Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, , 7:26:39 to 7:32:05
Continued debate over whether the ABC concocted legal reasons to censor criticisms of its own journalists, with the committee requesting internal documentation of the legal review process.
Topics: Integrity, Government legal services
Speakers: Senator The Hon Sarah Henderson, Hugh Marks, Gavin Fang
Um I'm sorry, Senator, but the buttons.
I mean, the fact that you know you could uh that was removed and then okay, if if the ABC wanted to remove it because it didn't like it, just say so. But the fact that the ABC is concocting what I believe is concocting a reason based on legal advice to remove that is just silly.
Um Senator, um I reject that there's any concoction going on. What happened is as what Mr. Well, what happened is is what Mr. Fang said, it happens routinely, the all the programs before they go up online are subject to review. Um these things happen very quickly given the volume. Well, I mean Senator, that's what happened, and there is no great conspiracy or tell me what the legal law or or expression of a view from anyone from high saying please delete that from the article uh online. It didn't happen, it was a legal process.
No, my concern is that the ABC hasn't told the truth. I understand why their sensitivity and I don't take issue with that. What I'm concerned about is that someone has not been candid with the facts. Because if if there was a legal problem with what I said, then what is it? You're a former lawyer. Could you tell me what was the legal issue with what I said?
Uh I imagine, Senator, again, I'm not aware of uh the legal advice, but I would imagine there would be concerns about defamation, and as a result, they would have taken action. As Mr. Fang has said, we'll come back to you with the details, but I can assure you, based on my understanding, there is no great conspiracy.
I don't have a lot of confidence in the ABC's ability to manage defamation cases. Look what happened with Heston Russell. But as you well know, Mr. Marks, truth is an absolute defence in defamation. So I've I said nothing other than a factual statement.
And Senator, I'm not aware of the statement that was made. So it's difficult for me to respond to that. But I can't. But my my understanding is what Mr. Fang has outlined is what happened, and that is the side of it. We are not sensitive to comments made by our people. Um we all live in a world where we are subject to scrutiny as we should be. So that is not what went on here. There was a legal review, and the legal review came to that outcome. Um it's as simple as that.
So there was a legal review between 7 a.m. and 8.30am was that.
Our lawyers are available 24-7 for legal review. They have to be, given the nature of the organisation. I'm not sure exactly what the process is for that particular uploading of the digital article, but before it is uploaded, it would have gone to an editorial report.
It happens every day.
Haven't received a legal letter from you, Mr. Marks.
Senator, that's not something.
Gee, it's amazing like if this is an issue of defamation, I would have thought the ABC would follow through, and I'd get a concerns notice.
Obviously, it doesn't reach that threshold.
Thank you. Yes. So in fact, it was a very spurious claim. There was no proper basis to it. Uh there's been no proper legal claim. You've not ABC's not raised any concerns with me that what I said was defamatory. Uh I I I just have real issues with the fact that the ABC has, I think, concocted a reason to. remove that part of the interview in the transcript.
Well I I reject the assertion as I said. And Mr. Fang will come back with the details of uh of what occurred.
I can provide the documentation which outlines what happened.
Thank you. If you could if you could provide all of the internal documentation, the messages who gave the advice,
what the advice was and well I think I can provide Senator what you need to know to reassure yourself of the fact that this is not that of what happened.
I I just want the ABC to be honest. That's that's my concern.
And Senator I'm sitting here I'm telling you what happened.
So what I'd like is all of the all of the documentation please in relation to this matter held by the ABC we can absolutely provide what we're all of the messages of the correspondence the notes between all personnel in relation to the decision the legal advice and the decision made to remove that part of the transcript. I mean the ABC is has every right when politicians remove bits of transcripts it just it looks it just doesn't look good. I mean no one would have even said a thing about this Mr Marks but here we are discussing Ms Ferguson in Senate estimates again not not this was I'm not suggesting that I don't know but I'm not suggesting and there's no evidence that she intervened in any way but it it just it does not um pass the smell test if I can say I understand your assertion Senator but I
reject it I think Mr Fang has outlined what happened in this case it's a fast paced thing. I'm not sure there's going to be extensive documents with legal advice and the like it's a decision made well Senator as you manage it's in the moment a decision made on the run advice we will come back as Mr Fang said with the details around what happened as much as we can. There's enough there and I'm sure you'll be satisfied that there is no greater purpose or higher order intervening in this matter.