Investigation Report No. 3221

File No. / ACMA2014/416
Licensee / Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Station / ABC1
Type of Service / National Broadcaster
Name of Program / 7.30
Date of Broadcast / 1 May 2014
Relevant Legislation/Code / Standard 4.1of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 (revised in 2014)
Date finalised / 11 July 2014
Decision / No breach of standard 4.1 [impartiality] of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 (revised in 2014) (the Code)

Background

  • In May2014, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) commenced an investigation into acomplaint about a segment on the 7.30program broadcast on ABC1 by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (the ABC) on 1 May 2014.
  • 7.30 is a current affairs program described on the ABC website as being:

The best analysis of local, national and international events from an Australian perspective. Hosted by Sarah Ferguson, with political commentary from 7.30 Political Editor Sabra Lane in Canberra.[1]

  • The segment in question was an interview with the Finance Minister, Mathias Cormann, which focused on the National Commission of Audit report released that day (1 May 2014). Ms Ferguson sought his views on the measures outlined in the report and which recommendations the Government was intending to adopt in the Federal Budget. The transcript of this interview is at Attachment A.
  • The complainant submitted:

[...] the excessively rude manner of Sarah Ferguson in her interview with the Minister of Finance. She interrupted him constantly and saw it as her right to put her own point of view, rather than allow us to listen to his. She clearly has no manners and the segment then followed with a soft interview with an opponent of the Government and then a hatchet job on the Premier of Victoria.

[...] It goes to the heart of my concern that staff at the ABC can promote their own political views on the public broadcaster and run an anti LNP line, rather than inform the public in a balanced way [...] The political bias accusation was not addressed by the ABC, and my point is supported by the friendly style of Ms Ferguson’s interview with the CEO of ACOSS, with whom she clearly agreed. In addition, there were three segments on the program which were critical of the Federal government or Victorian State Liberal Government, giving the whole program a bias to the left side of politics. My comment about the ‘hatchet’ job on the Premier of Victoria’ was ignored.

  • The ABC’s response to the complainant is at Attachment B.

Assessment

  • This investigation is based on submissions from the complainant, the ABC’s response to the complainantand a copy of the broadcasts provided to the ACMA by the ABC. Other sources used have been identified where relevant.
  • In assessing content for compliance with theCode, the ACMA considers the meaning conveyed by the relevant material. This is assessed according to the understanding of an ‘ordinary reasonable’ listener.
  • Australian courts have considered an ‘ordinary, reasonable’viewer to be:

A person of fair average intelligence, who is neither perverse, nor morbid or suspicious of mind, nor avid for scandal. That person does not live in an ivory tower, but can and does read between the lines in the light of that person’s general knowledge and experience of worldly affairs[2].

  • In considering compliance with the Code, the ACMA considers the natural, ordinary meaning of the language, context, tenor, tone, and any inferences that may be drawn.
  • Once the ACMA has applied this test to ascertain the meaning of the material that was broadcast, it thenassesses compliance with the Code.

Issue: Impartiality

Relevant Code standards

  • The ACMA has considered whether the broadcast complied with standard 4.1of the Code:

4. Impartiality and diversity of perspectives

4.1Gather and present news and information with due impartiality.

  • Relevant Principles in relation to impartiality and diversity of perspectives include the following:

Judgements about whether impartiality was achieved in any given circumstances can vary among individuals according to their personal and subjective view of any given matter of contention. Acknowledging this fact of life does not change the ABC’s obligation to apply its impartiality standard as objectively as possible. In doing so, the ABC is guided by these hallmarks of impartiality:

  • a balance that follows the weight of evidence;
  • fair treatment;
  • open-mindedness; and
  • opportunities over time for principal relevant perspectives on matters of contention to be expressed.

[...]

Impartiality does not require that every perspective receives equal time, nor that every facet of every argument is presented.

Assessing the impartiality due in given circumstances requires consideration in context of all relevant factors including:

  • the type, subject and nature of the content;
  • the circumstances in which the content is made and presented;
  • the likely audience expectations of the content;
  • the degree to which the matter to which the content relates is contentious;
  • the range of principal relevant perspectives on the matter of contention; and
  • the timeframe within which it would be appropriate for the ABC to provide opportunities for the principal relevant perspectives to be expressed, having regard to the public importance of the matter of contention and the extent to which it is the subject of current debate.

Finding

  • The ABC did not breach standard 4.1 of the Code.

Reasons

  • Standard 4.1 requires the ABC to ‘gather and present news and information with due impartiality’. Inclusion of the word ‘due’ indicates an element of flexibility depending on the particular context.
  • The complainant has expressed a particular concern with the manner in which the interview with the Finance Minister was conducted and considered this and other interviews on the day to demonstrate a ‘political bias’ and an ‘anti LNP line’.
  • The ABC has submitted that the adversarial ‘devil’s advocate’ style of interviewing, adopted by ABC presenters such as Ms Ferguson, is to take major points of criticism from various sources to put them to the interviewee; these are not the personal views of the interviewer; presenters doing a one-on-one interview have a duty to conduct a testing interview, to put other points of view to the interviewee and to make reasonable efforts to ensure that questions are answered.
  • In regard to this interview, the ACMA notes the following matters relevant to the ABC principles for impartiality:

The topics raised in the interview by Ms Ferguson were politically contentious as they concerned election promises,the recommendations of the National Commission of Audit for structural reforms and structural savings,proposed welfare changes, changes to Medicare, the paid parental leave scheme and childcare policy, the projected deficit and spending, and tax reforms in the lead up to the Government’s first Budget.

As 7.30provides analysisof local, national and international current affairs, viewers would expect the program’s presenter to be questioning and challenging in herengagement with guests, particularly on political issues.

It is possible, indeed useful, for an interviewer to adopt a strong contrarian stance without this necessarily amounting to a lack of impartiality – particularly if the contrarian stance encourages the interviewee to explain or defend a position or claim. Such an approach is particularly well understood in interviews of political figures.

In this case, viewers wouldhave anticipateda penetratinginterview and rigorous questions, particularly in the context of the release of the National Commission of Audit reportin the lead up to the Federal Budget and its impact on election promises.

The questions put to the Finance Minister were hard hitting and were presented in a forthright manner and the presenter did, at times, interrupt the Minister and seek a more direct response from him.

Although Ms Ferguson’sinterruptionsmay have seemed abrupt, they brought the Minister back to the questions he was being asked, and he was given the opportunity to contest her position and opportunities, uninterrupted, to state his position and that of the Government in response to her questions.

Further, the Ministergave his views on the specific points and the wider political context of the topics raised in the interview and reasserted himself on several occasions. For example, he clearly established that he would not be commenting on specific Commission of Audit recommendations and that the Government’s response to the recommendations would be presented in the Budget.

While Ms Ferguson referred to ‘an ideological theme’ and made some observations, such as the proposed welfare changes as being the most ‘swingeing’, she did not use sustained emotive or colourful language in asking the questions. Nor did she provide any other comments to indicate that what was being reported was her own view.

  • The ACMA accepts the ABC’s submission that the interview remained suitably respectful and courteous and the Finance Minister was given adequate time to provide his point of view to the questions raised and did so at length and at ease.
  • Achieving impartiality requires the broadcaster to present content in a way which avoids conveying pre-judgement or giving effect to the affectations or enmities of the presenter or reporter, who play a key role in setting the tone of the program, through their style and choice of language.
  • A program that presents a perspective that that is opposed by a particular person or group is not inherently partial. Whether a breach of standard 4.1 has occurred will depend on the themes in the program, any editorial comment, the overall presentation of the story and the circumstances in which the program was prepared and broadcast.
  • The nature of current affairs reporting requires reporters and presenters to be questioning, and at times sceptical, in their analysis of important issues. However, while probing and challenging questions may be used to explore an issue, programs must demonstrate a willingness to include alternative perspectives without prejudgement.
  • The ACMA considers that although the interview was rigorous and interruptions occurred, it sufficiently demonstrated a balance that follows the weight of evidence, fair treatment, open-mindedness and the opportunity for principal relevant perspectives to be expressed on the matters of contention raised. There is no evidence to indicate that the presenter’s questions or her manner in the interview demonstrated partiality or represented her own view in relation to these matters.
  • The complainant has also alleged that a similar mannerof reporting was displayed in a segment concerning the Premier of Victoria, Dennis Napthine, while a ‘soft’ and more ‘friendly style’ of interview was seen with an ‘opponent of the Government’, the CEO of the Australia Council of Social Service (ACOSS).
  • The ACMA notes that the interview with the CEO of ACOSS focused on her response to the report and recommendations and the impact on social services, providing a principal alternative perspective on the matters raised with the Finance Minister.
  • As this interview was not with a politician or a person proposing the recommendations, a ‘devil’s advocate approach’ was not required to draw a response and it would not be expected to be as rigorous as the interview with the Finance Minister.
  • The segment concerning the Premier of Victoria, on the other hand, was a report about a government grant given to a company owned by a man, who reportedly has racing links with the Victorian Premier. In regard to this segment, the ACMA notes the following:

The segment included a range of perspectives on this issue, canvassed through interviews with the Premier, the Victorian Opposition Leader, ‘race goers’, a representative from the meat industry employees union and a professor from Monash University, described in the report as being a political ethics expert.

Like the Finance Minister, the Victorian Premier, was given uninterrupted opportunities to state and assert his position on the matter.

As indicated above, the inclusion of the word ‘due’ indicates an element of flexibility depending on the particular context and the ACMA notes that seasoned political figures are accustomed to, and would expect, a level of scrutiny, particularly in relation to contentious issue such as a controversial government grant.

It is not unreasonable for the presenter or other reporters within the program to adopt a hard hitting stance when interviewing other political figures concerning such activities.

  • On these bases, the ACMA considers that the interview with the Finance Minister and the report concerning the Victorian Premier were not lacking in impartiality. Nor did they demonstrate a ‘political bias’.
  • Accordingly, the ABC did not breach standard 4.1 of the Code.

Attachment A

Transcript

Sarah Ferguson, Presenter: So how many of the recommendations will the Government actually adopt? I spoke to Finance Minister Mathias Cormann a short time ago.
Mathias Cormann, welcome to 7:30.
Mathias Cormann, Finance Minister: Good to be here.
Sarah Ferguson:Now just before the election the Prime Minister promised no cuts to health, no changes to pensions or education. Does that mean that you're bound to ignore most of these recommendations?
Mathias Cormann:Well, the Commission of Audit report released today shows that the spending growth trajectory that we’ve inherited from Labor is unsustainable and -
Sarah Ferguson:That actually wasn't my question, I'm going to jump in right there, my question was, given the promises before the election, are you bound to ignore them?
Mathias Cormann:Well, we will stick to the promises we made before the last election. What we've said for some time now is that we will implement the recommendations made by the Commission of Audit, those that we accept, in a way that is consistent with the commitments that we made before the last election.
Now the point here is, Commission of Audit identified the spending growth trajectory we've inherited is unsustainable and needs to be addressed. They've made recommendations for structural reforms and structural savings. The Government in the Budget will implement structural reforms and structural savings which we'll build over time and put us back on to a path to a believable surplus.
Sarah Ferguson:Alright, let's look at some of those recommendations. I mean some of them are very radical recommendations. Some of them are going to go straight in the too-hard basket, aren't they?
Mathias Cormann:As invariably is the case with these sorts of reports, there will be recommendations which we can accept immediately and act on; there will be some recommendations which will require some further detailed work before we make final adjustments. And there will be some things that we will not be able to do. We haven't today provided a response to each of the recommendations. The Commission of Audit report is a report to Government, not a report from Government -
Sarah Ferguson:Nonetheless, you're here in our studio so let's talk about some of the detail.
A $15 Medicare co-payment forcing people off Medicare over certain incomes, including the family home in the pension assets test. Which of these do you have the courage to tackle in your first term?
Mathias Cormann:Well, as I just said to you, we haven't today provided a response to each of the recommendations. We will provide our response to the Commission of Audit report in the Budget on 13 May and I will leave it to the Treasurer, Joe Hockey, on 13 May to deliver the Budget. I am not in a position here today, to give you our individual measures that are going to be part of the Budget.
Sarah Ferguson:Nonetheless you've come in to talk about the Commission of Audit, so which of those particular measures are you ruling out in this first term? A Medicare co-payment of $15, for example?
Mathias Cormann:Well, as I've just said to you, I'm not going to be commenting on specific recommendations here today. The Government will be pursuing structural reforms and structural saves, but we will not be accepting every single one of the recommendations that is in that report.
Sarah Ferguson:Which ones are you inclined to accept right now?
Mathias Cormann:Well, and we will be making that very clear in the Budget on the second Tuesday in May.
Sarah Ferguson:Alright, let's talk about the welfare changes proposed, because some of those are amongst the most swingeing and if carried out would have the biggest effect on some of the lowest income members of our community. Before the election, when the Labor government had tried to rein in increases to welfare spending, you called that - your Government called that - an attack on families. So I presume you must see the Audit Commission in the same way as an attack on families in that area?
Mathias Cormann:Well, under the previous Labor government there was waste and mismanagement as far as the eye could see. There was increases in spending as far as the eye could see. Labor kept talking about constraining spending growth to two per cent in real terms year on year -
Sarah Ferguson:Specifically we're talking - specifically Mr Cormann, I'm just going to interrupt you for a moment, because our audience does have an expectation that they will hear something from you, not the rehearsed lines that are part of press conferences. You made a clear attack on Labor when they tried to rein in this welfare spending. Do you think that the recommendations of the Audit Commission in the welfare area are too strong, too high and likely to cause too much pain?