator, in relation to the four corners program, uh it's the type of program in which needs to be viewed in its entirety. It provides a a variety of different allegations which have been multiply sourced. Uh there were a few occasions as we've discussed where we relied on uh one particular source but we were able to provide attribution around uh the location that that particular source was in and a variety of other things. Um and we also provided a very detailed response as Azio provided in the program. I think I would say that I can't think of anything that we that AIO put in that statement that we didn't put into the program other than things that might not have been relevant to particular allegations that that were eventually made.
>> And I'm not questioning your editorial judgment um other than I'm putting these questions to you um just because someone is poorly motivated or has you know, has been subjected to a security investigation. It doesn't mean what they say is legitimate. Um, I'm not questioning the ABC's allegations made in relation to AIO, but I'm just putting these questions to you. These are obviously very, very serious matters and matters that the ABC obviously needs to consider very
>> Anderson, that's about a minute warning. Did you want to
>> uh look I will I I do want to move to another
topic.
>> Yeah, I do want to move to another topic. How much more time do I have?
>> Well, you would have had one more question. So, I think it's it's probably not fruitful to begin a separate topic. Um I will now move the call to Senator Faraki.
>> Thank you very much. Good afternoon, everyone. Um, I have a few questions about ABC's Middle East conflict guidance. Um, I'm sure you recall that after enormous pressure from the community and under an FOI, the ABC did finally release its rules for covering Palestine and Israel and I think that happened on 21st of November last year. Um, the document that was released in November was last updated on 22nd September 2025. Have there been any updates to those um to that guidance since?
>> Um Senator, uh just in relation to the guidance, I mean a number of occasions where I have answered these questions. I've always said that we're happy to provide the guidance. So, so we didn't release the guidance because of public pressure. We were asked and we released the guidance. Um it's internal guidance, but I was happy to release it. U my um to my knowledge the last update to the guidance was in September last year as you've pointed out.
>> Um so the guidelines begin by stating that in such a highly contested space accurately presenting context and material facts is extremely important. agree with that. They go on to say that balance should follow the weight of evidence. And on page 10, the guidelines state that there is still also a requirement for Israel's perspective to be included over time and Israeli responses to specific allegations should be sought, but there is no requirement anywhere in the guidelines that Palestinian perspectives are included. Um, so I'm just I guess I'm a bit concerned that is does that seem to be balanced reporting to you,
>> Senator? I think where you're referring to um Israel's responses should be sought. The guidance is speaking about particular allegations that are made about Israel Israel's conduct or the state of Israel or the IDF or or or others. Um and so what you're reflecting is that in those situations we're saying it is a requirement because these are contested issues to get a response. So what underlines the whole guidance is that we need to be always attributing always getting appropriate responses but many of some of the contentious matters as you know uh which are laid out in that guidance we're just in we're guiding our staff to get a response to those specific matters.
>> Yeah. But shouldn't that be the same case for Palestinians? Any allegations should be then shouldn't Palestinian voices be required to answer for those
as well? Well, absolutely. Where there are contested um claims and elements, you know, the guidance says that you are to um seek to, you know, to accurately report and provide the relevant perspectives on these matters.
>> It doesn't put the same, it doesn't provide the same sort of guidance for Palestinian voices is what I'm trying to highlight. And I think you probably know that having ABC having written those guidelines. Um, you know, the guidelines, I guess, on page seven state that interviewes alleging crimes against Israel should be challenged on the substance of their allegations. Um, so I guess are Israeli spokespeople also then required to be challenged on their allegations?
>> Absolutely, Senator. that that aligns with our editorial policies. But but I think what you're reflecting there is that there are specific allegations that often get made in relation to this conflict about the conduct of the state of Israel and our guidance is supposed to be proactive and helpful to staff. So when it as relates to those specific allegations, we're providing staff with more direct guidance about what they should do. But like any comment, any claim, any contentious issue that u that we that we report on, we need to seek relevant perspectives from all sides that are or all parties that are relevant to that issue where we can.
>> Yeah, it would be good if that would be explicit explicit in those guidelines because at the moment it seemed very imbalanced towards um Israel and their responses to allegations but not towards Palestinians and their responses to allegations.
>> I'll take that on board. Senator, but I would just say that the guidelines are not our only editorial guidelines. They of course are specific guidelines that support our editorial policies which make it clear very clearly in our um guidance about impartiality that relevant perspectives need to be sought uh where appropriate whatever the story.
Um, on page eight of the guidelines, there's a section titled reporting and discussing allegations of genocide. And it begins with the sentence, critics of Israel and families of victims in Gaza now routinely describe the Israeli actions of genocide. U and it's not it's not only critics of Israel though and the families of victims in Gaza who do that. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, International Genocide Scholars, and a myriad of other really well-known human right human rights organizations across the world have found that Israel is committing a genocide. Uh I and I know that this section does refer to the UN Commission of Inquiry that found that Israel is committing genocide, but it does not refer to any other evidence. So I guess my question is is it really appropriate given the overwhelming evidence of genocide to kind of direct journalists that it is critics of Israel who describe Israel's actions as genocide?
>> Well, I think Senator that section that you're referring to uh is around clarifying particularly for teams that are doing live coverage, breaking news and the like. And it's around the types of I believe it would go on to site some examples around the types of coverage that might be being done where we don't believe it's necessary to question people if they've had a personal experience if they've been where they're you know making an allegation of genocide. So that section is really about that type of coverage. It's not more broadly talking about our entire guidance about genocide.
>> Okay. I just have one quick follow-up question on the line of questioning that Senator Hanson Young was asking you about the Royal Commission directive. Um, and I guess um are you concerned that the quality of ABC reporting on the Royal Commission and associated topics might be diminished um if um you know your journalists and their sources are kind of under this directive? And I'm asking this specially given that the directive is like very broad. Um I've seen the directives from other royal commissions, but this one I think goes beyond that. And please correct me if you think otherwise because it covers social cohesion, anti-semitism, religious and ideologically motivated extremism, radicalization, the capabilities and powers of law enforcement, border control, immigration and security agencies. Um so it is like a very very broad directive. Um so I am concerned about how um you know with this really broad remit how you give assurances to protect your journalists and their sources and are you also concerned about attacks from the right-wing uh media in particular because that has happened before um to ABC journalists if this information is
Well, I mean I I I provide a similar answer to what I provided to your colleague earlier. I mean I have faith in the ability, the skill, the the quality of our journalism that it will continue to be of the highest standards. Um you know we will meet our principles and our ethics and continue to protect our sources and also to continue to support our journalists to do their jobs uh to the high standards that they
>> Thank you. Thanks Chief.
>> Thank you Senator Fergie. Senator Ananda-Rajah.