Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, , 6:29:19 to 6:40:00
Senators Smith and Henderson critique the ABC's editorial guidelines and the failure of senior oversight regarding depictions of violence in entertainment programming.
Topics: Integrity, Workplace culture
Speakers: Senator Dean Smith, Hugh Marks, Senator The Hon Sarah Henderson, Gavin Fang, Unknown Speaker
Okay, thank you. Uh look, I would just like to ask some also ask some questions about uh Mrs. Reinhardt and the inclusion of that disgusting segment in the race around the world program. On what basis was that satire, Mr. Marks? I I I have to say of all the comments I've heard out of the ABC, I thought that was quite nonsensical and improbable to suggest that that was satire, and that's why it was justified. Uh that that was included in the program. How can that possibly be defended as satire?
Um well that was certainly the intention. Intent, was it for it to be satire from the young journalist who created the film? Whether satire lands or not, often it doesn't, sometimes it does. Again, we went through an editorial review process, uh complaints process. Um that complaints process uh came to an outcome, and we made um decisions that you know I felt were important to set as the standard for ABC work going forward. So we we acknowledged the error, we apologised for the offence, and we've taken the appropriate steps.
And it took you quite a few weeks, though, to apologize, and in fact the ABC itself defended this as satire.
Senator, every um person in Australia is entitled to go through the same complaints process in relation to content that the ABC broadcasts. There will on occasion be things that I might look at, mainly news content for accuracy or or impartiality reasons that I might say, well, that doesn't meet standards and act faster. But generally, if the validity of our complaints process, it's important that I let it run its course so that we actually know what basis on which we're making decisions. Um in that case, we had to let it run its course, and I acted straight away on the release of that decision by the Ombudsman. So I don't think there was a delay.
Mr. Marks, I'd put it to you that it was not appropriate for you not to immediately apologize. It was very self-evident that that was completely unacceptable material to be publishing and distributing in the way that the ABC did. Uh why didn't you apologize straight away?
As I said, Senator, every Australian is entitled to go through the same complaints process, and is important that I don't pre-judge that process with statements from myself. Um it's important that we go through to complete that process so we understand that the nature of the decision that we're making.
So Mr.
That was a farce.
The Ombudsman found there was no breach of editorial policies. That was a farce.
And as a result, um my decision was that our editorial processes didn't policies, guidelines, didn't sufficiently deal with the depictions of violence directed towards individuals. We've made a decision that we're going to update our guidance. I'm not sure whether it's okay. So we've now completed that process. And so, you know, and we took the appropriate steps, we apologised and made the changes necessary to the film to ensure that the harm did continue.
And can I just um uh ask you what steps were taken? Because uh in relation to content that may cause harm or offence, that needs to be referred to senior editorial staff under your editorial policies. Did that occur in relation to this program?
In this case, Senator, the matter was not referred up to what I would call um uh certainly wasn't referred to me or my direct report in this case, the head of screen. Um so that upward referral didn't happen. That's also a matter that we have sought clarification that there's clarification going forward that any matter of that potential controversy should be subject to more senior editorial review.
Uh Senator Smith, you've got a couple of questions.
I want to go back to an earlier remark. Mr. Marks. Given everything that has happened in this country in recent times, you said that the ABC's editorial guidelines were up were improved following this episode and the depiction concerning Mrs. Reinhardt. It took this incident as gross, my word, as gross as it was, to require or lead to an upgrade in the editorial guidelines. Just specifically in regards to violence. Given everything that has happened in this country and globally in recent times, it took I'm glad it did take an event to upgrade the guidelines, but I'm surprised that an episode on the 12th of July triggered that given everything that has happened in this country. Has the ABC been asleep?
No, Senator, I think it's a it's a really interesting question.
No, no, no, no. It's more than interesting. Well I think no, Mr. Mr. Marks, I could be very, very serious with you. And I I am a person who has refrained from a lot of commentary about the ABC, but sat at this estimates for a number of years now. In your opening remarks, you said that the ABC in 2027, yeah, there's much to look forward to. Six new scripted dramas, twelve documentaries, a raft of new children's programs, award-winning comedy, comedy, every woman's favourite programs and familiar faces returning. There'll be something for everyone, whatever their age, interest and background. But the airing of that segment on the 12th of July has undone, has undone whatever goodwill there might have been left in this country for the ABC. It's like one step forward and then a hundred step backwards. My question is, why hadn't the editorial guidelines been upgraded in regards to violence long before this particular matter, given everything that it happened in this country in recent times?
Senator, I guess my question about interest was an explanation as to the guidelines, and I'll go let Mr. Fang talk about this in a minute. Too often our guidelines, I guess, are determined by reference to news and current affairs standards, right? And this program was not a news and current affairs program, it was an entertainment programme.
Or entertainment.
The news and current affairs exemptions or guidelines require us, and as you would appreciate, sometimes to display violence that occurs in a news context, and to be able to find a circumstance in which to do that within the guidelines. Obviously, the guidelines as drafted, probably overthinking about the news and current affairs context, didn't necessarily distinguish what might happen in an entertainment programme. So that was an error. It took you know this process to really understand that something that had been contemplated for a news context didn't work in an entertainment context. If you want to add anything to that, Mr. Fang?
Um just to build out on that, Senator, um so you know the Harmon Offence guidance has always recognised issues around violence. It's not that it hasn't, and as the MD says, primarily that has been around measuring or weighing up whether depictions of violence are justified in a news consensus against the public interest that's required to show that. What we've attempted to do with the update to the guidance is to make it even more specifically clear that in non-news content, which it was already a consideration, but to be even more specific about some of the the expectations of the community and to um to make it clearer to our content makers when they're making non-news content, the considerations to make when weighing up purpose against potential harm and the things that the community uh that the standards that the community has. So try to make that guidance even clearer so that where these questions are which are matters of judgment often, where these matters of judgment come up that we are crystal clear about the expectations around our editorial guidance when it comes to harm and offence, particularly around non-news material.
That might be an explanation, but I find it completely unsatisfactory. The ABC operates in a very dynamic context, the living world. And to think that its responsiveness is restricted to a complaints mechanism, to you know public outcry, disappointment, outrage, that's just not good enough. That's just not good enough in this day and age, particularly given more recent events that we've um been witness to. That's just not good enough. And Mr. Fang, you talk about a matter of judgment. But I thought, Mr. Marks, you were inferring that in terms of the editorial guidelines that were followed, that these decisions were made at a junior level. My word, not your word, but at a junior level of the organisation. If judgment is required in applying editorial policies and guidelines, why is that judgment exercised at such a junior level of the organisation and not a more senior level? Senator, as I said, particularly in matters concerning violence.
Yes, we've also made steps to ensure that matters not only that might meet the guidelines but also matters of taste are referred up to more senior people in the organisation. Those are steps that we've taken.
In earlier inquiry today, I asked the minister uh when and how did Minister Wells convey her views about uh the unacceptability of this particular episode to the ABC. Did she convey them to you, Mr. Marks?
Uh not to me personally, Senator. Um, but obviously we were fully aware of the Minister's public statements and uh and comments and and communications happened uh privately between uh members of my team and the minister's office uh in relation to this matter. We we were under no illusion as to the minister's view in relation to this content.
That is not the same as the minister.