Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, , 8:28:26 to 8:35:31
The committee discusses the limitations of ACMA's enforcement powers over national broadcasters and reviews findings against a Four Corners report on the Australian War Memorial.
Topics: Integrity, Law reform
Speakers: Ms Nerida O'Loughlin, Senator The Hon Sarah Henderson, Ms Alana Fraser, Unknown Speaker
Under the Broadcasting Services Act, we have very few options, Senator. Uh we can of course provide that information to the ABC and express our view. We cannot compel the ABC to take action. We often seek with the ABC and other broadcasters that they take voluntary action. We do note that the ABC, of course, has updated their editorial guidelines, uh, but really from our point of view, it would be providing that information to the ABC. There is a provision in the Act that we can give a notice to the ABC, but that's about the extent of our powers.
I mean the ABC, when you've made adverse findings against them previously, and there was one a recent adverse finding, the ABC has just issued a statement saying that this is we reject the finding and then nothing whatsoever happens. Have you made any recommendations to the Minister in relation to giving your ACMA tougher powers in this respect? So that you do have greater options when the ABC or SBS does not conform with its code?
I think the um the shape of the regulation of the national broadcasters has been pretty much consistent for many many years. It's a decision of the Parliament as to what powers we have or don't have. So that really would be a matter for the government and the parliament to consider that.
I understand that it's a decision of the Parliament, but have you made recommendations or given advice in this respect?
I don't believe we have recently. I think it's a long-standing issue. We've made it very clear to the ABC previously that our concern about them dismissing our findings. I think it's it's the way I have it in my mind is we look at programs through very different lenses. We use a construct called the ordinary reasonable viewer, which is how would it, what would a viewer take away from a program when they watch it? We understand that the ABC come from the point of view of putting together a program by journalists and producers and what they have intended in the program. So we have concerns where the ABC dismisses our views. We think they are very valid. We've raised this concern with the ABC over a number of years. I don't believe there's been much of an appetite to pursue greater powers for us in this regard, given the editorial independence of the ABC and SBS over many years. That's exactly correct, but our powers are very limited.
So I I want to briefly touch on ACMA's decision in relation to the ABC's Four Corners episode about the redevelopment of the Australian War Memorial ACMA found that this particular episode entitled Sacrifice unduly favoured one perspective through its presentation of aspects of the memorials redevelopment project. I'm reading from your media statement of the 17th of September 2026. Can I just raise again the concern I have because this was a program that aired on the 10th of March 2025? So it's taken some 18 months to make a determination. Why is it taking so long, Ms. O'Lochland? Because if the ABC was willing to make changes to its programming or its journalism or its standards or practices, it's a it's a very big gap between the programme broadcasting and your determination.
Senator, I think part of that, and I will pass on to Ms. Fraser, is that the law memorial had gone to the ABC first, and so we had to wait until the the war moral had the ABC had looked at the programme and the ABC had responded to the war memorial, and it wasn't until that stage that they came to us in October 2025.
Okay.
So there's a gap between that process which is written into the law of people going to the broadcaster first, which keeps the responsibility on the broadcaster in the first instance. The war memorial was dissatisfied with that response and then came to us.
So in terms of when it was referred to you, there was an 11-month gap. I would still say that that's a long time, Ms. Lachlan.
It was and it was a very complex investigation. Ms. Fraser, do you want to add to the question?
So in addition, um the issues raised in the law memorials complaint. Um there were numerous issues. Um there are questions around factual accuracy and matters that and multiple issues. So it was an investigation that took longer to conclude. Um, in addition, uh, through the process for content investigations. Um, once a preliminary breach finding is made, we then need to go through a process of procedural fairness and allow the the broadcaster opportunity to provide submissions in response to the preliminary breach finding. Um and then once the investigation is finalised, there's another process we need to go under Section 180 of the Broadcasting Services Act, um, which requires us to consult um potentially adversely affected parties before we publish the report.
So what was the basis for your finding? What was most egregious about this program?
Senator there are a number of things that we turned our mind to. Um there was an emphasis, uh there was a reporting of an ANO report, and we didn't think that it gave enough weight to, it was focused on particular negative aspects of that ANIO report and didn't really give the viewers the broader context of the report that highlighted a number of issues. Um we also uh thought that the selection of people on air gave undue emphasis to negative voices in the process rather than a broader sweep of opinions. Um did you want to add to that, Mana? Um I think that was That's probably the main points, Senator. But we did we did actually find one non-bridge, which was an accuracy provision, but the others were impartiality.
All right, thank you very much. Uh I want to move to your triple zero outage investigations. Can you please update the committee on your litigation against optus, firstly?