Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, , 7:13:21 to 7:19:09
Senator Henderson criticizes the ABC's initial statement defending the segment as satire and questions the Managing Director's decision not to issue an immediate apology.
Topics: Integrity, Human rights
Speakers: Hugh Marks, Senator The Hon Sarah Henderson
I just wanted to pick up on a couple of additional questions in relation to the uh race around the world program. Mr. Marks, as you know, I was concerned that from day one you didn't make the judgment that this was inappropriate and that an immediate apology was warranted. As the editor in chief I I think that would have been appropriate. But what also concerned me was that on the 25th of July, the ABC published a statement defending this what can only be called sexually violent segment as editorially justifiable. Did you approve that statement prior to publication?
Uh Senator, the statement that was made was um I think a statement, I think the one you're referring to was made by the particular contestant. Is that the statement that you're referring to?
No, it's the ABC statement.
Right, Senator. Yes, no, I would have approved that statement and um it would have related to, I guess, the intent of what the piece was. Uh it was always intended to be a piece of satire, not taken seriously. Um obviously we also have a duty of care which is very important to participants in our programs. Um so taking all those factors into account, um, you know, it was it was important to us to outline why um that statement uh the program could have gone to where and the basis on which it did was the was the uh was on the basis of satire.
Well, I think Mr. Marks, you'd have to agree now that that's just nonsense. It was not editorially justifiable, and I think you've made a serious error in approving that statement and in not apologising straight away, which was all that Mrs. Reinhardt was seeking. Do you concede that you have heard and that you should have responded much more immediately with an apology and a decision in relation to this program?
It's a very dangerous step, Senator. Um if I am intervening in the case of every piece of content to express my view about whether it um uh meets guidelines or or or or is warranted or is not, I think it is important that we have a complaints process. It is important that everybody goes through that same process. Um and that's what happened in this particular occasion. And I and I just think the alternative uh is is very difficult for me to manage personally and very difficult for and is not the right policy for the organisation. We have to go through a formal complaints process that has to apply equally to every piece of content and everyone.
Mr. Marks, that doesn't make any sense because you did intervene. The ABC issued a statement saying it was editorially justifiable. It didn't say, look, this matter is under investigation. A judgment call was made, and I'm putting to you that that was an intervention, and it was the wrong judgment call.
I understand your position, Senator. Um I think it was important for us to be able to outline early in the piece what the intent of that particular segment was. Um obviously to inform uh the audience. Um in the end, uh obviously community standards.
What do you mean intent to do that?
The intent of the piece was a piece of satire, and that was the the editorial justification for it to go to air, and I think that's a nonsense.
There's nothing funny or remotely comedic about this. It was gross and disgusting.
I understand uh that Senator, and in the end, that was the decision that was made that it wasn't justifiable.
So made the decision to broadcast this program because this didn't go live to air. This went through an extensive approvals process. Um there was a panel that was involved as well. Uh who approved the program for broadcast?
Well, I think uh Mr. Fang's just outlined in response to Senator Smith that we will answer on QA the detail around which the process happened and what and what steps didn't happen, so we will come back on that.
But I would like to know specifically who approved the programme, Mr. Marks.
Well, I I think Mr. Fang has undertaken to respond uh uh on that.
Do you know who approved the programme? Was it the EP? Was it the supervising?
Well, I think Mr. Fang has already responded that the EP was involved, and then the head of entertainment would have been involved as the head of the relevant division.
Um did they bring any did they ring any alarm bells at all?
Um Senator, they went through a process of whether it was obviously legal advice and editorial advice. That process came back obviously with decisions that it was not in breach of the guidelines. Um we've explained the reasons why the guidelines.
So there was an earlier process whereby the EP and the person that he or she reports to was involved in determining it was not a breach of the guidelines. So that's prior to that going to the Ombudsman.
Correct, Senator. That's before broadcast. And obviously, in the context of the broadcast as well, uh one of the judges, Lee Sales, was able to express her distaste of the segment. So, you know, the the programme in the whole context was provided, including um sales rejection of the program as being editorally justified. So there are a bunch of things here. In the end, um the view was the guidelines didn't um appropriately deal with the issue, and we've made the decisions accordingly.