Investigation Report No. 3234

Investigation Report No. 3234

Background

• In July 2014, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) commenced an investigation intoa complaint about Q&Abroadcast on 5 May 2014by the ABC.
• Q&A is described on the ABC’s website as[1]:

Q&A puts punters, pollies and pundits together in the studio to thrash out the hot issues of the week. It's about democracy in action - on Q&A the audience gets to ask the questions. It doesn't matter who you are, or where you're from - everyone can have a go and take it up to our politicians and opinion makers. Energetic and opinionated - Q&A brings Australia's egalitarian and larrikin spirit into the studio. Q&A is about encouraging people to engage with politics and society. Q&A is hosted by one of the ABC's most respected journalists - Tony Jones […]

• On 5 May 2014, the program,titled ‘Q & Anarchy’, canvassed questions from the floor concerning youth training, deregulation of universities and fee increasesand science research. The panel members were:

Mr Christopher Pyne, Minister for Education and Leader of the House

Anna Burke, Federal Member for Chisholm & former Speaker of the House of Representatives

Mark Trevorrow, journalist, comedian, actor and broadcaster

Pallavi Sinha, Principal of Lawyers with Solutions

John Roskam, Executive Director, Institute of Public Affairs

• At approximately 17 minutes, the program was suspended due to the actions of protestors.A transcript of the program is at Attachment A.
• The complaint is about ‘political bias’ and the ABC’s ‘left leaning socialist views and inclination towards support for the Labor party and its denigration of opposing views’. In relation to this, the complainant stated:

The current Q&A segment as presented by Tony Jones is a prime example of my accusation […]

The recent episode, 5 May 2014, was a complete shambles and a disgrace to Jones and the ABC. He [Tony Jones] revelled in its initial trend until it became even unacceptable for him. He failed in the early stages to maintain any respectability for some members of the panel with a picked rabble in the audience engaged to provide the type of behaviour he accepts which is occurring in many places around the world creating mayhem. Fortunately we have been virtually spared of this confrontation with no thanks to the ABC or its selected presenters.

• In its response to the complainant, the ABCincluded thestatement that it issued concerning this broadcast. This statement noted that Mr Jones condemned the protestor’s actions before the decision was made to suspend the live telecast and included measures the ABC was taking to reduce that risk in the future.
• The complainant’s submissions and the ABC’s response are at Attachment B.
• The ABC has submitted to the ACMA that the complaint was ‘not clear or specific enough to constitute a Code complaint’.
• In reviewing the complaint, the ACMA considers that, on balance, the complaintcontained sufficient detail and is a valid Code complaint as it:

assertedthat there was ‘political bias’ and a ‘constant biased attitude of the ABC for its left leaning socialist views…’

noted that the current Q&Aprogram as presented by Mr Jones is a ‘prime example’ of this

identified a date of broadcast – 5 May 2014 – and expressed concerns about Mr Jones’ handling of audience participation and the treatment of some members of the panel.

• Accordingly, the ACMA has considered whether the broadcast complied with Standard 4.1 [impartiality] of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 (revised in 2014) (the Code).

Assessment

• This investigation is based on submissions from the complainant, the ABC’s response to the complainant and 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 the Code, the ACMA considers the meaning conveyed by the relevant material. This is assessed according to the understanding of an ‘ordinary reasonable’ viewer.
• 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 then assesses compliance with the Code.

Issue:Impartiality

Relevant Code standards

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 ACMA finds that the ABC did not breach standard 4.1 of 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.For example, the gathering and presentation of factual information for a news bulletin may be materially different from an interview of a political figure, where challenging questions are ordinarily appropriate. Or in this case, where political figures are interviewed and questioned during a live panel discussion.
• Achieving impartiality requires a broadcaster to present content in a way which avoids conveying a prejudgement, or giving effect to the affections or enmities of the presenter or reporter in respect of what is broadcast.
• Presenters and reporters can play a key role in setting the tone of a program through their style and choice of language.
• The complainant has expressed a particular concern with the manner in which Mr Jones handled the situation leading up to, and including, the protest and the treatment of some members of the panel.He considered this to be an example of political bias, demonstratingsupport for the Labor party.
• The ACMA notes the program explored contentious issues, including the deregulation of universitiesand fee increases, and sought the views of the panel. It included robust discussion and debate and Mr Pyne, the Minister for Education,faced opposition from the audience concerning the Government’s position on these matters.
• In this context, the ACMA makes the following observations relevant to the ABC principles for impartiality:

The program was broadcast in the week before the release of the Federal Budgetin which thenew Government was introducing its first budget into Parliament. In this regard, the issues discussed were not only contentious, but were also topical and the level of scrutiny from the audience and the panel concerning the Government’s position on these matters was editorially justified.

While some of the audience questions put to the Minister were hard hitting, seasoned political figures are accustomed to, and would expect, a level of scrutiny, particularly in relation to contentious issues such as anticipated budget cuts and the deregulation in terms of university education.

In regard to the presenter, Tony Jones’ style and choice of language were generally neutral and measured, conveying an open mindedness and an absence of prejudgment. He also conveyed a willingness to be fair and include alternative perspectives. For example:

OK. Right. We’ve heard from the two political sides. Let’s hear from our other panellists. […]

Why don’t we let the Minister answer your question.

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

While the selection of the panel members is not representative of whether a program demonstrates impartiality, in this case, the panelwas relatively balanced. Of the five panellists, theGovernment’s position was represented by theMinister and the Executive Director of the Institute of Public Affairs(the IPA) is considered to have ideological and political affinities with the Liberal Party.

Opportunities were given throughout the broadcast for a range of viewpoints on matters of contention to be expressed, including the opposing principal relevant perspectives from Mr Pyne and Ms Anna Burke, Labor Member for Chisholm. In this regard the program also demonstrated a balance that follows the weight of evidence, as it included and explored the direct responses from the Minister.

In the early stages of the program, most of the questions from the floor were directed at the Minister and throughout the program there were interruptions from the audience members, who conveyed their objections to his responses. In such cases, Mr Jones rebuked the audience with the following remarks

Let the Minister answer

OK. Now, at the beginning of this show we explained that if people call out the microphones will stay away from them. That's not the way you get involved in the discussion on this show.

I think we've - I think we’ve explained that if you...if you shout - if you shout …...the microphones will ignore you

At approximately 17:30 minutes a protest erupted on set, in which some members of the audience chanted ‘no cuts, no fees, no corporate university’. The broadcast was immediately suspended until this incident was resolved. Upon resumption of the program, Mr Jones expressed his clear disapproval of this behaviour, stating:

OK. Apologies to the Minister. Apologies to everyone on the panel. Apologies to the wider audience watching. That is not what we want to happen on this program. That is not what democracy is all about and those students should understand that.

Any further disruptive behaviour directed at the Minister from the audience was, in the main, promptly addressed by Mr Jones.

Although there were interruptions and attempted interruptions, Mr Jones gave the Minister and the IPA panellist many opportunities to express their positionand argue the Government’s case so that they were also able to re-assert their stance on numerous occasions.

• Accordingly, the ACMA is of the view that, although the questions put to Mr Pyne were rigorous and the audience was not always courteous, the broadcast met the hallmarks of impartiality set out in the Code including fair treatment, open-mindedness and opportunities for principal relevant perspectives on matters of contention to be expressed.
• Through the opportunities provided to each panellist, a range of principal relevant perspectives were expressed within the program on the contentious issues and were fully explored in such a way that perspectives were not misrepresented.
• As questionscame from audience and panel members, moderated by Mr Jones, the ABC did not express an editorial stance on the issues debated and one perspective was not unduly favoured over another.
• The ACMA also considers that the program was presented in a manner that would have enabled the ordinary, reasonable viewer to assess the responses from the panel and form their own views on the matters discussed.
• For these reasons, the ACMA does not consider that this broadcast demonstrated ‘political bias’ or unduly favoured the Labor party.

Attachment A

Transcript– as provided on the ABC website

TONY JONES: Good evening and welcome to Q&A. I'm Tony Jones and answering your questions tonight: comedian and singer Mark Trevorrow; the Minister for Education, Christopher Pyne; human rights lawyer Pallavi Sinha; executive director of the Institute of Public Affairs John Roskam; and the Labor member for Chisholm, former Parliamentary Speaker Anna Burke. Please welcome our panel. Now, as usual, we’re being simulcast on ABC News 24 and News Radio and you can join the Twitter conversation or send us a question by Twitter using the #qanda hashtag on your screen. Well, our first question tonight comes from [G].
YOUTH TRAINING00:01:00
[G]: Hi. I go to Youth Connections, an alternative year 11 program on the Central Coast. This class is for kids like me who are unable to attend any other school but we have to go to school because we are not yet 17. We are told that in the May budget the Youth Connections and Partner Broker schemes will not be refunded and there is nothing to take the place of these programs. Some young people are not ready for work and have lots of issues, such as homelessness, drug and alcohol abuse, depression, anxiety and we don't have much money. My question is, Minister Pyne, what will you and your Government do for kids like me and my mates when the Youth Connections and Partnership Broker Programs are gone in January next year?
TONY JONES: Christopher Pyne.
CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, [G], the Youth Connections and Partnerships Broker Programs were established in 2010 for three years and the Labor Party, when they were in Government, funded them for one extra year. So that was one of those lovely landmines that they left for the incoming Government because they...
TONY JONES: You're calling this program a land mine are you? It sounds like it's actually doing some good, whereas landmines kill people.
CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, I actually haven't finished my opening sentence, Tony, but if that's the way we're going to do it tonight that's fine. But, no, I wasn't describing the program as a landmine. I was describing Labor's only funding it for one year, so that it finished in the first year of a Coalition Government as laying a land mine for the incoming Government. That's what they did in many areas. This is just another one of them because Labor, like a lot of people, didn't think they were going to get re-elected and so they didn’t fund this program into the future, which means that the incoming Government has to make decision about spending priorities. Obviously the budget is Tuesday week, tomorrow week, and there hasn't been any announcement that Youth Connections or Partnership Brokers will be abolished. There is certainly a campaign being waged by those people in Youth Connections and Partnership Brokers to keep them open. The Government's priorities are to ensure that we have either employment options for young people if they leave school or apprenticeships and traineeships or alternatively stay at school until they are finished, until they’re 18, and one of the things that I want to do as higher Education Minister is ensure that as many people as possible can access university who want to. Now, one of the great things in the last few years that has been available at university are enabling courses and sub-bachelor or diploma courses, which give people who are first-generation university-goers the opportunity to get to university, even if they haven't finished Year 12 so that they are...
TONY JONES: Christopher Pyne, we'll go into the university issues later, because there are plenty of people with questions on that, but will you keep this program alive or will you, in fact, stop funding it? As everyone is expecting, there has been a whole series of stories in the newspapers where [G] comes from, saying this program is dead in the water.
CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, that's very emotive language. The budget hasn't been released yet. It will be released Tuesday week.
TONY JONES: Do you want to keep it going?
CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well, what I want to do is make sure that the Government provides opportunities for young people to either be in training, apprenticeships, university or jobs and the entire suite of policies that we will announce next week will, I hope, and I think most people hope, lead in that direction. Now, whether Youth Connections or Partnership Brokers in their current form continue is something that we'll discover next Tuesday and I can't pre-empt the budget. I’m just going to say that…