Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, , 7:21:03 to 7:26:39
Senator Henderson challenges the ABC's decision to remove her criticisms of Sarah Ferguson from a Radio National transcript, alleging a cover-up under the guise of legal advice.
Topics: Integrity, Legal profession
Speakers: Senator The Hon Sarah Henderson, Gavin Fang, Unknown Speaker
Look, I just wanted to uh ask you. I did an interview with ABC Radio National a number of weeks ago. And I was asked about Mr. Fazal and was critical in relation to that appointment. And I think to be fair, a lot of ABC journalists are horrified about the decision that was made and the failure of the ABC to act when complaints were first made. And I also cited another a number of other concerns in relation to ABC's impartiality and standards. I was critical for a few seconds of Sarah Ferguson in relation to her conflict of interest involving the documentary of which she is the EP, funded primarily by Animals Australia. That was a conflict of interest that was not declared at the time. She became the EP as we now know. That part of the transcript was removed from the ABC's website. And the ABC subsequently released a statement saying it was removed on legal advice. What legal advice was provided that led to that segment, that part of the interview being removed?
Happy to help on that one, Senator. So just to just to be clear, and I know you know this, but just so to be clear, there was an interview on Radio National. It went live to air. Subsequently, as is pretty common practice, we turn around material to replay. My understanding is that the program, which it always does, sought some legal advice. They were given advice that there might have been an issue with a particular part of that item. They clipped it up. It's not unusual for them to do that.
What time did they seek legal advice?
I don't know what the exact time was, Senator. But I imagine it was clearly after the live radio interview had gone to her.
Because the interview was at 10 to 7 in the morning approximately. That section of the transcript was removed pretty quickly afterwards because when I checked it, my recollection was around about Hupper State. It was gone.
That doesn't surprise me, Senator. We have to serve like markets in time time difference time marketing. Well, I'm not a lawyer, Senator, so I I'd have to rely on ABC legal's view on that. They made a recommendation that that piece of content should be removed.
So they made that what at 7.30 in the morning?
They made it clearly I don't know the exact time, but they made it prior to the when the next deadline for that program to go up was on the on the reply.
And who gave that legal advice?
I don't know the specific name of the lawyer. We have lawyers on standby routinely.
Mr. Fang, can I tell you there was no legal issue with me raising concerns about Ms. Ferguson at all? It wasn't defamatory. What I said was true. It was pretty it was a probably one sentence or two. There were other criticisms that I made which had far stronger language in relation to Mr. Vizar. I I it's just not credible to suggest that that was removed because of legal advice. I think it was removed because there was obviously sensitivities in me criticizing another host within ABC Current Affairs on an ABC Current Affairs Radio program.
Well, Senator, again, the interview went to air live, so you were able to make that your statement. Whether or not I agree with the decision or haven't said, but uh there was clearly legal advice which they acted on.
This was just an attempt to cover it up. I mean, I when I found this out, and I was walking back with a coffee in Parliament House and I ran into a couple of ABC personnel. I told them what happened, and they all it was just it was it was clear that the ABC felt uncomfortable that I'd criticized one of your fellow journalists, which I understand being uncomfortable. But then it looks to me like you've concocted concocted a story about legal advice. I am to justify removing that part of the interview that I had with Sally Sarah.
I understand, Senator, but I'm telling you I'm telling you what happened, like the what the perception might have been as totally up to you, but I'm telling you what occurred.
Not even your own people believe this, Mr. Fang. Um what evidence can you provide me that legal evidence are legal advice was thought? Who sought the advice?
I am happy to provide on notice what we can to demonstrate to you the what was what what occurred.
Was it the EP or of uh Radio National?
Uh I believe it was the programme team, as they would routinely do, but again, I I can I'm happy to provide what we have to assure you of the process that happened here.
Mr. Marks, it it's not it it really does not look good. I'm sorry.